Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Time to bring back Category:Founding Fathers of the United States

After reading the comments at the deletion attempt of Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers it seems that some editors don't have any idea what a Founding Father is, and !voting from that perspective. They point to the 2007 category deletion of Category:Founding Fathers of the United States which had similar problems, editors not aware of the subject matter (although, interestingly, an earlier 2007 deletion attempt was closed as no consensus). Well, I submit it's well past time to bring it back and that the entrants would now be well-defined and well-sourced. The category would consist of the three extant signers categories plus 31 other individuals. Sixteen of the 31 were delegates to the Constitutional Convention who are easily cited as Founders and belong in the category. That leaves 15 who would be included from sources and citations. Almost all of those if not all of those are easily cited as Founders, and are included on this page. Unlike 2007, this would now be an easily defended and well-sourced category, with possibly a few entrants subject to debate. Are page editors and watchers okay with the idea, and does anyone know what the requirements are of bringing back a category deleted 16 years ago aside from notifying the editor who deleted the category, ProveIt? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, that this major category be restored. Consensus can change, esp when the reasoning is presented correctly, and attempts to obscure dealt with accordingly, with sound reasoning, based in historical fact, per sources – and there are many.
Apparently there is a 'school of thought' out there that has it in for the idea of Founding Father. There have been three attempts, two of which failed recently, to delete items, be they a category or an article, that feature the Founding Fathers. For reasons that are becoming sort of obvious, the term Father doesn't sit well with the gender denial crowd and others of similar thinking, caring not about the truth behind the history, that the Founders, those who participated in the actual formation, debating and signing of founding documents, and/or were primary leaders during the Revolution, were men, and who were roundly addressed as Fathers by both men and women alike for hundreds of years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how this works. The instructions are to contact the editor who deleted the category before starting a new one, so ProveIt can give us information on how to put a deleted page back. Your analysis of why the category makes sense now rings true. Reading the first 2007 no consensus discussion, and the successful 2007 deletion nomination, seems to show that a deletion nomination would not succeed this time around. Politics and wording aside, the Founding Fathers of the United States has sustained as a notable and reputable topic, as shown by the recent deletion attempt of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the renomination of anything doesn't require that the original nominator begin another nomination. In any event, consensus is of course important, but it should not be 'the' deciding factor. That the Founding Fathers forged a nation, and did so with the resistance of the most powerful nation at the time, i.e.Great Britain, was a monumental advent which changed the Western hemisphere, giving impetus and inspiration for the French and other revolutions shortly thereafter, and subsequently the founders involved, a distinct group of people, merit their own category. There is no other category that places all these individuals under one umbrella. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about the original nominator, who left Wikipedia in 2008, just that the instructions say to contact the admin who actually deleted the page after the two 2007 deletion nominations (the first closed as no consensus, the second passed). Just trying to dot the i's and not run afoul of rules and regs before the category is put back up. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

By all means, proceed correctly. From there, we'll look at the former arguments, such as they were, pony up, with the sources, and move forward. It's sort of amazing, and disappointing, that anyone would have this category deleted.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gwillhickers, thanks for keeping track of this. Just trying to find out the correct way. Since the editor who deleted the 2007 page seems to only edit Wikipedia every couple of months I've also asked at WikiProject:Categories for direction on how to return a deleted category page. If I get permission or guidance on how to add it back should I just go ahead and do so or wait until more sources are added (Allreet is adding many cites)? The main 2007 objection seems to be that the term 'United States Founding Fathers' wasn't specific enough to define the criteria. The signers of the three documents are easily added, as are the 16 individuals who attended the Philadelphia Convention but didn't sign the Constitution who are recognized as Founders. The 14 others seem to just need enough cites to qualify. Do the two women qualify, as Abigail Adams was an advisor (do advisors to founders qualify?) and Otis seems to have been an important writer during the period. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say just go ahead and re-create the category (assuming you can) and put the clear criteria on it, which makes it a different beast from what was deleted before. If someone objects, then we'll discuss in whatever forum makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Dicklyon. Yes, it is easily creatable and would be stocked with more links than in 2007. You are probably correct but I don't want to get ahead of what Allreet is doing (adding cites so criteria-being-met is clear to those who might object and re-nom it for deletion). I would say he should have the green light on this (if Ben Franklin had invented to stoplight would he have chosen green for go and red for stop? Where is Isaac Asimov when you need a good short story written). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Re:criteria.  We should assign the category only to the various founders who signed founding documents and those who played major roles in the war. There wouldn't be any debate there. If we go beyond that it'll open the door to anyone who lent advice or played minor roles on the side, as well as invite other never ending debates. But first things first. Let's get this important category back on track. There is no other category that includes all the founders. Categories for signers of the D.O.I. doesn't; Signers of the Constitution doesn't.  If I'm not mistaken, there is not even a category that has the term Founder included in its title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• As for the term Founding Father this has existed in one form or another. i.e.Fathers, Forefathers, Founding Fathers, etc.
  Our article reads:

In his second inaugural address in 1805, Thomas Jefferson referred to those who first came to the New World as "forefathers".[19] At his 1825 inauguration, John Quincy Adams called the U.S. Constitution "the work of our forefathers" and expressed his gratitude to "founders of the Union".[20] In July of the following year, Quincy Adams, in an executive order upon the deaths of his father John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, paid tribute to the two as both "Fathers" and "Founders of the Republic".[21] These terms were used in the U.S. throughout the 19th century, from the inaugurations of Martin Van Buren and James Polk in 1837 and 1845, to Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union speech in 1860 and his Gettysburg Address in 1863, and up to William McKinley's first inauguration in 1897.[22][23][24][25]

We also have a huge variety of sources that uses the term Founding Fathers. In our Bibliography there are some 33 sources that has the term Founding Fathers in the title, not to mention all those that use the term in the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Good analysis Gwillhickers, although I'd expand the known and provable founders to those who attended but didn't sign the Constitution (all are Framers according to the National Archives) and many of the other Founders including Robert Livingston, Patrick Henry, Peyton Randolph, Charles Thomson and others. Best to have the discussion here about those "extras", and include most of them with an eye on anticipated discussions on the others (does Paul Revere rise to the status? etc.). Allreet has recently been adding sources to articles, and probably has good thoughts on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Paul Revere...? Hmmm.. :An iconic patriot, but I dunno. He was also a silversmith and so forth, but not exactly a Founder in terms of drafting and debating the founding documents. And he wasn't exactly a military leader of the same measure that Washington, Gates, Lafayette, etc were. This is the sort of thing that we should just step aside from for now it seems.. Let's just include the founders, who were so without a doubt, and thereafter, we can discuss people like Revere. e.g. William Goddard worked hand in hand with Ben Franklin to establish the colonial/US postal system -- but he wasn't an actual a founder, as much as I'm inclined to include him as such. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, Revere is already listed on this page as a Founder although I'd agree with you that he should be moved to Patriots (and maybe Goddard added as a Patriot if not already on the list). Gates, Greene, and Lafayette aren't on the Founders list, although I've also said they should be, but on our Patriots list. We should be sure of our "extra" Founders (i.e. the two women were already moved to after the Founders) but list them in the category. The Framers for sure (including non-signers) and the people like Livingston and Peyton Randolph I mentioned above. Again, Allreet would have a good feeling about which would pass the muster of a formal Wikipedia discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's another thing. We have to have the Founders article consistent with the criteria for the category. Recommend moving Revere to Patriots. . If there is more than one source referring to Revere, Gates, et al, as Founders, then that's what we should say and dub with the category. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: I agree on moving Revere to Other Patriots. He played a significant role at one point, his ride, but too brief to qualify. IMO, the criteria should be "multiple sources" of an "authoritative" nature, for example, 2-3 books or journal articles written by recognized historians. Websites run by prominent institutions such as the National Archives or Harvard would also qualify as reliable sources since they have historians to vet such things. There are other possibilities, but I suggest setting the bar relatively high. Allreet (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please consider me notified. I deleted the category as a janitorial action after the community had voted for its deletion, and have no objection to its reinstatement. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Okay, I suggested two sources for military leaders, but Revere wasn't exactly a leader, even though he briefly played a vital role. Perhaps you're right. We should use at least three, and highly reputable sources, new and old, and ones where most editors can agree on if it becomes an issue. I just checked the cites for Paul Revere in the Additional Founding Fathers section. One cite is Berstein, 2009, p. 180, but there is no mention of Revere on that page -- or anywhere in the text(!). The other cite is History.com, under Additional Founders. Not sure if that's reliable enough for our purposes. Meanwhile I'm going to strike the Berstein cite for Revere. Since the main argument opposing the term Founding Father is that it's "too vague", our criteria for the article, and the category, should be clear, and consistent with each other i.e. Signers of founding documents, or at least a prominent member of the Continental Congress, and primary military leaders, like Horatio Gates and Henry Knox. Everyone else can be listed under patriots. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You're correct...I believe I applied Bernstein's p. 180 as a cite, a case of mistaken memory and poor follow-up. I did check Bernstein's Appendix before responding to you and thus I ruled against Paul (I don't consider the History website authoritative enough on an issue like this). Vague is a poor characterization. If reliable sources are explicit, what's fuzzy or unclear? I'm beginning to lean against many, but by no means all non-signers. Better might be to re-write the Other Patriots lede to indicate these patriots all made significant contributions to the founding but leave the fathers issue up in the air. Allreet (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The Framers who didn't sign are listed by the National Archives, which should be enough. That George Mason is included among others who did not sign because they wanted a Bill of Rights is an important Founder attribute. Peyton Randolph should be kept, unless you'd like to finally add the First Contiential Congress. Robert Livingston was on the Committee of Five, a Founder if anybody is. Charles Thomson is surely a Founding Father, I'd argue this one in an RfC if the category is nommed (called the "Samuel Adams of Philadelphia" he was there, in Congress, for everything except the Constitution). Most of the others are equally important as Founders. Paul Revere seems to have been patriotized (George Clinton, enough sources?). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — Yes, signing a founding document is not the only consideration. The Founders category should only include signers, and/or those who participated in the debates and drafting, in the Continental Congress, as well as prominent military leaders. This would, unfortunately, exclude Paul Revere and John Marshall, who should be listed under Patriots. As mentioned, since the term has been, and is likely to be, challenged, we should have multiple sources that say, in definitive terms, not just an empty claim, that any individual in question was indeed a Founder, regardless if they are loosely referred to as such by one or two sources. If this category is going to fly we should adhere to strict criteria. i.e.Signers, debators/drafters and major military leaders. This way there won't be any solid basis for the "vague" argument. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Background

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — Re: the nomination for the deleted Category. The nomination was closed in 2007 by Vegaswikian, who hasn't made any edits since 2015. The nominator was Dr. Submillimeter who hasn't made any edits since 2008. Given these circumstances, renomination would be acceptable, esp since much time has passed since the closing in 2007.

The only arguments for deletion was that the Category in question was "too vague", or "broad", or "Subjective", and that sub cats can suffice, which are debatable at best. Esp since there is no category that holds all the Founders as one distinct group. If we adhere to strict criteria this assumed problem can be easily avoided. i.e.Founders who signed founding documents, and notable leaders of the war, with at least two reliable sources referring to any military leader as a Founder. If challenged, justification for this category would be easy to establish, as outlined here and above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe I said as much above. Allreet (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The main unanswered question would be if the category includes the signers categories as sub-categories Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence etc., which would duplicate many names, or list each Founder in a separate listing? I'm leaning towards the sub-categories unless by doing so it harms the category chain of important documents. It should probably also include Category:Monuments and memorials to United States Founding Fathers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, signers of the D.O.I. and other such categories involving the Founders, should be sub categories to the Founding Fathers of the United States category, an all inclusive category pertaining to all the Founders, under one roof. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, regarding your last edit and the opening statement in the Other patriots section.
  The following men and women are also recognized for the significant contributions they made to the nation's founding:
  We might want to change that to ... contributions they made to the nation during the founding era.. As it is, the statement now implies that they had a hand in the actual founding, per founding documents, or primary leadership roles, esp with the adjective of "significant" in there. Also, in the Other patriots section there are members of the Continental Congress and prominent military leaders listed who would be better placed in the Additional Founding Fathers section. i.e.Horatio Gates, of Saratoga, the turning point in the war, was a major military leader, second only to Washington.  Lafayette should also be moved there. John Rogers, who voted for the Declaration of Independence but fell ill before he could sign it would be better placed there, as well as Arthur St. Clair, major general and president of the Continental Congress, along with Thomas Willing and Henry Wisner, both delegates to the Continental Congress – all better off in the Additional Founding Fathers section.  This will bring more consistency to the article and further abate any "vague" contentions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers, on a second reading of the patriots list your language seems to fit better. Each patriot listed should have had a role in the founding of the nation during its creation, but I understand that you consider "Founding" to be the government, war, and documents. I'd agree with all of your Founder additions, a good summary list. But are there adequate sources? John Paul Jones probably also qualifies in principal and per military achievement during the war. But again, sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: I'm reflecting John Ferling's comment from the Journal of the American Revolution article "How Do You Define 'Founding Fathers": I have a broad and generous definition of the Founding Fathers. Together with the usual suspects, I lump in anyone who helped bring on the American Revolution, win the war that secured independence, and helped establish the American Republic. Most definitely this is true of many of the patriots listed, and if does not apply to someone in particular, then they don't belong here, given the subject of the article. IOW, if their contributions to the nation don't relate to the founding, why should we care? Allreet (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just checking in before I kick back and retire for the evening. I'm sure there are adequate sources that place the names highlighted above in the arena of the founding process. Not sure if they'll say, in every case, Founding Father, per se, but enough so to fit the criteria put forth here in Talk. i.e.Signers, debators/drafters, per the Continental Congress, and prominent military leaders. Let's hope this is the case all the way around the block. We have to get our act together here before recreating the Founding Fathers category. This way we can stand up to any challenges the nay-sayers may put forth. My time stamp says differently, but it's still the 13th out here in California. Loggin' out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Help needed: I put up the navbox category Category:Founding Fathers of the United States navigational boxes with 18 entries, but there are over 100 other entries floating in there that don't belong and I can't figure out where they are coming from. If anyone knows, please edit those, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Randy Kryn: — I count 23 entries., added when the category was created. No other edits yet. Where are you getting, "over 100 other entries"?  In any case, will you be creating the Category:Founding Fathers of the United States category soon?
• @Allreet: — Regarding Ferling's statement (in bold) and your comment:

I lump in anyone who helped bring on the American Revolution, win the war that secured independence, and helped establish the American Republic - Ferling — Most definitely this is true of many of the patriots listed, and if does not apply to someone in particular, then they don't belong here, given the subject of the article. IOW, if their contributions to the nation don't relate to the founding, why should we care?"

I can appreciate Ferling's statement, but I'm sure you know we can't just include any such individual. If we assign the Founding Fathers of the United States category to anyone whose contributions "related" to the founding it will give the "vague" or "too broad" arguments a leg to stand on. Perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong. In any case, many individuals "contributed" during the Founding era, but we should assign the Founding Father title only to those directly and primarily responsible. Historian's opinions certainly vary, as is readily evident on the Journal of the American Revolution web page, but for purposes of a category, one which will be consistent with this article, we need to set practical limits. We have a Patriots section, and this is the ideal place to list notable people who weren't in the actual drafting, debating and signing, or were not primary and significant leaders in the war and its outcome. If we start assigning the category too broadly it will likely invite many reverts and ongoing debates. If we adhere to practical criteria we avoid that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The list is pretty much trimmed down, who else, besides John Marshall, are you thinking of removing? A good case can probably be made for each of them if contested. It's good this is coming up now, so the inclusions are worked out by the 250th anniversaries. Allreet, I had changed some of the coding at a template which seems to have cut the category down from almost 100 incorrect entries to now five incorrect extra entries. I'll fidget with it again to see if I can fix those five, but am not code savvy about some things. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: I agree our list of Patriots should be limited to those whose contributions were significant, meaning important. As for concerns about the Founding Fathers category, this list has no connection with it. These are people who are not recognized as Founding Fathers, and will not be included in the category. However, I also believe that "drafting, debating, signing...and fighting" are not the only criteria for founderhood, though that's for sources to say. So just to be clear, I only cited Ferling in regards to my wording of the lead-in to this section. If he can be that "generous" about founders, our criteria for patriots does not have to be any stricter. Allreet (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Randy Kryn: I'd double check sources on Marshall before moving him. His contributions to the founding were not as great as those of James Wilson, who also served on the first Supreme Court, but it strikes me as odd that Marshall got the top post yet doesn't qualify as a founder. As for the Patriot's list, I believe it's far too long, and despite what I said a few minutes ago, we should vet the sources here to make sure we're not being too "generous". Allreet (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As you both probably know, I moved several names from the Patriots section to the Additional Founding Founders section, as outlined above. As for the others, trimming might be in order, as the Patriots section is a bit lengthy for individuals who were not actual Founders. There are a number of iconic figures to the Revolution listed, like Paul Revere, John Paul Jones and Nathan Hale, but figures like Albert Gallatin and William Maclay, whose notability was established after the Revolution, might be well to have removed. Names of secondary military leaders during the Revolution, like George Rogers Clark and Tadeusz Kościuszko should remain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Think before clicking send. I got my Chief Justices mixed and forgot John Jay won the nod for first chief justice. Marshall, who was fourth, stands out not only as the longest serving supreme supreme, but remains one of the court's most influential. Whether his shaping of the court or prior contributions qualify him as a founder is only for sources to say. Allreet (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Marshall's significant contributions were after the actual founding. Anyways, I moved George Rogers Clark to the Additional Founding Fathers section. He was the highest-ranking Patriot military officer in the northwestern frontier, a large chunk of the eastern continent, during the Revolutionary War, and as such, he was among the military leaders that cleared the way for the founding. Without these individuals, there would only be founding documents blowing in the wind, with King George III laughing all the way to the bank(s) that financed his charters in the colonies. Don't suspect there will be any sources out there that refer to Clark as a Founding Founder, so this, as you must realize, can get involved. This might call for a rewriting of the opening passage in the Additional founding Fathers section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers:

• Regarding Marshall, what years apply to "the actual founding"? I don't have a definite opinion, so out of curiosity I checked the American Revolution article, which cites 1765-1791. A source I tripped across the other day indicates it may have started earlier, with the Writs of Assistance and Paxton Case in 1760. As for an end date, I don't have a clue as to what sources say.
• Regarding Clark, the source here, Dictionary of American Biography, does not use the title in reference to anyone, and I believe we can't bestow it ourselves using criteria that seems right to us. Everyone in the Additional Founders list either does or should have explicit sources, as indicated by the section's lede. If we stick by this as a standard, we'll have a far better chance at establishing the category. – Allreet (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, 1765, the year of the notorious Stamp Act, marks the beginning of the Founding era, per the Stamp Act Congress, and other events and resolves that soon followed. If there are no sources that pegs Clark as a founder, even through he was a major military leader during the Revolution then, regrettably, I suppose we should return his name to the Patriots section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I checked the two sources for Marshall and both are explicit. Bernstein's reference is direct, while the the Library of Congress's description of Marshall's letters on Founders Online requires a more careful reading. Meanwhile, I've found a third citation for Marshall, so it's likely there's more. As for his contributions before 1791, according to his WP article, Marshall joined the Continental Army, serving in numerous battles. During the later stages of the war, he was admitted to the state bar and won election to the Virginia House of Delegates. Marshall favored the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and he played a major role in Virginia's ratification of that document. Allreet (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Marshall, may have fought in Revolutionary War battles, and endured Valley Forge with Washington, but he wasn't a primary military leader. In any case, if there are multiple reliable sources that refer to him as a Founder then we must also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Marshall's main founding activities seem to be the Virginia ratification, is this enough to list as a Founder? Checking over the Patriots list, it's pretty tight and getting in good shape. Agreed to the items moved to Founders, hard to imagine that those two who didn't sign the Declaration but who voted for it and then left aren't well-sourced as Founders. Given them and the delegates to the First Continental Congress some professional historian (looking at you Rjensen) is going to have a field day in being the first major historian to add some obvious Founding Fathers to the literature (remember that amateur Richard Werther and the unsung intern at the National Archives seem to be the first to have named the delegates to the First CCongress as Founders). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, am going to question Elias Boudinot as being listed as an additional Founder. Certainly a Patriot, and was President of Congress (but not all the presidents are listed as either Founders or Patriots, although probably should be?), yet where is the elevation to Founder in the good faith addition? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

in my opinion historians these days take an expansive view of "founders" and it includes both Marshall and Boudinot. Rjensen (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The term depends solely on sources, which means we don't get to assess someone's qualifications for inclusion. And neither is anyone else likely to, given the availability of sources. Allreet (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Background cont...

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and Rjensen: — Regarding the argument that opposes the term Founding Father as a category because it is too(?) broad, this is hard to deny, but it is by no means "vague" if we only list, or assign the Founding Fathers category, to those individuals who are indeed referred to as Founding Fathers, or Forefathers, by at least two or three reliable sources -- scholars with names, ideally. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC).

I'm in accord, on 2-3 reliable sources as well as for them to be explicit, meaning the term Founder or Founding Father is required. Forefather? Lincoln, of course, used it, and so too did Jefferson, though he was referring back to around the time of the Mayflower. My point is only that I doubt we're going to see many sources use this as an alternative, and I can't think of any other synonyms that would qualify. Allreet (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if the term forefather is used in the context of the Founding/Revolutionary era then I'd allow it, but it would seem this term doesn't occur much anyways. Was just saying, if it does occur in reference to one the people in question here we should allow it, if of course, it's used by a scholar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Boudinot is considered a FF in THE FAITHS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS By David L. Holmes. (Oxford University Pres 2006) --it's a major scholarly book with very good reviews. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Would that include all of the presidents of the Continental Congressses? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

a VERY GOOD source is Encyclopedia Britannica, Founding fathers : the essential guide to the men who made America (2007) Joseph Ellis in introduction page 1 states: " the following 10, presented alphabetically, represent the “gallery of greats” that has stood the test of time: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamil- ton, 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." --The book has short bios of 46 "founding Fathers" (and mothers). see online complete text (2) Harlow Giles Unger John Marshall : the chief justice who saved the nation (DA Capo Press 2014) (p 4 states: "Marshall’s pronouncements would ensure the integrity and eminence of the Constitution and the federal government and catapult him into the pantheon of American Founding Fathers" Unger has a dozen or so scholarly biographies of the Founding Fathers (3) Bruce Ackerman--The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy (2005) argues the "Founding era" ended in 1812 (p. 242) and depicts Marshall in 1800-1801 as a major player. Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And...that's why Wikipedia needs you coming by here once in a while. You've saved Marshall's place on w. as a Founder. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Dr. Jensen, and Allreet for his latest edits for Marshall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• @Rjensen, Allreet, and Randy Kryn: — Rjensen, we have been discussing the prospect of recreating the Category: Founding Fathers of the United States. It was deleted back in '07 with the claim that the term was too vague. We feel that it's needed, regardless of all the sub-cats for the Founders, as there is no other category that places all the Founders under one roof. Assigning this category to any person would be done in accord with scholarly sources. Appreciate your thoughts on that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree--"yes" to recreate the category "FF of the US" Rjensen (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, please do. Having too much time on my hands, I looked into the category's history, based on George Washington's page. The category Founding Fathers was assigned to George in October 2004, was changed to U.S. Founding Fathers in December 2004, and became Founding Fathers of the United States in January 2005. It disappears in March 2007. The Founding Fathers page at the time was a mere shadow of its current self, so I can understand how others may not have taken the subject too seriously. Allreet (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Rjensen: — As Randy brought this issue back to the table I'll let him do the kick off. Recommend starting off with the major Founders and then assigning the category to the other Founders as we go along.  Reminder, that our strongest position is based on reliable sources, that no individual is assigned the category unless there are two or three scholarly sources that refer to a given individual as a Founder -- in definitive terms. We should stay away from sources that simply refer to someone as a founder in passing, typically while covering an other topic. Another strong point, once again, is that there is no single category that lends itself to all the founders. If it's argued that there are sub cats for the various founders, we remind them that many subjects have multiple categories assigned to them, that the inclusion of one does not mean others must be excluded, or are not needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

By all means. So by "major" I presume you're referring to Signers/Framers. If so, that'll give us time to verify the individuals (Additional Founders). And thanks to everyone for their interest and efforts. Allreet (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, will start it a bit later, and I'll include the unsigning Framers as the National Archives alone seems to be enough for them. Some of the others we have listed as well, and these lists should all align at some point soon. Will alert here when it's up. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, you're right, I'll just add the Framers and not begin to add the additional Founders until the list gains full sourcing and the page can sort it out, especially with the potential addition of quite a few new names below. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done, at Category:Founding Fathers of the United States. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, job well done. If I might suggest: The Signers of the U.S. Constitution subcategory should probably be titled Framers of the U.S. Constitution, a group that also includes non-signers. Sources recognize all delegates and don't make the distinction about non-signing, except for an asterisk. An alternative title would be Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, but the first is simpler. Allreet (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just assigned the category to Washington, Franklin, both Adams, Jefferson, Henry and Marshall. Get ready for the coming storm of debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Allreet, Dimadick, I've removed five of those who are already listed in the parent categories as signers of the documents to bring up the question: should all the Founders be listed individually and not just in the signers categories? Maybe, it could be a nice list. This will keep happening, and if individuals are listed then instead of adding 'George Washington' etc. it should also be the parent category Category:George Washington etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I favor duplicate listings and believe the parent list is also important since this captures everyone. So Sherman, who signed three documents, would be listed in three document sub-categories, plus the parent category. Whereas Gen. Knox, a non-signer/non-framer, would only be included in the parent category. As long as this adheres to standards, which I'll leave to your judgement to determine. Allreet (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — I just caught this. I favor duplicate listings also, in this case especially. See Parent category section below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Slavery section: inaccurate, one-sided account of Founders' relationship to slavery

I've applied a multi-issue template to the Slavery section, which is an inaccurate account of the founders' relationship to slavery. A typical example of how the founders are portrayed, the second sentence:

Many of them were opposed to it and repeatedly attempted to end slavery in many of the colonies, but predicted that the issue would threaten to tear the country apart and had limited power to deal with it.

Many founders were opposed to slavery, but many were not, and only some made attempts to end it. So to say many made attempts repeatedly is not accurate. The threat to the Union was a legitimate concern, but did not render the founders powerless. The section comes off, then, as an attempt to excuse the founders. Another example a few sentences later:

many other of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners, but some were also conflicted by the institution, seeing it as immoral and politically divisive

If they truly saw slavery as immoral, why did they keep their slaves and do nothing to stop the practice? What's "conflicted" is that they knew it was wrong but did it anyway. There are also inaccuracies and omissions. For example, we're told Washington freed his slaves in his will. He did not. He bequeathed his slaves to Martha and they would only be freed upon her death. We also get a very long monologue by Benjamin Rush on how he he did not consider blacks to be inferior, but we're not told that Jefferson held the opposite view.

These kinds of things happen throughout the section which is a hodgepodge with little cohesion and no particular theme other than to try to put the founders in a favorable light. My recommendation, then, is to overhaul the section by researching the issue and writing a new account. Allreet (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet: — Re some of your statements:

• Many founders were opposed to slavery, but many were not, and only some made attempts to end it. So to say many made attempts repeatedly is not accurate.

It would seem that the idea of "Many founders were opposed to slavery" is not inappropriate, esp when you consider slavery was outlawed in the Northern states. That was an effort that indeed involved many. Also, the statement doesn't say "most" or the "majority" were opposed. Do we have a source that says very few were opposed?

• If they truly saw slavery as immoral, why did they keep their slaves and do nothing to stop the practice?

Nothing?  Not exactly a fair assessment. Also, we have to remember, that setting a slave free was no simple prospect, as almost all slaves had no other means of support, let alone able to go out into the world and build their own homes, establish gainful employment, etc, and were overall unable to read or write. Simply setting a slave free in the 18th or 19th century could very well be a virtual death sentence in many instances. Slavery was often justified by the idea that they were provided for in terms of food, clothing and shelter, and that most slave owners didn't work them any more than an average farmer had to work. Of course, this would be unheard of by modern standards, but that was the situation back then.
Trying to force the idea of abolition on all the states during the founding and early post founding eras, when the priority was national survival and national stability, is largely why abolitionism was not pursued in a measure that everyone was comfortable with. The Constitution would never have been ratified by all the states. Since you have tagged the section can we assume you have found material in the sources that would support your contentions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

My "nothing" was rash: some did something, but most did little to nothing, which is a "fair assessment". But I must say your thoughts come dangerously close to the propaganda that emanated from the South post-Reconstruction, and in particular, the work of Mildred Lewis Rutherford, who wrote that the enslaved were "well fed, well clothed, and well housed."

I've accumulated reams of notes on the subject and have a few ideas in mind. I just did something along these lines for the lede of the Constitution of the United States article. Appallingly, slavery, the number one issue in 1787. wasn't mentioned until half way through the article. Meanwhile, here are some thoughts to help guide our ethics, from Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn:

• It doesn't seem good enough to say that the people who wrote the Constitution were more concerned about creating and sustaining the fragile Union than of running the risk of destroying it over the issue of slavery; to suggest they knew what they were talking about is, somehow, to exonerate the evil of slavery.
• One could, for example, spend quite some time explaining the very sensible—logical—reasons why Jefferson did not free his slaves and why the Constitution did not eliminate slavery. But it seems to be moral obtuseness to say that Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution had their reasons for this.
• In a deep contextualism (giving too much consideration to their times), you run into a moral problem, because you are not merely explaining; you are...excusing what people did...

I'm not saying we should condemn the Founders, but at no point and in no way should we excuse their complicity. Allreet (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, I haven't read your additions either here or at the Constitution page, but I hope you mentioned that the Founders left tools within the constitution to solve these errors in the American nation. Hopefully you also mentioned women's suffrage as well as slavery, both major errors which were eventually corrected using the governmental and constitutional system purposely set up by the Founders. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't address the founders' "errors". I simply synopsized what can be found later in the History section, with one colossal exception: Slavery is not currently mentioned here! It's also not mentioned in the Articles section. Nothing on the three-fifths provision, protection of the slave trade, or the fugitive clause! I'm sure the errors of the founders' ways were "corrected", so to speak, by subsequent amendments, but my first priority is to address our errors, or rather, our omissions. Allreet (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"well fed, well clothed, and well housed." was their reasoning, esp in the South, that's all. Setting them free, esp woman and children, with just a pat on the back and best wishes, would have been more cruel than servitude. It's not an excuse, it's a perspective you can't ignore if you're going to study the history, for better and worse. Nothing "dangerous" about that. If we're going to discuss history objectively, we have to put the modern day notions, the judgements, (some of which you quoted in green), the distortions, the emotionalism, and the indignations, about the past, on the shelf.

It's safe to say that many of the founders opposed slavery and enacted measures, e.g.Jefferson's banning the trans-Atlantic slave trade, etc. That most of the Northern states outlawed slavery tells us there were many behind the push for Abolition, including Alexander Hamilton, Lafayette and many others. We should also ask ourselves, if slavery was so "evil" why did most blacks not run away, or opt to return to Africa, e.g. to Liberia, or to Haiti, both set up as refuge countries for free or escaped slaves. Why did not Sally Hemings remain in France when Jefferson was Minister and finally returned to the states? National stability was the main reason abolition was not pursued during the founding and post founding era. I don't excuse the institution of slavery, but I can understand how it came about and why it persisted, starting with the African tribal chiefs who sold black prisoners of tribal war (there were many) into slavery. Tens of thousands. First to the Dutch, then to the British and French.

Back to article improvement. What sources can you present that show the section to be not accurate or in error? You gave us a sampling of the moralistic rhetoric and conjecture from some modern day scholars, but nothing that pegs the section as wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling what I just said "moralistic rhetoric" is to miss the point entirely. As for other obtuseness: the justification for not "setting them free", as you put it, has been widely circulated in an attempt to exonerate Washington, among others. I'm sure the 317 human beings held in captivity on Washington's plantation were grateful for his concern about their welfare. On the same subject, MountVernon.org has this to say: "On numerous occasions, people enslaved by the Washington household ran away in an attempt to regain their freedom." That's closer to "objective history", not tripe such as "why did most blacks not run away?" Short answer to your question: their hides, their lives, their families. Longer answer: the Constitution's fugitive slave clause, which was enacted because escapes were commonplace.

As for "well fed, dressed, housed", the quote was crafted a half century or so later by Mildred Lewis Rutherford whom I wikilinked before but without taking a look at her bio. Turns out, Wikipedia's "objective history" about Rutherford was skillfully sanitized. So at the outset, you'll learn she was a white supremacist, but you'll find only one paragraph near the end that addresses this. The full story: She was an early 20th century revisionist "historian" and lecturer whose propaganda proved highly effective in the campaign to erase Reconstruction. I provided a link above to a column by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. from this past Sunday's NY Times that features more on Rutherford: "America's Long Tradition of Rewriting Black History" (the revised title). The point here is that history is in the hands of the historian, so caveat emptor. Allreet (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: In response to your question about sources, I've posted bibliographies on Founders (general and individual), U.S. Constitution, and Slavery to a Secondary Sandbox. A work in progress, in perpetua. Feel free to avail yourself. Randy, you may do the same. Allreet (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — I didn't realize I was quoting anyone. Quote or not, that was the widely held perspective during that day. And while there were often runaways, usually young men and boys, the greater majority did not, and didn't live in some hell as many modern day individuals prefer to believe. Even John Brown couldn't get the following he though he surely had. I'm sure you realize that slavery is not a black and white issue (no pun intended), and that there were many variations as to how it was effected. You seem to think there was only one extreme negative side, which unfortunately is typical among many modern day historical speculators, 150+ years later, whose apparent indignation gets in their way of objectivity. e.g.Africans were often taken into the homes of Christian families in Philadelphia and Boston who sympathized with their situation where they served as servants This is how the term "house ni * * er, came about, from other blacks. Not a justification, just a reality.

We seem to be getting away from addressing the problem you claim exists, that many (not necessarily most) founders opposed slavery and made efforts to curb or abolish it, and that the northern states outlawed slavery more than supports that idea. I ask again, what sources are you using to challenge the existing account/source, one of which is Gordon-Reed. I will give you this --The Gordon–Reed account is mostly about the alleged Jefferson–Hemings relationship, and says nothing about the idea that many founders opposed slavery, so if you want to put a citation-needed tag on the opening paragraph, that would be appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: Your round-up of statements on slavery reminds me of the discussion in Slavery as a positive good in the United States. In any case, I have no intention of reducing this to an inline citation-needed template. The section seems to have been done without any particular editorial direction in mind. It's a grab bag of examples—a random list tossed together—that as a whole exaggerates what the founders did when the greater truth is they didn't do much. In fact, the Constitution served to perpetuate the institution for at least another 70 years, and if the South hadn't gotten in such a tizzy after Lincoln's election, the practice may have lasted out the century. What I have in mind, to let you know, is a thoughtful, balanced discussion of the various aspects of the issue based on what sources say, the good-bad-and-ugly though nothing too earth shaking. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently my comments remind you of a lot things, esp how the Constitution "perpetuated slavery", where in reality it laid the ground work for its eventual abolition, all the while you seem to be ignoring that the northern states abolished slavery early on, an advent which involved many, while you also seem to be discounting the idea that abolition wasn't pursued during the founding era because it would have divided the Union, resulting in no Constitution, and no end to slavery. Yet above you claim we should not condemn the founders, which is exactly what you're doing with you comment about the Constitution, your comment about a "thoughtful balanced discussion" aside. Such opinions are rather narrow and simply ignore too much for any balanced discussion to occur. If you think the section needs a tag, then please fix or rewrite it, with a good selection of sources, not just a couple of typical ones on one side of the fence. While you're at it you might want to make efforts to see which editor(s) wrote it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Bunk. The Constitution did nothing to abolish slavery, not until the 13th Amendment kicked in. The closest it came was to end the slave trade, 20 years into the future. Now for the real news: contrary to popular belief, slavery was not abolished early on in the North or at least not as early as most people think.

• New Jersey never abolished slavery, not on its own. A gradual emancipation law was passed in 1804 that turned the enslaved into "apprentices for life". So it wasn't until the state reluctantly ratified the 13th in 1866 that slavery ended.
• Pennsylvania passed abolition in 1780, but slavery persisted until 1847.
• Rhode Island banned slavery in 1843, yet it continued until ratification of the 13th in 1865.
• New Hampshire officially outlawed slavery in 1857, a decade or so after the death or manumission of its last slave.
• In Delaware, slaves remained in bondage until December 1865, when the 13th was ratified.
• Connecticut passed a gradual abolition bill in 1784 that allowed children born into slavery to remain slaves until age 25. As result, slavery continued until 1848.
• New York was the first state to actually ban slavery. Under the law signed by Gov. John Jay in 1798, slavery became illegal in 1827.
• Massachusetts, however, was the one shining light. Its constitution, which went into effect in 1780, allowed slavery. After several court cases were filed, however, the commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court stepped to abolish slavery in 1783.

I'll let you source these statements. A quick way to confirm is to do what I did: ask Google when slavery was abolished in <your state here>, then just change the state name after you get your answer. Allreet (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

well not quite. Chattel slavery of the sort the South had was based on the right to buy/sell/inherit/import or export slaves, and their babies were slaves. That was no longer possible in the North. The Census of 1830 said five of the six New England states had non-chattel slaves -- including 2 in Maine, 3 in New Hampshire, 1 in Massachusetts, 17 in Rhode Island, 25 in Connecticut, and zero in Vermont. --compare to 453,698 in Virginia with chatell slavery. Century of Population Growth (1909) p 133.online. Rjensen (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I was addressing the widely-accepted assumption that slavery had been abolished in the North by some "early" date. "Not quite" is what 30 minutes of research uncovered. I'm more concerned, then, with the myth that slavery had been all but eradicated in the Northern states than I am with what's been well documented about the South. For example, all of the following statements in Wikipedia qualify for "not quite":

• Beginning during the Revolution and in the first two decades of the postwar era, every state in the North abolished slavery. — Slavery in the United States
• Pennsylvania: An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery passed, freeing future children of slaves, 1780. Connecticut and Rhode Island: Gradual abolition of slavery begins, 1784. New Jersey: Slavery abolished, 1804. — Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom
• By 1804, abolitionists succeeded in passing legislation that ended legal slavery in every northern state. — History of slavery
• Slavery was abolished in all states north of the Mason–Dixon line by 1804... — History of the United States
• Many Northern states had adopted legislation to end or significantly reduce slavery during and after the American Revolution. — Founding Fathers of the United States

This barely scratches the surface for what we haven't gotten quite right and needs to be corrected. As for what the Constitution accomplished, according to census figures, the number of slaves in the U.S. increased from under 700,000 in 1790 to nearly 4 million in 1860. Allreet (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Allreet, Randy Kryn, and Rjensen: -- " the Constitution accomplished"?? Reckless conjecture. The increase in slaves wasn't "accomplished" by the Constitution.The institution of slavery, i.e.via the plantations, were in great measure chartered by European interests, who received a great percentage of the cotton and other spoils produced by slaves, right up to the Civil War, where the British, with their royal pinky in the air, condemning American slavery, where happy to support the Confederacy, trading numerous shipments of arms for cotton, to maintain their huge textile industry, which was wholly dependent on American cotton, produced by slaves. They were also waiting in the wings for the Confederacy to split the Union, i.e. divided and conquer. Why else would they have supported the Confederacy, who wanted to "perpetuate" slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Slavery cont...

@Allreet, Rjensen, and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, you claimed that "the Constitution served to perpetuate the institution for at least another 70 years", which is not at all the same as the founders, during the founding process, staying away from the issue for national stability and keeping the union intact. Though the northern states one at a time abolished slavery, the sentiment was there from the onset, starting with the Continental Association, and indeed many of the founders were opposed to it, which is what our article says and should continue to say. All these dates and such about when the various states abolished slavery isn't going to go into the article other then to perhaps mention that the northern states abolished slavery soon after the Constitution was ratified. Meanwhile, if you're going to fix "what needs to be corrected" you should outline any errors and present at least three sources that support any such correction, as this is obviously a controversial issue. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: While suggestions are always welcome, you have no right to dictate what I should do or how I should do it. Of course, you can always dispute anything anyone posts that you may disagree with. Otherwise, thank you for your comments. Allreet (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't dictating, only mentioning what I believe should be done, which would apply to anyone. The section maintains that many founders were opposed to slavery. Statements in the section that support this idea include:

• Jefferson, Washington and many other of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners, but some were also conflicted by the institution.
• Many Founders such as Samuel Adams and John Adams were against slavery their entire lives.
• The Continental Association contained a clause which banned any Patriot involvement in slave trading.
• Jay founded the New York Manumission Society in 1785, for which Hamilton became an officer.
• In 1782, Virginia passed a manumission law that allowed slave owners to free their slaves by will or deed
• Hamilton and other members of the Society founded the African Free School in New York City, to educate the children of free blacks and slaves.

Finding and sourcing other examples would only be a matter of routine. Of course many southern founders opposed abolition, and this idea could be expanded on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know why you all keep pinging me, you know how I feel about this. The founding documents gave the tools to do away with slavery in America, and they eventually did that. Slavery is one issue of many (and by 'error' I didn't mean to slight the topic, but it is one of many) which wasn't decided by the Founding Fathers. They punted, knowing that there was no way that their nation-forming documents would have been ratified if they tried to abandon slavery in the 1770s-1780s. Other unaddressed issues included women's suffrage, animal rights (who knows, in 50 or 5 years people may be tearing down statues of Jefferson and Dr. King because they were meat-eaters), homelessness, child labor, and hundreds of other topics left, at the time, to the states. When some founders owned slaves it was legal and aboveboard, none of them tried to hide their deeds regarding slavery. Many then tried to curtail its use or expansion (Jefferson outlawed the Atlantic slave trade during his presidency). This issue should not be given more than its share of attention on this page. People used the documents and a war to end slavery, and finally did so by adding amendments. That's how the game the Founders set up is played: a HowTo legal blueprint provided by the negotiations, meetings, and documents covered on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn: They "punted", kicked the can down the road, for good reason I'll grant. The question is what did they do after the 1787 Convention? Most .who had slaves kept them. Most who weren't slaveowners and opposed slavery joined abolition societies but not much more. Jefferson, who owned 600 slaves over the course of his life, wasn't directly responsible for outlawing the slave trade. That was made possible by the expiration of the Constitution's 20-year extension. Your arguments IMO are appalling, given your direct connection with the civil rights movement. How would James Bevel respond to what you just said?

  Gwillhickers, as for your arguments, they coincide with those of white supremacists . Imagine: slavery wasn't that bad, not much worse than farming, plus you didn't have to worry about food, clothing, or housing. And you're concerned about my objectivity? Allreet (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  James Bevel honored the Founders, their work, and their documents, and gave the Founders, Jesus, Leo Tolstoy, and Mohandas Gandhi credit for producing the routes used by the Nashville Student Movement and SCLC to nonviolently urge and then implement legal policies consistent with what he called "constitutional consciousness". The assertion that "All men are created equal" alone, drafted into requests and then laws which made that radical proclamation reality, allowed the Civil Rights Movement activists to nonviolently and truthfully claim equality and fairness within their elected government's decrees and legal systems. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Forcing abolition on the states by federal law wasn't pursued during the founding era and thereafter because it would have threatened the Union, as it eventually did anyways. Once again, setting a slave free wasn't something that was done without seriously compromising the welfare of a slave with no means of support. Once again I offered the food, clothing and shelter perspective only to point out that this was the rationale often embraced. I made it clear that I wasn't offering this as a justification, but only to point out the mindset very common in the 18th and 19th centuries, so kindly get off the my "arguments" are like those of "white supremicists" BS, as these things have been toughed on by many scholars. Even Annette Gordon-Reed acknowledged that Jefferson saw himself as a patriarch regarding slaves.
• Several points were listed above, found in the article, that reflect on the attitudes of some prominent Founding Fathers regarding slavery. You ignored them and instead are giving us your shallow invective. Yes, objectivity. If you can only look at these things as something white supremicists espoused then it's plain to see your objectivity has been seriously soiled and extends no further than your own speculations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Randy, you make some well thought out statements. Indeed, the Constitution laid the groundwork, based on human rights, and so forth, but even after the Constitution, whose ratification was made possible with the idea that the federal government heed states rights, which prompted the passage of the Bill of Rights, abolition occurred in gradual and slow steps on the state and local levels. If the Federal government, right after ratification, turned around and started initiating abolition legislation over the states, the stability of the Union would still have been threatened and there would have been a civil war long before 1860. Most of the Founders were not so naive that they couldn't see that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Part of the Multiple Issues template reads, "This section's factual accuracy is disputed.", yet thus far no such inaccuracy has been well defined, with sources to support it. All we've gotten are generic claims that the section is "biased, lacks cohesion, needs rewrite" and that most of the founders "did nothing", while there's been no acknowledgement that prevailing circumstances kept the federal government from advancing abolition legislation for all the states, as if there was no real and pressing reason for it. No actual proposals for the section have been introduced that would remedy this perceived lack of balance and correct any inaccuracy, nor have any sources been cited that would refute the existing statements in the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn:: I've made clear what the issues are, and there's no presentism involved in any of this. My only concern is that we're perpetuating myths and acting as apologists, when our role is to document events as completely and accurately as possible in accordance with our sources. While I intend to contribute to the section's improvement, I'm under no obligation to offer proposals or rectify what I pointed out in the template. Meanwhile, I don't understand why the two of you are acting as if I'm attacking motherhood - or more appropriately in this case, fatherhood. Allreet (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Allreet, in my case you may be seeing something which isn't there. I haven't even read the section yet. Was just pointing out that due weight and balance should be given by including the fact that the eventual end of slavery came about using the tools provided by the Founders in the Constitution. Plus include other major issues not immediately remedied in the document, such as women's suffrage, which also advanced by using those tools. That the Constitution was written as a self-correcting document seems a central point to be covered in the section, and maybe it already includes all of these points (I'll read it eventually). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't read the section? Well, then, no wonder I've misread your posts. In a nutshell, it's three long, somewhat disjointed paragraphs that together amount to an apologia of the founders' part in slavery. As such the section contains various inaccuracies and selective (cherry-picked) statements that seek to excuse their failings. Gwillhickers no doubt has read the section as well as my initial post, yet claims he sees "no such inaccuracy has been well defined" even though I began with a clear example, the section's second sentence:

  "Many of them were opposed to it and repeatedly attempted to end slavery..."

  Far more accurate would be to say "some were opposed to it" and "a few repeatedly attempted to end it". I also point out that the section includes a long account on Dr. Benjamin Rush's view that blacks were not inferior but nothing on Jefferson's more notable belief that they were.

  Another key point, which I mention in a separate post, is that the section amounts to a grab-bag of statements. It lacks cohesion, bouncing from one idea to the next. For example, immediately following the account on Rush is a sentence on the Continental Association's ban on the slave trade, which is highly notable but has no connection with what was just said. One major improvement, then, would be to re-write the section as a story taking readers from the beginning of slavery in the Americas and the fact that this was the world the founders were born into through the pragmatism involved in their adoption of a Constitution that legitimized slavery. While that covers a lot of land, I'm certain the account could be told in about the same number of words yet provide a better overview of what happened and why. Allreet (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

All you're doing is repeating the same empty claims, and now you're accusing us of "perpetuating myths" and calling us "apologists", which sounds like you're perpetuating your own myths. A "grab bag"? They "didn't do much"? What "myths" does the article perpetuate?.

• Franklin founded the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.
• Jay founded the New York Manumission Society.
• While serving in the Rhode Island Assembly, in 1769 Hopkins introduced one of the earliest anti-slavery laws in the colonies.
• The international slave trade was banned in all states except South Carolina by 1800.
• The Continental Association contained a clause which banned any Patriot involvement in slave trading.
• Jefferson ... began his career as a social reformer by an effort to secure legislation permitting the emancipation of slaves.
• Many ... attempted to end slavery in many of the colonies, but predicted that the issue would threaten to tear the country apart and had limited power to deal with it.

All "myths"? These are significant statements, and highlight many of the key founders. We don't "re-write the section as a story" we write it in encyclopedic style and mention important facts, and yes, starting at the beginning and working up to the ratification of the Constitution.
All statements are sourced and support the opening statement that many of the founders opposed slavery and took measures to alleviate the situation. Again, what sources can you present that would refute any one of the statements in the article? You haven't even added any citation needed or disputed tags itemizing what you believe to be in error or needing citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Myths

Gwillhickers, I never said "all" was myth. Just significant pieces, and then the overall impressions they create. Some glaring examples:

George Washington freed his slaves in his will

• George's slaves were freed by Martha in 1801, so that part is true. However, those acquired through the death of Martha's father, nearly 200 of the 317 total, stayed in her family. Mount Vernon (see #10)

Benjamin Franklin...originally owned slaves whom he later manumitted

• The myth, widely circulated, is that Franklin freed his few slaves during his lifetime. Yet it wasn't until his will that he set free the last two, a couple identified as "my Negro Man Peter, and his Wife Jemima". Founders Online
• Walter Isaacson in his biography confuses things by reporting that Franklin's son-in-law Richard Bache was to "set free (Franklin's) Negro man Bob", whoever that was. Benjamin Franklin: An American Life

Many Northern states had adopted legislation to end or significantly reduce slavery...

• Snopes would rate this a Mixture of True and False. Most if not all Northern states had adopted laws by 1804 aimed at ending slavery, but generally these were Gradual Abolition laws with loopholes that allowed the practice to continue into the 1840s and 1850s. New Jersey, in an underhanded example of this, simply reclassified slaves as indentures so it wasn't until 1865 and the 13th Amendment that slavery officially ended in the state. What was true, at least according to the U.S. Census, was that the number of reported slaves in the North became relatively negligible by the Civil War, but that was 70 years after the Constitution was adopted. In any case, the subject of slavery in the North needs to be researched and revamped to set the record straight.

President Jefferson called for and signed into law a federally enforced ban on the international slave trade...

• The myth here is the impression that the federal ban of 1808 slowed the spread of slavery. Not if you consider the explosive growth in states like Georgia: 1800, 59,699; 1810, 105,218; 1820, 149,656; 1840, 280,944; and 1860, 462,198 (44% of the state's population). It's misleading, then, to point to the ban as a sign the founders had done something significant to end slavery. Slavery in Antebellum Georgia

This is part of a larger concern I have: the inaccuracies woven throughout WP's articles that tend to downplay the extent of slavery in the U.S. To be clear, I'm not out to lambast our forefathers, but if we land anywhere it should be as close as possible to the discernible truth. Allreet (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Article presents no "myths"

• Re: Federal ban on slave trade. -- The myth here is the impression that the federal ban of 1808 slowed the spread of slavery. -- There article doesn't say this, and I don't know of any historian who would make that sort of stretch, so there's no myth.

I have no objection to adding points of clarity to some of the statements, but they do point to an overall desire to end slavery amongst many if not most of the founders. To say they did nothing, while this may pertain to advancing Federal legislation, for reasons said, would be a grave untruth, as they often acted on the state and local levels, instituting abolition societies, etc. The banning of the international slave trade, which, albeit, didn't end slavery, was a significant step in that direction, which reflects well on Jefferson, and other founders who by and large provided well for slaves and didn't overwork them. While Washington and Franklin didn't free their slaves until after their death, they did author a will to this effect -- while they were alive. Just don't want to see this sentiment get lost in the wash as if the issue didn't weigh heavy on the founders..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The "wash" as you put is the issue of slavery circa 1776-1865, a period that has been whitewashed to the point where we accept statements such as "most of the founders...", "many Northern states", and "Benjamin Franklin manumitted..." without question. As you begin to look closer, you'll find much of what we're offering readers is questionable. For example, we're led to believe Hamilton never owned slaves. The same is true of John Jay's record on slavery. So your "sentiment", to elevate the founders' efforts, is exactly why the section is a whitewash — a series of rationalizations and half truths aimed at obscuring the full picture. Allreet (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In re-reading what you wrote, I found even more damning evidence: founders who by and large provided well for slaves and didn't overwork them. I get it. Slavery wasn't so bad after all. Thanks for the enlightenment. Allreet (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No, slavery was unfortunate, but I take exception to those who try to equate slavery in America with the genocidal holocaust during WW II, not that you've gone quite there, for their own socio-political motivations, often advanced by what I refer to as the 'Friends of America crowd', esp in so called "modern day" academia The number one factor in anyone's life is survival, and ultimately, comfort, and by and large these things were more than provided for by most if not all founders who used slave labor, esp Jefferson, and Franklin, who apprenticed the couple of slaves he owned in his print shop.The growth rate of Africans in America paralleled that of the colonists/Americans, and this can only occur when life is relatively wholesome and unstressful. But today, when slavery is mentioned, the notion that the naive, superficially self righteous and ignorant automatically embrace is that slaves were kept in irons, whipped to do work, fed slop, wore rags and lived in shacks not much bigger that an outhouse. I've not seen any "damning" evidence to support that distorted notion, and please don't throw any exceptions into the fold, if you can find them, but try to appreciate the overall and extended picture. Many efforts were made by "powerful white men", as they've been referred to elsewhere, to remedy this picture. It took time, for reasons I'd like to assume you're capable of appreciating.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, slavery was unfortunate. For the millions of people who were separated from their parents, whose sisters and mothers were raped, who had their children taken from them, who suffered whippings and beatings, who picked cotton until their fingers bled, who never experienced the freedoms enjoyed by most human beings, and so forth. All of them were exceptions compared to you and me. Allreet (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The picture on the left is the more representative, as compared to that iconic picture that's habitually passed around as something representative of the average slave. What you've done is highlight the exceptions, the flat-earth perception of slavery, which conveniently overlooks the greater picture.. No one denies there was injustices, and no one is trying to justify slavery by not ignoring the whole truth about what really went on in those days. If what you're describing occurred on a greater level, there would have been (very) many uprisings, as compared to next to none in the colonies/states, or do you also assume Blacks would have all just rolled over like helpless idiots? They certainly had the numbers. e.g.In the years leading up to the Civil War nearly half the population of Virginia were slaves - approximately 425,000. John Brown believing he had the numbers on his side couldn't rally the support for an uprising he had hoped for. There is a huge grey area you are ignoring, and it's this sort of distorted huff that creates hatred and resentment today that only serves to widen the racial gap, which is exactly what various individuals waiting in the wings are hoping for. Racial division and unrest. None of this is going into the article, so I would recommend you make one last exclamation about your overall view of slavery, so we can get back to article improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Lotsa luck challenging assertions regarding slavery. Your POV is neanderthal. Allreet (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Cheap. Just mentioning all the facts. If that let's a lot of hot air out of someone's emotional balloon that's something they can only deal with.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not cheap. Costly. Slavery ensured an imperfect Union from the start, and 250 years later we're still paying for it. Even the founders, most of whom owned slaves, believed it to be cruel and immoral. Thus the adjective that describes the POV of those who believe otherwise: uncivilized, unintelligent, uncouth. For more information on the views you've expressed, see American Pro-Slavery Movement. Allreet (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Cheap" was in reference to your remark, and all I've done is not ignore all the facts, which many reliable sources have not done also, so your insipid suggestion that I go to a pro slavery movement article/section is sophomoric and another cheap attempt to cast aspersions in my direction. We should only be discussing what the Founders did and didn't do, and their views, as does the article, and the bias and inaccuracies you claim exist and any sources that would support that notion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Back to article improvement

• The article has been tagged for inaccuracies, and lack of balance, yet there has been nothing proposed, backed by reliable sources, that challenges anything, still. The section presents numerous facts, cited by a variety of reliable sources, including Annett Gordon-Reed. If nothing soon is added to the section to fix these so called inaccuracies and lack of balance, per reliable sources, the tag should be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• WP:Wrong tags "If the tag doesn't say exactly what you want it to say, then don't use it! "
  The tags do not specify what exactly is the problem, but only makes sweeping and generic claims about inaccuracies and neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have outlined the section's inaccuracies and lack of balance in detail, backed by sources. I am under no obligation to propose how these deficiencies should be rectified. And the template I assigned says exactly what I meant. Allreet (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You have done little more than make general claims about existing statements, and here you are now saying you have no obligation to explain how to rectify any issue, just a lot of disparaging remarks, fueled by a distorted doom and gloom POV. Nor have you brought any sources to the table to back up your claims. Take for example this remark:

• Many founders were opposed to slavery, but many were not, and only some made attempts to end it. So to say many made attempts repeatedly is not accurate.

Many examples have been provided, cited with reliable sources, showing their exceptions towards slavery. The article says many, not most. You are welcome to add examples of any founders who morally supported slavery, actively opposed any abolitionist measures on a colony or state level, or at all, but you've yet to do that.

• If they truly saw slavery as immoral, why did they keep their slaves and do nothing to stop the practice?

This is also explained in the article, as, once again, keeping the colonies/states unified was the top priority, by far, as the idea of advancing federal abolition legislation over the states would have kept any Union, and Constitution, from ever materializing. Opposition to slavery, starting with a colonial wide ban on the slave trade, was put on the table all the way back to the Continental Association . Much has been added to support the idea that many Founders opposed slavery, while you've added nothing to the article that would "balance" or refute that idea, still. Just the tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to defend the template I added, nor am I under any obligation to make the corrections needed to rectify the three general areas for improvement it identifies. I probably will re-write the section based on research I've been doing, though anyone else who wants to help is welcome. Beyond that, I have no desire to discuss the subject with someone who holds pro-slavery, fringe views. Allreet (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Your slander aside, all I've been stating are what the founders did and didn't do, and how some of them regarded slavery and how many of them treated their slaves. That is not 'promoting slavery', and this will be the third time I've had to hand back the not so veiled personal attacks you've. been shoveling around. Please stop resorting to such underhanded and dishonest tactics thinking you've addressed the debate. You can add what you feel you must, [add] but if it's your intention to "rewrite" the entire section, like most considerate editors, given the contentions and controversy, a discussion should take place first. Currently the article highlights various things about slavery regarding key founders, cited by multiple reliable sources..These statements have been there for some time, added by other editors, who according to you, must have been "pro slavery" also, simply for mentioning and citing these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, I've no problem with adding points of clarity, or any other material that is not exactly flattering of any given founder, so long as it's undisputed fact cited by reliable sources. There's no call for intimidation tactics and personal attacks to effect this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• @Randy Kryn and Rjensen: — Can we get your opinion on matters here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• On a quick glance it seems too long with much that can be condensed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

John Adams short description discussion

There is an ongoing discussion about adding 'Founding Father' to the first four presidents' short descriptions which may be of interest (see Talk:John Adams#Short description). I personally think 'Founding Father' should be added to as many founder short descriptors as possible (already on Franklin and Hamilton and others). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Military Founders

A question still remains about which military personnel are Founding Fathers. For example, one of many, John Barry, is honored by a statue right in front of Independence Hall, and some references name him a Founding Father. He, of course, is not alone. Any ideas for Barry and other military founders? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that say as much, any military leader can be at least mentioned in the Additional Founding Fathers section, if not elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Just thinking that the military Founders as a group should be ascertained, decided upon, and listed. At present some are listed, others not, and some are listed as Patriots but not as Founders. No hurry on this, but at some point the military listings should probably be uniform (not a pun...). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

We can simply list them as we find them in reliable sources. Commodore Barry.is sometimes referred to as "The Father of the Navy", for these reasons:

• 1. Barry set a record by traveling 237 miles by dead reckoning in a 24-hour period ― the fastest known sailing day recorded in the 1700s.
• 2. Barry volunteered for President George Washington by serving as his courier, helping to facilitate the crossing of the Delaware and participating in the battles of Trenton and Princeton.
• 3. When Congress formally established the U.S. Navy in March 1794, Barry became not only the first commissioned officer, but also the first flag officer in the sea of service.
• 4. Barry fought the last sea battle of the Revolutionary War off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Fla., in March 1793, which also marked the last battle fought by a Continental Navy ship, the USS Alliance.
• 5. Barry’s brother-in-law William Austin, a Tory, is believed to have come aboard the frigate Effingham to promise him 20,000 gold guineas plus command of a Royal Navy ship to surrender the frigate to the British. But Barry simply rejected the proposition and “spurned the eyedee of being a treater.” -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye, those guineas couldn't tempt a man of Barry's caliber. I mentioned him because his statue was set up right outside Independence Hall and has stayed there (location location location), and only then read some sources that consider him a FF. Quite a few military people might qualify, Greene and the like, and some already have (Anthony Wayne etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the history and the abundance of sources, I don't see any reason not to list Barry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposals

A proposal for Barry's entry in the Additional Founding fathers section:

• John Barry, considered the "Father of the U.S. Navy", volunteered and served with Washington during the crossing of the Delaware and at the battles of Trenton and Princeton. He was the first commissioned officer, and the first flag officer, in the newly found U.S. Navy. After a distinguished revolutionary naval career, he fought in the last sea battle of the Revolutionary War commanding the USS Alliance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know about all of that, but Barry had me at having his statue right outside the entrance to Independence Hall. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

John Paul Jones and John Barry on a U.S. postage stamp, 1936 issue

.

As you know, Independence Hall was where the Declaration and Constitution were signed, and that Barry's statue is there seems to support the idea that he had more than a passing role in securing the founding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: — If there are no objections I'll include Barry as a Founder under the Additional Founding Fathers section. Esek Hopkins, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Navy, and Henry Knox, chief artillery officer in most of Washington's campaigns, are already listed there.  Allreet? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm impressed with Barry's credentials, but his claim to the title requires sources. We can't/shouldn't make exceptions based on our subjective assessments however justified they might seem. Allreet (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I came up with a couple of sources that refer to Barry as a Founding Father, but I'm not sure they can be considered reliable, at least when compared to Pulitzer Prize winners, and other credentialed writers.

• The Constitutional Walking Tour of Philadelphia
• List of Founding Fathers which includes John Barry.

If anything we can certainly list Barry under Other Patriots. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

These are the links I was looking at when proposing Barry's addition, quite a few cites for being a Founder but not sure which would hold up for fully naming him. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ignatius, 1897, p. 251] refers to Barry as, "Father and founder of the Navy of the United States", but this seems to fall a bit short of the mark. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, regarding Other Patriots. But I also suspect that if we search high and low over time, more of the guys and gals from the lower column will garner support for moving on up to the main column. I'll take a look at Randy's links and do some other searching when I get the time. Allreet (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn:: The Slate article was a reprint of a Journal of the American Revolution article. The list, which also includes figures from later periods of American history, has no sources, and the author indicates he assembled it himself. Added: I see now that the younger individuals participated in the war. Their ages are calculated from 1776, though some may have served later and thus were older at the time. Allreet (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I figured as much from the start -- not exactly reliable sources for our purposes. But we surely can list Barry under Patriots. We should give Randy the honors, since he brought Barry to the table. Plenty of reliable sources for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Allreet, I just saw your March 22nd note. Will do so, a good place for Barry's link until more historicans directly name him as a Founder. Please see the new entrant below if you have an interest in that discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ships named for Founding Fathers of the United States has been nominated for deletion

A discussion is taking place at this link if you'd like to participate. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This deletion attempt is still open and being contested. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Update, the deletion request is still open. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The ship, she has sunk, long ago. Twas an interesting category, she was. And since you've read this, may I suggest an interesting new article about a topic which I had no idea had such a central place in Washington's life, George Washington's Fishery. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Origin of Term "Founding Fathers"

It is not correct that Warren Harding originated the term "Founding Fathers" in 1916. The earliest known occurrence of the term is in the Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 15, 1892, page 5, column 7. Oh wait, I just committed the unpardonable sin of presenting original research. Forget what I said, just stick with the erroneous claim of 1916. 2601:192:7F:1AC0:E55A:B40D:C607:25AD (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

John Jay

This list does not include John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. He is called a "Founding Father" on his page. Is his omission an oversight or intentional? --Lapisphil (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being concerned, but please read the page again. John Jay is appropriately mentioned in the lead, is listed in the infobox, and is reported on throughout the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

More Forbidden Information on the Origin of the Term "Founding Fathers"

Actually Stephen Goranson has found the term "Founding Fathers" in the book "The One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Consociations, Fairfield East and Fairfield West" (1886), page 45. Oh but, this too is forbidden original research, so let's just pretend it doesn't exist. 128.36.7.29 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Harding's use of the term is more than likely not original. But it is the most significant/notable given the number of sources that claim his usage was first. At some point, earlier instances are bound to be found in secondary sources to support the idea that Harding did not coin the term, though there's no doubt his speeches introduced it into the public vernacular. Allreet (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Slavery: reinstated Multiple Issues template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity of a painting

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

Political rhetoric section

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

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

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

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

Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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