Review Of Founding Brothers By Joseph J. Ellis

Throughout his book Founding Brothers, Joseph J. Ellis explores the relationships between founding fathers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton as brothers more than as fathers. By doing this, he highlights the difference in ideas and opinions between the greatest minds of the post-revolutionary era, and how they all struggled against each other to shape the nation in the way they thought best. Although most of these figures worked together to win the American Revolution, developing a successful government was an entirely different matter full of arguments and feuds. Between 1789 and 1799, many tensions emerged within the newly forming United States government, the primary ones presented by Ellis being the differentiation

When the idea was presented in Congress, it sparked both outrage and highlighted some of the hypocrisy in the country at the time. While the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written against the tyranny of England, they also allowed men to rule over others as slave masters, which abolitionists argued, went entirely against what the United States stands for: freedom and equality. Others, in favor of the institution of slavery, claimed that not only was slavery necessary for the new economy but that the Constitution and even the Bible were in favor of it. These opposite opinions highlighted some of radical differences in thought throughout the country and the government in their political parties. These political lines were drawn from the start of the debate on slavery, with the pro-slavery states to the south and anti-slavery to the north, with more neutral states in between. As each side became more involved with the debate, the tensions between groups rose and created the

During the time of his presidency, George Washington was the trusted authority to lead the new country. Although a majority supported and adored him nationwide, there was a small group that called out the hypocrisy of his presidency: while the Constitution went against having a large central figure, Washington was exactly that. He even held himself in a majestic way, very formal and king like, and he was able to take control over not just the armies during the revolution but over the United States government as well. Within the Congress, the idea of having a king or true power figure was shunned to nearly the same extent as kings were shunned in the Roman Republic: there was truly nothing worse. Specifically when Adams suggested referring to the president as “His Majesty” to show his leadership, he was met with pompous opposition and mockery, the politicians and even the United States people not wanting any sort of kingly figure in charge, or too strong of a central government for that matter. This has been a continued tension all through American history, due to the fear of reverting back to a monarchical government, and this fear has been an internal and external check on the federal government by politicians and by the