Who's your favorite Founding Father?

[gizmomathboy]

Reading about James Otis, Jr. sounds like a pretty good candidate.

I've always liked John Adams. Never owned slaves. Counts for a lot in my book.

As for non-USAian founding fathers.

Gary has got to be right up there among those I would say is a favorite.

Alan Turing is a good one as is Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan for my professional and non-gaming hobby interests.

[JCBoney]

I, too, am a Jefferson man.

[Welleran]

Washington, without a doubt.

I have to agree. Not the most exciting perhaps, but he was offered almost unlimited power and turned it down to be a private citizen. I challenge you to find many examples of that in history.

[JasonZavoda]

Washington, without a doubt.

I have to agree. Not the most exciting perhaps, but he was offered almost unlimited power and turned it down to be a private citizen. I challenge you to find many examples of that in history.

Sulla?

[blackprinceofmuncie]

Thomas Jefferson tops my list of the "American" founding fathers, but I don't think Thomas Jefferson would have been who he was without the contributions of the Stoics, so Epictetus also has to be up near the top of the list. "No man is free who is not master of himself.".

[Welleran]

Washington, without a doubt.

I have to agree. Not the most exciting perhaps, but he was offered almost unlimited power and turned it down to be a private citizen. I challenge you to find many examples of that in history.

Sulla?

That’s why I was careful to say “many”!

[Terrex]

I have to agree. Not the most exciting perhaps, but he was offered almost unlimited power and turned it down to be a private citizen. I challenge you to find many examples of that in history.

Sulla?

That’s why I was careful to say “many”!

Right, and Washington was knowingly inspired by, and perhaps even knowingly emulating, the legendary Cincinnatus.

[AxeMental]

Terrex, where do you come down on the Federalist and anti-Federalist. I seriously think of myself as smack dab in the middle. I realize this is an impossible position to take. But I see the merits and negatives of both equally. Jeffersons agricultural focus seems odd to me. But I catch his drift (basically cities versus country) the same dynamic as today in some ways.

[Terrex]

Terrex, where do you come down on the Federalist and anti-Federalist. I seriously think of myself as smack dab in the middle. I realize this is an impossible position to take. But I see the merits and negatives of both equally. Jeffersons agricultural focus seems odd to me. But I catch his drift (basically cities versus country) the same dynamic as today in some ways.

That's a night-long discussion, Axe. In a quick discussion, I like your middle landing point. In a way, the U.S. is fortunate to have had those forces struggle. There were several iterations of the Federalist and anti-Federalist struggle.

During the period between victory in the War of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution, I'm decidedly sympathetic to the Federalists. There were increasingly democratic/mob-like forces that seeked to use majorities to vote away contract terms and to irresponsibly print state currency to essentially defraud creditor minorities in favor or debtor majorities. There were great arguments on both sides, but I believe the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional republic form of gov't we adopted was preferable to the Articles of Confederation in providing a framework to protect liberty (even if we've bungled away a lot of it).

Later, when the struggle changes to Federalist v. Jeffersonian Republicans, you hit a particularly important note with respect to Jefferson's (and Madison's) emotional overemphasis on the agrarian. Jefferson clung to support for his views through the philosophies of the French physiocrats in which all wealth was derived from land. Hamilton, on the other hand, recognized the greatest source of wealth as human capital, although he didn't describe it in those terms. Once again, initially I favor the Federalists. But, ultimately the U.S. wasn't destined to continue to have the likes of Washington and Hamilton at the levers of gov't. Jefferson's and Madison's concerns about federal scope creep proved very much worth worrying about.

[Philotomy Jurament]

Limiting the scope of "Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists" to the debates about the Constitution, I'd say the anti-Federalists were prescient. Pretty much everything they warned of (or were worried about) has come to pass.

(I'm not saying I would've had anything better to offer, though. There're no simple answers to such questions.)

[rogatny]

Limiting the scope of "Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists" to the debates about the Constitution, I'd say the anti-Federalists were prescient. Pretty much everything they warned of (or were worried about) has come to pass.

(I'm not saying I would've had anything better to offer, though. There're no simple answers to such questions.)

The irony is that without a strong central government with the authority to enter agreements with foreign governments, Jefferson's greatest legacy, the Louisiana Purchase never happens. What does the Map of North America look like if Napoleon didn't have a neutral power to sell Louisiana to?

Maybe Virginia or New York could have done it on their own, but could they have held it?

Does Jackson ever invade Florida?

Do Anglo-Southerners ever settle Texas? Are they still able to rebel from Mexico?

Maybe New Mexico and California eventually break away from a weak, ineffective Mexican Empire, but why would a bunch of Catholic Latinos enter the orbit of Anglo Protestants all the way over on the East Coast?

There'd never be a "54-40 or fight" and the Upper Plains and the Pacific Northwest would have fallen to British Canada by default.

With no trans-continental power with a vested interest in defeating them and possibly competing client states willing to prop them up, many of the stronger Native Nations - the Cherokee, Sioux, Navajo, etc. - would have remained in play as regional powers.

[AxeMental]

Washington, without a doubt.

I have to agree. Not the most exciting perhaps, but he was offered almost unlimited power and turned it down to be a private citizen. I challenge you to find many examples of that in history.

I always liked the recognition he got from crazy George III, upon hearing of Washington stepping down, something like “if he gave up his power and position he is the greatest man alive.” That was pretty insightful. As the motivation behind the Revolution was different then anything he had seen. And really we’ve seen since. How many revolutionary leaders gave power up after victory. Who had to explain to his generals the “point” in the war. I can’t think of any. Certainly France (following the Revolution) is an example of two ultimately severely flawed individuals who cemented their authority rather then live up to higher ideals. America was extremely lucky to have the person in charge of the military who understood that the end game wasn’t personal power but democracy of a yet unknown form. I’m sure he knew the dangers of centralized power better then any. But he was also an expansionist and wanted the nation to expand West. He saw into the future that to do this required a force able to withstand England and the other European nations.

[Gentlegamer]

Washington, without a doubt.

I have to agree. Not the most exciting perhaps, but he was offered almost unlimited power and turned it down to be a private citizen. I challenge you to find many examples of that in history.

Sulla?

Cincinnatus and Diocletian

[Ratbreath]

The irony is that without a strong central government with the authority to enter agreements with foreign governments, Jefferson's greatest legacy, the Louisiana Purchase never happens.

I think it'd still be possible to have an effective central government so long as it's relegated to things only a federal government can do and what the states would be more effective at doing is left to them.

[rogatny]

The irony is that without a strong central government with the authority to enter agreements with foreign governments, Jefferson's greatest legacy, the Louisiana Purchase never happens.

I think it'd still be possible to have an effective central government so long as it's relegated to things only a federal government can do and what the states would be more effective at doing is left to them.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Jefferson would not have had the authority to enter into the deal with France without the assent of 9 states, nor would he have had a treasury from which to pay France.

It was not possible under the Articles that Jefferson favored and it was possible under the Constitution Jefferson did not want ratified.