Founding fathers Essay Example for Free

Founding fathers Essay This paper seeks to explore whether America’s founding fathers were men of character and people who were not driven by personal political ambition. Some of the fathers examined in the study include Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams and James Madison (Ellis, 1- 2). Character can be looked at as the personal traits that are attributed to an individual and which guides his intentions. A man of character is that person who lives by principles and motives that are virtuous and desired by the people he is dealing with. These principles and motives should also be acceptable according to the ethical standards set by the society. Personal ambition is when a person sets and focuses on achieving targets which are aimed at individual satisfaction. One is said to be driven by personal ambition if these targets are the motivating factors behind his actions. In the book Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis, the founding fathers were politicians who pursued great ambitions through various avenues. The political rivalry, pride, jealousy and personal ambition however drove them into doing things that do not qualify all of them to be called men of character (Ellis, 10, 16, 23). Nonetheless, most of their activities yielded personal political gratification as well as contributing in some way to the creating of America as a nation. According to Ellis (75), it is due to selfishness and personal interest that the then former secretary of the treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice president Aaron Burr ended up in a duel that turned out to be fatal as Burr fired a deadly short that killed Alexander. The two men who were on both sides of the political divide: Democratic Republican vs. Federalists allowed their hatred to take charge of their thoughts. Alexander did not like Burr because the later captured a Senate seat from Philip Schuyler who happened to be Hamiltons father-in-law (Ellis, 172). A man of character at this point would have accepted defeat and allowed democracy to prevail. In addition, Hamilton comes out as a nepotist who placed personal ambition before the interest of the nation for finding it had to accept that Burr defeated his relative Philip Schuyler. The â€Å"despicable opinion† expressed by Alexander against Burr which triggered the argument ending in the duel depicts him as a man who lacked character (Ellis, 113,140). A man of character uses his words wisely in away that does not harm the feelings of his audience but communicates the needed information. Instead of pushing Aaron Burr further in the New York Gubernatorial election by endorsing a candidate who ended up beating Burr and widening their differences, a man of character would have swallowed pride, buried their differences and offered his support or remained neutral to reconcile their differences ( Ellis, 160). This is because men of character appreciate differences of opinion and not taking things personal. However, Hamilton manifested good character by intentionally wasting his bullet and keeping his pre-duel promise by not shooting Burr. The spirited push for the establishment of permanent national capital along the Potomac River was a great fiscal policy that credits him with fighting for the welfare of the nation and not his personal political ambition. His support for Jefferson against Burr due to the latter’s ill intention shows his concern for the nation. According to Ellis (194) we can say with profound confidence that Aaron Burr was not a man of character based on his murder of Hamilton and treason accusation. He comes out as an arrogant man capable of doing anything to acquire power and retain power. Hunger for power is a vice that is not associated with men of character. Even after loosing his Vice-presidency in an election, he was still driven by personal political ambition to the extent of wanting to betray his own nation. This is evident in his conspiracy to steal Louisiana Purchase lands away from the United States and crown himself a King or Emperor (Ellis, 201) Before his election to presidency, Thomas Jefferson and James Adams forged a relationship that contributed immensely to the American nation. It is this good rapport that prompted Hamilton to prefer his candidacy to that of Burr. In spite of all these, his rebellion and disregard of other leaders for not working his way does not reflect his good character but he comes out as a person who prefers things to work out in his way. This can be illustrated by his opposition to George Washington’s policies which were regarded by many as being in the interest of the nation (Ellis, 240). He was also angered by John Adam’s win for presidency which made him to refuse Adam’s attempt to incorporate him into the cabinet. As a man of good character, he should have accepted the gratitude and acknowledgement extended by his friend to serve in the cabinet. This incident also shows that he allowed his personal political ambition to supersede the interest of the nation by refusing to serve in the cabinet. His acts of character assassination on John Adam reveal his hate and unethical conduct (Ellis, 343). However, Adam’s reaction warrants his consideration as a good man who was just trying to help the nation. From his policies and politics, Washington can be considered as a respectable politician who went beyond his personal political ambition to serve the nation. For instance, through the promotion of national unity and highlighting the danger of partisanship and party politics (Ellis, 256). On the issue of slave trade, all of these leaders stand accused especially Madison as a man who lacked character by promoting this form of oppression to develop their nation except Benjamin Franklin who spoke out against it while championing freedom for all (Ellis, 317) Conclusion. Looking at the early political days of the founding fathers, we can conclude that some of them had their personal political ambition that tarnished their good character while others maintained their ethical standards and respect while serving the nation. For instance, controlled by personal political ambition, Thomas Jefferson engaged in activities that eroded his character as a good man. This trend however changed in old age as he tried to repair his faults including reconciling with John Adams (Ellis, 406). From the above discussions, I can conclude that not all founding fathers were men of character who were not driven by personal political ambition. Work Cited Joseph J. Ellis (2001). Founding Brothers. New York: Wheeler Pub Inc.