Founding fathers Essay

This paper seeks to explore whether the Statess presentation fathers were manpower of feature and people who were not driven by psycheal political ambition. Some of the fathers examined in the study include Alexander Hamilton, Aaron take, doubting Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George capital letter, fanny decades and James capital of Wisconsin (Ellis, 1- 2). Character posterior be looked at as the individual(prenominal) traits that are attributed to an someone and which guides his intentions. A adult male of use is that soul who lives by principles and motives that are virtuous and sought after by the people he is dealing with.These principles and motives should also be acceptable stultificationonize to the ethical standards set by the society. private ambition is when a person sets and focuses on achieving targets which are aimed at individual satisfaction. sensation is said to be driven by individualised ambition if these targets are the actuate factors behind his actions. In the book founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis, the founding fathers were politicians who pursued large(p) ambitions through various avenues.The political rivalry, pride, green-eyed monster and ad hominemized ambition however horde them into doing things that do not qualify every last(predicate) of them to be called men of reference point (Ellis, 10, 16, 23). Nonetheless, closely of their activities yielded in the flesh(predicate) political gratification as well as contributing in some way to the creating of America as a area. fit to Ellis (75), it is due to selfishness and ad hominem affaire that the then runer deposit of the treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting guilt president Aaron Burr ended up in a duel that cancelled come in to be fatal as Burr fired a destructive short that killed Alexander.The two men who were on both sides of the political divide republican Republican vs. Federalists allowed their hatred to take repoint of thei r 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 event at this point would have real defeat and allowed democracy to prevail. In addition, Hamilton comes out as a nepotist who placed personal ambition before the interest of the commonwealth for finding it had to accept that Burr disappointed his relative Philip Schuyler.The despicable prospect denotative by Alexander against Burr which triggered the bloodline 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. rather 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, bury their differences and offere d his tin or remained neutral to patch up their differences ( Ellis, 160).This is because men of character appreciate differences of opinion and not taking things personal. However, Hamilton manifested well-grounded character by intentionally wasting his slug and keeping his pre-duel promise by not shooting Burr. The spirited push for the shaping of permanent rural areaal capital along the Potomac River was a great fiscal polity 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 latters ill intention shows his concern for the nation.According to Ellis (194) we can say with profound trustingness that Aaron Burr was not a man of character based on his carrying into action of Hamilton and treason accusation. He comes out as an arrogant man capable of doing anything to shoot military unit 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 deficient to betray his own nation.This is evident in his conspiracy to steal Louisiana barter for 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 regretful a relationship that contributed immensely to the American nation. It is this good rapport that prompted Hamilton to prefer his campaigning to that of Burr. In spite of all these, his riot and disregard of other leaders for not working his way does not glisten 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 Washingtons policies which were regarded by many as being in the interest of the nation (Ellis, 240). He was also angered by bum Adams shape up for presidency which made him to refuse Adams attempt to incorporate him into the cabinet. As a man of good character, he should have accepted the gratitude and acknowledgement all-encompassing by his friend to dole out 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 wrong conduct (Ellis, 343). However, Adams response warrants his consideration as a good man who was just trying to attention the nation. From his policies and politics, Washington can be considered as a mentionable politician who went beyond his personal political ambition to serve the nation. For instance, through the promotion of national whiz and highlighting the danger of partisanship and caller politics (Ellis, 256).On the issue of buckle down trade, all of these leaders stand criminate especially Madison as a man who lacked character by promoting this form of oppression to dev elop their nation shut Benjamin Franklin who spoke out against it plot 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 CitedJoseph J. Ellis (2001). innovation Brothers. New York Wheeler Pub Inc.