A Thesis Interpretation of The Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis

The newly founded American Republic was an experiment that challenged the strength of a representative government based on democratic principles. The resilience, perseverance, and diversity of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were all factors that led the new nation into its success. However, the Union faced many challenges in its infancy on both the domestic and foreign fronts. The revolutionary war left the United States in debt with a decentralized government and without a leader. In Founding Brothers, Joseph Ellis points out and addresses the issues facing the first three presidents, including establishing a new government, amending foreign relations, and tackling social issues to preserve unity.

According to Ellis, in order for the nation to have succeeded, the country needed a central figurehead to address the issues of legislature, slavery, debt, and foreign affairs. Each leader had different tactics in legislature, however, those very differences ultimately led to the success of the nation. After gaining independence, the unity and stability of the nation relied on the revolutionary generation’s willingness to compromise and persevere in order to establish a sound political foundation. One of the major factors that challenged the unity of the nation was the debate over the strength of the national verses the state government.

Most of the Southern states favored a weak central government with more powers enumerated to the states. Because the Southern states feared losing the right to practice slavery due to many ethical debates over the issue, states like South Carolina and Georgia threatened to leave the union if the issue of emancipation was brought up at the Constitutional Convention. Also, the fear of democratic tyranny was a leading cause for the hesitation to have a strong figurehead. The split between the Federalists, who supported the ratification of the Constitution for a stronger central government, and the Democratic-Republicans, who opposed the ratification of the Constitution to preserve states’ rights, was mended together by the efforts of the Constitutional Convention to compromise.

For instance, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 forbade slavery in the new Western territory north of the Ohio River to satisfy the demands of those who endorsed the emancipation of slavery and also satisfy those who supported slavery by technically allowing the people in the territory south of the Ohio River to practice slavery. Some issues, however, like the debate over slavery, were more divisive than others. The moral and economic debate for methods of emancipation included the Fairfax plan, which worked to ship slaves to Africa or the Caribbean, and the gradual emancipation plan, which freed slaves but would have brought an additional one-hundred-twenty-five million dollars to the national debt.

Both plans did not appease either position, but to preserve unity, the Continental Congress agreed to extend the slave trade until 1808 under what was known as the Great Compromise. Another key component in shaping American policy was the nation’s standing on foreign affairs. Under Washington, complete neutrality and unity at home were essential to the success of the nation. To avoid tensions and war with England, Washington sent John Jay to improve and restore relations for trade and economical reasons. The English agreed to evacuate their troops from the United States as long as their debts incurred from the damages of the revolution were honored.

Many of the Southern citizens saw Jay’s Treaty as a betrayal to the French after the support of the French in the American Revolution. Washington, however, did not want to take a side on foreign policy and did not see his attempts to make amends with England as a sign of American vulnerability, but as a sign of neutrality that supported optimal economic conditions. Trade was an essential component to the livelihood of the new nation in its infancy. Generally those who did not agree with Washington, such as many in the Southern states, agreed with Jefferson’s support of the French. More Americans began to side with a neutrality concept after John Adams came into presidency and attempted to make a treaty with the French to mend growing tensions. Once again, to avoid war and preserve unity on the home front, Adams sent delegates to France to find a middle ground, but the French responded by demanding a bribe to speak with an official.

Later known as the XYZ Affair, American reactions grew hostile and the state of the Union was at threat. Adams’ quick response led to the Sedition Acts that prohibited the press from criticizing the government, but only led to more violence domestically and resulted in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and did not comply with the freedom of speech nor the freedom of the press amendments. As Ellis argues, “If the Sedition Acts was a serious threat to civil liberties, Jefferson’s response was an equally serious threat to the sovereignty of the national government and the survival of the union”. Although Adams sought to follow Washington by working to maintain unity through neutrality, Jefferson, on the other hand, sought a stronger foreign stance and supported the French Revolution. Moreover, because foreign policy directly affected the challenges the nation faced domestically, the diversity between the “Founding Brothers” helped maintain a balance in governing policies.

That same diversity, however, has led to inconsistency in legislation between Washington and Jefferson, and between Jefferson and Adams. Washington’s clear stance for unity at any cost was apparent in his response to the Whiskey Rebellion led by a group of Pennsylvania farmers who opposed the tax on whiskey. Although some agreed to Washington’s strong military force to wipe out the riot, Jefferson saw Washington’s reaction as a sign of democratic tyranny by exercising too many monarchical practices. According to Ellis, “Jefferson’s posture toward Washington shifted perceptibly in 1794. The catalyst for the change was the Whiskey Rebellion”. Shortly after, Jefferson’s critical letters regarding Washington and his legislation were published. Jefferson also faced problems with the Adams presidency in regard to his attempts to keep neutrality in foreign affairs.

After the XYZ Affair and the Sedition Acts, Jefferson was highly critical of Washington’s approaches to retain unity. Not only did Jefferson’s tactics differ from those of Washington, but they also contrasted Adams’ as well. Adams worked to officially end hostilities with France by signing the Treaty of Mortefontaine for the sake of the unity within the nation. According to the treaty, the French would no longer interfere with U.S. trading routes. Adams’ neutral policies followed those of Washington’s, while Jefferson sought a more involved approach. Ultimately, the differences in the “Founding Brothers” led to the diversity of political tactics that confronted both foreign and domestic issues. As the new nation struggled to maintain unity, facets from Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were all vital to the economic, political, and social issues. Although the nation was split on most domestic and foreign concerns, Ellis shows the founding brothers’ ability to unite the nation under a common American identity.