Jump to content

Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Proportionate Representation...and other misuse of sources

I've been doing some random copy editing in the American Revolution sections, and along the way I'm finding sources are being "mis-cited". As to what that means: explicit statements are not being supported by the references provided, and not just in one instance here and one there, but in many cases.

A "good" example is the paragraph on Proportionate Representation in the Second Continental Congress subsection under the Continental Congress. Most of the cites I've looked at in this paragraph refer to debates over either the Articles of Confederation (1776-1977) or the Constitution (1787), as opposed to the time period being documented, mid-1775. I can see one or two citations "missing the mark", but most? The fact is, the discussions referenced here occurred either a full year or a dozen years later.

I also realize things happen - we're all prone to errors along the way. That said, "scholarship" on our parts demands a ruthless adherence to sources. Without it, much cannot be verified, and worse, factual errors are bound to occur.

Accordingly, I've applied a "Cite Check" template to the Second Continental section, and I suggest every citation here be reviewed for accuracy. I also have reason to believe this applies to other sections in the American Revolution history, which by the way has grown lengthier than everything preceding it (approx. 3,400 words versus 3,100). Allreet (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What needs to be done here is to quote a given statement in question, and then quote the cite/source for it. Otherwise we're just making general overtures with nothing of real substance to verify matters. Also, the word count is neither here nor there, as the article size is only 43 kB of readable prose. Not an issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"What needs to be done..." is for you to assess your contributions and either stand by them as accurate or clean up what is not. In citing this particular paragraph from the text, I thought I was as specific as I needed to be. The "substance" is what you posted and the issue is whether you used your sources appropriately. To characterize what I said as "general overtures" is to make light of what I said. But since you seem to be asking for a more detailed analysis, here's a complete one, including the sources, the time periods and topics addressed by the sources, the text you contributed, and an assessment of each:
Sources & Text in Question
  • Callahan, Kerry P. (2003). The Articles of Confederation : a primary source investigation into the document that preceded the U.S. Constitution. New York: Rosen Primary Source. ISBN 978-0-8239-37998.
cited: pp. 44-45
date indicated by source: September-October 1774
WP topic/date: debate over Proportionate Representation in First Continental Congress, September-October 1774
WP text: "The debate over proportionate representation was hotly debated in the First Continental Congress, but was never resolved due to the lack of colonial population data at the time."
misuse of source: inaccurate, while it is true representation was debated in First Congress, the source clearly indicates "delegates (in 1774) decided that each colony should have a single vote"
cited: pp. 222-223
date indicated by source: July 25-August 2, 1776
source topic: debate over Articles of Confederation
WP topic/date: debate over Proportionate Representation in Second Continental Congress circa 1775
WP text: "Subsequently one of the first issues debated and a major source of contention was over proportionate representation, where the larger colonies would carry greater weight over the smaller ones. Benjamin Harrison and Patrick Henry stood firmly on the idea that the larger states have proportionate voting status. Samuel Chase and Thomas Stone of Maryland, a state with a much smaller population than Virginia, maintained that, 'The small colonies have a right to happiness and security; they would not have no safety if the great colonies were not limited.' Samuel Huntington of Connecticut aired concerns that if a larger state could have its voting status limited, that it might pave the way to having a colony's borders pared to so limit its territory. Benjamin Franklin held that votes of any colony should be proportional to its population, and that if the smaller states were granted equal voting status that they bear equal financial burdens and provide as many men in military matters as the larger colonies would."
misuse of source: time period is a year later; Henry last mentioned p. 171 and Harrison on p. 173, both in different contexts; others accurately quoted except for time period and minor error ("they would not have no...")
cited: p. 84
date indicated by source: June 9, 1787
source topic: Constitutional Convention
WP topic/date: debate over Proportionate Representation in Second Continental Congress circa 1775
WP text: "William Paterson of New Jersey felt such a policy 'struck at the very existence' of the smaller states."
misuse of source: time period was 12 years later, Paterson's quoted phrase is not his but the source's characterization; the word "very" was added (does not appear in source)
cited: p. 69
date indicated by source: June 6, 1787
subject: Constitutional Convention
WP topic/date: debate over Proportionate Representation in Second Continental Congress circa 1775
WP text: "Many of the delegates regarded the idea of proportional representation as a way for the larger states, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, in 'snuffing out ten states by three', and refused to entrust this responsibility to the people of those states."
misuse of source: time period is 12 years later, "snuffing" quote appears nowhere in source; the states noted are not mentioned on this page, plus New York was actually 5th largest; in fact, cited page does not appear to address any of this
I'm finding similar misuses of sources in other instances in the American Revolution sections. But now you need to to what I've done: take a close look at the text in these sections and determine whether your sources accurately support what you've posted. Allreet (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion: one solution is to create a separate section on the Articles of Confederation and include this discussion there (without sources addressing the Constitution). On that note, you've already added a paragraph on the Articles, but this doesn't belong in a section on 1775 either. We're also "remiss" in not including a related discussion in the Constitution section, since this was as important a "bone of contention" as the need for a Bill of Rights. Just some helpful thoughts for improvement. Allreet (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, above you contended that, "Anti-Federalists" were a large group of people, not just the four mentioned, whereas the sentence as written sounds almost all-inclusive. So I qualified it by saying "various anti-federalists", yet in your last edit you changed it back to an all inclusive statement, which now reads, "The Constitution, as drafted, was sharply criticized by Anti-Federalists".
  • "William Paterson of New Jersey felt such a policy 'struck at the very existence' of the smaller states."
    :::::misuse of source: time period was 12 years later, Paterson's quoted phrase is not his but the source's characterization; the word "very" was added (does not appear in source)
    I was quoting the source, not Paterson, and yes, the word "very" was added which is inappropriate, as the phrase in question was set inside quotes, so I corrected that. Not sure what you mean about 12 years later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
    Except for the first sentence, what's covered in this paragraph relates to the debate over the Articles, a year later, and the debate over the Constitution, 12 years later. As for Paterson's quote, since you've directly quoted other founders, readers can only assume the same applies to him - in which case, it would be better to rephrase slightly and omit the quotation marks.
    But that's a minor issue. This paragraph represents a mis-use of sources and except for part of the first sentence, is totally mis-leading in terms of the Second Continental Congress's first year. Which raises the question: was this, as you've asserted, "one of the first issues debated and a major source of contention" in 1775?
    The problem is not confined to this paragraph either. I stand by my original observation "explicit statements are not being supported by the references provided" throughout the American Revolution sections. Allreet (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You're making a lot of sweeping and rather ambiguous claims, so we'll have to ask you to be explicit, and quote the statement(s) in question, one at a time, and then quote the source for it, pointing out any mis-use, clearly. These sections have been standing as is for some time now, and it's a little curious that almost immediately after our heated discussion of the other day you added two tags and are making all there claims, about my contributions only. You've quoted some WP text, but have not quoted the sources that supposedly do not support it. You need to be much more clear about that. Mean while I'll double check the sources. e.g.I've noted where two existing cite/sources need to be combined to support the passage about proportionate representation, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

My "claims" could not be more explicit. (Personal attack removed) I've provided a fully detailed account of how you've added material that is not supported by the sources you've cited.
As for this following our "heated discussion" - meaning you're questioning my motivation - when have we not had a "heated discussion"? What I've said is simply an honest assessment any WP editor is entitled to.
In any case, the Cite Check template applies until either you fix the problems noted or someone replaces the current text with an account that's more reliably supported. Allreet (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I can acknowledge that the citing needs some work in places, even though the statements are true. For example, you replaced the statement where Patrick Henry thought the Articles of Confederation were adequate, and that "He shared the long established colonial resentment of a central governing authority", which I assume you know to be true, but Labunski, at least on pp. xi-xii, didn't say this, but I do remember reading this and will look for the source(s) that says this explicitly and add it in conjunction to Labunski. Saying Henry thought the articles were adequate and that he also shared the colonial resentment of central power, etc, will give better insight and context to his opposition to Madison and the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The source used for Patrick Henry didn't refer to the Articles as "adequate" though he obviously felt that way. Also, the source referred to Henry's Scottish roots - Scotland and England, with its central authority, were engaged in border wars for centuries so this aversion was part of Henry's DNA. My rewrite, then, was worded to adhere to the source - that's all. But if you want to dig up other sources to support what you said about Henry, fine.
I agree there was discontentment in the colonies. What we don't know for certain is how widespread it was. Some say there was a one-third split between loyalists, separatists, and fence sitters. Other sources say the mix might have been 20-20-60. But if they and we don't know something as basic as the population, how could anyone know where public opinion stood with any precision?
As for the "proportionate representation" paragraph, it doesn't belong in the 1775 section, so fixing the citations isn't the solution (plus not everything you wrote is "true"). For starters, the correct term is "Proportional Representation". Second, this approach was rejected in 1774 by the First Continental Congress, which settled on "one colony, one vote". Third, the same occurred in the Second Congress in 1777 with the Articles of Confederation. And finally, as we all know proportional representation was adopted a decade later at the Continental Convention with the creation of the House of Representatives.
Obviously, the issue is important, but the discussion belongs as I suggested above in a new section devoted to the Articles as well as in the existing section on the Constitution. And two sentences or so in each place should be enough for a summary. Allreet (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Most of the colonists were weary of the British central power over them, beginning with the Stamp Act, and Intolerable Acts, and events like the Boston Massacre won most over, even loyalist Joseph Galloway who signed the Continental Association, and even though at that point not everyone was ready for the push for independence. Yes, the phrase proportionate representation is not exactly correct. The debate over proportional representation began with the First Continental Congress, and wasn't nearly the major issue at that unstable time, and never resolved, and which continued in 1775 at the commencement of the Second Continental Congress. The Second Continental Congress of 1775 is where and when the issue pretty much dominated the debates so the Second Continental Congress (1775) section would be the most appropriate section to cover the issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)
The above observations are not accurate.
Regarding sentiments, most colonists were content with British rule. It took 10 long years of the abuses you point to and then the the combination of the military events of 1775-76 plus some fairly heavy-handed measures (repressions and propaganda) to turn the tide. Massachusetts is probably the only exception since that's where most of this was centered, but throughout the rest of the colonies, independence remained a radical idea as far as the mainstream was concerned. Galloway, by the way, was never "won over", and he only signed the Continental Association because unanimity was mandatory.
On the issue of proportional representation, the First Continental Congress agreed on one vote per colony, so to that extent the issue was resolved in 1774. Meanwhile, I haven't seen any sources indicating proportional representation was discussed in 1775. Can you document it was?
My "take" is that the issue does not arise again until the latter half of 1776 with the debates over the Articles of Confederation. Thus, the two long paragraphs at the end of the Second Continental Congress (1775) section need to be moved to more relevant sections. Allreet (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I posted the Cite Check template nearly two weeks ago and not one improvement was made. Meanwhile, besides the questionable use of sources, the last two paragraphs addressed issues - proportional representation and the Articles of Confederation - that had nothing to do with the Second Continental Congress in 1775. Accordingly, I have replaced these paragraphs with more relevant material.

@Gwillhickers, I am alerting you to these changes because I believe you were the editor who added most of the text in question. I believe some of what was here could be used in a discussion of proportional representation as it related to the Constitution, while the text on the Articles of Confederation would be relevant in a new section devoted to the Articles themselves. Material is also needed to cover the six months in 1776 that preceded the Declaration of Independence. A paragraph would suffice, but IMO it should mention two things: the turning of sentiment across the colonies in favor of independence and relevant to that, the impact of Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Allreet (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


Prior Political Experience suggested revision

This section had a long listing of the political backgrounds of miscellaneous founders. Most of the profiles tended to be rather mundane in terms of the editorial style - which generally lacked a narrative (a story); the political offices listed - justice of the peace, yawn; and then, in terms of the founders included, some distinguished and others not so.

Since every founder had some political background, this section could list everyone, which is silly since the article has identified 140+ founders. To do this randomly, as was the case with the existing list, also makes no sense. Who ever heard of George Taylor and who cares that he was first a justice of the peace, was elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly, and by luck was selected to sign the Declaration? I say that without any rancor toward George; in fact, I wrote two articles on him and live within two miles of Taylor's house. The point is, to outline his background - or George Read's or George Walton's - offers very little to readers in terms of knowledge or interest.

So my thought is to write mini-political profiles on the most significant of the founders. The list of such founders is included under Leaders in the infobox. Two additional points: we don't have to cover every single leader and we don't have to confine ourselves to those on this list. For example, John Dickinson was a highly significant founder so we could include him and a couple others of similar note.

I've already taken a stab at this approach by writing a new profile of John Adams and by deleting a few of the existing profiles. I suggest that the Adams bio more or less represents the longest a profile should run to keep the section from becoming too lengthy.

Feedback would be much appreciated, particularly from the two editors currently most active: @Randy Kryn and @Gwillhickers. Allreet (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I changed the section's title to Political Experience since most of the existing profiles cover both early and later backgrounds of the founders. Allreet (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Seems fine. Nice work, as usual. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Looks okay. I was all for making similar reductions in the various subsections under the 'Demographics' main section because of all the individual citations for every named mentioned. With that in mind we may want to deal with the Education subsection, with its numerous names and colleges broken down into to more subsections. Their educations, though somewhat important, actually had no direct bearing on the the founding either, so I would lose the two college sections, with all the bold links to individual colleges, dozens of citations and just write a summary paragraph, with maybe a specific mention of a few key founding fathers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Easy to summarize, difficult to support. For example:
  • "60 founders, about 40%, attended or graduated from one of the colonies' six colleges" - true but OR without a source for the total.
  • "15 founders graduated from Harvard, including John Adams, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock" - same deal since no source gives a total.
Meanwhile, the number who completed college - 50% if you count those who studied in Europe - is impressive, especially considering the times and what it says about the founders as intellects. In fact, the founding owes most everything to the group's learned nature. Allreet (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@Allreet and Randy Kryn:
It would seem that the ideals inherent in the founding were not so much the result of their ability to do math, grammar, other languages, remember history (history was probably the most important in terms of education) etc, but rather born from the experiences they endured, i.e. the injustices, royal snobbery towards the colonists, etc, at the hand of the British. These are the things that spawned and gave rise to the reforms, documents, the Declaration, etc. If we just mention Washington, Franklin and Hamilton, who were largely self taught or tutored, and then Jefferson and Adams, graduates of William and Mary and Harvard respectively, this would be representative enough. An opening statement, supported by the examples and their sources, could read, e.g.The educational background of the Founding Fathers varied ... following with such examples. -- Five sources for the men mentioned would suffice. We could always add a couple of more examples if we like. As it is, we have several dozen different names, each with their own citation, to make the simple point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I see no downside to anything here. The section is thorough in terms of the research and in fact exceeds any individual source on the subject without being exceedingly long. It's also facile to mention math and grammar in this context.
The "simple point" is that this was a highly-educated group, while a more incisive one (which I'll add) is that the educational background of the founders exposed them to what became the ideological foundations of the revolution. That goes well beyond a knowledge of "history", especially considering that the American Revolution has few if any precedents. If history had been their guide, the founders would have been wise to not even try. Allreet (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You stated that education, which includes math and grammar, that "the founding owes most everything to the group's learned nature", regarding a section whose title is Education. It's not facile but demonstrates the point that their education had little bearing on their debates about the founding principles, documents, etc -- again it was their experiences with British rule that primarily fostered their insights and efforts involving the founding. The section is indeed exceedingly long, and doesn't require some sixty-eight names of individuals, with assorted colleges on top of that, to make the point, esp when some of the key founders had no formal education. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Taking some of this "to heart", I removed all founders who attended but did not graduate from the institutions listed. This also eliminated a couple universities in the UK. I also removed references from founders in the Ethnicity session where there were two citations, a single citation being sufficient in these cases. Allreet (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that's an improvement, but it's still a bit much, imo. Not gonna push it any further. Hope you'll make the section a bit more simple. I realize you've spend a lot of time and effort finding and reading sources, not to mention your editing time, so I can understand your reluctance to omit many of these things. I've been there too. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not "married", so to speak, to anything, nor does it matter to me how much time something takes. Such "investments" are never for naught because of what's learned along the way.
I will give serious consideration to your thoughts. I agree to this extent: I'm not thrilled about every single name having to have its own citation. I'd feel much better if, for example, each college had one source, in which case the section would look better. And I'd feel even better if we had sources supporting summaries on the founders' educational backgrounds. Since that's not the case, it'll take some reflection, some time, to come up with alternatives that capture how educated this group was.
BTW, I ran a word count of my version versus the previous Education section, which was added five years ago. The difference in length: 20 words. The difference in accuracy: day and night since the original only addressed delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Allreet (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Proportional Representation, continued

  • Of course it took time for most of the colonists to regard British rule as tyrannical, but to say most were content dismisses much of the history, starting with the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts, in particular the closure of Boston's Harbor, and all that transpired before during and after these events. If most of the colonists were content with British rule there would have been no Revolution and suggests that Washington, Jefferson, S.Adams, Henry, et al, all with strong ill regard for British rule, had little influence in the colonies.
  • The First Continental Congress settled on the idea of proportional representation, but the issue was never fully resolved, as there were far more pressing issues to deal with during that short lived Congress, which is why the issue continued full force in the Second Continental Congress where Franklin, a very respected and influential member in that Congress, was one of the major voices of moderation,[1] who held that a proportional vote could endanger the smaller states, but an equal vote could endanger the larger states,[2] though he ultimately sided with proportional representation,[3][4][5] esp during the debates involving the Articles of confederation.[1] Subsequently proportional representation was debated most of the duration of the Second Continental Congress which commenced in May of 1775. This doesn't mean the entire debate occurred that year, though much of it did.[6] The debate over proportional representation carried over into the debates involving the Articles of Confederation, all advents that occurred in the Second Continental Congress.[7] If you feel coverage of this issue doesn't belong in the section mentioned, where do you suggest it be placed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    I saw your addendum originally, but missed it just now when adding my comments above. I believe I answered your last question a couple times before, and again just now: Proportional Representation applies to the Constitution section and a section needs to be added for the Articles of Confederation. Allreet (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Isaacson, 2004, p. 314
  2. ^ Burnett, 1941, p. 224
  3. ^ Bowen, 1986, pp. 94-96
  4. ^ Lutz, 1990, p. 63
  5. ^ Isaacson, 2004, p. 449
  6. ^ Bowen, 1986, p. 69
  7. ^ Lutz, 1990, pp. 61-63


Sources covering the Continental Congress, its Association and the founding

@Randy Kryn, Robert McClenon, Allreet, and Rjensen: and all concerned. — Below are statements taken from sources that establish the idea that the Continental Congress and its Association, were essential steps in uniting the colonies under one independent government. These sources should more than satisfy the idea that the Continental Congress, and its signatories of the Association be listed in this article as they have been for many years. Please leave any comments below, here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  • "The Continental Association is one of the most important documents of American colonial history. By authorizing the establishment of local committees to enforce the embargo of trade, it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution.[1]
  • "These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States."[2]
  • "Section eleven of the resolution specified that enforcement would lie with committees. Thus were the elected foundations of the new revolutionary government put in place."[3]
  • "The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic union among the colonies.[4]
  • "The Continental Association is significant in that it got the ball rolling toward independence and the colonies speaking in a united voice.[5]
  • They networked the provinces, which ultimately resulted in the Continental Congress where representatives began speaking against Great Britain with one resounding voice. Indeed, through the colonial Committees of correspondence, our Founders encountered British oppression, explored American unity, and exchanged visions of the future that would become the foundation of our nation.[6]
  • "The Continental Congress occupies a most interesting and important position in our national and political history. Suddenly brought together to meet a pressing emergency, its membership was made up from the most thoughtful among the men of the country. Few of them, if any, conceived that events would so happen that they would be called upon to adopt a policy which must inevitably lead to establishing a new power among the nations.[7]
  • "Even before outbreak of hostilities an embryonic "federal" effort had been mounted, with the Stamp Act Congress and then with the First and Second Continental Congresses.[8]
  • "The Continental Congress, which set the most salient national precedents, delegated legislative authority by the bucketload."[9]
  • "In agreeing to meet in a Continental Congress, Americans, whether they knew it or not, consented to a major political revolution, for they transferred the debate over theories and policies from the local to what was in effect the “national” level".[10]
  • "The Association provided a “national” policy, but its effectiveness would depend upon action taken in each of the colonies. ...the Association was a reality that had to be faced as soon as Congress adjourned. Furthermore, many Americans were convinced that eventually they would reach a fork in the road ahead. One fork might lead to reconciliation with Britain; the other would probably lead to independence, and the Association pointed toward that fork."[11]
  • "...the Continental Congress made its chief contributions to the building of the nation. ... which in time were transmitted to its successor to form an essential part of the new and more adequate system of government. It was, in fact, in the Continental Congress that were developed and formulated many of those fundamental principles of government that have become our national heritage."[12]
  • "With its emphasis on marshalling popular support, the Association thus marked an important early step toward the eventual creation of avowedly republican governments."[13]
  • "With a rather human predilection for finality historians have generally accepted the view that the American Revolution was inevitable since the members of the First Continental Congress were committed to revolt from the outset."[14]
  • "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association [by the First Continental Congress] in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”"[15]
  • "Thus had this awkward but clear-headed Yankee [Roger Sherman] helped to found a great nation. He was the only patriot to sign the four most important documents signalling America’s break with England: the Association of the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution."[16]
  1. ^ Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84
  2. ^ Phillips, 2012, p. 269
  3. ^ Phillips, 2012, p. 110
  4. ^ Burnett, 1974, p. 56
  5. ^ Werther, 2017, Essay
  6. ^ Warford-Johnston, 2016, p. 83
  7. ^ Friedenwald, 1895 , p. 197
  8. ^ Johnson, 2016, p. 155
  9. ^ Mortenson & Bagley, 2021, p. 303
  10. ^ Jensen, 1968, p. 486
  11. ^ Jensen, 1968, p. 515
  12. ^ Burnett, 1974, p. ix
  13. ^ Rakove, 1979, p. 52
  14. ^ Mullett, 1931, p. 258
  15. ^ Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861
  16. ^ Meister, 1987, p. 311

Sources:

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

The proposed dismantling of much of this article was based on the premise that there were not enough sources to support the idea that the members of the Continental Congress and its Articles of Association were not part of the founding process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Very nice work, thanks for the effort and dedication. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Religion - in need of a rewrite

The Religion section under Demographics needs a re-do. The first half addresses only one group of founders, delegates to the Constitutional Convention, plus I couldn't find anything in the source cited for these sentences that matched the text. The second section seems to be in decent shape, though I don't know enough to assess what's here and what else needs to be said. Meanwhile, our Bibliography lists four sources of specific relevance, two of which can be accessed on the Internet Archive. I'm sure other sources address the topics (religion, god, deism), but finding out the extent will take some digging. All of which is to say "help wanted". Allreet (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — It's a rather short section. While the first part does make reference to delegates to the Constitutional Convention, which of course should carry the most weight, as the Constitution became and is the law of the land, it also makes reference to founders who were anti-clerical, with Jefferson as sort of an iconic example. It also asserts that a fair number of founders, including Washington, Adams and Hamilton, did not identify themselves as Christian, per say, at least according to Gregg L. Frazer, one source, which I'll assume to be reliable on that note. Will have to dig a little deeper as to his references. I have read accounts where Washington did read the Bible. Though not a Christian in terms of any specific religion at least, Jefferson said of Christianity that it was the most benevolent, while he did write the Jefferson Bible -- i.e.the Bible with the miracles striken from the text, for which he was accused of being a heretic. As religion, or God, if I may, formed much of the basis to natural rights, it would be good if we could make more specific connections between these things and the rights enumerated in the Constitution, as advanced by the founding fathers. Presently I'm all over much of the map in other areas, but this is something that the Founder's articles would do well to further cover. Again, it's a short section, which needs to be expanded somewhat along these lines. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, very short. My comment about the section's first half - that the discussion is limited to the Constitution's framers - is simply that it ignores more than half the founders, though I do agree with you in respect to the freedoms we enjoy. The question, I guess, is did the religious views of the authors affect what was adopted or did their philosophies and experiences have more of an effect? For sure, they didn't bring up Christianity in any of the era's documents, which is remarkable, and made only one reference (that I know of) to a superior being.
Your other observations indicate what needs to be looked into and suggest the possibilities for remedying what you pointed out at the start, the brevity. Oh, and I like the idea, for sure the humor, of Jefferson the Heretic. But more seriously, your reference to the concept of natural rights is excellent. Allreet (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, an interesting and worthy topic. Agree that Jefferson's Bible should be mentioned, as well as other topics including Charles Thomson's Thomson's Translation (and his Synopsis of the Four Evangelists which does not have a Wikipedia page), some of the writings of Thomas Paine and others, the wording "endowed by their creator", etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Christianity is not specifically mentioned in any of the founding documents, though "God given rights" was a term sometimes used, but not verbatim in any document. We can only imagine how much the debates would have been further compounded if some of the founders asserted e.g. "Jesus says...". Randy stole my thunder, yes, we should mention Jefferson and his Bible, esp since Jefferson was the principle advocate for 'Separation of Church and State'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
"they didn't bring up Christianity in any of the era's documents, which is remarkable" Why? In the Age of Enlightenment, scholars tended to oppose organized religion, and several of them believed that every person should be entitled to their own views. The main article even quotes a source on the religious thought of the time: : "In fact, very few enlightened intellectuals, even when they were vocal critics of Christianity, were true atheists. Rather, they were critics of orthodox belief, wedded rather to skepticism, deism, vitalism, or perhaps pantheism." The influential John Locke believed that "there was a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he said must therefore remain protected from any government authority." Dimadick (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • While there is no mention of God in the founding documents, Jefferson, in The declaration, said,
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
    endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Allreet, Randy Kryn, and Dimadick: — Since a number of key founders, and other lesser founders, didn't ascribe to any particular religion, wouldn't the Religion section be better entitled Beliefs of the founders? This would include religion, deism, agnosticism, and atheism, which is a belief also. Off hand I can't think of any who were atheist. Not to dump weight on that idea, no doubt an exception as founders were concerned, but were there any founders who were actually atheist, and if so, did they scoff at the idea of natural rights? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources on religion and the founding

I did several searches on the Internet Archive and came up with the following. More than likely, a few of these are in the article's bibliography - I didn't cross check. Also, my search was far from exhaustive so for certain there are many more.

Allreet (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and Dimadick: — Good leg work. Yes, sources for the religious and other beliefs of founders are no doubt virtually endless. I noticed that there is no mention of The Enlightenment anywhere in the article, let alone in the Religion section. Jefferson as you know was one of the principle advocates for Enlightenment principles, many of which formed the ideals inherent in the Revolution, so now that we have at least two sources (above) that specifically mention this, we may want to cover the Enlightenment in brief, and in context with the section, which again, may be better renamed, Beliefs of the founders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I suggest creating a Religion and Philosophy section. The "ideals inherent in the Revolution" may have some connection with demographics, but a discussion of the nature of those ideals - origins, tenets, effects - is a separate topic. Allreet (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I should have said, inherent in the Constitution, while at the same time, the Enlightenment wasn't altogether a separate advent entirely separated from the precepts of God and religion. The Enlightenment was another belief, which overlapped with other beliefs, all of which are products of perceptions, events and heart felt inspitations, i.e.nothing occurs in a vacuum in its own separate universe. Of course we don't want to deliberate on that sort of thing in this article anymore than to say it, along with religion, factored into matters concerning the founders and the documents that were forged thereof -- sources permitting. I've never gone down this road too far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The ideals of the Revolution were different, I agree, and sorting out where the founders were at after 10 years of experience (independence) is relevant but not mandatory for telling their story here. Many such things can be left to the American Revolution article, as well as articles on the Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Articles of Confederation, etc. Allreet (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The section thus far is about religion of the founders, but doesn't really cover how it factored into the lives of the founders, which in turn shaped the ideals they ascribed to during the years long founding process. It would be a mistake if we limited this idea to religion only as, once again, key founders like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson embraced other things besides religion. This is not to say they ignored religion entirely. Now that we have a good selection of sources at our fingertips, this should be something that doesn't have to be hacked out too much in terms of what we include in the section here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A proposal

The section should offer an opening statement, that the beliefs of the founders were generally based in Christian precepts, but also mention Deism, the Enlightenment and anything else, if 'due weight' merits this. Washington, as our definitive example of one who embraced Christianity, is well covered by the sources, needless to say. e.g. Holmes, 2003, linked above, notes:

  • "Washington was baptized and raised in the Established Church of Virginia. His wife, Martha, was a devoted Anglican and regular churchgoer. By the standards of the eighteenth-century, Washington was religiously active. As an officer prior to the Revolution, he read services for his soldiers when no chaplain was available and required officers and men not on duty to attend."
    ... During his presidential years, Washington occasionally worshiped in churches of other denominations, but he normally attended :* Anglican and Episcopal churches. <Howard, 2003, p. 79>
  • "When Washington did attend church, he was by all testimony a reverent worshiper. But in the fashion of the Deists, he seems to have remained indifferent to two significant rites of his church. Like many of the other Founding Fathers who were raised Anglican, he was never confirmed." <Howard, 2003, p. 81>

If we cover, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Madison, as our primary examples, with sources that connects their beliefs with founding principles, we will have generally covered the subject of the section, which again, may be better named, Religious and other beliefs of the founders. [Add:] The rest of the founders, as a whole can be covered with a short summary paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Washington frequently quoted from the Bible or paraphrased it, and often referred to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.<Chernow, 2012, pp. 131-132;  Morrison, 2009, p. 136>
  • Washington once said, “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.” <Meacham, 2006, p. 26>
  • Washington told his troops, “that every officer and man will endeavor so to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”<Meacham, 2006, p. 77>
  • Washington thought enough of religion where, in his Farewell Address in 1796 that religion, as the source of morality, was “a necessary spring of popular government.”<Hutson, 1998, p. xii>

Those sources that attempt to portray Washington as something other than a Christian, typically employ conjecture based on selected items of circumstantial evidence. e.g."Washington never kneeled when he prayed". Even if this was entirely true, (throughout his entire life?) there are far many more established facts that support Washington as a Christian, and embraced religion, regardless of any reservations he may have had over particular tracts of Christianity, where he was not the first Christian to raise such questions. Frazer's sweeping statement needs to be either removed or amended by any of his other quotes to the extent that he can confirm, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Washington was not a Christian. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to edit as you see fit. My preference would be to avoid random comments that are cherrypicked to make a point of some kind. In the case of Frazer, we could probably dig up a dozen other opinions or observations equally valid and equally uncertain. In which case, it'd be best to stick with statements summarizing the range of opinion.
I consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of tangible information - not a soapbox for random views that resonate with editors who have axes of some kind to grind but don't serve the interests of the audience. IOW, I don't think we're here to tell school children or curious adults that maybe Washington didn't believe in God when most likely he believed in something and we have no way of knowing exactly what that was. Allreet (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The best approach when dealing with questionable or controversial issues is to center on the established facts. From what's out there, there can be little doubt that Washington was born and raised as a Christian, and practiced Christianity to one extent or another during his life. He stopped going to communion after the Revolution, perhaps because he was dealing with the great burden of being a part of so much death and destruction. We can only wonder and speculate as to whether he had any moments of doubt, or what have you. Again, Frazer offers nothing to support his absolute statement that Washington was not a Christian, as if Washington put on this prolonged masquerade his entire life. As I'm very involved in other areas right now, I've no intention of editing this section, at least at this time. I'll only leave comments from time to time and will leave the task in your, and perhaps Randy's, able hands. One parting comment for now -- the section needs a rewrite, not only in terms of your initial criticisms, but entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. We have the sources plus others to unearth. We'll get around to it in time. I may tweak what's here, but nothing major for now. Allreet (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Taking another look at this section - its subject and placement - I believe it would be best moved below Slavery where it can stand on its own. It surely does not belong as its own topic within the series of historic "milestones" - Union, Congress, War, Declaration, Articles, Constitution. Within that, it's relevance at best is as a subset of the Bill of Rights. IMO, then, it makes no sense editorially to break away from an "A-Z" chronology to an analysis or summary of a broad issue whose dating stretches from colonization to nationhood. Allreet (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree that the Religion subsection should have its own section, as this general topic is much more than a characteristic, it was an advent that greatly impacted the formation of the ideals set forth in the various founding documents. As such, we should not only mention religion, and other beliefs, of the founders, but give a somewhat brief, yet comprehensive, outline of how these things factored into the thinking of the founding fathers as they forged the Declaration, the Articles and the Constitution, beginning with "natural rights" and the "creator". I went ahead and rendered the subsection as a major section. Allreet and others can take it from there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I moved the section down. Still needs a rewrite. Allreet (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation convention

The citation format has become a mish-mash of different styles, or lack thereof, with may cite templates still mixed in with the mark-up. Since the greater majority of cites has used the conventional <ref> it's best to stay with these. A number of |ref= parameters have been removed from the cite templates, which now creates a 'Harv error' warning, so these should also be returned to the way they've been all along. It's a ways off, but if the article is ever going to become a FA it will have to subscribe to one citation convention, a FA criteria which also means all the cite templates will have to be removed to the Bibliography and replaced with a conventional citation. Not long ago I was making efforts to move the templates into the Bibliography but I see they are creeping back into the mark up. As it is now, the markup looks something like a train-wreck in may places, making it very difficult to navigate and edit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Harv errors

Normally Harv errors don't make themselves evident when one is viewing the citations and sources.
Adding this line:
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
to your User:USERNAME/common.js will install the script which will automatically note and highlight any Harv errors when viewing the cites and sourcess. Until recently this article had no such errors. Instructional examples can be viewed at the bottom of this section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Rewrote Constitutional Convention section

I actually wrote a new section, virtually from scratch, saving very little from the original. I had several problems with the section as written. My first was with the lead. One of the most important chapters in the nation's founding begins with Patrick Henry smelling a rat. This is what we want readers to believe - that the effort to provide the nation with an effective and enduring constitution was driven by under-handed motives? Actually, Henry had other reasons for not attending which should have been mentioned (his health being one), plus his suspicions related to the Mississippi and navigation rights, not personal liberties (see page 317 of Patrick Henry: Patriot and Statesman).

In researching the subject, I found a fair number of the section's assertions were not supported by the sources cited. Here's a few:

  • The source used for Henry's alleged concern about citizen rights doesn't address his concerns. The text says Madison, Wilson and Hamilton believed the Constitution would not "trample" on rights. It says nothing about Henry and citizen rights.
  • The decision to impose secrecy had nothing to do with the fact that they intended a new form of government. Secrecy was a common practice in legislatures in those days, and its raison d'etre at the convention was to allow delegates to speak freely without fear of choosing their words or changing their opinions.
  • Rhode Island's refusal to participate stemmed from a combination of its monetary crisis and its general irascibility. The state's primary concern was small-state rights, in which case, it was irresponsible of them to stay home.
  • Monroe, not Madison, credited Washington for the Constitution's acceptance (McLaughlin, p. 150). I believe Monroe wasn't referring to Washington's impact on the convention, but his influence on citizens nationally. Washington spoke only once during the convention and said nothing about supporting the Constitution that would have influenced delegates.

Inaccuracies are one thing. A larger concern is that the original text failed to address any of the key issues tied to framing the Constitution: defects in the Articles of Confederation, three branches of government, proportional representation, executive and legislative veto power, large states vs. small states, the ratification process, etc. Allreet (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this assessment is rather inaccurate:
  • The decision to impose secrecy had nothing to do with the fact that they intended a new form of government. Secrecy was a common practice in legislatures in those days, and its raison d'etre at the convention was to allow delegates to speak freely without fear of choosing their words or changing their opinions.
Secrecy had everything to do with advancing an entirely new form of government. Many of the delegates arrived thinking that they were simply going to revise the Articles of Confederation, and that the idea of drafting an entirely new form of government, which took many by surprise, was deemed by many to be such a radical move that the rule of secrecy was imposed, largely as a precaution over journalists and their well established and inherent penchant to hype and distort matters. The secrecy rule was met with mixed reactions and actually gave great reservations to some about 'speaking freely',<Beeman, 2009, pp. 83-84> as the rule created an atmosphere of uncertainly not only with outside views but among many of the delegates themselves. Secrecy was not that common a practice, it was considered a radical precedent to which Jefferson exclaimed, "I am sorry that they began their deliberations by so abominable a precedence as that of tying up the tongues of their members".<Warren, 1928, pp. 127-128> Bowen states that because of the new and radical form of government proposed, secrecy was integral to its successful outcome. While secrecy was sometimes practiced in legislative assemblies there was no secrecy rule imposed when the Articles, a prior new form of government also, were publicly debated and drafted. Franklin was so opposed to the secrecy rule he threatened to reveal secrets of the convention.<Bowen, 1986, p. 22>
I haven't seen where Warren, Beeman or Bowen assert that the secrecy rule "allowed delegates to speak freely". Beeman maintains that the rule was considered a blessing for the delegates,<Beeman, 2009, p. 84> but all of them? Again the rule was met with widely varied and mixed reactions and made everyone chose their words very carefully. I just dug into one of the above comments, but when I have time, I'll check further on the others. While the prior version could have been better written, (yes, "smelling a rat" was perhaps not the best thing to say in the opening paragraph) I saw nothing where any statement was inaccurately sourced. The current Constitutional Convention section, to begin with, starts off with details about the Articles, and then follows with what should be the opening paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
[Additional:] Other than that, the Constitutional Convention section has gone trough a nice expansion, very comprehensive, thanks to Allreet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
My assessment is air tight, and you're going far afield by recounting all the criticisms that came afterwards about the secrecy. None of these objections was raised when the rule was adopted - and which I summed up as simply as possible by calling this "a controversial decision".
Beeman, Bowen, Warren. and other sources support the fact that secrecy "allow(ed) delegates to speak freely without fear of choosing their words or changing their opinions". However, I did make a mistake. In editing the paragraph in question, I inadvertently cut Bowen as a source and I used her page numbers in place of Beeman's. The correct sources and page numbers, which I've fixed in the article, are as follows with a few pertinent quotes provided.
The rule of secrecy, however alien to our twenty-first-century values, helped make the Constitutional Convention of 1787 an agency of deliberation rather than partisan debate. It allowed the delegates to take risks in debate, float only partially developed ideas, or disagree vehemently, but ultimately reconcile their views.
Secrecy in legislative assemblies was no new thing. All the Revolutionary colonial assemblies were secret; the first Continental Congress had been so of necessity, and Congressional debates still were not reported.
"This, I think, myself, a proper precaution to prevent mistakes and misrepresentation until the business shall have been completed, when the whole may have a very different complexion from that in which the several crude and indigested parts might, in their first shape, appear if submitted to the public eye." – George Mason, in a letter to his son two days before the secrecy vote
Meanwhile, the original statement - "Because they were about to make major changes to the form of government rather than amend the existing one...the delegates to the convention were sworn to secrecy" - has no source to support it. Just on its surface, this assertion is a fiction, since the possibility of creating a new form of government only became apparent after the secrecy rule was adopted. The fact is, the vast majority of delegates had no idea what was going to transpire. As for those who did know - Madison, Hamilton, Randolph and a few others - there's nothing to suggest that they introduced the idea of secrecy as a strategy for advancing their intentions. Allreet (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

One citation convention, fixing errors

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — The citations and source listing need work as explained above. Will be making efforts to resolve these things. This may involve reverting or altering one's edits, per 3RR, but will only be limited to the cites and sources. Hopefully this will be okay with all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  •  Done — Most issues resolved. There are a few citations needing page numbers: i.e. citations # 82, 135, 368, 369, 373 (cite numbers in question have shifted) — 83, 138, 261, 262, 373, 374, 378.
    Also, the citation for Daniel and Charles Carroll, and Fitzisimons being Catholic (#368) is incorrect, as they are not mentioned anywhere in Lambert, 2003. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the continued pings Allreet and Gwillhickers. What I've been doing for awhile is purposely getting out of your way, not reading the full page or even most changes, but taking note of the really wonderful additions and page concepts you two have provided. At some point I'll dip in and do some polishing and brevity (if I can find anything which could use a touch after you two have worked diligently and seemingly tirelessly). 1776 barnstars to both of you! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — Randy, thanks for the kind words. There's still plenty of work that needs to be done. Currently there are more than 130 ( ! ) 'Cite web' templates mixed in with the markup. Will have to make that a separate discussion. Incidentally, what is a 1776 barnstar? Didn't know it existed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Could have been 1,776 barnstars but the comma was implied. I've never done deep cite projects, and actually don't know what a 'cite web template' is or what it wants someone to do (find a cite specifically on the internet and then cite it as such, even if it refers to a paper or a book?) Not educated in, or have put much attention on, some Wikipedia 101 editing topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
When referring to a web site for a reference a template can be used. Here is an example of one used in the markup in this article:

{{Cite web |date=9 February 1811 |title=From John Adams to Josiah, III Quincy, 9 February 1811 |url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-03-02-1904 |access-date=3 Nov 2022 |website=Founders Online, National Archives}}


By moving the template to the bibliography and adding e.g. a  |ref=adams1811  parameter to it you can link to it with a simple citation  <ref>[[#adams1811|Adams to Quincy, 9 Feb. 1811]]</ref>  rather than using the entire template stuck in the middle of the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, @Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn, for taking a look at this. I much prefer the Harv format for ease of use. The "ref" format that requires ref= parameters are more complicated to set up and maintain. Actually, all formats have their challenges, not only for "newbies" but a fair number of experienced editors as well, myself included. As a mea culpa, I'll confess to having removed some ref='s recently for cites I converted to Harv, but realize now that I proceeded rashly. Perhaps we need a larger discussion, especially given the size of the Bibliography, which is partly necessary because the FF article covers such a broad range of historical events and issues. X amount of maintenance time is going to be necessary whatever format we settle on.
Gwillhickers, I'm not sure what you mean by Harv errors - and I'm asking for clarification, not regarding any issues. I'll mention some instances with the ref= cites that I consider errors. When you click on the link in a citation's pop-up, you should link directly to the reference in the Bibliography. Yet for whatever reasons, the following don't function properly: 171, 178, 179, 380, 390, and 391 (there are many others). In troubleshooting the first of these (171), I found that Jedson doesn't exist, so that explains that one. In troubleshooting some others, I was able to fix (Bernstein 2009), I found the ref= used bernstein2006 and should have been bernstein2009. I also found typos in the ref= name in another cite (naier was used instead of maier) These are indicative of the kinds of problems that crop up with this format, whereas Harv is so much simpler. That said, all formats are prone to typos. Allreet (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Typos and other misgivings can occur when dealing with a multitude of cites and sources, which when found can easily be corrected as I've been doing. Both conventions can get tacky, esp when there is no last name or year date, which is often the case with website sources, making it difficult to use the SFN convention. In such cases you have to come up with a custom sfn link and include it in the template.  Example:
|ref={{sfnRef|U.S. Bio Directory, James Madison}}
...and employ it thusly:
{{sfn|U.S. Bio Directory, James Madison}}
I'll look into the cite numbers you mentioned and correct them if you haven't already. Once again, we need to subscribe to one citation convention if this article is ever going to make it to FA, which is the standard I employ when I work on an article. As it is, we have well over a hundred 'cite web' templates still mixed in with the text, that will take quite an effort to tuck away into the Bibliography. Once step at a time. Thanks for looking out-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree on using a single format, and I'm willing to work on converting all the cites as time allows. The question is, what format is preferred? In terms of simplicity, bytes/keystrokes, and ongoing maintenance, I prefer the {{sfn|author|year|pp=}} format to <ref>[[#author/year, year]], pp. xx</ref>, especially since the latter also requires ref=paramaters in the bibliography's references. But if you (and others) feel that the Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
  • "These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States."[1]
  • "Section eleven of the resolution specified that enforcement would lie with committees. Thus were the elected foundations of the new revolutionary government put in place."[2]
  • "The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic union among the colonies.[3]
  • "The Continental Association is significant in that it got the ball rolling toward independence and the colonies speaking in a united voice.[4]
  • They networked the provinces, which ultimately resulted in the Continental Congress where representatives began speaking against Great Britain with one resounding voice. Indeed, through the colonial Committees of correspondence, our Founders encountered British oppression, explored American unity, and exchanged visions of the future that would become the foundation of our nation.[5]
  • "The Continental Congress occupies a most interesting and important position in our national and political history. Suddenly brought together to meet a pressing emergency, its membership was made up from the most thoughtful among the men of the country. Few of them, if any, conceived that events would so happen that they would be called upon to adopt a policy which must inevitably lead to establishing a new power among the nations.[6]
  • "Even before outbreak of hostilities an embryonic "federal" effort had been mounted, with the Stamp Act Congress and then with the First and Second Continental Congresses.[7]
  • "The Continental Congress, which set the most salient national precedents, delegated legislative authority by the bucketload."[8]
  • "In agreeing to meet in a Continental Congress, Americans, whether they knew it or not, consented to a major political revolution, for they transferred the debate over theories and policies from the local to what was in effect the “national” level".[9]
  • "The Association provided a “national” policy, but its effectiveness would depend upon action taken in each of the colonies. ...the Association was a reality that had to be faced as soon as Congress adjourned. Furthermore, many Americans were convinced that eventually they would reach a fork in the road ahead. One fork might lead to reconciliation with Britain; the other would probably lead to independence, and the Association pointed toward that fork."[10]
  • "...the Continental Congress made its chief contributions to the building of the nation. ... which in time were transmitted to its successor to form an essential part of the new and more adequate system of government. It was, in fact, in the Continental Congress that were developed and formulated many of those fundamental principles of government that have become our national heritage."[11]
  • "With its emphasis on marshalling popular support, the Association thus marked an important early step toward the eventual creation of avowedly republican governments."[12]
  • "With a rather human predilection for finality historians have generally accepted the view that the American Revolution was inevitable since the members of the First Continental Congress were committed to revolt from the outset."[13]
  • "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association [by the First Continental Congress] in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”"[14]
  • "Thus had this awkward but clear-headed Yankee [Roger Sherman] helped to found a great nation. He was the only patriot to sign the four most important documents signalling America’s break with England: the Association of the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution."[15]
  1. ^ Phillips, 2012, p. 269
  2. ^ Phillips, 2012, p. 110
  3. ^ Burnett, 1974, p. 56
  4. ^ Werther, 2017, Essay
  5. ^ Warford-Johnston, 2016, p. 83
  6. ^ Friedenwald, 1895 , p. 197
  7. ^ Johnson, 2016, p. 155
  8. ^ Mortenson & Bagley, 2021, p. 303
  9. ^ Jensen, 1968, p. 486
  10. ^ Jensen, 1968, p. 515
  11. ^ Burnett, 1974, p. ix
  12. ^ Rakove, 1979, p. 52
  13. ^ Mullett, 1931, p. 258
  14. ^ Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861
  15. ^ Meister, 1987, p. 311

Sources:

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

The proposed dismantling of much of this article was based on the premise that there were not enough sources to support the idea that the members of the Continental Congress and its Articles of Association were not part of the founding process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Very nice work, thanks for the effort and dedication. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Page view feature on Talk page

I've added a template that shows the daily/annual page views for the Founding Fathers article. I've long felt that the legitimacy of the title as well as the Founding Fathers page is the wide interest WP's readers have in the subject. In 2020, when people had lots of time on their hands, readership soared past 2 million. It dropped back down last year to just short of a million, but remains one of the most-read articles on the Founding Era. Okay, the Founders aren't as popular as The Beatles (4.5 million readers in 2022), but still, one can only hope. All that said, if enough "followers" find the chart obtrusive, I wouldn't be offended if it's removed. Allreet (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet: — The difference in page views between the Founders and the Beatles is really not an accurate indication of the subject's interest exclusively. For a good indication of the Founder's popularity it should be compared to the page views of other history articles, and moreover, the type of audience must be considered. The Beatles are popular the world over, whereas the US Founders are not. If we could somehow compare the page views for the Founders and the Beatles among American viewers, that would be a more realistic cross section of their respective popularity, but only among Americans. In any case, your basic point is well taken, that the Founder's article is among the most viewed, and that, by itself, is encouraging. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The great wars win these battles: WW II 9.6 million and WW I 8.3 million. State-side, the Civil War garners 4.2 million. But the Beatles came to mind because of John Lennon's quip about their popularity and Jesus's. The Beatles, btw, currently have a half-million edge. Allreet (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Default "sort key" conflict...error message displaying

I just noticed the following error message in large red type at the very bottom of the Founding Fathers page above the Categories box:

Warning: Default sort key "Founding Fathers Of The United States" overrides earlier default sort key "Madison, James".

I have no idea what this means, so out of curiosity I checked the history and found the error message has been displaying since January 25, 2015. As best I could tell, nothing was done by our editors that caused this, and the current DEFAULTSORT Founding Fathers Of The United States predates the error so it doesn't seem to be tied to that. Would somebody take a look at this and if possible, fix it? If it turns out the issue is "beyond our pay grade", I'm willing to take it to the Help Desk. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done, fixed. It was a coding error at the Madison navbox. Thanks for noticing the alert. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Randy. Amazing how we missed this for nearly 10 years, despite our assiduous, virtually rabid attention to detail. Allreet (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
No, it wasn't there for long, as I have look at that part of the page often. Somehow the history is incorrect and may have code-flown-backward when I made the default-name attempt at a couple of the navboxes. When that was fixed on the Madison navbox, the problem went away. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. It's possible recent programming changes created a conflict between the sorts, triggering a message that would display from the beginning of the conflict (January 25, 2015) to the present. But it would not have displayed prior to the recent changes. Allreet (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested names

OK here's a list of 25 names from an eminent scholar (I left out a few): "America’s Founding Fathers" (2017) by Allen C. Guelzo --- (George Washington’s Doubts page 3; Thomas Mifflin’s Congress .. 11; Robert Morris’s Money ..19; Benjamin Franklin’s Leather Apron 27; Thomas Jefferson’s Books ..36; Alexander Hamilton’s Republic 53; James Madison’s Conference .62; Patrick Henry’s Religion 71; Edmund Randolph’s Plan ....87 ; William Paterson’s Dissent ..94; Roger Sherman’s Compromise ...102; Elbridge Gerry’s Committee .. 110 ; James Wilson’s Executive .118; John Rutledge’s Committee ..125; Rufus King’s Slaves .....132; David Brearley’s Postponed Parts .....140; John Dunlap and David Claypoole’s Broadside 148; Patrick Henry’s Convention ...165; Benjamin Banneker’s Survey 207 [the leading black]; John Jay’s Treaty ...215; John Adams’s Liberty ..224; Timothy Dwight’s Religion .240; James McHenry’s Army .....247; John Marshall’s Court ..271 Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Below are the cite book templates for some sources just brought to us, not that we don't have enough already, but they appear to be top notch. Available for borrow and full viewing at archive.org. – Thanks RJ.

Although the list of members can expand and contract in response to political pressures and ideological prejudices of the moment, the following 10, presented alphabetically, represent the “gallery of greats” that has stood the test of time: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Marshall, George Mason, and George Washington. There is a nearly unanimous consensus that George Washington was the Foundingest Father of them all.[1]

  1. ^ Ellis, 2007, Introduction, p. 1
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay...for instance? With the multitude of sources out there, we shouldn't have any problem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The Guelzo book has a long bibliography he used, and each chapter ends with a couple titles for that person. Rjensen (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Another book to add: The Founding Fathers Reconsidered by R. B. Bernstein (2009) online full text Bernstein states on p 177: "Nobody can agree on the complete list of the founding fathers, especially when we include the great number of Americans who did not hold political office in the new state governments, the Continental and Confederation Congresses, or the new government launched under the U.S. Constitution in 1789. This appendix provides a list divided into three groups: (1) the signers of the Declaration of Independence, (2) the framers of the Constitution, and (3) those who were neither signers nor framers but who played pivotal roles in the creation of the United States." his list #3 pp 179-180 . Other Founding Fathers (and Mothers) = Abigail Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Aaron Burr, George Clinton, Patrick Henry, James Iredell, John Jay, Henry Knox, Henry Laurens, William Maclay, John Marshall, James Monroe, Thomas Paine, Mercy Otis Warren. Rjensen (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Bernstein is one of our main sources for signers/framers as well as the "additionals" you mention. The Bibliography for the Founding Fathers page is extensive and covers the main works on the subject, most of which are available on the Internet Archive. We have the bulk of Guelzo's selections accounted for, though he'd be a good additional source. The "interesting" choices I referred to are less significant figures such as Benjamin Banneker, John Dunlap, and Thomas Dwight. While lots of sources may cover them, it's doubtful any identify them as Founding Fathers. That's all I meant. Allreet (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Parent category

@Randy Kryn:, @Allreet: — Randy, I noticed you removed the Founding Fathers category from the George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin articles, with a note in edit history saying, "already in parent categories". I thought the Founding Fathers category was the parent category. Which category were you referring to by parent category? It would seem, of all people, Washington, Adams and Franklin should be on the Founding Fathers category page, regardless of any other categories that are assigned to them. Wasn't the Founders category created with the idea that all the Founders would finally be listed under one roof, to which most if not all agreed?. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Allreet, those three and almost everyone else are already in the three sub-categories of signers (Declaration, Articles, and Constitution), but okay, I'm reading that we should list all of the Founders individually as well. I'm good with that, just as long as it keeps the signers categories on the individual pages as well. Sound good? If so, Gwillhickers, please return the major Founders I removed but, in their cases, they should be returned as sub-categories category:George Washington, category:John Adams, and category:Benjamin Franklin, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done, at least the Founders on the chart (and the Framers who did not sign the Constitution and some but not all of the additional Founders on this article's list). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Randy, for the Category and the edits. I'll pitch in to help with research on the "additionals" and leave it to you (and others) to do the categorizing. Allreet (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Randy, for putting Washington, Franklin, et al,, back on the main table -- where they belong -- up front. We have four learned editors, and the facts, per reliable sources, on our side. We'll not waver in the face of any academic or other 'friends of America' contenders if it should cone to that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Include Benjamin Banneker?

Yes I think we should: Benjamin Banneker as Founder-- I found the 3 needed cites: #1. Guelzo p 14: "The course also includes important figures who have faded over time but deserve some dusting off...and Benjamin Banneker, the African American surveyor. " the details are pp 223-226: cite 2) The well-known conservative media personality Glen Beck produced and narrated a 9-part TV series entitled "Founders’ Fridays" in 2010. One unit was on "African-American Founders" and featured Benjamin Banneker as one of the "Founding Fathers." [cite: LaGarrett J. King & Patrick Womac, "A Bundle of Silences: Examining the Racial Representation of Black Founding Fathers of the United States Through Glenn Beck's Founders’ Fridays ," Theory & Research in Social Education, 42:1, 35-64, DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2013.824396] and cite 3: LaGarrett J. King, "More Than Slaves: Black Founders, Benjamin Banneker, and Critical Intellectual Agency." Social Studies Research & Practice (2014), Vol. 9 Issue 3, p88-105. Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There is now a new scholarly field of Black Founders, See Richard S. Newman and Roy E. Finkenbine, "Black Founders in the New Republic" William and Mary Quarterly (2007) 64#1 pp. 83-94 online [email me for a copy at rjensen@uic.edu] the #1 Black founder is Richard Allen (bishop). The essay argues: [p 91] "black Founders might be defined as visible African American leaders who emerged after the Revolution, often using literary skills and social and political connections to white reformers and politicians to make freedom claims on be people of African heritage" and [p 94] "For [Frederick] Douglass black Founders such as Allen had shown the way to a new Declaration of that supplied true equality to black as well as white Americans....modern scholars might say that black Founders stand at the front of a genealogy of multiracial democracy." Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I suppose one should watch what they ask for, which is to commend the scholarship here. I also believe we're treading new ground. Since that will require work on the article itself—this is akin to the Founding Mothers issue—I prefer we wait until gaining consensus on the Category issue. That said, if Rjensen wants to forge the way, I have no objections. Allreet (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something on his page, Banneker doesn't seem to fit the definitions of Founder used in the founders article and seems a stretch to even list him as a major patriot. Allen is already listed as a patriot. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The strong trends in the reliable sources is to expand the definition to include blacks and women. The nation THEY founded is a major part of the nation we have in 2023. It's interesting to note that political conservatives have joined the movement--Banneker is a FF to conservatives like Guelzo and Beck. Rjensen (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
There is only one nation, not three nations, so not understanding the concept. Errors and omissions in the 1774-1791 founding documents concerning women and blacks were eventually corrected using the tools - the amendment process and the freedoms of the first amendment - outlined in the Constitution. Individuals that used those tools being considered founders of the nation would be extending the term to the major leaders of the 19th and 20th century Suffrage and Civil Rights Movements. As for Banneker, are you saying he's a Founding Father because he assisted Andrew Ellicott for several weeks in mapping Washington D.C., and if so then Andrew, Joseph Ellicott, Benjamin Ellicott, and Pierre Charles L'Enfant have just as much a claim on the wording. Or because he wrote the 1791 letter to Thomas Jefferson about the plight of the blacks in the newly formed nation. He did good work, and maybe because of his letter to Jefferson he rises to patriot status, but listed as a Founding Father seems a large stretch of the terminology. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Reading more about him, I did not know much, I can support patriot status because of Banneker's 1791 lobbying of Jefferson. That Jefferson responded opened new grounds for discussion between people in the United States. A one-sentence descriptor could mention this exchange as well as his assistance in mapping out the nation's capitol. The attention he has received has created a defining role in history, although the page's criteria for inclusion doesn't seem to extend to Banneker's contributions. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Many changes and amendments have been made since the Founding, and it could be 'argued' that the Founding is a continuation that has taken us through the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, and therefore the list of Founders can be an endless one. The actual foundation on which all changes and amendments have been made, however, was established during the Founding era, and therefore we should confine ourselves to that period and to those who had a direct hand in the drafting and debates involved with founding documents. Otherwise we will be opening the door to who knows who. It's understood that some modern day historians have included others, but unless they explain how they took part in the actual founding, in definitive terms, not just allegorically, we should stay away from them. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Washington, Jefferson, etc, had many friends and advisors -- but they are not all Founders -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I've been looking at the new book by David Hackett Fischer, African Founders: How Enslaved People Expanded American Ideals (2022) (as well as Richard S Newman, Freedom’s Prophet: Bishop Richard Allen, the AME Church, and the Black Founding Fathers (2009). It occurs to me that perhaps one solution is a new article on "African American founding fathers of the United States." any suggestions?. Note that there is List of national founders that list one or more persons for other countries. The point is that "founding" is a broad term that means not just the insttutions (nation state, independence, Constitution) but also creating the values by which the USA is distinctive. In which case the article stresses the people who created and promoted anti-slavery, abolition, equal rights & votes, and equal opportunity for the American Dream. Maybe that just overlaps too much with the articles on Abolitionism in the United States and Civil rights movement (1865–1896) ???
Rjensen, there's no doubt that the idea of slavery was often brought to the socio-political table by the enslaved themselves, but the idea of slavery was debated at length by many of the Founders. Because many plantations and other places depended on slavery, and because it was an issue that would no doubt have divided the nation, or get in the way of its founding, the idea of slavery was subsequently put on the back burner. Of course various slaves, or freed slaves, pressed the issue, but to refer to these people as founders, those who forged the actual foundation of the existing government and the ideals it embraced, is misleading and seems to be sort of a "politically correct" prospect. I've no objection to an article that covers this advent, but I would leave the term Founders out of any title for it. The ideals of freedom (e.g.Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc) were well established during the actual founding, so it's not like this was some abstract concept that everyone was aloof to beforehand. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
You make some good points. Slavery was controversial in the late 18c--all the northern states abolished it by 1804 but none in the South--then you get increasingly violent debates about slavery in the territories up to the late 1850s-1860 election. The blacks were not the leaders there (Quakers were and people like John Jay). But to be "American" in 2023 means to be committed to equality of race and that was not on the table before 1800--it was the African American community that took the lead and introduced the idea. So I think we can argue that the people who "founded" this sense of equality are founders of USA 2023 even more than whoever drafted the 7th amendment. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say they introduced the idea of equality by themselves. After the Civil War many in the Black community, slowly but surely, played a major role in putting the idea square on the table most certainly, as did President Grant and the Reconstruction movement. But to refer to them at that late date as Founders seems to blur the essence of the idea. The idea of Founding Father, or Forefathers, has for hundreds of years been in reference to the Revolutionaries who forged the actual founding and its documents. The leading argument against the Founders category was that the idea was too broad, or vague, and going down this road seems to give weight to that contention.. As for Banneker, I'd have no objection of listing him under Patriots. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The black leaders had a well developed demand for equality of the races before the civil war, at a time Grant owned one slave--and Lincoln (1858) denied equality. In debating Lincoln in 1858 Stephen Douglas was constantly referring to “the Black Republican party”— = a race-baiting phrase that suggested GOP had taken up the black position. Douglas in First Debate: “I believe this government was made on the white basis....I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, for the benefit of white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races." That was a dominant attitude 165 years ago and was strong in the South into the 1950s. My argument is that the American principle of equality of races--so strong today--appeared well after the original founding fathers were no longer active. So the Founders were only partial founders. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

These things are all true, but before the Civil War their collective voices were not nearly as pronounced -- virtually silent in the south. As for Grant, 'owning' a slave, he inherited an estate from his father in law, which included one slave. He never gave orders to this man, and often times went out there and worked and toiled right along side of him. Grant's father, Jesse Grant, an ardent abolitionist, refused to attend Ulysses' wedding, because the father of his soon to be wife, Fredrick Dent, owned slaves, and the wedding took place at Dent's home in Missouri, a slave state. Later, not long after Grant inherited the estate, he gave this man his freedom. Iow, many people were very conscientious of these things before the Civil War. If Lincoln denied equality in 1858 he must have known, as did the Founders, that it was a hot-bed issue that would divide the nation, and ultimately he was right.
Anyway, the question remains, are we going to start referring to people like Banneker as Founders? There were many hundreds of friends and advisors, all with their own interests, who often wrote letters of advice, lobbied, and so forth, but to refer to them as Founders is, imo, not appropriate, all things considered. All changes and amendments rest on the foundation that was established during the founding era -- and it was that foundation that made it all possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

the consensus of experts is that the Civil War & Reconstruction radically changed the US from a weak coalition to a strong nation. Thus: Eric Foner, The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019) see Foner interview. I am arguing here that racial equality is a central part of Americanism today but not in 1858 (and not in 1940). I quoted Douglas above--now to quote Lincoln's debate on September 18, 1858: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." see Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Rjensen (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion, but has little to do with this page, which is about the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution and its Constitutional creation. The Constitution, designed to be self-correcting, provided the tools for further change: the amendment process and the Bill of Rights. There have been numerous societal shifts over the last 230 plus-years brought on by the use of those tools, and that timeline provides an affirmation of the self-correcting nature of the document. Does it apply to this page? Maybe, in a summary "follow-up" to the success of the documents, a testament to the applied genius of the original 1774-1791 period and governmental creation, yet not in an extension of the page topic and criteria to future generations and times (such as the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement, which has been called the Second American Revolution but, importantly, not overlapping with the First but as a direct result of it). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Article scope

  • Yes, the Constitution, with its checks and balances, representative government and allowance for Amendments, was and is a self correcting entity, and the foundation for this was created during the Founding era. As such, we should keep the scope of this article within the realm of the actual founding. Otherwise, the article's coverage is likely to venture off all over the map, which would, again, give weight to the argument that the term Founding Fathers is too broad or vague. I have no objections to including Banneker in the Patriots section, because he lived during the Founding and had a measure of influence with Jefferson, but to venture into the Civil War, civil rights movement, etc would over complicate an article that is already fairly complicated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Foner's book title, imo, is rather overstated, and misleading: The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution. This more than suggests that they re-wrote the entire Constitution, which never occurred. We have the same basic Constitution today as they had after the Constitution was ratified. While there have been amendments added, it overall is the same framework of laws and precepts, which again allowed improvements to be made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm hearing the assumption that the Founding Fathers made provision for a huge civil war that ruined the ruling class in the South and freed millions of slaves, and created a very power national government that could--and did--seize control of all the ex-Confederate states. Furthermore, Foner argues, the 13-14-15 amendments changed the basic value system on which USA was based to include equal rights for all races. Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
It was the South who attempted to make a break with the Union, by force -- I don't see where anyone made any Constitutional provisions for that to occur. The value system for all men being created equal was already in place, it just took time to reach fruition. The Amendments for equal rights rested on a Constitutional Foundation, without which there would have been no Amendments. Yes, after the Civil War the Union seized control of the southern states, control which they had in the first place, before the south made a violent break with the Union. It might make things more clear if you told us what you would like to add to the article. A Civil War section, that would include various national figures from that time, and to list them as Founders also?   It's probably best just to add some comments, that the revolutionary Founders built a system of government that grew to better accommodate everyone through a Bill of Rights and the other Amendments that followed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
right -- nobody expected a drastic restructing of government, power relations, races and redistribution of power and values. No reliable source says the value system of the 1850s included racial equality.--neither Douglas nor Lincoln was on board in 1858, as I uoted them. The only ones on board were abolitionists responding to black demands. (William Lloyd Garrison is a major player--over 2/3 of his supporters were blacks.) No reliable source says that before 1861 anyone said the federal government could seize whole states and change them radically. --Perhaps you will quote a few of the reliable sources you are depending upon? Meanwhile look at The Second Founding re the Foner book. Also look at Fischer, David Hackett. African Founders: How Enslaved People Expanded American Ideals (Simon and Schuster, 2022) excerpt -- that is where scholarship is these days. Foner and Fischer each have won the Pulitzer prize in history--they are not fringe. Our job as editors is to report on what the reliable secondary sources actually say in the 21st century. Rjensen (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Fischer and Foner no doubt cover these things well, as you say, but are we going to lump this time period and the various figures involved in with the Founding Fathers and the the system of government they created? That is the focus of this article. As mentioned, we can comment on the various Amendments and so forth that followed, and maybe mention a few names, like Banneker, but listing them as Founders along side Washington, Franklin, et al, would be misleading and drastically expand and change the scope of this article. All the improvements, Amendments and so forth were made possible by the Founders and the Constitution, and the debates over slavery that occurred during this time. Many of the Founders were conscientious about equality, esp in the North, but again, the issue was put on the back burner for fear of dividing the Union, which is what indeed happened over that issue. In time Amendments followed, but no one re-invented the Constitutional wheel. That has remained constant to this day.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
the system was radically changed in the second founding and the the article should say that. You emphasize mechanics and I argue that since Harding's day, the theme of the great-Founding-Fathers has not been the mechanics of how the machinery works but the value system they created. That value system was radically changed by the civil right movements of 1860s and 1960s. I think when you say "Many of the Founders were conscientious about equality, esp in the North" you actually mean "slavery" not "equality." Lincon (in 1850s wanted to abolish slavery and NOT give equality to the newly freed slaves. (He wanted to deport them.) He changed in the war--the behavior of blacks (black soldiers, Frederick Douglass) is given some of the credit for that. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
There's no denying that the value system improved, or changed, but not the system of government. We still have the offices of President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, three Branches of government, a Senate and Congress, the Bill of Rights, etc -- the foundation, as outlined in the Constitution. No Amendment or set of values has changed that. Blacks were eventually allowed to vote, but I'm not seeing any radical change in the system of government. The founding of that government should be the focus of this article. Most of the things you touch on should be part of the American Civil War and The Reconstruction era articles, not in an article about the revolutionary Founders who made possible the break from Great Britain and the founding of a Constitutional government. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Why do we have such a long article and pay so much attention to the mechanics? The answer according to David Sehat (The Jefferson Rule 2015, pp 1-2) goes like this: " Everyone cites the Founders. Constitutional originalists consult the Founders’ papers to decide original meaning. Proponents of a living and evolving Constitution turn to the Founders as the font of ideas that have grown over time. Conservatives view the Founders as architects of a free enterprise system that built American greatness [etc etc]....Across the political spectrum, Americans ground their views in a supposed set of ideas that emerged in the eighteenth century." ie the FF represent policies that people today want to get enacted. Sehat says in fact the FF did NOT agree on policy --they fought each other as much as Americans do in 2023. It's a fallacy to give them so muich attention. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

Of course !!  The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, along with the Bill of rights, were debated at length, as exemplified by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams.. But in the end, contrary to what Sehat claims, apparently, most of the Founders came together and signed. What you refer to as mechanics, forms the foundation of the government, on which the Bill of Rights and all other Amendments rest on. RJ, let's not slight the Founders, who, albeit, were not saints, but compared to the kings and dictators, and the African tribal chiefs who sold African prisoners of war, and other African victims, into slavery, all of whom throughout history exploited and utterly oppressed their own people, the Founders look like Boy Scouts. During the founding era, much of Europe was clamoring to come to America to escape religious and political persecution, before there was even a Bill of Rights, much less the other Amendments. When Liberia was established in west Africa as a haven for freed slaves, only a tiny fraction of Blacks left America and ventured there, even with their passage paid for. Looking at the big picture, civil rights short comings aside, they were wise to stay in America. Stepping down off my soap box, this article is about the revolutionary founders, and should not venture off into Civil War and civil rights topics any more than to mention these advents in brief context. Let's also briefly cover Banneker in the Patriots section and move on before we build an endless wall of text that will ward off most other editors . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Rjensen, when you speak of a second founding that has nothing to do with this page. The scope of this page is on the events in founding a government between 1774 and 1791, of which the Founding Fathers created a series of documents which allowed for citizens to bring about changes which would continue to create "a more perfect union". You bring up the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Sir, with all due respect, the person who strategized that movement from near start to finish, James Bevel, said the Nashville students studied the founding documents and taught the people active in each movement to have what he called "constitutional consciousness" - to base their end goals, and their deeds and actions, on the freedoms, thoughts, and framework given in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He and they studied and tested those documents and found that they provided everything needed to free a people from legalized segregation. Along with the Sermon on the Mount read as a scientific point-by-point description of nonviolence, and Gandhi's successful experiments and writings about his use of that science, the people who strategized and carried out the actions of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement relied on and carried in their hearts and thoughts the "constitutional consciousness" which then transformed much of society towards fulfilment of the "created equal" promise of the founders. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
the idea of a "second founding" is well established among the reliable published secondary sources (especially Foner and Fischer, plus numerous other professors of history or law in 21st century) so I recommend a single new section at the end to encompass it (and a separate article on African American founders). James Bevel was a minister active in the 1960s. He did not attend college and had no training in history or law but was influenced by reading Tolstoy & Mahatma Gandhi. He was expelled by the civil rights leadership in 1969 and became involved in various fringe groups (see James Bevel). By contrast Eric Foner and David Hackett Fischer are famous history professors who each won the Pulitzer Prize in history recently. Rjensen (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Rjensen, sounds good if it's a very short section near the end, and yes, a separate article would address the concerns you've mentioned and augment American history without drastically changing the criteria, basis, and concept of this present article. Bevel attended college, which is where he got involved in the Civil Rights Movement (see Nashville Student Movement). Before 1969 Bevel and King were the Civil Rights leadership, then when King died Bevel wanted to continue the movement and came up with and actually began to staff several suggestions - but the SCLC board was not ready to continue full movements after King's death and gave Bevel a "your services are no longer needed" letter while never explaining to him the circumstances of that removal. Much later he became involved in a couple of "fringe" groups simply because they asked him and he researched their philosophy, as no mainstream group was asking him to come on board and continue his work. He bounced around quite a bit after King was killed, but kept true to movement and analysis of the science of nonviolence which, according to him, positioned the Founding documents alongside the work and words of Gandhi, Tolstoy, and Jesus. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Rjensen, Gwillhickers, and Randy Kryn:, my impression is that the first encompassed early resistance, the Revolution, and Articles of Confederation, resulting in a loose Union centered on the sovereignty of states, while the second produced a strong central government founded on democratic principles, which made all the difference. Regarding the subject's relevance to the FF article, of the 157 founders listed, including additionals, 66 (42%) had an active role in the Second Founding, while all of the 1st ranked founders—the top 7 plus—were active throughout. Allreet (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Allreet, I don't know what you mean when referring to the Second Founding. Do you refer to the Constitution and the government it formed? That has to do with the Framers and is covered in this article, the founding of the United States, which essentially occurred between 1774 and 1791 with the Bill of Rights and then matured with Washington's presidency. I think Rjensen refers to the topic of the book The Second Founding, which describes a much longer time period including the civil war and its reconstruction aftermath, and his new article African American founding fathers of the United States, which are outside the scope of this page but can be added to a brief new proposed ending section. What is the "accepted" definition of a "Second Founding" that you are referring to, as I don't think you are describing it correctly. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
You are correct, Randy: I misunderstood the reference. I see now this relates to events beginning with Lincoln and the Civil War, what the U.S. Constitution Center calls the "new birth of freedom". Would a short section toward the end be justified in terms of the article's scope? One direct tie would be that it serves to critique what was left undone, without the usual Criticisms title. I'd also like to commend Rjensen for initiating the separate article on African-American founding fathers, especially since this is Black History Month...and given other current events as well. Allreet (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
OK I think we're agreed. 1) we add a short section to this article on "Second Founding" theory as proposed by Foner et al. I can get to it next week. 2) I have started African American founding fathers of the United States and will cover "Second Founding" theory at greater length. One key argument is that black activists were central: unlike most anti-slavery people the free blacks were deeply concerned about the status of ex-slaves (in terms of equal rights, economic opportunity, end of black codes and the vote). Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Article scope cont...

@Rjensen, Randy Kryn, and Allreet: — Re: "Foner argues, the 13-14-15 amendments changed the basic value system on which USA was based to include equal rights for all races"
These Amendments may have changed the value system, but to refer to them as the "second founding" is highly misleading highly overstated and suggests that the basic framework of government got an overhaul, in the same manner they went from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution -- two drastically different documents. That did not occurr. If we are going to employ highly opinionated and allegorical terms and ideas, even from scholars, we should quote them, and qualify it with, Foner claims this, etc, etc., or, Fischer maintains that, etc, etc., all in neutral terms, making it clear that these are subjective ideas and that the basic Constitutional framework is entirely the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

the idea that civil war & recon brought a radical change in US government is well established. C Vann Woodward said as soon as Union was committed to abolish slavery it also committed to racial equality. [Burden of Southern History (1960) p 74. Does any scholar disagree? James McPherson had a whole book on it in 1964 [The struggle for equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War and Reconstruction (Princeton University Press, 1964).] It's standard in textbooks--see the title of John Murrin, et al. Liberty, equality, power: A history of the American people, volume 1: To 1877 (Cengage Learning, 8th edition 2019) Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
It's understood that the Civil War brought on the Amendments that abolished slavery, but to say there was a "radical change" in the structure of government, a "second founding" even, is, imo, hyper-speak, and overlooks the big picture. We still have the Presidency, a Cabinet, three branches of government, a Senate and Congress and a Constitution whose Articles have remained the same since ratification. I'm not seeing any "radical change" or "second founding" in the government and the way its conducted. As said, we can state the opinions of various scholars, but when it comes to terms like "second founding" they belong in quotes and presented in objective and neutral terms. — e.g.With the passage of the 13th Amendment after the Civil War some scholars believe that a "second founding" occurred, however, the basic structure of government has remained the same since the original founding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
most reliable sources say the Civil-War/Reconstruction radically changed the values on which the nation is based. I argue it's the values not the mechanics that make the FF issue so important. Does America allow slavery? Will it give up 700,000 dead bodies to end slavery? Will it make the national govt much stonger than the state governments? Does America treat all races the same or (Senator Douglas and Chief Justice Taney) is it a government by and for white people only? Lincoln said "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. "unfinished"/"new birth" --sounds much like "second founding" I think. 03:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment, and I'm on that page too RJ, but there was no "second founding", i.e.a Rewriting of the Constitution at its core, or anywhere in that document. The Federal government was made much stronger when the Constitution was ratified.The Amendments in question just extended these ideals and precepts to include Blacks, after the Civil War. A landmark advent, indeed...but no "second founding". Again, if we are going to intimate this idea in the article, it should be done so objectively. I believe that would be fair for all concerned.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sub categories to the Founding category

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Rjensen: — As highly notable people like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson have their own category, e.g. [[Category:George Washington]] , we should still assign the Founding Fathers category to their biographies. There is no category on the Washington page that directly links to the Founders category, even though Washington is listed as a sub category there. As discussed before, we should employ the Founders category, regardless of any other categories that are assigned to these people. The Founders category has been assigned to the Washington category but not to Washington himself. As it is, there is no category on the Washington page that even suggests that Washington was a Founder. i.e. One has to go searching through sub categories to find this out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Rjensen: — Randy, if you've no strong objections, I'd like to re-assign the Founders category to Washington himself, along with Jefferson, Franklin and the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Gwillhickers. Of course, I won't revert. I think I know the guideline that the parent category, George Washington, would cover it, but am certainly not sure. There are ten-thousand-and-one rules, guidelines, and regs around here, so the non-WikiLawyer in me usually knows nothing for sure and double that for certain. But please leave the subcategories as well, as a link to the Washington category provides many pathways to his life and work. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Intelligent words of humility. Yes, who knows all the rules. not me! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, please go ahead and add all 12 of the founders also listed in the subcategories, I've researched a bit and have added an "all" template to the category (see the top of the category page). I'd go ahead and do so but you've advocated for this logical move so will watch from a distance (pixel length). Thanks for being determined to make these edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

New section

@Rjensen, Randy Kryn, and Allreet: — Rjensen, thanks for including the section and making it clear that a "second founding" is the opinion of various scholars. And thanks for entitling the section in context as Reconstruction as second founding, writing it in objective terms while not making it very long. Good work! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just as a curiosity, there are two U.S. stamps that feature Frederick Douglas, which can be viewed Here, and also in the Frederic Douglas article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The section reads well, nice work. But isn't it a bit high on the page? It should probably be moved to the end of the text, just above 'See also'. Several sections about the page-principal founding are now below the new section. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, the section seems okay where it's placed, above the Scholarly analysis section. It would seem a bit off if we had any section about the history that came 'after' the Scholarly analysis section. Speaking of analysis, we might want to mention in the Modern historians section how some historians have regarded the Amendments in question, much as I disagree with their terminology.
On a different note, my only reservation at this point is over why they didn't refer to the Reconstruction Amendments as the second union, rather than the second founding. The country 're-united' where the former Confederate states returned to the system of government that was in place since Washington's time. There was no actual "second founding", which again, more than suggests that a new system of government took the place of the Constitution, whose articles have remained unchanged since their ratification It's understood that additional Amendments were needed to put some Constitutional 'teeth' in matters, so as to get the re-union, and reconstruction, under way. In any case, we are only relating what some modern day scholars (150+ years later) are saying, and R.J. has effected this well, imo.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, the section itself consists of scholarly analysis of things which occurred many decades after the founding, and it seems that it should, at most, be placed at the end of the 'Scholarly analysis' section. Placed where it's at now gives an emphasis which seems out of place chronologically, as the actual founding is the subject of the present Scholarly analysis section. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, Rjensen, and Allreet: — Hmmm... Yes, on retrospect, the new section does overall lend it self to scholarly analysis. I think if we appeal to R.J. about the section's placement he might concede.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
well it's not really a scholarly debate since there is a consensus-- and so far I have not found any scholar who rejects the "second founding". Most sections of the entire article gives the analysis of scholars. One move that makes sense to me is in the chronological sections right after #8 Bill of Rights of 1790s Rjensen (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
How does Froner, among other proponents, reconcile the concept of a rebirth with the short lifespan of Reconstruction, its "brutal rollback" (a phrase from Henry Lewis Gates, Jr.'s recent NY Times editorial column on "America's Long Tradition of Rewriting Black History"), and then the scant progress we've seen relative to the century and a half that followed?
On an unrelated note, I'd like to move the Slavery section up to follow the History and Ascending to the Presidency sections on the belief that the subjects here are more notable than Demographics, Sports and Stamps and then more related to the previous narratives. But I'd like some feedback first. Allreet (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Allrest asks about the short life of Reconstruction; my thoughts = The opposition to Reconstruction won because it was a) ferocious; b) steady base in ex-Confed states; c) highly partisan (Democrats); d) linked to economy (recession of 1873 hurt GOP and Dems took Congress); e) in 1876 GOP made a trade: they got the White House and the Dems/whites regained full control in South; f) Supreme Court in a series of decisions watered down Recon laws (Slaughterhouse cases, Plessy, etc); g) in 1890 GOP made one last attempt and failed when silver Republicans in new western states were not supportive. In early 20c The blacks set up NAACP and spent a half century in lawsuits that turned the Supreme Court (Brown decision 1954), and then M L King launched the civil rights movement that in a spectacular battle won in 1964 (Clay Riosen, The Bill of the Century) Rjensen (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about the 1876 trade. Will have to research the topics you've focused us on in order to get more of a mental map of what the historians of the "second founding" eras have in mind. Yes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act came about, in a large part, because of the extreme and televised Birmingham authority reaction to 50 young students at a time who set out from a church with the intention to take a walk over to Birmingham City Hall, there to either talk to the mayor about Birmingham's segregation policies or make an appointment to talk to the mayor. In retrospect they should have let the first couple hundred through to take that walk, but no, nothing doing. They arrested all of them, each one of the students who came out of that church, arrested for taking a walk. Dr. King actually had little to do with what came to be called the Birmingham Children's Crusade, that was all James Bevel's doing. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
by "1876 trade" i meant the Compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction. Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've known "of" it of course, but not enough to even be conversational about the topic. Will give it all a good look. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States/Archive_11&oldid=1174681324"