#History/American #2025/4 *April 19, 2025* ![[rev-characters-cover.png]] ### Summary In this book, Gordon Wood describes several of the American founding fathers within an overall context that emphasizes how they created a society which virtually ensured men like them would no longer be the most powerful. The founding fathers aspired to an aristocratic "gentleman" status that originated from Europe, particularly England's gentry class. In England, becoming a member of the gentry or nobility was more a matter of lineage and fortune than merit or effort. America was a social blank slate. Men could work their way into becoming a gentleman through education, effort, and their network. This coincided with the Enlightenment era of social and political philosophy, where the values of liberty, freedom, and equality became popular among the most educated and sophisticated men of the West. As such, the American Revolution was conducted by men who aspired to a high degree of social and intellectual sophistication, where that sophistication encouraged the creation of a level playing field for (at least at the time) all land-owning men. I think Gordon Wood's central argument is that men like the founding fathers can't exist anymore in America because the founding fathers themselves created a state that put so much potential in the hands of common people. This tension was perceptible in the times of the founding fathers; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in particular wrestled a lot with the cognitive dissonance between expecting that the country be led by traditional gentlemen and believing that true democracy was the most effective driver of a lasting nation. Anyway, I enjoyed reading about each of the founding fathers. They were very unique people who often put a lot of thought into the way they were perceived both in their time and in history. George Washington is the best starting point. He wasn't the most intelligent founding father, nor the most wealthy, connected, or aristocratic. However, he possessed a degree of moral integrity that no one could match. His contemporaries trusted him to do the right thing, and he took great concern in proving them right. This is why he was the indisputable choice for the first presidency, and scorned the idea of becoming a king himself. He understood what the revolution was about, what his peers wanted to create, and he acted accordingly. Benjamin Franklin surprised me the most. I didn't realize that he was relatively unknown in America at the time of the revolution. He lived much of his life in America prior to the revolution, but during, he was in France acting as a diplomat between France and the USA. This secured resources and support for the revolution, and without him and the French, the revolution may have been hopeless. What's interesting is that he spent most of his life wishing to be recognized by the English government, serving politically in England. Time and time again, he was disregarded by the monarchy and eventually he was fed up and threw himself into the revolutionary cause. Thomas Jefferson seems to me the most fickle of the founders. He possessed the greatest ability to see two sides of an argument, but often found it difficult to stick to one side in reality. This has resulted in a lot of misinterpretation or confusion in the proceeding history of America, but his writings and politics remain core to American legacy. This means that though he may be debated, his legacy certainly can't be disregarded. Alexander Hamilton seems to have had views most compatible with the America we know today. He wanted an authoritative financial system and a strong military. This wasn't common among the founding fathers, who often believed in more decentralized economic control and rejected even small standing armies in their beliefs. James Madison reckoned the most legibly with the problem of democracy. The founding fathers were sophisticated men who strove continuously to better themselves and demonstrate their sophistication to their peers. As it became clear to Americans that democracy was for real, the founding fathers began to realize they may be in trouble. People with less sophisticated worldviews could be made to believe and support problematic leaders, who were more concerned with their power than being a true gentleman. This led James Madison to appear in radical support of democracy at the founding of the nation, and in opposition several decades later. The truth is that his beliefs didn't change much, though the country around him did. John Adams was in the book though I read through his chapter when I was traveling to NYC and kind of forgot everything. Thomas Paine was the first writer who really set the tone of American writing we have come to know. At the time of the revolution, the founders wrote in very intellectual, discursive prose that outsiders found difficult to follow. In America, we know that our writers and intellectuals often think it best to cut to the chase and be pragmatic, even when dealing with abstract topics. This tone originates with Thomas Paine, who understood the principles that the founding fathers were attempting to build the country around, and translated it into simple terms that resonated emotionally and intellectually with common men. Aaron Burr was the first politician's politician in America. He was a business first kind of man, and often assimilated power and authority for the purpose of furthering his status. I will say that this book was more technical than I was hoping for. I was hoping for something like mini-biographies of each of the founding fathers selected, but what I got was a lesson on each of the founders that considered much historical context that has developed over our history and examined them within those lenses. Certainly that is an interesting approach for a book, but I'm not well read enough historically to fully appreciate that method.