Who Are A Few of Your Favorite Founding Fathers?

[Picaro]

.
The West Indies were never a part of the American experience. Motivated almost entirely by its economy, the colony remained loyal to Britain and her transoceanic trading network.

A contradictory statement. The West Indies were very much a part of the American experience; trade with the Caribbean was a key leg in the American trade triangle. What 'loyalties' any colony there had was nominal, regardless of which European country claimed them, when it came to trade; they traded with each other and anybody who showed up in port. European hostilities with each other rarely interrupted this trade. The Indies were a major market for American exports and source of smuggled goods for the return trips. Collecting taxes on this and other trade was a key sore point for starting the Revolution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

None of the founding fathers are worthy of respect.

and you have that much in common with them.''wow -- cool

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

.
The West Indies were never a part of the American experience. Motivated almost entirely by its economy, the colony remained loyal to Britain and her transoceanic trading network.

A contradictory statement. The West Indies were very much a part of the American experience; trade with the Caribbean was a key leg in the American trade triangle. What 'loyalties' any colony there had was nominal, regardless of which European country claimed them, when it came to trade; they traded with each other and anybody who showed up in port. European hostilities with each other rarely interrupted this trade. The Indies were a major market for American exports and source of smuggled goods for the return trips. Collecting taxes on this and other trade was a key sore point for starting the Revolution.

stop making specious arguments in support of Hamilton.

 

[norwegen]

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Franklin, Hamilton.

Washington was called the one indispensable man of the Revolutionary generation (coined by Jefferson). No one disagreed with him. No victory over the British....no Constitutional Convention...and no Presidency as we know it without him.

Madison is called the Father of the Constitution and with good reason. He put forth the Virginia Plan that was largely adopted into what is now our current system of Government. One of the main authors of the Federalist Papers (along with Hamilton and to a much lesser degree John Jay). A key supporter of the Bill of Rights. A leading voice in the early Congress.

Jefferson where to begin. Declaration of Independence is probably the greatest political paper in history. A major figure in advocating for Religious Freedom....(See Statutes for Religious Freedom: Virginia). Founder of the University of Virginia....Louisiana Purchase.....you get the idea.

Monroe: Revolutionary War hero. Wounded and nearly died in battle. Served at Valley Forge with Washington. Crossed the Delaware. Negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. One of the best Secretary of States in U.S. History. Formulated the Monroe Doctrine which is still U.S. Policy. Only man to serve two cabinet positions at the same time.

Hamilton: Revolutionary war hero. Main author of the Federalist Papers. Financial genius. Saw America as a manufacturing power long before anyone else.

Franklin....brought France into the war on the side of America. Without France, we probably lose. Brilliant writer and thinker.

This doesn't really explain the broad range in the political spectrum that you've chosen.

1) Hamilton, on the opposite end of the Whig spectrum as Patrick Henry, is someone I would consider more of a Tory. His fiscal-military ambitions and visions of a leviathan state, to my mind, place him even to the left of virtually any of the other Federalists.

2) And Washington, rather than resist Hamilton's proclivities to building a state that would manage the economy and tax the people, took the "interloper" under his wing. Washington, as splendidly as he redeemed himself in the Revolutionary War after his Seven Years' War fiasco, may be a notable founder, but more as a general than as a politician (to my mind, anyway).

Throwing these two in with the four founders of a more libertarian-republican persuasion still makes this an "interesting grouping."

1) your notes on Hamilton:
huh? Tory = left? "leviathan" can you post without the usual hyperbole?

It is what it is.

2) "interloper" if you explain this one and keep your head up...

The West Indies were never a part of the American experience. Motivated almost entirely by its economy, the colony remained loyal to Britain and her transoceanic trading network.

West Indies? He came to the when he was around 14 years old. he fought in the war.

when did your family come to America?

Yes, to repeat myself. The West Indies.

Hamilton had little if any attachment to the colonies from whose traditions the people were developing their natural law principles. Whereas Jefferson, for example, called Virginia "my country," Hamilton had no such home on the Atlantic seaboard. A nationalist, Hamilton believed the British government was "the best in the world," and doubted that "anything short of it would do in America."* (Virtually a Tory, he had a fondness for prerogative rule (just not democracy).) Of course he was a Federalist. A document didn't exist that created a stronger central government than the Constitution did.

Hamilton was just a young man looking for a war. Then he set about dismantling the confederacy. Our traditions and principles were of no concern to him.



*Max Ferrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), 1:282-93

 

[oldfart]

Paine, Jefferson, Madison, Samuel Adams

3 radicals and Madison? interesting

It's true. Though Madison could still appeal to the sentiments of radicals, as we find out from his writings in the National Gazette.

Equality James Madison Parties

and when Adams or Madison speak about 'parties' they do NOT mean the same thing we mean today. Parties as we know them did not exist

I've read a few books that blew my mind wide open on this point.

Right. Though Jefferson and Madison were innovators in this regard, as theirs was "big tent" coalition of interests (Jacobins, anti-federalists, farmers and laborers)

Actually, the Federalists were big tent too. Each side initially thought of themselves as the anti-party party. They all tried to bring in others as a unity of spirit and cause. Each thought they represented what was best for the whole. In the early years of the USA, all sides professed detestation of factionalism. Parties as we know them came about gradually and ironically, out of necessity.

The federalist faction and the anti-federalist republicans sought to bring everyone under one roof and to sideline the leaders of opposition. Before the rebellion in America, English thought and tradition (colonists were English to their core fighting over English liberties) viewed opposition as we know it as vile, and treasonous

Just a question. We all know the origins and history of the Federalist/anti-Federalist conflict (the "First Party System") and its eventual resolution through passage of the Bill of Rights and the Marshall court rulings. But once the Federalists had entrenched the powers of the general government, their party collapsed shortly after the Hartford Convention of 1814-5.

In 1815, at the end of the War of 1812, a surge of proud nationalism enveloped the nation ushering in the "Era of Good Feelings". With the Federalists gone, the Democratic-Republican Party apparatus withered away. Monroe attempted to diminish party influence and merge everyone into a single movement and embarked on goodwill tours of the nation in 1817 and 1819 to promote the idea of a common national identity. It worked as Monroe's re-election in 1820 was virtually unanimous in the electoral vote.

But 1820 also saw the Missouri Compromise and the rise of sectional conflict over slavery. So my question is "Was the Era of Good Feeling just an aberration? At what point did the Federalist/anti-Federalist dichotomy morph into the great slavery divide; and was that change inevitable?"

 

[Politico]

None of the founding fathers are worthy of respect.

and you have that much in common with them.''wow -- cool

Hell no. Unlike Washington I would never start a war over a piece of land I was eyeing and to avoid paying my debts.

 

[Picaro]

Just a question. We all know the origins and history of the Federalist/anti-Federalist conflict (the "First Party System") and its eventual resolution through passage of the Bill of Rights and the Marshall court rulings. But once the Federalists had entrenched the powers of the general government, their party collapsed shortly after the Hartford Convention of 1814-5.

In 1815, at the end of the War of 1812, a surge of proud nationalism enveloped the nation ushering in the "Era of Good Feelings". With the Federalists gone, the Democratic-Republican Party apparatus withered away. Monroe attempted to diminish party influence and merge everyone into a single movement and embarked on goodwill tours of the nation in 1817 and 1819 to promote the idea of a common national identity. It worked as Monroe's re-election in 1820 was virtually unanimous in the electoral vote.

But 1820 also saw the Missouri Compromise and the rise of sectional conflict over slavery. So my question is "Was the Era of Good Feeling just an aberration? At what point did the Federalist/anti-Federalist dichotomy morph into the great slavery divide; and was that change inevitable?"

The regional divides were there all along. It was the New Englanders who first threatened secession, and also over tariffs they felt were unjust to them, and of course their dislike of how the Virginians dominated Federal political power at the time. This was reversed after the mid-1820's, when the power shifted and the northern and mid-Atlantic states began passing tariffs that would fall much heavier on the Southern states; basically a flip-flop.They particularly hated Jefferson, and even more so during his second term, when he ran a military dictatorship and used troops to enforce the embargoes on northern ports.

As for the 'slavery' issue, it was more about the North not wanting any black people at all in the new territories, not any moral objections to slavery per se; their support for anti-slavery policies had more in common with modern white nationalism than abolition and racial equality. Same with Lincoln, despite all the fairy tales people have been told in school for going on forever.

In any case, geography made the slavery issue a moot point by 1850, as pointed out by Daniel Webster and others; the Cotton Kingdom had already reached its natural limits by 1850 and wasn't going to expandanywhere, except a small part of eastern Texas. It was, as always, all about money and power, and who pays for what. The Whigs and then their successors the Republicans were in favor of massive government subsidies for their states and particularly for the railroads, little of which would have benefitted the South. The success of the Erie Canal and later the subsidies to some state railroads, particularly what became the Illinois Central system stirred up some serious greed among the financial speculators in the 1850's, and the South was in their way, that's all. The South didn't feel like paying for it all, which given it had the largest economy and export markets, it would have indeed been paying for most of it.

 

[oldfart]

Just a question. We all know the origins and history of the Federalist/anti-Federalist conflict (the "First Party System") and its eventual resolution through passage of the Bill of Rights and the Marshall court rulings. But once the Federalists had entrenched the powers of the general government, their party collapsed shortly after the Hartford Convention of 1814-5.

In 1815, at the end of the War of 1812, a surge of proud nationalism enveloped the nation ushering in the "Era of Good Feelings". With the Federalists gone, the Democratic-Republican Party apparatus withered away. Monroe attempted to diminish party influence and merge everyone into a single movement and embarked on goodwill tours of the nation in 1817 and 1819 to promote the idea of a common national identity. It worked as Monroe's re-election in 1820 was virtually unanimous in the electoral vote.

But 1820 also saw the Missouri Compromise and the rise of sectional conflict over slavery. So my question is "Was the Era of Good Feeling just an aberration? At what point did the Federalist/anti-Federalist dichotomy morph into the great slavery divide; and was that change inevitable?"

The regional divides were there all along. It was the New Englanders who first threatened secession, and also over tariffs they felt were unjust to them, and of course their dislike of how the Virginians dominated Federal political power at the time. This was reversed after the mid-1820's, when the power shifted and the northern and mid-Atlantic states began passing tariffs that would fall much heavier on the Southern states; basically a flip-flop.They particularly hated Jefferson, and even more so during his second term, when he ran a military dictatorship and used troops to enforce the embargoes on northern ports.

Yep. After the Bill of Rights was passed, the big issues were the Western lands and the tariff. "Internal improvements" in the form of first canals and later railroads and ports soon followed. These turned out to be sectional issues. Ironically, the Southern opposition to these improvements left them hamstrung during the Civil War.

As for the 'slavery' issue, it was more about the North not wanting any black people at all in the new territories, not any moral objections to slavery per se; their support for anti-slavery policies had more in common with modern white nationalism than abolition and racial equality. Same with Lincoln, despite all the fairy tales people have been told in school for going on forever.

You are right about public sentiment in the North about black people, but this was an evolving issue. The Know-nothings were clearly anti-black, but the later Liberty Party was distinctly not. The Free Soilers were a mixed bag. In general abolitionist sentiment grew in the North every year, but a lot of this was also associated with the colonization movement, which Lincoln famously supported.

Lincoln's views evolved at an astonishing rate for a variety of reasons. The Lincoln of 1858 during the debates was a lot different person from the Lincoln of 1865.

In any case, geography made the slavery issue a moot point by 1850, as pointed out by Daniel Webster and others; the Cotton Kingdom had already reached its natural limits by 1850 and wasn't going to expandanywhere, except a small part of eastern Texas. It was, as always, all about money and power, and who pays for what. The Whigs and then their successors the Republicans were in favor of massive government subsidies for their states and particularly for the railroads, little of which would have benefitted the South. The success of the Erie Canal and later the subsidies to some state railroads, particularly what became the Illinois Central system stirred up some serious greed among the financial speculators in the 1850's, and the South was in their way, that's all. The South didn't feel like paying for it all, which given it had the largest economy and export markets, it would have indeed been paying for most of it.

Personally I don't buy the geography argument. First, the South supported a great number of schemes to expand slavery within the United States by annexing Mexico, Cuba, and half of the Caribbean (which when you look at a map, reveals the origin of the name "Knights of the Golden Circle"). Similarly, a group of Southern nationalists agitated to form a corporation owned by the 15 slave states to build a transcontinental railroad on the southern route, precipitating the Gadsden Purchase. They clearly anticipated a slave empire from Cuba and the Yucatan to California.

The success of the Illinois Central Railroad was primarily the result of its wise choice of attorneys.

 

[whitehall]

Who Are A Few of Your Favorite Founding Fathers? You can include Abigail Adams if you so prefer.

Top of my current list of well know ones are: John Adams, John Marshall, Hamilton, Madison...

The why will come later as will names of some not so well known ones

You have to define the parameters of "Founding Fathers" before you include Marshall and Abigail Adams.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

George Washington is my favorite, Dante. Because he was a godly man.

 

[Picaro]

Yep. After the Bill of Rights was passed, the big issues were the Western lands and the tariff. "Internal improvements" in the form of first canals and later railroads and ports soon followed. These turned out to be sectional issues. Ironically, the Southern opposition to these improvements left them hamstrung during the Civil War.

The South was the ultimate capitalist economy, where investment followed the highest returns, hence it was almost a mono-economy with little other economic development, and yes this hurt them badly re a war with an industrializing northern economy, as well as retarding immigration of skilled free labor for decades; they basically did indeed hamstring themselves. No pity lost on them; around 2,500 families or so controlled the entire economy and political offices then.

You are right about public sentiment in the North about black people, but this was an evolving issue. The Know-nothings were clearly anti-black, but the later Liberty Party was distinctly not. The Free Soilers were a mixed bag. In general abolitionist sentiment grew in the North every year, but a lot of this was also associated with the colonization movement, which Lincoln famously supported.

Lincoln's views evolved at an astonishing rate for a variety of reasons. The Lincoln of 1858 during the debates was a lot different person from the Lincoln of 1865.

The Republican rhetoric changed, certainly, in the pursuit of votes, but I've seen no personal 'evolving' going on among the leading Republicans or Lincoln. I don't put any stock in political speeches, regardless of the era they're made in; Jefferson was first noticed as an 'up and comer' because of an anti-slavery polemic he wrote prior to the Revolution, but of course his history clearly shows he wasn't about to practice what he preached re slavery either; in fact he recommended slave breeding and trading as a solid source of investment and profitable income to friends for years. I go by what politicians actually do, not what they say in speeches written for public consumption and support at some time and place.

Personally I don't buy the geography argument.

I'm selling anything nor arguing; it's a matter of historical fact, as any atlas of American agriculture with a selection of timeline maps for the expansion of cotton cultivation will definitively show, and it's also a fact that it was well known among those familiar with American geography knew it as early as the 1840's as well. Webster knew it, Polk knew it, and Jefferson Davis knew it better than anybody in the country; as Secretary of War he had the southwest surveyed and sources of water documented, as well as experimented with camels as a solution to the problems faced with the southern plains regions.

First, the South supported a great number of schemes to expand slavery within the United States by annexing Mexico, Cuba, and half of the Caribbean (which when you look at a map, reveals the origin of the name "Knights of the Golden Circle").

I'm sure there were a few cranks who entertained themselves with that fantasy, but no evidence 'the South' as a whole ever took that seriously. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find 'the North' still entertaining invading Canada, too.

Similarly, a group of Southern nationalists agitated to form a corporation owned by the 15 slave states to build a transcontinental railroad on the southern route, precipitating the Gadsden Purchase.

That was Jefferson Davis' dream, a southern railroad route. He knew it wasn't remotely feasible, as did anybody else familiar with the southern route. See above about his surveys and camel experiments.

They clearly anticipated a slave empire from Cuba and the Yucatan to California.

Who's 'they'?

The success of the Illinois Central Railroad was primarily the result of its wise choice of attorneys.

Congress giving them a few million acres of Federal land for free made it successful. I guess the pols they bribed were mostly lawyers, yes. Also the Michigan railroad got a lot of free Federal land. The Republicans were all railroad fans, they just didn't believe in paying for it themselves, just pocketing the profits and construction contracts.

 

[Picaro]

George Washington is my favorite, Dante. Because he was a godly man.

Don't know that he was a 'godly' man, but he had at least a few principles he espoused and actually practiced; he freed his slaves in his will, among others.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

None of the founding fathers are worthy of respect.

and you have that much in common with them.''wow -- cool

Hell no. Unlike Washington I would never start a war over a piece of land I was eyeing and to avoid paying my debts.

You sound too much like Howard Zinn

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who Are A Few of Your Favorite Founding Fathers? You can include Abigail Adams if you so prefer.

Top of my current list of well know ones are: John Adams, John Marshall, Hamilton, Madison...

The why will come later as will names of some not so well known ones

You have to define the parameters of "Founding Fathers" before you include Marshall and Abigail Adams.

founding generation: okay?

run with IT

 

[Yarddog]

Id be willing to bet these politicians were not nearly as Lazy as the ones we have today. probably played much fewer rounds of golf than politicians today, had a heavier work load and fewer staffers than the ones today, . They actually read the bills they voted on.

Franklin was my favorite though because he seems like the most interesting. with his very important inventions

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Id be willing to bet these politicians were not nearly as Lazy as the ones we have today. probably played much fewer rounds of golf than politicians today, had a heavier work load and fewer staffers than the ones today, . They actually read the bills they voted on.

Franklin was my favorite though because he seems like the most interesting. with his very important inventions

The bills back then were shorter...society has changed. Walk over Clinton's Bridge to the 21st century, willya

Their slaves did most of the work for them at least for all those wonderful the Southern Gentlemen

The ones who stand out are like pols today who stand out. We have some extremely hard working and very intelligent pols -- one just retired: Barny Frank was known to be a workhorse respected by most everyone for his work ethic

People like Yarddog just shit everywhere they go and complain that nobody is picking up after them

 

[Yarddog]

Id be willing to bet these politicians were not nearly as Lazy as the ones we have today. probably played much fewer rounds of golf than politicians today, had a heavier work load and fewer staffers than the ones today, . They actually read the bills they voted on.

Franklin was my favorite though because he seems like the most interesting. with his very important inventions

The bills back then were shorter...society has changed. Walk over Clinton's Bridge to the 21st century, willya

Their slaves did most of the work for them at least for all those wonderful the Southern Gentlemen

The ones who stand out are like pols today who stand out. We have some extremely hard working and very intelligent pols -- one just retired: Barny Frank was known to be a workhorse respected by most everyone for his work ethic

People like Yarddog just shit everywhere they go and complain that nobody is picking up after them

Sure the corrupt Barney Frank, Im sure you put him up there with Franklin and Washington. The Founding fathers, were able to devise a system of government, fight a revolution and had to make compromises to hold it together, though it wasnt perfect, many also put their lives at risk in the process, all in a relatively short period of time. The Current bunch come up with a healthcare bill for us that they dont want for themselves or their families, and in general, love telling us what is good for us and how to live while the rules will not apply to themselves. No thanks, I dont want to be a lap dog for them, Id rather be critical. They also could not 'Honestly' tell us what was in their health plan because they didn't know or just had blind faith in the goodness of their actions.

As for crapping everywhere, I have those little brown bags to pick up after my dog, and I always do, but in the case of your lawn? I would just leave it there and maybe wait around to see if he had to go twice. Just as long as you want to make it personal

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yarddog

Id be willing to bet these politicians were not nearly as Lazy as the ones we have today. probably played much fewer rounds of golf than politicians today, had a heavier work load and fewer staffers than the ones today, . They actually read the bills they voted on.

Franklin was my favorite though because he seems like the most interesting. with his very important inventions

The bills back then were shorter...society has changed. Walk over Clinton's Bridge to the 21st century, willya

Their slaves did most of the work for them at least for all those wonderful the Southern Gentlemen

The ones who stand out are like pols today who stand out. We have some extremely hard working and very intelligent pols -- one just retired: Barny Frank was known to be a workhorse respected by most everyone for his work ethic

People like Yarddog just shit everywhere they go and complain that nobody is picking up after them

Sure the corrupt Barney Frank, Im sure you put him up there with Franklin and Washington. The Founding fathers, were able to devise a system of government, fight a revolution and had to make compromises to hold it together, though it wasnt perfect, many also put their lives at risk in the process, all in a relatively short period of time. The Current bunch come up with a healthcare bill for us that they dont want for themselves or their families, and in general, love telling us what is good for us and how to live while the rules will not apply to themselves. No thanks, I dont want to be a lap dog for them, Id rather be critical. They also could not 'Honestly' tell us what was in their health plan because they didn't know or just had blind faith in the goodness of their actions.

As for crapping everywhere, I have those little brown bags to pick up after my dog, and I always do, but in the case of your lawn? I would just leave it there and maybe wait around to see if he had to go twice. Just as long as you want to make it personal

Corrupt?

post one FACTUAL instance of corruption:


Barney has left office a while ago and has still NOT become a lobbyist. He could have named his price. He had one of the most important and powerful positions in government

eat shit asshole troll

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog

Id be willing to bet these politicians were not nearly as Lazy as the ones we have today. probably played much fewer rounds of golf than politicians today, had a heavier work load and fewer staffers than the ones today, . They actually read the bills they voted on.

Franklin was my favorite though because he seems like the most interesting. with his very important inventions

The bills back then were shorter...society has changed. Walk over Clinton's Bridge to the 21st century, willya

Their slaves did most of the work for them at least for all those wonderful the Southern Gentlemen

The ones who stand out are like pols today who stand out. We have some extremely hard working and very intelligent pols -- one just retired: Barny Frank was known to be a workhorse respected by most everyone for his work ethic

People like Yarddog just shit everywhere they go and complain that nobody is picking up after them

Sure the corrupt Barney Frank, Im sure you put him up there with Franklin and Washington. The Founding fathers, were able to devise a system of government, fight a revolution and had to make compromises to hold it together, though it wasnt perfect, many also put their lives at risk in the process, all in a relatively short period of time. The Current bunch come up with a healthcare bill for us that they dont want for themselves or their families, and in general, love telling us what is good for us and how to live while the rules will not apply to themselves. No thanks, I dont want to be a lap dog for them, Id rather be critical. They also could not 'Honestly' tell us what was in their health plan because they didn't know or just had blind faith in the goodness of their actions.

As for crapping everywhere, I have those little brown bags to pick up after my dog, and I always do, but in the case of your lawn? I would just leave it there and maybe wait around to see if he had to go twice. Just as long as you want to make it personal

Corrupt?

post one FACTUAL instance of corruption:


Barney has left office a while ago and has still NOT become a lobbyist. He could have named his price. He had one of the most important and powerful positions in government

eat shit asshole troll

There was a reason his rabbi excommunicated him you can look that up.

then ,

While serving on the House Financial Services Committee, Frank consistently supported the expansion of questionable mortgage loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while his partner, Herb Moses, was an assistant director of Fannie Mae responsible for relaxing mortgage standards. This policy, of which Frank was a prime mover, led to the largest credit implosion in the history of civilization. The Business and Media Institute reported that Moses, who “developed many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs,” left the agency in 1998 and ended his relationship with Frank a few months later. Frank, who continued to promote dangerous credit expansionary policies throughout the Bush years, subsequently partnered with Sergio Pombo, who was an employee of the World Bank.



Frank consistently reaped campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as from various banks. According to Investors Business Daily, Frank took in campaign cash from Fannie and Freddie to the tune of $40,100 over two decades. The general records regarding the contributions of Fannie and Freddie to congressional candidates, estimated to be in the neighborhood of $200 million, are presently sealed due to the fact that both quasi-public agencies have been placed into receivership.


Read more at Barney Frank s pattern of disgrace and corruption

Sorry, but Ben Franklin was head and shoulders above this washington troll

 

[BluePhantom]

For me...well...of course great respect to the standard ones that everyone focuses on, but my personal favorites are Madison, and John Adams/Abigail Adams. I have always felt Jefferson was overrated. Great mind, excellent contributor to freedom, but a lousy president, in my opinion. Madison I love because of his brilliance and his contributions to the Constitution. I don't recall who said it but another founding father commented that Madison appeared to be shy and reserved, but if you tried to debate him one on one or in a small group you were going to get throttled. And of course I love how he used Dolley to schmooze and charm his opponents into revising their opinions. I think the guy that doesn't get enough credit is John Adams though. Yeah, he was a loud mouth and an abrasive asshole who lacked any form of statesmanship, but he was a genius and a man of action. He told it the way he saw it and if someone had a problem with that, well tough titty for them. Establishing freedom was a team effort, of course. There was no single person who did it all, but Adams was certainly behind the group cracking the whip saying 'come on guys, time to get this done'.

I am pleased that Abigail was mentioned in the OP and is getting attention for her contributions by modern historians. I feel Abigail should be considered a founder. The letters between her and John are so interesting. Aside from being a fantastic love story, one gets the impression of a true partnership. While it would be going too far to say that Abigail was the brains behind the partnership and John was the figurehead, John was certainly Abigail's voice in an era where women were not permitted to speak on such matters. What I mean is, John was his own man and spoke his mind, but, through their letters, it becomes clear that he valued Abigail's opinion very highly and his positions were heavily influenced by her. Thus, John's positions were more 'John and Abigail's' positions...until it came to voting rights for women. Poor John...that was an embarrassing exchange.