Founding fathers Essay

This paper seeks to explore whether Americas founding fathers were custody of calibre and plenty who were not drive by own(prenominal) governmental ambition. Some of the fathers examined in the study include black lov season Hamilton, Aaron bur, Thomas Jefferson, gum benjamin Franklin, George Washington, ass Adams and James Madison (Ellis, 1- 2). Character fuck be looked at as the own(prenominal) traits that are attributed to an individual and which guides his intentions. A military personnel of reference work 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 withal be acceptable according to the honourable 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 individual(prenominal) ambition if these targets are the motivating factors behind his acti ons. In the book Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis, the founding fathers were politicians who pursued great ambitions with various avenues.The political rivalry, pride, jealousy and personal ambition however operate them into doing things that do not qualify entirely 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 behavior to the creating of America as a landed estate. According to Ellis (75), it is callable to selfishness and personal interest that the then former secretarial assistant of the treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice president Aaron Burr finish up in a duel that turned bulge reveal to be fatal as Burr fired a deadly footling that killed Alexander.The two men who were on both sides of the political divide egalitarian Republi fundament vs. Federalists allowed their hatred to take charge of their thoughts. Alexander did not want B urr because the later captured a Senate seat from Philip Schuyler who happened to be Hamiltons father-in-law (Ellis, 172). A world of character at this point would have accepted pop 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 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 sagely in away that does not harm the feelings of his audience but communicates the indispensable information. Instead of pushing Aaron Burr further in the New York gubernatorial choice by endorsing a candidate who ended up trouncing Burr and widening their differences, a man of character would have swallowed pride, interred their differences and offered his support or remained neutra l to reconcile their differences ( Ellis, 160).This is because men of character notify 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 snapshot Burr. The spirited push for the establishment of permanent national capital on the Potomac River was a great fiscal policy that credits him with fighting for the eudaimonia 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 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 take for power. Hunger for power is a vice that is not associated with men of character. level off after loosing his Vice- organisation in an elect ion, he was still driven by personal political ambition to the extent of wanting to betray his own nation.This is distinct in his conspiracy to steal Louisiana Purchase lands away from the join 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 Washingtons policies which were regarded by many another(prenominal) as being in the interest of the nation (Ellis, 240). He was besides angered by John Adams win 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 reference extended by his friend to deal 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, Adams reaction warrants his consideration as a good man who was rightful(prenominal) 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 barely Benjamin Franklin who spoke out ag ainst it enchantment championing freedom for all (Ellis, 317) Conclusion. looking for at the early political days of the founding fathers, we can settle 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 to a higher place discussions, I can conclude that not all founding fathers were men of character who were not driven by personal political ambition. knead CitedJoseph J. Ellis (2001). Founding Brothers. New York Wheeler Pub Inc.