Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States

Slavery: reinstated Multiple Issues template

While there have been some minor improvements since I applied a Multiple Issues tag to the Slavery section earlier this year, none of the issues I raised have been addressed. Thus, I believe the template's removal in July was unjustified.

My original concern was that the section tends to give the founders "a pass" on slavery. The epitome of this is the idea that "some (founders) were conflicted by the institution, seeing it as immoral and politically divisive". In whatever ways that's true, it also amounts to "they had their qualms", which is underwhelming considering the horrific realities of the American form of slavery.

Besides leaning too far in excusing the founders, the section lacks a cohesive narrative suitable to the subject's importance. As I originally recommended, it should be re-written. Meanwhile, here are a few "qualms" I have about the content:

• The section highlights Benjamin Rush, Samuel and John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin as opponents of slavery, but says little about the many founders who were pro-slavery. In all, 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration owned slaves, as did 25 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Yet only two of these proponents are one of these proponents is mentioned.

• False impressions are made regarding two of the most distinguished founders of all: Washington and Jefferson. Washington, for example, said nothing publicly in his lifetime that could construe him as gradually becoming "a cautious supporter of abolitionism".

• Regarding Jefferson, Annette Gordon-Reed's quote about his authorship of the Declaration was ironic, rather than the high praise intended by whoever cited it. What she's saying is that Jefferson was not just a slaveholder like the other founders. He's the slaveholder who wrote the "charter of freedom".

• Yes, "slaves and slavery are mentioned only indirectly in the 1787 Constitution". That's because the founders studiously avoided the terms, yet they enacted five provisions that directly ensured slavery's existence for another 75 years.

• And among other issues, many of the section's assertions lack citations. *

Simply revamping the current content would not improve things much. Better, I think, to research the vast literature available on the subject and start from scratch. Allreet (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

* The major flaw here is the decided lack of scholarship. At best, the section skims the surface of commonly accepted, highly flawed views of a few individual founders, and for certain we need to dig deeper than the 12 citations offered. I'm not suggesting a master's thesis but a better researched, more thoughtful overview of the roles of the founders in dealing with this challenging, complex issue. Allreet (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the content tends to overemphasize how anti-slavery the Founding Fathers generally were while not properly indicating that it wasn't really the norm. I do think the section needs at least a significant revamp, but I also have a couple things to point out with your qualms.

First of all, I would like to note that historiography surrounding Washington and Jefferson's views of slavery is very long and complicated, with the topics even having their own dedicated articles. While the description leaves a lot to be desired (I would moreso describe Washington's position as "disgusted, but not disgusted enough to want to sacrifice anything for even a denunciation of the institution") I wouldn't necessarily call it "factually inaccurate".

Second of all I don't think the article particularly paints them only indirectly mentioning slavery in a "good" light and I can't really see why you would interpret it as a complement. It's kind of just a fact. Although it is indeed strange that it is not mentioned that the Constitution protected the United States' continued participation in the international slave trade until 1807, shielded constitutional amendment until 1808, and that returning slaves to their masters was constitutionally enshrined.

This section deserves far more than it currently has. Harry Hinderson (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I agree 100 percent with your point about Washington. My one reservation is that it is inaccurate to say, as it does in the article, that he "gradually became a cautious supporter of abolitionism". As for your second, my contentions are that a) the section is written to shine a better light on the founders than they deserve given the facts and b) that this is done by either focusing on positive statements (all of the 2nd paragraph) or offsetting negatives with positives (most of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs). Allreet (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Political rhetoric section

This section is a singular quote from David Sehat. It's a very good and useful excerpt, but it would make much more sense to have this section be written by an editor. Bristledidiot (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I really don't see the quote's relevance in any way, shape or form. For one, the quote itself is political, and I note that because it comes close to my general views. But the subject isn't the Founders as much as the Constitution, and it doesn't belong in that article either. In fact, I've never seen anything like this posted anywhere in WP so I'm going to be bold and remove it. Feel free to object, because it would be interesting to hear what's wrong with yanking it or what's correct in keeping it. Allreet (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sehat is a leading scholar see David Sehat his wiki page: note- Full professor at Georgia State, Oxford professor, Turner prize winner. I agree with Bristledidiot above that it's "very good and useful." The main work of the Founding Fathers is the Constitution, and how we use it today (debate on the text of Constitution is in the news every day this week as the Supreme Court argues about it) Allreet says it's "political" -- well it come in the section on "political rhetoric" and is tagged "modern politics." Allreet even says he generally agrees with it . Sehat provides a short deep insight into how various political factions use the main work of the Founding Fathers in their debates in recent times. That I think is the main role of the Founding Fathers in our time: we dissect their language. Sehat then emphasizes that the FF were not usually unanimous--they fought a lot over these concepts. Note that he has worked out these ideas in leading journals -- see Sehat, "Thomas Jefferson and Us." The William and Mary Quarterly 74.4 (2017): 771-776 online. The quote is 172 words --well inside out usual 200 word guideline, All in all a concise and I think accurate analysis of the impact of the FF on modern political rhetoric. I am puzzled as to exactly why Allreet wants it dropped???? Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I found 3 major book reviews of Sehat in the scholarly journals: (1.) Jeffrey L. Littlejohn in Journal of Southern History (May 2016) p 405-6: "In recent times, the Tea Party and other groups have continued to invoke the Founders in debates over gun control, income inequality, religious liberty, and a myriad of other topics. David Sehat has shown why such attempts to channel the Founders are dangerous. Historically, they have delayed needed political reforms, helped foment civil war, and led to prolonged economic crises. This book is a needed corrective that should be read widely and taken to heart." (2.) John G. Gunnell, Journal of American History. June 2016 pp 163-164. "Sehat has provided a very readable volume which does an admirable job of recounting how the founders have been rhetorically invoked in crucial periods of American politics." (3.) James R. Rohrer Fides et historia Fall 2018, p 206-207: "David Sehat...is an impeccable scholar with a flair for writing concise and engaging narrative that effectively synthesizes vast swaths of historiography and genuinely illuminates complex problems....What he has accomplished is a remarkably engaging work of political history that is provocative in the best sense, and that should be carefully read by all serious students ofAmerican culture. It will also serve as a useful supplementary text in undergraduate history or political science courses." posted by Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSCAPS § Founding Fathers of the United States

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOS § Founding Fathers of the United States. Pretty surprised to see that this page wasn't notified of this discussion, which has been going on for a while now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

As am I. Surprised about a discussion going on far from the subject and those closest to it. Thanks for pointing this out and for posting the notification.

I only learned about the MOS issue because I was pinged, possibly because I was seen as a potential ally for one of the sides. Based on a comment I made several archives back that was misunderstood.

Oddly enough, Randy Kryn, a significant contributor here, came upon the MOS issue by a different sort of happenstance. Only to be barraged for a spirited though innocent comment. Allreet (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Allreet may already have determined the conversations result (occurring here) by once again providing pivotal and detailed research, this time showing how the major scholars of the American Revolution case FF. May I suggest that he copy the major points of his research to this page as well, for the record and archives and to make it available for expansion and completness. Very impressive work, especially when presented in one place as Allreet has done. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

possibly because I was seen as a potential ally for one of the sides If this is true, that would be considered WP:CANVASSing and inappropriate.

May I suggest that he copy the major points of his research to this page as well Unnecessary. There's now a link to the WT:MOS discussion here.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

All major research about academia use of the terms and concept of this pages' topic, such as Allreet undertook for that informal discussion (the discussion cannot, on its own and as far as I know, change the title of this page, for that an official RM on this page would be needed), should be listed in one place with possibly a talk page hatnote to "research". This talk page archive contains many such examples, and links to other pages which evolved from this page can also be listed in a central location, possibly a subpage to this article. That's the reasoning, to have a centralized access point to pertinent research such as Allreet has again provided. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Academic research includes Wikipedia, and like all good research, centralized collections would give as full information as possible in easily accessed and known locations. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Identity of a painting

Does anyone know the name or creator of this painting? First saw it yesterday, and I don't think we have an article on it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben

I've removed the Founding Father descriptor from Von Steuben's article (he is listed as a patriot on this page), but, like several other military figures either listed as founders or patriots, does he have enough sourced references to be given FF status? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Add person to infobox

Gouverneur Morris, who according to his article was a founding father. BhamBoi (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization discussion

@Allreet and Randy Kryn:. Re:the discussion to capitalize . The Manual of Style/Capital letters debate, which began on Feb.5, has not had any further comments made since Feb.26 -- more than two weeks ago. Was just wondering why it was taking so long to close. Not sure if WP:RFCEND#Reasons and ways to end RfCs, per item 5, would apply here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: Since this was a talk page discussion and not an rfc, I don't think we need a formal close. Most "dissenters" on FF capped have agreed the discussion has run its course and are willing to accept the status quo based on the rough consensus. It'd be good to keep an eye on the page to see if aome new commenters weigh in but that seems unlikely given the thoughts at the end. In short, let's let sleeping dogs lie. Allreet (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)