essay about founding fathers

Sharing teaching and learning resources from the National Archives

Education Updates

Access the Writings of the Founding Fathers on Founders Online

You can read and search through thousands of transcriptions of records from George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. You and your students can access the written record of the original thoughts, ideas, debates, and principles of our democracy.

For example, if you find this letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson regarding the neutral role of the United States in the War Between Great Britain and France—in the holdings of the National Archives and available on DocsTeach—you can find its transcription on Founders Online :

Search across the records of all six Founders and read first drafts of the Declaration of Independence, the spirited debate over the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the very beginnings of American law, government, and our national story. You can compare and contrast the thoughts and ideas of these six individuals and their correspondents as they discussed and debated through their letters and documents.

You—or your students—can use the site to:

• Research a person : Search by author and recipient, or for someone mentioned in the writing of another.
• Research a time period : Choose a predefined time period and then narrow the results with search terms. Or enter a start date, end date, or both.
• Research a concept : Experiment with search terms. For example, you can search for concepts like liberty , freedom , bill of rights, freedom of the press,  or checks and balances . (The site includes instructions and strategies for searching.)

The website was created by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission , the grant-making arm of the National Archives, and The University of Virginia Press.

Share this:

3 thoughts on “ access the writings of the founding fathers on founders online ”.

This resource is breathtaking in its scope and value. I already have student accessing it for their class projects. It defies description. Powerful, powerful resource.

Thanks, John! We’d love to hear your feedback about using the site.

This site just made so many founding fathers geeks soooo happy! Thank you to our government!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Founders Online --> [ Back to normal view ]

Correspondence and other writings of seven major shapers of the united states:.

George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams (and family), Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Over 184,000 searchable documents, fully annotated, from the authoritative Founding Fathers Papers projects.

Quick links

• About Founders Online
• Major Funders
• Search Help
• How to Use This Site
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Teaching Resources

Sort: Frequency / Alphabetical

• Washington, George (31,728)
• Jefferson, Thomas (20,531)
• Adams, John (10,097)
• Madison, James (8,663)
• Hamilton, Alexander (7,632)
• Franklin, Benjamin (4,918)
• Adams, John Quincy (3,524)
• Jay, John (1,771)
• Adams, Abigail (1,287)
• Monroe, James (993)

Show: Top 10 / Top 50

• Jefferson, Thomas (27,035)
• Washington, George (22,801)
• Madison, James (19,677)
• Franklin, Benjamin (9,482)
• Adams, John (8,742)
• Hamilton, Alexander (6,824)
• Jay, John (1,613)
• Adams, Abigail (1,602)
• Adams, John Quincy (1,110)
• Lee, Arthur (952)
• Colonial 1706–1775 (16,105)
• Revolutionary War 1775–1783 (48,379)
• Confederation Period 1783–1789 (17,804)
• Washington Presidency 1789–1797 (27,165)
• Adams Presidency 1797–1801 (13,566)
• Jefferson Presidency 1801–1809 (29,479)
• Madison Presidency 1809–1817 (15,472)
• post-Madison Presidency 1817–1836 (15,436)

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Sign up for the HNN Newsletter

The Founding Fathers: Their Achievement and Failures

The Achievement

More specifically, the Founding Fathers managed to defy conventional wisdom in four unprecedented achievements: first, they won a war for colonial independence against the most powerful military and economic power in the world; second, they established the first large-scale republic in the modern world; third, they invented political parties that institutionalized the concept of a legitimate opposition; fourth, they established the principle of the legal separation of church and state, though it took several decades for that principle to be implemented in all the states. Finally, all these achievements were won without recourse to the guillotine or the firing-squad wall, which is to say without the violent purges that accompanied subsequent revolutions in France, Russia, and China. This was the overarching accomplishment that the British philosopher Alfred Lord North Whitehead had in mind when he observed that there were only two instances in the history of Western civilization when the political elite of an emerging empire behaved as well as one could reasonably expect: the first was Rome under Caesar Augustus, and the second was the United States under the Founding Fathers.

The Failure

Slavery was incompatible with the values of the American Revolution, and all the prominent members of the revolutionary generation acknowledged that fact. In three important areas they acted on this conviction: first, by ending the slave trade in 1808; second, by passing legislation in all the states north of the Potomac that put slavery on the road to ultimate extinction; third, by prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the Northwest Territory. But in all the states south of the Potomac, where some nine-tenths of the slave population resided, they failed to act. Indeed, by insisting that slavery was a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, they implicitly removed the slavery question from the national agenda. This decision had catastrophic consequences, for it permitted the enslaved population to grow in size eightfold (from 500,000 in 1775 to 4,000,000 in 1860), mostly by natural reproduction, and to spread throughout all the southern states east of the Mississippi River. And at least in retrospect, their failure to act decisively before the slave population swelled so dramatically rendered the slavery question insoluble by any means short of civil war.

There were at least three underlying reasons for this tragic failure. First, many of the Founders mistakenly believed that slavery would die a natural death, that decisive action was unnecessary because slavery would not be able to compete successfully with the wage labor of free individuals. They did not foresee the cotton gin and the subsequent expansion of the Cotton Kingdom. Second, all the early efforts to place slavery on the national agenda prompted a threat of secession by the states of the Deep South (South Carolina and Georgia were the two states who actually threatened to secede, though Virginia might very well have chosen to join them if the matter came to a head), a threat especially potent during the fragile phase of the early American republic. While most of the Founders regarded slavery as a malignant cancer on the body politic, they also believed that any effort to remove it surgically would in all likelihood kill the young nation in the cradle. Finally, all conversations about abolishing slavery were haunted by the specter of a free African American population, most especially in those states south of the Potomac where in some locations blacks actually outnumbered whites. None of the Founding Fathers found it possible to imagine a biracial American society, an idea that, in point of fact, did not achieve broad acceptance in the United States until the middle of the 20th century.

Given these prevalent convictions and attitudes, slavery was that most un-American item, an inherently intractable and insoluble problem. As Jefferson so famously put it, the founders held "the wolfe by the ears," and could neither subdue him nor afford to let him go. Virtually all the Founding Fathers went to their graves realizing that slavery, no matter how intractable, would become the largest and most permanent stain on their legacy. And when Abraham Lincoln eventually made the decision that, at terrible cost, ended slavery forever, he did so in the name of the Founders.

The other tragic failure of the Founders, almost as odious as the failure to end slavery, was the inability to implement a just policy toward the indigenous inhabitants of the North American continent. In 1783, the year the British surrendered control of the eastern third of North America in the Treaty of Paris, there were approximately 100,000 American Indians living between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi. The first census (1790) revealed that there were also 100,000 white settlers living west of the Alleghenies, swelling in size every year (by 1800 they would number 500,000) and moving relentlessly westward. The inevitable collision between these two peoples posed the strategic and ultimately the moral question: How could the legitimate rights of the Indian population be reconciled with the demographic tidal wave building to the east?

In the end, they could not. Although the official policy of Indian removal east of the Mississippi was not formally announced and implemented until 1830, the seeds of that policy--what one historian has called "the seeds of extinction" -- were planted during the founding era, most especially during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson (1801-09).

One genuine effort to avoid that outcome was made in 1790 during the presidency of George Washington. The Treaty of New York with the Creek tribes of the early southwest proposed a new model for American policy toward the Indians, declaring that they should not be regarded as a conquered people with no legal rights, but rather as a collection of sovereign nations. Indian policy was therefore a branch of foreign policy, and all treaties were solemn commitments by the federal government not subject to challenge by any state or private corporation. Washington envisioned a series of American Indian enclaves or homelands east of the Mississippi whose borders would be guaranteed under federal law, protected by federal troops, and bypassed by the flood of white settlers. But, as it soon became clear, the federal government lacked the resources in money and manpower to make Washington's vision a reality. And the very act of· claiming executive power to create an Indian protectorate prompted charges of monarchy, the most potent political epithet of the age. Washington, who was accustomed to getting his way, observed caustically that nothing short of "a Chinese Wall" could protect the Native American tribes from the relentless expansion of white settlements. Given the surging size of the white population, it is difficult to imagine how the story could have turned out differently.

Founding Fathers of America Research Paper

The United States of America draws its greatness from its founding fathers who fought for its independence and worked hard to unite the country. The founding fathers of the country include people who actively contributed to the constitution by drafting and signing its declaration. This may also include politicians, public officials, jurists, warriors, civil servants, or ordinary citizens who participated in winning the United States independence.

There are seven key founding fathers of the United States of America; John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.

They were the political leaders and public officials who took part in the country’s revolutionary war and signed the Declaration of Independence. They also include people who drafted the Constitution and made other key contributions. They are thus the delegates who had a significant direct or indirect effect on the constitution (Henretta, Edwards & Self, 2011).

This paper will identify and discuss three key founding fathers from the 1700s who I believe played the most important role in establishing the United States of America. They include George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson.

George Washington was the first president of America and served as the commander of the US army during the revolutionary war, which took place between the years 1775-1783. He is referred to as the founding father of the nation for the role he played in fighting for independence.

The national congress appointed George Washington as a commander in chief of its armed forces in 1775 (Stanfield, 2001). In 1776, he drove the British out of Boston and by the end of that year; he had captured most of the country’s territory. George Washington led a strong army and a powerful nation against threats of disintegration and collapse. In 1787, Washington was the head of the Philadelphia tenet that drafted the U.S constitution and in 1787, he became the head of the United States of America (Rutland, 1997).

As a president, he established many customs and assigned more work to the executive arm of government in an attempt to unite the country in a time it was facing international threats. In 1793, he declared the country neutral to foreign relations and this helped the country avoid conflicts.

As a founding father of United States of America, Washington supported all the policies aimed at building a strong central regime. He settled the nations’ debt, executed an efficient tax system, and created a bank where the American citizens could save their money (Adler, 2008). He always evaded the temptation of international conflicts and battles by ensuring that peace was maintained in the nation. Although Washington was not a member of the Federalist Party, he was its motivating leader and supported its policies and activities.

He strongly supported the republican principles and warned against bias, sectionalism, and international conflicts. His refusal to engage in political conflicts buttressed his character as a man dedicated to the military nation and a founding father of the nation. Newspapers in the United States thus extolled Washington’s character and traits as a military commander and a founder of the nation (Rutland, 1997).

James Madison was another founding father of the United States of America. He was an American politician and between the years 1809-1817, he served as the fourth head of state. He was the main author of the nation’s constitution and in 1788, he wrote the most powerful commentary on the United States Constitution.

As a founding father of America, he drafted many rules and is responsible for the first ten alterations in the constitution. Due to this, he is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights” (Allen, 1997). He believed that America’s constitution needed regular checks to protect the rights of the citizens from oppression (Allen, 1997).

James Madison worked with George Washington to create the current central government in America. He opposed the key principles of the federalists and established the Democratic Republican Party (DRP), which acted against Foreign and Sedition Acts. As a founding father, he led the nation into war against Britain in 1812.

In 1815, he supported the idea of creating the second national bank since this would protect the nation’s new industries, which had been established during the war. James Madison held cabinet meetings regularly to discuss the country’s problems before making any decision. When handling habitual tasks, he was systematic, orderly and allowed others to give their opinions (Allen, 1997).

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father of the United States of America and was instrumental during the Revolutionary war. Before the struggle for independence, he was active in defending America from being made a Royal Colony. Thomas actively organized oppositions to the colonial government and in 1774, he wrote a pamphlet titled ‘A Summary View of the Rights of British America’ where he articulated colonialism and encouraged the American citizens to continue fighting for independence (Biographiq, 2008).

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson opposed America’s constitution by saying that it ignored the people it was meant for. He said, “The Senate does not appear to me to be a Child of the people at Large, and therefore will not be supported by them longer than there subsists the most perfect Union between the different Legislative branches” (Biographiq, 2008). In 1778, he represented America in the Continental Congress and served as the head of the nation’s first senate in 1780.

Between 1782 and 1785, Thomas served as the manager of the nation’s finances. He is credited for helping the nation the financial depression caused by the war. As a founding father of the nation, he was increasingly interested in national affairs and always looked for ways of solving the financial and political problems that had resulted from the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation (Biographiq, 2008).

He attended a Conference in Mount Vernon, which led to the new constitution. Thomas favored a strong and enduring union of the nation in which a senate representing the citizens had the authority to impose taxes on the people.

Concerned with the permanence of the new government, he argued that frequent elections could result to indifferences hence make famous men reluctant in office seeking. As a founding father of America, Jefferson’s good humor and enjoyable company endeared him to many people. He used this to help settle the opposing opinions of the delegates and created the compromises that have made America a success (Biographiq, 2008).

Looking at the achievements and the contributions these great men had in shaping the history of America, they are truly the founding fathers of the country. The three individuals were remarkable in the building of a strong society that we proudly call the United States of America today. They fought and sacrificed to see the country attain independence and put in place the governing structures that have helped America to be the greatest nation in the world.

Adler, B. (2008). America’s founding fathers: their uncommon wisdom and wit. Lanham: Taylor Trade Pub.

Allen, R. (1997). James Madison: the founding father. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Biographiq. (2008). Thomas Jefferson – Founding Father (Biography). Minneapolis: Filiquarian Pub.

Henretta, A., Edwards, R., & Self, O. (2011). America’s History . New York: Bedford Martins.

Rutland, R. A. (1997). The Founding Father. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Stanfield, J. (2001). America’s Founding Fathers: Who Are They? Thumbnail Sketches of 164 Patriots. Parkland: Universal Publishers.

• Sojourner Truth
• Colin Powell Leadership Characteristics
• The Founding Fathers and Their Rebellion Against the Crown
• Founding Fathers as Democratic Reformers
• James Madison and the United States Constitution
• Julius Caesar and Rome
• Karl Marx Ideologies and His Influence in the 21st Century
• Diogenes and Alexander
• The Life of Benjamin Franklin
• "My Grandfather's Son" by Clarence Thomas: A Memoir
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 17). Founding Fathers of America. https://ivypanda.com/essays/founding-fathers-of-america/

"Founding Fathers of America." IvyPanda , 17 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/founding-fathers-of-america/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Founding Fathers of America'. 17 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Founding Fathers of America." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/founding-fathers-of-america/.

1. IvyPanda . "Founding Fathers of America." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/founding-fathers-of-america/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Founding Fathers of America." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/founding-fathers-of-america/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

The Vision Of The Founding Fathers

What kind of nation did the Founders aim to create?

Men, not vast, impersonal forces — economic, technological, class struggle, what have you — make history, and they make it out of the ideals that they cherish in their hearts and the ideas they have in their minds. So what were the ideas and ideals that drove the Founding Fathers to take up arms and fashion a new kind of government, one formed by reflection and choice, as Alexander Hamilton said, rather than by accident and force?

The worldview out of which America was born centered on three revolutionary ideas, of which the most powerful was a thirst for liberty. For the Founders, liberty was not some vague abstraction. They understood it concretely, as people do who have a keen knowledge of its opposite. They understood it in the same way as Eastern Europeans who have lived under Communist tyranny, for instance, or Jews who escaped the Holocaust.

The Plymouth Pilgrims were only the first of many who came to the New World to escape religious persecution. Hard as it may be to believe it at this distance of time, British law once forbade non-Anglican Protestants to worship freely — jailing and even burning them for dissenting in the 16th and 17th centuries, and then, more liberally, fining them — and it barred them (along with Catholics and Jews) from the great universities and from political office. In response, thousands of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, and others fled. Not incidentally, they brought with them their dissenting tradition of governing their own congregations and hiring and firing their own ministers — in other words, they brought to these shores a political culture of self-government. Moreover, because they were accustomed to reading the Bible and feeling free to judge its meaning for themselves — to believing, that is, that they had a direct relation to God and his word independent of any worldly institution or authority — they also brought a deeply rooted culture of individualism and personal responsibility. For them, the individual and his conscience were of preeminent importance.

William Livingston, a signer of the Constitution and longtime governor of New Jersey, had earlier, in the 1750s, run a journal that was key in turning the American mind toward revolution. In one issue he reminded his readers how “the countless Sufferings of your pious Predecessors for Liberty of Conscience, and the Right of private Judgment,” drove them “to this country, then a dreary Waste and barren Desert.” His own Presbyterian grandfather was among those pious predecessors. John Jay, our first chief justice, wrote a gripping account of how his paternal grandfather, a French Protestant, returned home to La Rochelle from a trading voyage abroad to find his parents, siblings, and neighbors gone. Their houses were occupied by soldiers, their church destroyed, their savings confiscated. While he had been away, he learned, France had revoked its toleration of the Huguenots. He was lucky to be able to sneak aboard a ship and sail away to freedom in the New World. Jay's maternal grandparents similarly had to flee anti-Protestant persecution, one from Paris and one from Bohemia. Jay's son and biographer tells us this proudly; it was a living family legend.

As Edmund Burke warned his fellow members of Parliament four weeks before Lexington and Concord, when it was already too late, “All protestantism . . . is a sort of dissent,” but American Protestantism “is a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the protestant religion.” Whatever might be the differences among the American Protestant sects, he said, they all agree “in the communion of the spirit of liberty.”

Long before Emma Lazarus wrote about the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, George Washington noted that for “the poor, the needy, & the oppressed of the Earth,” America was already what he called “the second Land of promise.” This Promised Land offered, said James Madison, “an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.”

In fact, for Madison — who studied at Princeton under the radical Scottish-born Presbyterian John Witherspoon — it was red-hot outrage over a remnant of religious oppression in the New World that drove him, until then a sickly and directionless youth, into a political career. Virginia, where Anglicanism was still the official, established religion until the Revolution, had jailed a group of Baptist preachers for their unorthodox religious writings. If you aren't free to think your own thoughts and believe your own beliefs, fumed Madison, you aren't free, period, since freedom is seamless. And as a practical matter, there can be no progress without intellectual freedom. So when the 25-year-old revolutionary took part in drafting Virginia's Declaration of Rights, he rejected its original provision for religious toleration. It's not government's business to “tolerate” somebody's beliefs, he maintained. You are free to think whatever your reason convinces you is true, government or no government; and that's what the Declaration of Rights ended up saying. Madison would never use Thomas Jefferson's high-flown language, but he certainly agreed with his close friend's sentiment that “I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” These men knew what it meant to individuals and to a whole culture to have to parrot an official orthodoxy, or else remain silent — and they knew what physical tyrannies such unfreedom of belief could unleash.

It is a deeply tragic paradox that the Founders also valued liberty so highly because they lived amidst slavery. Even the slave-owners among them knew how obscenely unjust the institution was. “The whole commerce between master and slave,” wrote Jefferson, “is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.” I needn't detail the crushing toil, the sadistic punishments, the sexual exploitation, the break-up of families, the enforced ignorance, and the regulation of every aspect of life comprehended in Jefferson's decorous statement of the inhumanity of which human nature is capable.

In 1759, more than a century before the Civil War, Richard Henry Lee of Stratford Hall, later president of the Continental Congress (and incidentally a cousin of the Stratford-born Robert E. Lee), made his maiden speech in the Virginia House of Burgesses. His message to his fellow slave-owners: End slavery. How can anyone who calls himself a Christian, he demanded, think that “our fellow-creatures . . . are no longer to be considered as created in the image of God as well as ourselves, and equally entitled to liberty and freedom by the great law of nature?” On a more down-to-earth level, he pointed out that slaves who see their masters living in luxury and freedom, “whilst they and their posterity are subjected for ever to the most abject and mortifying slavery,” must become “natural enemies to society, and their increase consequently dangerous.”

Jefferson, who had written in the Declaration that all men are created equal, wrote in 1786, in words that prefigure Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural, “When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a god of justice will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing light and liberality among their oppressors, or at length by his exterminating thunder, manifest his attention to the things of this world, and that they are not to be left to the guidance of a blind fatality.”

So when the young and pigheaded King George III began meddling in American affairs after decades of an official British policy of “salutary neglect” toward the New World colonies, the Founders had a ready explanation for his intentions. The king, Washington concluded in 1774, aimed “to make us as tame, & abject Slaves, as the Blacks we Rule over with such arbitrary Sway” — a sentiment whose full implications it took General Washington a lifetime to grasp: He finally freed his slaves on his deathbed. Even earlier, Richard Henry Lee's brother Arthur, who became one of the Revolution's foreign agents, declared, “I cannot Conceive of the Necessity of becoming a Slave, while there remains a Ditch in which one may die free.” For such men, liberty wasn't just a word. They could feel it and taste it. Choosing your beliefs, your thoughts, your job, your officials, your laws, your taxes — being equal citizens before a law that was the same for all — they never took these freedoms for granted.

The Founders believed that the purpose of government was to protect life, liberty, and property from what they called the depravity of human nature — from man's innate capacity to do the kinds of violence that slave-owners, to take just one example, did every day. But government, they recognized, is a double-edged sword. You arm officials with the power to protect you; but those officials have the same fallen human nature as everyone else, so who is to say that they won't use that power to oppress you, as European governments had oppressed the colonists' forebears? From Pharaoh to Nero to the Stuart kings, history teems with examples of such despotic governments. Even the democratic republic the Founders created had to be run by imperfect men, and thus even it could turn into what Richard Henry Lee called an elective despotism. So the second great Founding idea is this: The mere fact that you elect representatives to govern you is no sure-fire guarantee of liberty. Or, as Madison saw it in Federalist No. 10: Taxation with representation can be tyranny.

This danger worried the Founders constantly, and they struggled to protect their new government from it. Their first experiment was to make that government too weak to oppress them. But it was also, they found, too weak to do its chief job of protecting them against violence. The Revolutionary War proved longer and harder than it need have been, since the central government lacked authority to tax in order to pay soldiers or buy arms. But when the Founders set out to write a new Constitution to give the federal government powers sufficient to its purpose, they did so with their hearts in their mouths. They strictly limited those powers to what they deemed absolutely essential, and they carefully spelled out what those powers were. They divided and subdivided power, and made each branch of government a check on the others, to guard against overreaching. They required frequent elections, gave the president a veto, and in turn made him and other officials subject to impeachment.

Madison, the Constitution's chief designer, constructed his exquisitely balanced mechanism to work by the power of ambition countering ambition, and interest countering interest. A realist about human nature, like most of the Founders, he devised a government for ordinary men as they really were, not for prodigies of virtue. Even so, he conceded, there had to be at least a smidgen of virtue somewhere. If “there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” he wrote, then only “the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring each other.”

Washington was even more explicit about this, the third of the great Founding ideas: A democratic republic requires a special kind of culture, one that nurtures self-reliance and a love of liberty. Constitutions are all very well, the Founders often observed, but they are only “parchment barriers,” easily breached if demagogues subvert the “spirit and letter” of the document. They can do this dramatically, in one revolutionary putsch, or they can inflict a death by a thousand cuts, gradually persuading citizens that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says but should be interpreted to mean something different, or even something opposite.

The ultimate safeguard against such usurpation is the vitality of America's culture of liberty. In his first State of the Union speech, Washington stressed this point, emphasizing a view universal among the Founders. The “security of a free Constitution,” he said, depends on “teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; . . . to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness,” and to unite “a speedy, but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect for the laws.” If citizens start to take liberty for granted, if their culture — molded by journalists and writers, preachers and teachers — starts to hold other values in higher esteem, then the spirit that gives life to the Constitution will flicker out. Americans, Washington wrote on another occasion, should guard against “listlessness for the preservation of natural and unalienable rights,” for “no mound of parchm[en]t can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.”

The Founders well understood, as John Adams reminisced in 1818, that it was a change in the “principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections” of Americans that had sparked the Revolution. They considered that new culture of freedom that had arisen among them in the decades before Lexington and Concord, along with the new Constitution they created, to be the most precious inheritance they bequeathed to future generations of their fellow citizens. That vision offers us an instructive standard by which to gauge the present.

This piece originally appeared in National Review Online

Further Reading

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

• Public Safety
• Publications
• Research Integrity
• Press & Media

EIN #13-2912529

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Patrick Henry

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 20, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

Patrick Henry was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and the first governor of Virginia. A gifted orator and major figure in the American Revolution, his rousing speeches—which included a 1775 speech to the Virginia legislature in which he famously declared, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”—fired up America’s fight for independence. An outspoken Anti-Federalist, Henry opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which he felt put too much power in the hands of a national government. His influence helped create the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed personal freedoms and set limits on the government’s constitutional power.

Early Years

Patrick Henry was born in 1736 to John and Sarah Winston Henry on his family’s farm in Hanover County , Virginia . He was educated mostly at home by his father, a Scottish-born planter who had attended college in Scotland.

Henry struggled to find a profession as a young adult. He failed in several attempts as a storeowner and a planter. He taught himself law while working as a tavern keeper at his father-in-law’s inn and opened a law practice in Hanover County in 1760.

As a lawyer and politician, Patrick Henry was known for his persuasive and passionate speeches, which appealed as much to emotion as to reason. Many of Henry’s contemporaries likened his rhetorical style to the evangelical preachers of the Great Awakening , a religious revival that swept the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s.

Parson’s Cause

Henry’s first major legal case was known as the Parson’s Cause in 1763, a dispute involving Anglican clergy in colonial Virginia. The case – one of the first legal attempts to challenge the limits of England’s power over the American colonies – is often viewed as an important event leading up to the American Revolution .

Ministers of the Church of England in Virginia were paid their annual salaries in tobacco. A tobacco shortage caused by drought led to price increases in the late 1750s.

In response, the Virginia legislature passed the Two-Penny Act , which set the value of the Anglican ministers’ annual salaries at two pennies per pound of tobacco, rather than the inflated price, which was closer to six pennies per pound. The Anglican clergy appealed to Britain’s King George III , who overturned the law and encouraged ministers to sue for back pay.

The Parson’s Cause established Patrick Henry as a leader in the emerging movement for American independence. During the case, Henry, then a relatively unknown attorney, delivered an impassioned speech against British overreach into colonial affairs, arguing “that a King by annulling or disallowing acts of so salutary a nature, from being Father of his people degenerated into a Tyrant, and forfeits all rights to his subjects’ obedience.”

The Stamp Act of 1765 required American colonists to pay a small tax on every piece of paper they used. Colonists viewed the Stamp Act—an attempt by England to raise money in the colonies without approval from colonial legislatures—as a troublesome precedent.

Patrick Henry responded to the Stamp Act with a series of resolutions introduced to the Virginia legislature in a speech. The resolves, adopted by the Virginia legislature, were soon published in other colonies, and helped to articulate America’s stance against taxation without representation under the British Crown.

Henry’s resolves declared that Americans should be taxed only by their own representatives and that Virginians should pay no taxes except those voted on by the Virginia legislature.

Later in the speech, Henry flirted with treason when he hinted that the King risked suffering the same fate as Julius Caesar —assassination—if he maintained his oppressive policies.

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death

In March of 1775, the Second Virginia Convention met at St. John’s Church in Richmond to discuss the state’s strategy against the British. It was here that Patrick Henry delivered his most famous speech.

“Gentlemen may cry, ‘Peace, Peace,’ but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? ... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

George Washington , Thomas Jefferson and five of the six other Virginians who would later sign the Declaration of Independence were in attendance that day. Historians say that Henry’s “Liberty or Death” speech helped convince those in attendance to begin preparing Virginia troops for war against Great Britain.

Royal Governor Lord Dunmore responded to the speech by removing gunpowder from the magazine. That November, he would issue Dunmore’s Proclamation declaring martial law in Virginia and promising freedom to enslaved people who joined the King’s cause.

Henry spoke without notes, and no transcripts exist from his famous address. The only known version of the speech was reconstructed in an 1817 biography of Henry by author William Wirt, leading some historians to speculate that the famous Patrick Henry quote may have been fabricated by Wirt to sell copies of his book.

Henry and Slavery

Patrick Henry married his first wife, Sarah Shelton, in 1754, and the couple went on to have six children together. Her dowry included a 600-acre farm, a house, and six enslaved people.

After Sarah died in 1775, he married Dorothea Dandridge of Tidewater, Virginia, and their union produced eleven children.

Despite the size of his family, Henry and his family lived in a small farmhouse on a Piedmont-area plantation known as Red Hill. Henry once referred to slavery as a “lamentable evil,” but throughout his adult life Henry owned dozens of enslaved persons, some of whom worked the fields at Red Hill.

Anti-Federalism and the Bill of Rights

Patrick Henry served as Virginia’s first governor (1776-1779) and sixth governor (1784-1786).

In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War , Henry became an outspoken Anti-Federalist. Henry and other Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 United States Constitution , which created a strong federal government.

Patrick Henry worried that a federal government that was too powerful and too centralized could evolve into a monarchy. He was the author of several Anti- Federalist Papers —written arguments by Founding Father’s who opposed the U.S. Constitution.

While the Anti-Federalists were unable to stop the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the Anti-Federalist Papers were influential in helping to shape the Bill of Rights . The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, protected individual liberties and placed limits on the powers of the federal government.

Besides a brief stint as a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress —the United States government during the American Revolution—Patrick Henry never held national public office.

He died on June 6, 1799 at the age of 63 from stomach cancer. His Southern Virginia plantation is now the Red Hill Patrick Henry National Memorial .

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Henry’s Full Biography; Red Hill Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation .

Patrick Henry Arguing the Parson’s Cause; Virginia Museum of History and Culture .

A Summary of the 1765 Stamp Act; Colonial Williamsburg .

Patrick Henry, Orator of Liberty; U.S. Library of Congress .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Jump to main content

Jump to navigation

• Latest News Read the latest blog posts from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
• Share-Worthy Check out the most popular infographics and videos
• Photos View the photo of the day and other galleries
• Video Gallery Watch behind-the-scenes videos and more
• Live Events Tune in to White House events and statements as they happen
• Music & Arts Performances See the lineup of artists and performers at the White House
• Your Weekly Address
• Speeches & Remarks
• Press Briefings
• Statements & Releases
• White House Schedule
• Presidential Actions
• Legislation
• Nominations & Appointments
• Disclosures
• Cabinet Exit Memos
• Criminal Justice Reform
• Civil Rights
• Climate Change
• Foreign Policy
• Health Care
• Immigration Action
• Disabilities
• Homeland Security
• Reducing Gun Violence
• Seniors & Social Security
• Urban and Economic Mobility
• President Barack Obama
• Vice President Joe Biden
• First Lady Michelle Obama
• Dr. Jill Biden
• The Cabinet
• Executive Office of the President
• Senior White House Leadership
• Other Advisory Boards
• Office of Management and Budget
• Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Council of Economic Advisers
• Council on Environmental Quality
• National Security Council
• Joining Forces
• Reach Higher
• My Brother's Keeper
• Precision Medicine
• State of the Union
• Inauguration
• Medal of Freedom
• Follow Us on Social Media
• We the Geeks Hangouts
• Mobile Apps
• Developer Tools
• Tools You Can Use
• Tours & Events
• Jobs with the Administration
• Internships
• White House Fellows
• Presidential Innovation Fellows
• United States Digital Service
• Leadership Development Program
• We the People Petitions
• Contact the White House
• Citizens Medal
• Champions of Change
• West Wing Tour
• Eisenhower Executive Office Building Tour
• Video Series
• Décor and Art
• First Ladies
• The Vice President's Residence & Office
• Eisenhower Executive Office Building
• Air Force One
• The Executive Branch
• The Legislative Branch
• The Judicial Branch
• The Constitution
• Federal Agencies & Commissions
• Elections & Voting
• State & Local Government

Search form

The papers of the founding fathers are now online.

What was the original intent behind the Constitution and other documents that helped shape the nation? What did the Founders of our country have to say? Those questions persist in the political debates and discussions to this day, and fortunately, we have a tremendous archive left behind by those statesmen who built the government over 200 years ago.

For the past 50 years, teams of editors have been copying documents from historical collections scattered around the world that serve as a record of the Founding Era. They have transcribed hundreds of thousands of documents—letters, diaries, ledgers, and the first drafts of history—and have researched and provided annotation and context to deepen our understanding of these documents.

These papers have been assembled in 242 documentary editions covering the works of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, as well as hundreds of people who corresponded with them. Now for the first time ever, these documents—along with thousands of others that will appear in additional print volumes—will be available to the public.

The Founders Online  is a new website at the National Archives that will allow people to search this archive of the Founding Era, and read just what the Founders wrote and discussed during the first draft of the American democracy. Students and researchers, citizens and scholars can turn to Founders Online to track and debate the meaning of documents such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They can examine transcriptions of the originals and read the wit and wisdom of the Founders’ own debates.

The great minds who fiercely debated the founding of our country rarely agreed on public policy for the new nation, though they were unanimous in support of the principles and underlying idea of the United States. Here are a few possibilities for using Founders Online :

• Assemble the Founders' views on slavery into a single set of search results in which many of the original documents do not use the word at all.
• Collect all the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson along with their contemporaries' views on each man to create a richer portrait on their fraught relationship and lasting friendship.
• Trace the Founders' letters and diaries and debates leading up to the Constitutional Convention, their thoughts during the meetings in Philadelphia, the ratification of the Constitution by the states, and how the Washington administration, first Congress, and first Supreme Court implemented the grand experiment.
• Find insights into their private lives: the devotion expressed in the letters between John and Abigail Adams; Madison’s views on slavery; Hamilton’s feud that led to the fatal duel with Burr; the stuffed moose sent to Jefferson in Paris; Ben Franklin’s turkey; and yes, Washington’s decades-long problems with his teeth. 

The Founders Online continues that experiment in democracy by making freely available in one place the original words of the original statesmen. Although it holds only a small portion of the primary source material, the National Archives is an ideal home for this collection.

Now today's best minds will have the chance to contrast and compare the Founders' words and ideas through the Internet—a communications medium that none of the Founders could foresee—though all would acknowledge it as a democratizing force. The words of the Founders belong online, where people across the country and around the world can freely read and wonder at their wisdom.

Keith Donohue is communications director for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission at the National Archives.

This revolutionary new site was created through a partnership between the University of Virginia Press and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, the grantmaking arm of the National Archives.

For more information:

• Watch: The Making of The Founders Online
• Learn more about the project's origins

Watch President Obama's final State of the Union address.

Read what the President is looking for in his next Supreme Court nominee.

Take a look at America's three newest national monuments.

U.S. Constitution.net

Founders’ vision of religious freedom, religious beliefs of the founding fathers.

The American founding era encompassed a vast spectrum of religious beliefs, reflecting the diversity of the population itself. Approximately 98% of Americans of European descent identified with Protestantism , predominantly adhering to the reformed theological tradition. This demographic shaped the religious landscape the Founding Fathers traversed.

Thomas Jefferson's beliefs straddled Enlightenment rationalism and deism. He advocated for a strict separation of church and state, yet he was deeply spiritual, rejecting organized religion. An Enlightenment rationalist, he saw reason as a guiding light planted by God, responsible for guiding human actions. Jefferson's commitment to religious freedom shone through his crafting of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom , ensuring that no man should suffer on account of his religious opinions.

James Madison championed religious freedom, opposing the imposition of any religious taxes in Virginia. His efforts culminated in the adoption of Jefferson's statute, reinforcing the vision that religious liberty covered all religious denominations.

Benjamin Franklin's approach to religion was more pragmatic. While he believed in a higher power and moral righteousness, Franklin was known for his skepticism about organized religion's dogma. His contributions to religious liberty focused on the broader philosophical underpinnings that allowed a multitude of beliefs to coexist peacefully.

John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister, emphasized virtue and morality grounded in Christianity as essential for the newly formed republic, acknowledging that religion played a crucial role in maintaining civic order and virtue.

Roger Sherman, another devout Christian, advocated for a government that allowed religious exercises but did not mandate them, demonstrating an understanding that personal faith should not infringe upon the liberties of others.

John Adams leaned towards Unitarianism. His letters often reflect a belief in a moral divine order, yet he resisted the idea of a state-endorsed church, seeing the danger in intertwining religious authority with governmental power.

Thomas Paine represented the far end of the spectrum. His pamphlet "Common Sense" galvanized support for independence while critiquing institutionalized religion heavily. Unlike many founders, Paine was openly skeptical of Christianity, advocating for a deistic approach that celebrated reason over religious dogma.

The Founding Fathers' vision ranged from Jefferson's enlightened deism to Witherspoon's orthodox Christianity. This variety ensured a balanced approach to religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, aiming for a secular state allowing for varied religious practice, free from religious tyranny.

Influence of the Bible on the Founding Fathers

The Bible's influence on the Founding Fathers is evident in their understanding of human nature. They were aware of mankind's fallibility and moral imperfections, a worldview endorsed by biblical teachings, particularly those in Genesis. The notion that man is inherently flawed led the Founders to design a system of government with checks and balances to prevent the concentration and abuse of power, reflecting the biblical wisdom gleaned from texts such as Jeremiah 17:9 and Romans 3:23 . 1,2

Regarding social order and the legitimacy of authority, the Bible served as a cornerstone. Exodus 18:21 , where Jethro advises Moses to select capable men who fear God, are trustworthy, and hate dishonest gain to help govern Israel, influenced the Founders in their conceptualization of a righteous and accountable government led by virtuous individuals. 3 They perceived that the moral character of leaders was paramount, echoing the sentiment in Proverbs 29:2 . 4

In seeking to justify resistance against tyranny, the Founders turned to biblical precedents, most notably in the Old Testament accounts. These stories reinforced their belief that it was both a right and a duty to resist tyrannical authority, thus informing the revolutionary spirit that characterized the American struggle for independence.

The principle of liberty was another area richly informed by the Bible. The Founders frequently cited Galatians 5:1 , using it to underscore the value of personal and communal freedom. 5 Though this text fundamentally speaks to spiritual liberty, the revolutionary approach adopted it to highlight the broader human yearning for freedom from oppression.

As these biblical principles were interwoven into the Constitution, they also found expression in practical governance:

• The Bible's call for justice and equity under the law is mirrored in the equal protection and due process clauses.
• The Judeo-Christian ethic, promoting societal moral standards and personal responsibility, provided a foundation for the rule of law as envisioned by the Founders.

The Bible was a vital text that informed the Founding Fathers' public and political lives. Its teachings on human nature, social order, and righteous leadership influenced their construction of the American constitutional republic. They envisaged a system where a virtuous citizenry, guided by reason and moral integrity, could sustain a free and just society. The result is a legacy where religious freedom flourishes within a secular government framework—a testament to the foresight of the Founding Fathers and the timeless wisdom they drew from biblical scripture.

The First Amendment and Religious Freedom

The inclusion of religious freedom in the First Amendment was a profound philosophical and political statement, reflecting the lived experiences and aspirations of the American colonists. Many colonists had fled their homelands to escape the tyrannical reach of state-endorsed churches, seeking a place where they could worship freely without fear of oppression.

These personal experiences deeply influenced the Founding Fathers' views on religious liberty:

• Thomas Jefferson witnessed the harsh persecution of dissenters in Virginia, particularly Baptists who were imprisoned for preaching without a license. This sparked his commitment to safeguarding religious freedom and his creation of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom .
• James Madison understood the dangers of a state intertwined with religious authority, believing that true religious faith could only flourish without government interference.

The philosophical and political theories of the Enlightenment also played a crucial role in shaping the Founders' views on religious liberty. Thinkers like John Locke argued that belief could not be coerced and that individuals had an inherent right to religious liberty—a view that resonated with the Founding Fathers. 6

The Founders recognized that for a society to truly respect personal liberty and foster civic virtue, it must allow individuals the freedom to believe and worship as they choose. The separation of church and state was seen as a means of ensuring that faith could thrive without the corrupting influences of political power.

Politically, the Founders were wary of the religious conflicts that had plagued Europe for centuries. Their aim was to prevent such turmoil in the nascent United States by ensuring that government neither mandated nor restricted religious practices.

The varied religious composition of the American colonies necessitated an approach that could accommodate a broad spectrum of beliefs. The First Amendment, with its establishment clause and free exercise clause , sought to provide this accommodation:

• By prohibiting the establishment of a national religion, the Founders ensured that no single denomination could claim governmental endorsement.
• Simultaneously, by protecting the free exercise of religion, they guaranteed that all individuals could practice their faith without fear of government reprisal.

The First Amendment embodied a blend of philosophical ideals and practical considerations. It was the product of Enlightenment rationalism, historical experiences of persecution, and a pragmatic recognition of the pluralistic nature of American society. The result was a constitutional framework that allowed for a vibrant diversity of religious expression while maintaining a government that was neutral in matters of faith.

Thus, the inclusion of religious freedom in the First Amendment was a cornerstone of the Founders' vision for a nation where liberty and justice could prevail for all, uninhibited by the specter of religious domination or discrimination. It ensured that Americans could build a society rooted in moral integrity and personal liberty, reflecting the profound insights and foresight of the enlightened minds that crafted this unparalleled document.

The Wall of Separation Between Church and State

The phrase "wall of separation between church and state," coined by Thomas Jefferson, has become a cornerstone in understanding the American constitutional approach to church-state relations. Jefferson's intent was crystallized in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, where he sought to assure the Baptists that their religious freedoms would be protected from governmental interference. He asserted that the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between Church & State," reinforcing his commitment to religious liberty as outlined in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Jefferson's metaphor stemmed from his Enlightenment ideals and rationalist principles, believing that reason should guide human governance—including religious matters. His advocacy for a clear delineation between the roles of religion and government was shaped by his observations of the oppressive religious practices in Europe and the colonial experiences in America. He contended that religious belief should be a matter of personal conviction, free from state coercion.

Initially, Jefferson's notion was closely aligned with the efforts to ensure that no single religious denomination could wield governmental power, thus maintaining a pluralistic and equitable civil society. However, his phrase has been subject to various interpretations since its inception. Scholars and jurists have debated whether Jefferson intended an absolute separation where no acknowledgment or accommodation of religion in public life would be permissible, or merely a prohibition against the establishment of a state-sponsored religion.

Supreme Court interpretations have varied over the decades. In the landmark case of Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Court referenced Jefferson's phrase in defining the scope of the First Amendment. The opinion affirmed that laws could not interfere with religious belief but could regulate practices that were subversive to good order. This case set a precedent, framing the wall as a barrier to legislative imposition on religious belief while allowing for legal constraints on religious practices that conflicted with civil obligations. 1

Significant shifts occurred with the mid-20th-century jurisprudence. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court emphasized a strict interpretation, asserting that no aid or preferment should be granted to religious institutions by the state, although it upheld the state's provision of transportation subsidies to parochial schools. This case underscored the interpretation that the government must remain neutral in religious matters, avoiding any entanglement which might suggest state endorsement of religion.

Conversely, some critics argue that an overly rigid interpretation of the "wall" inhibits reasonable and historical intersections of faith and governance. Historical practices such as legislative prayers, the employment of chaplains, and public religious expressions by government officials have been seen by some as congruent with the Founders' intent to allow public religious practices within a framework that avoids preferential treatment. 2

The debate over the phrase "wall of separation" persists, influencing contemporary discussions on religious displays on public property, religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, and the extent of permissible religious expression within public institutions. Jefferson's vision was fundamentally about preventing an official state religion and ensuring that government could not coerce individuals in matters of faith, thus fostering a society where religious liberty could thrive.

Therefore, while Jefferson's "wall of separation" is a defining concept, its practical application has evolved, demonstrating the dynamic interplay between maintaining religious freedom and accommodating religious diversity within a constitutional republic.

Modern Interpretations and Controversies

In recent times, the discourse surrounding religious freedom and the separation of church and state has persisted as a dynamic and often contentious area of American constitutional law. Modern interpretations of Jefferson's "wall of separation" continue to inform contemporary legal challenges and societal debates, illustrating the evolving nuances of the Founding Fathers' vision in today's diverse religious landscape.

One of the significant modern studies contributing to this ongoing discussion is the Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy's annual Religious Liberty in the States Index. This comprehensive index analyzes state laws and regulations across fourteen categories, examining the impact on both individuals and religious organizations. The findings from the latest report reveal an intriguing spectrum of religious freedom protections across the United States, highlighting the intricate balance states attempt to achieve between safeguarding religious liberties and adhering to secular principles.

For example, Illinois , a state with a predominantly liberal political climate, ranks highest in religious freedom protections. This stands in contrast to West Virginia , a state with a more conservative orientation, ranking lowest. Such results suggest that safeguarding religious freedom transcends political boundaries and reflects a broader approach.

Discussions within the judicial and legislative frameworks continue to shape the understanding and application of religious freedom. Landmark cases such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission underscore the ongoing legal balancing act between religious liberties and other fundamental rights, such as non-discrimination. These cases reflect the judiciary's approach to ensuring that religious freedom does not impinge upon the rights and freedoms of others, maintaining the delicate equilibrium envisioned by the Founding Fathers. 3

As these legal challenges unfold, it becomes evident that religious freedom in the United States embraces a bipartisan appeal. Jonathan Den Hertog, a professor at Samford University, underscores that this fundamental liberty necessitates bipartisan support to remain a vital force in American public life. His insights remind us that the protection and preservation of religious freedoms must transcend political affiliations.

Yet, despite the non-partisan ideal, certain aspects of religious freedom continue to spark debate. Issues such as exemptions related to marriage and healthcare often reveal ideological divides. While some argue for broader religious accommodations, others raise concerns about potential infringements upon civil rights and equality. The intricacy of these debates mirrors the diverse religious and societal fabric of the nation, necessitating a legal and political approach that respects both religious convictions and fundamental rights.

Modern studies also reflect the significant role of religious liberty in protecting minority faiths. Asma T. Uddin, a legal scholar, highlights how these protections are vital for communities like American Muslims. Provisions for religious school absences, religious ceremonial life, and opt-out provisions for public school curricula on sexual orientation and gender identity are crucial in ensuring that religious minorities can practice their faith freely within a secular framework. 4

The Religious Liberty in the States Index employs quantitative measures to assess the impact of laws on religious freedoms. This empirical approach provides policymakers and legislators with valuable insights to reform and enhance religious freedom protections in their respective states. As the Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy plans to expand its index and possibly undertake a similar project in Europe, it underscores the transatlantic relevance of religious freedom debates.

In conclusion, the modern interpretation of religious freedom in the United States remains a dynamic and multifaceted endeavor. The Founding Fathers' vision, encapsulated in the First Amendment, continues to guide contemporary legal and societal debates, ensuring that religious liberty thrives within a constitutional republic.

The Founding Fathers' commitment to religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, remains a cornerstone of American values. Their vision of a society where liberty and justice prevail, free from religious tyranny, continues to guide contemporary discussions on church-state relations. This legacy underscores the importance of maintaining a constitutional framework that respects individual conscience while fostering a diverse and harmonious society.

Historians Reflect on Founding Fathers and America Today

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/historians-reflect-on-founding-fathers-and-america-today

Ray Suarez speaks with three historians, Richard Brookhiser, Ron Chernow and Jan Lewis, about what the founding fathers might have thought of America today.

Read the Full Transcript

Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.

RAY SUAREZ:

What would our founding fathers think about our country today? On America's 228th birthday we get some insight from three people who've studied the founders. Richard Brookhiser's latest book is "Gentleman Revolutionary: Gouverneur Morris, the Rake Who Wrote the Constitution." He's a senior editor at the National Review. He's also written biographies of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and the Adamses. Ron Chernow is a prize-winning biographer; his newest book is on Alexander Hamilton. And Jan Lewis is chairman of the Department of History at Rutgers University. She's a specialist in colonial and early national history. She's written extensively about Thomas Jefferson.

Well, guests, recently we've been arguing about habeas corpus, had some great debates about the limits of executive power, and this constantly toing and froing about powers of the states versus the federal government. It's still in 2004 a world the founders would recognize, Ron Chernow?

RON CHERNOW:

Well, I think the founders would be very pleased by the power and the prosperity of the country. I think that they would be somewhat dismayed by the nature of political discourse. These were men who had rich political visions that they passionately and extensively argued. I think that they would be dismayed by a world of politicians who are governed by pollsters and focus groups who express themselves through 60-second ads, rather than through speeches and papers and pamphlets, and these were men who didn't have dispositions, but they had philosophies.

Well, Professor Lewis, Ron Chernow saying that they wouldn't be too impressed with the discourse, it got pretty rough in the 1790s, didn't it?

Oh, it sure did, and I think actually they might find politics today milder than it was in their time. We have to remember that during Jefferson's administration Vice President Aaron Burr got into a duel and actually killed the former secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton. As bad as things have gotten with Dick Cheney he's only used the "F" curse; he hasn't actually gone out and shot Richard Rubin.

Richard Brookhiser, weigh in on the politics of today and how you think it would look to — to the founders.

RICHARD BROOKHISER:

Well, I agree with Professor Lewis. In a lot of ways politics is more polite and more moderate than it was. The man who wrote the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris, 25 years after he wrote it he wanted the country broken up. You know, he said in order to form a more perfect union, then he decided the union wasn't so perfect, so his attitude was, the hell with it, let's split the whole thing up and start all over, which is a pretty radical position.

I think the founders would find our politicians and our voters pretty dumb. I mean, we have two Yale men running for president now, but I don't think they can translate Greek into Latin, and back, which, you know, anyone who went to a college in those days was required to be able to do. And, you know, I'm not just laughing at George W. Bush and John Kerry. I think they would have this disdainful attitude towards we, the voters, as well.

Well, Alexander Hamilton went, I guess to the precursor of Columbia University, rather than to Yale. Did he get the country inevitably of all the founders that he was looking for?

Oh, I think so. I mean, it was Hamilton I think who had a vision of an America that would be dominated not only by agriculture but by manufacturing stock exchanges, banks, corporations, large cities, a lot of things that were anathema to the Jeffersonian version. I think that he was very prophetic in terms of the shape of power, not only that the federal government would become so powerful but that even within the federal government that the executive branch would, as it were, be the engine of government.

But I think it was Hamilton who first saw the president, for instance, would be the principal actor in the American political drama at a time when Jefferson and Madison, who saw the House as much closer to the people, as the perfect populist institution, were hoping that the Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, would have a larger role. So I think that if Hamilton came back today, he would have more of a sense of vindication in many ways than Thomas Jefferson.

Well, Professor Lewis, is this a zero sum gain? If Hamilton got his America, does that mean Jefferson didn't get his?

Oh, I don't know. If Jefferson is still the favorite founding father and half a million people flock to Monticello every year and Jefferson's ideals — life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness — are still the ideals that govern this nation and to some extent have sway throughout much of the world.

Well, I think one thing that would please them all would be the fact that there were no more slaves, and this was an institution that they lived among; many of them owned slaves. I think it's fair to say that all of the founding fathers thought that slavery was bad and hoped that it would eventually pass away. Now some of them were more practical in pursuit of this goal than others. Alexander Hamilton and John Jay helped found a manumission society in New York to get rid of slavery in New York state, because it wasn't just a Southern thing. New York had a lot of slaves, but I think in fairness to all of them, including the great slave owners, like the Virginians, they would be pleased to see that this institution had disappeared.

Pleased to see but at the same time weren't some of them also marked by their unwillingness to step forward on the issue and sometimes their willingness to let others step forward on it?

Well, they had mixed records. You know, George Washington grew up in Virginia, a slave-holding culture. He owned hundreds of slaves, but in his will he freed all his own slaves, and he knew that his will was going to be a public document and therefore he was making a statement by doing this. For some of the other founders who lived in New England or Pennsylvania it was perhaps an easier call because those states got rid of their slavery, you know, ahead of even New York.

Jefferson is a complicated one here. He's frustrating to us, maddening. He knew that slavery was wrong, yet, he never worked up the courage to free all of his slaves, nor to compel his country to face the issue. He was afraid, he said in his notes on the state of Virginia, that were slaves freed, they would rise — justly rise up against their former masters and kill them. Therefore, he said, well, we'll just have to colonize slaves somewhere else, Africa, the Caribbean, in the far West somewhere, anywhere far away from the white folks. It turned out that he was actually wrong.

After the Civil War — and it did take a Civil War to terminate slavery — after the Civil War, black people didn't rise up and exact vengeance on their former masters. To the contrary, it was white people who oppressed blacks and who lynched them. Jefferson happily was wrong. Unhappily, he didn't do much — didn't do much of anything to bring an end to the institution of slavery.

Ron Chernow, you want to —

People would be surprised at the extent to which the slavery issue permeates the early years of the republic. You know, we're all taught in school, right, that the Constitutional Convention the major split was between the large states and the small states and the compromise was worked out that the large states would get proportional representation; small states would get the equal vote in the Senate.

In fact, Madison himself said the major split at the Constitutional Convention was not between the large states and the small states but between the North and South because slavery was really a most divisive issue, and the early year of the republic were haunted by fears of disunion, haunted by fears that there would be breakaway confederacies, civil war, foreign intrigue, foreign invasion, and so the thing that was given a premium above all else was unity, so that the most divisive issue, the one thing that could wreck the whole experiment, was slavery, and so Rick's right. I mean, the reactions of different founders is radically different. You have Hamilton, J. Adams, outspoken abolitionists; Washington kind a little bit more in-between; Jefferson opposed to slavery in theory by preferring to defer any action to a future generation, but there is a kind of collective decision that this is one issue that is too hot to handle.

We've taken a look at domestic questions. Richard Brookhiser, let's turn to foreign affairs. There are American troops permanently posted in many places on the globe, fighting and dying in a few places. Is this a world that the founders could have imagined?

Well, it depends on which founders, but I think their foreign policy views tended to be shaped by their experience of the Revolutionary War. Washington, of course, was commander in chief. Hamilton fought throughout the whole length of the war as an officer. John Marshall also fought in the Revolution. So these — Washington and Hamilton especially — tended to be men who viewed the world as a dangerous place, and they knew that America had to be prepared to meet those dangers should they become immediately threatening.

Some of the other founders — Thomas Jefferson, who was a congressman and a state politician, also James Madison, they tended to be people who hoped that America could stay out of conflict and when they became president, they worked very hard to keep the United States out of the world war that Napoleonic France and Britain were engaged in. They went to great lengths to do this and then in Madison's second term it finally becomes unsustainable, and what we know as the War of 1812 is really our last-minute intervention in the Napoleonic Wars.

So I think you have some founders who have perhaps unrealistic hopes for the prospects of peace and you have other founders who have been there literally in the trenches who know that that's probably not going to happen in this world.

What about the idea of an interventionist America, Professor Lewis, the one that would put her men and women on ships and send them to other parts of the world to change the political order?

Well, I think that's actually something that would have been difficult for most of the founders to imagine simply because the United States at that point was so incredibly weak, and the first priority, the highest priority was simply to preserve the United States, to win the revolution to establish the nation to avoid entangling alliances for as long as possible, not to get involved in this sorry, sad, tired old war of Europe. So to some extent it would have been hard for them to imagine the United States becoming the greatest military power on the Earth, at least not for a really long time, and then beyond that getting involved in foreign adventures or entering into a war of choice. That, I think, is probably close to unimaginable.

And what about the notion, Ron Chernow, of the United Kingdom, the United States' closest and best ally in the world?

Well, you know —

And the United States, the senior partner in that alliance by the way?

Yeah, actually, you know, Americans tend to imagine that the early years of the republic were both isolationist and isolated, and in fact the dominant issue in the 1790s is whether we should tilt toward France or tilt toward England, and you know, we had — we were surrounded by European powers even in North America, with England to the North, Spain to the West and to the South, to Denmark, Holland, France, in the Caribbean.

One of the things that fascinated me when I was studying Hamilton, you open up a newspaper of the 1780s and 1790s, there's much more foreign news as a proportion of total news than you will find now. Papers today in comparison seem rather provincial so that we were born really in a world war once France and Spain entered the war, so that we were never as apart from the rest of the world as I think we sometimes like to fancy.

Ron Chernow, guests, Happy Fourth to you all.

Support Provided By: Learn more

More Ways to Watch

Educate your inbox.

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Ezra Klein Show

What’s Wrong With Donald Trump?

By Ezra Klein

This is a transcript of an audio essay, and we recommend listening to it in its original form so you can hear the clips. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App , Apple , Spotify , Amazon Music , YouTube , iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts .

You’ve probably seen the clip by now. Donald Trump is holding a town hall. It’s Monday, Oct. 14, in Pennsylvania. He was being asked softball questions by Kristi Noem, the Republican governor of South Dakota, and there is a medical emergency in the crowd. The rally stops for a while. They play “Ave Maria” while the medics respond. Then Trump and Noem begin again. Then someone else in the crowd needs medical help. The rally stops again, begins again. Noem is settling back in when Trump announces he’s had enough.

Donald Trump: Let’s not do any more questions. Let’s just listen to music. Let’s make it into a music. [Cheers.] Who the hell wants to hear questions, right? [Laughter.]

What comes next is something I’ve never seen before. Trump, swaying dreamily to his playlist, in front of a rally full of people, for nearly 40 minutes. It was like he was D.J.’ing his own bar mitzvah. You can look, in these clips, at the faces of the people around him, like Noem. They really have no idea what to do. They are suddenly backup dancers in a concert that shouldn’t exist.

Part of me finds Donald Trump’s behavior here unusually relatable. You think I want to sit up here talking about politics and war day after day? You don’t know the temptation to, just once, just for one week, turn this podcast into a drum and bass set or play you my favorite Kiasmos songs. But I don’t. Of course I don’t. It’s not what we’re doing here. And if I were a presidential candidate in the final weeks of a campaign, I wouldn’t do what Trump did, because the fallout would be predictable: an avalanche of media coverage asking, “What the hell was that?”

I wouldn’t do it because of the inevitable attacks from my opponents about the strange behavior I’d just exhibited onstage.

Tim Walz: I would not usually encourage you, but we’re doing it now. Go watch this guy right now. And go watch these rallies or this town hall. He stopped taking questions and stood frozen onstage for 30 minutes while they played his Spotify list for people. [Laughter.] It was strange. But if this was your grandfather, you would take the keys away. You would take the keys away.

I don’t think Walz has this right. Trump did not freeze up on that stage; I’m not going to accept that. He did not lose where he was in the moment. If anything, he was all too present. But Walz is saying something Democrats really want to hear right now.

There are so many Democrats — I think you can imagine I hear from them all the time — who are furious still about the difference between the way the media treated Joe Biden’s age and the way it has treated Donald Trump’s age. The diminishment of Biden’s capacities led to unrelenting coverage and concern from the media and from Biden’s own party that ultimately drove him from the race. Every time Biden flubbed a name or a place, every time his voice was quiet or thick and clotted, every time a sentence derailed before it reached its intended station, a frenzy over Joe Biden’s fitness would rise.

But Donald Trump, at 78, is nearly as old as Joe Biden. He exhibits his own cognitive irregularities. He rambles, and he lies and makes things up and seems to get strangely lost in these digressions. His speech is associative and circular. It can read like gibberish on the page. And he goes on bizarre riffs, like this one, which is somehow about the dangers of electric boats:

Trump: I say, “What would happen if the boat sank from its weight and you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery’s now underwater and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?” By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately. Do you notice that? A lot of shark — I watched some guys justifying it today. “Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry but they misunderstood who she was.” These people are crazy — He said, “There’s no problem with sharks. They just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming now who really got decimated and other people, too.” A lot of shark attacks. So I said, “So there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards. Or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking and water goes over the battery? The boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?” Because I will tell you, he didn’t know the answer. He said, “You know, nobody’s ever asked me that question.”

There is this fury among many Democrats about the pass they feel Trump has been given. And I’ve struggled with this myself. It’s not that Trump’s age is unknown or that in the media it is uncovered. But even when we do write about it, I can tell you, it doesn’t connect in the same way. The media doesn’t actually set the agenda the way people sometimes pretend that it does. The audience knows what it believes. If you are describing something they don’t really feel is true, they read it, and they move on. Or they don’t read it at all. And I don’t think people believe — to be honest, I don’t believe — that the core problem with Trump is his age.

Over four years, we really did watch age change Joe Biden. It made him different than he’d been before. But is that what has happened to Donald Trump? Is he different than he was before?

Because I would say Donald Trump in 2024 is like Donald Trump in 2020 and like Donald Trump in 2016. I don’t think he has so much changed as he is distilled. But this is where the critics are right: We had the language to talk about what was happening to Joe Biden. Age is a delicate topic, but it’s one we know. And so we did talk about it. We spoke about it relentlessly.

We’ve never had good language for talking about Donald Trump. We’ve never had good language for talking about the way he thinks and the way in which it is different from how other people think and talk and act. And so we circle it. We imply it. I don’t think this is bias so much as it’s confusion. In order to talk about something, you need the words for it. But for me, something clicked watching him up there, swaying to that music.

You may have heard of the big five personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. We all fall somewhere on the spectrum of each of them. I’ve taken these tests, and I score close to as high as you can on conscientiousness and agreeableness, and if we’re really being honest here, I’m above average on neuroticism, too. I was talking to a research psychologist about this, and when I told him that, he told me, “That’s a good combination for being very productive and very anxious.”

Yeah. It sure is.

I mentioned, though, that these traits are spectrums. Some of the newer personality frameworks name the other side of the spectrum, too. So to be low on neuroticism is to be high in emotional stability. To be low on extroversion is to be introverted. And to be low on conscientiousness is to be disinhibited. To be very low on conscientiousness is to be very high on disinhibition. And that is Donald Trump.

I want to tread carefully here. For years now, there has been a cottage industry of books diagnosing Trump with this or that psychological malady. And the view that Trump’s psychology borders or tips into the pathological is not limited to his critics. John Kelly, Trump’s second chief of staff, is known to have bought the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” seeking insight on the man he served. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s third chief of staff, recommended aides read “A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness.” He thought it would help them understand the way Trump’s strange psychology, maybe even his mental illness, helped make him a powerful and unique leader.

But there are strong reasons we in the media and psychiatrists in general are careful with this kind of language. There’s a rule in psychiatry that you don’t diagnose patients you haven’t directly examined. That rule comes from politics. It is called the Goldwater Rule, because they did that to Barry Goldwater and got sued and lost.

The history of pathologizing political leaders we do not like is not an admirable one. So I am not a psychiatrist, and I am saying something simpler and, I think, more neutral here: Trump moves through the world without the behavioral inhibition most of us labor under.

And when I say that, I am describing both what is wrong with Donald Trump and what is right with him.

Something I have learned as I’ve gotten older is that every person’s strengths are also their weaknesses. Disinhibition is the engine of Trump’s success. It is a strength. It is what makes him magnetic and compelling on a stage. It is what allows him to say things others would not say, to make arguments they would not make, to try strategies they would not try.

It’s easy to forget that in 2016, Jeb Bush seemed likely to win the Republican nomination and perhaps the White House. Much of the top talent in the Republican Party had worked for a Bush in some form or another. And yes, plenty of Republicans thought, often privately, that George W. Bush’s presidency had been a failure. They thought the Iraq war had been a mistake. But you could not succeed as a Republican unless you tread carefully around that. Or so went the thinking of almost everyone back then. And then someone proved it completely wrong.

Trump: George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. [Applause.] John Dickerson: So you still think he should have been impeached? Jeb Bush: I think it’s my turn isn’t it? Trump: You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you, they lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. [Boos.]

Let me state what everybody knows: There are many things politicians believe that they do not say. The norms of politics — the norms of simple politeness — suppress much that people feel. There are vast swaths of political opinion you’re not really supposed to talk about. A lot of people believe that immigrants are bad and dangerous and that we shouldn’t have so many of them in this country. That free trade is ripping this country off and it’s the fault of these corrupt idiots in Washington lining their own pockets. That China isn’t our ally or our partner — it’s our enemy. And that the great threat to America comes from within, that other Americans are disloyal, that they are the enemy and the power of the state should be turned against them.

It’s not that no one else in politics held these views before Donald Trump. But for the most part, it’s not how they spoke about them. That was the failure in the system that Trump exploited: the lie that just because politicians didn’t talk this way, voters didn’t feel this way. One of Trump’s verbal tics is to say, “Many people are saying.” But it’s the opposite. He’s saying what many people want somebody to be saying. He’s saying what people are saying in private but often are not saying in public.

One argument Trump’s supporters make is: You don’t get Trump’s honesty without his outrageousness. You don’t get a leader who can break the mold by supporting a person who conforms to the mold. Here’s Kellyanne Conway at the 2024 Republican National Convention:

Kellyanne Conway: How often do we hear, “I want Trump’s policies without Trump’s personality”? Well, good luck with that. We don’t get those policies without that personality.

She’s right. You certainly don’t get his politics without his personality. How many people must want to do what Trump has done? How many millionaires and billionaires and celebrities must have thought to themselves, “I’d be a good president. I’m smarter and more charismatic and better on a stage and wiser than these idiots up there”?

How many times have you felt insulted or wronged by someone and wanted to just unload on them in public? To go all out in annihilating your tormentor in every way you could? How many times in your work or your life have you believed something other people didn’t believe, something they thought was wrong or impolite or outdated or ridiculous, and you bit your tongue. You didn’t want to say it and be laughed at, mocked, dismissed, punished. But we hold ourselves back. Most of us do.

And so when I say this, I mean it: What Donald Trump has done is remarkable. It is historic. It is unique in the entire history of American politics. To run as an outsider to a political party and capture that political party totally. Break its fundamental consensus. Slander its previous standard-bearers. To then become president having never held elective office or served in the military, while saying things and doing things that, until you, everybody believed you could not do or say in politics. To achieve something unique, you must yourself be unique. Donald Trump is unique.

Over the years, I have interviewed I don’t know how many politicians. Talking to them is different from talking to anyone else. It’s why I don’t just fill this show with them. Politicians are inhibited. Before anything comes out of their mouth, they are running their response through this internal piece of software. Some of them are really good at it. Pete Buttigieg, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama — the software is so fast and efficient as to be almost seamless.

The politicians we sense to be inauthentic — it’s often that the software is slower and buggier. You can see the seams. You can watch the calculations happening in real time. But what that software is doing is inhibiting. It is running their words through a filter of what they shouldn’t say, given who they are and what they are doing and the weight their words carry. If your words move markets and launch missiles, you choose them carefully.

But there is something undeniably electric to watch someone unchained from the bundle of inhibitions the rest of us carry around. Watching someone just say it. There is something aspirational about it. What if I was without fear, without doubt? And if I can’t be without fear, if I can’t be without doubt, what if I could at least be led by somebody who was? Protected by somebody who was? Fought for by somebody who was?

It is Trump’s absence of inhibition that makes him a great entertainer. It is Trump’s absence of inhibition that makes him feel, to so many, like not a politician — the fact that he was already the U.S. president notwithstanding. It is why the people who want to be like him — the mini-Trumps, the Ron DeSantises and Blake Masterses and Ted Cruzes — can’t pull it off. What makes Trump Trump isn’t his views on immigration, though they are part of it. It’s the manic charisma born of his disinhibition.

It is his great strength. It is also his terrible flaw.

Sometimes Trump’s disinhibition gets you a willingness to call a failed presidency a failed presidency. To call a lie that took us to war a lie. But sometimes it gets you this:

Trump: Somebody should run against John McCain, who has been, you know, in my opinion not so hot. And I supported him. I supported him for president, I raised a million dollars for him. It’s a lot of money. I supported him. He lost. He let us down. But you know, he lost. [Light laughter.] So I never liked him as much after that, because I don’t like losers. [Louder laughter.] But Frank, Frank let me get to it. He hit me — Frank Luntz: He’s a war hero. Trump: He’s not a war hero. Luntz: He’s a war hero. Trump: He’s a war hero. He’s a war hero ’cause he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK? [Laughter.] I hate to tell you. Luntz: Do you agree with that? Trump: He’s a war hero because he was captured, OK? And I believe — perhaps he’s a war hero. But right now he said some very bad things about a lot of people.

Trump’s disinhibition is yoked to a malignancy at his core. I do believe he’s a narcissist. If Putin praises him, he will praise Putin. If John McCain mocks him, he will mock John McCain. Trump does not see beyond himself and what he thinks and what he wants and how he’s feeling. He does not listen to other people. He does not take correction or direction. Wisdom is the ability to learn from experience, to learn from others. Donald Trump doesn’t really learn. He once told a biographer, “When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different.”

I believe him totally when he says that. In 2018 he told The Washington Post, “I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.” Imagine going through life truly believing that, truly acting like that. And then imagine that in so many ways, it has worked for you: It has made you rich and famous and powerful beyond your wildest dreams. What would that do to you? What does that do to a person with a mind like Donald Trump’s?

Here is the question Democrats have floundered in answering this year: If Donald Trump is so dangerous, then how come the consequences of his presidency weren’t worse? There is this gap between the unfit, unsound, unworthy man Democrats describe and the memories that most Americans have of his presidency, at least before the pandemic. If Donald Trump is so bad, why were things so good? Why were they at least OK?

There is an answer to this question: It’s that as president, Trump was surrounded by inhibitors. In 2020 the political scientist Daniel Drezner published a book titled “The Toddler in Chief.” The core of the book was over 1,000 instances Drezner collected in which Trump is described, by those around him, in terms befitting an impetuous child.

These quotes about Trump abound, given on the record or on background, to various biographers and reporters. Some of them are later disputed, as the staffer realized the consequences of what they said. But there are reams and reams of them. For every one I offer here, I could give you a dozen more.

In 2017 his deputy chief of staff, Katie Walsh, described working with President Trump as “trying to figure out what a child wants.” Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, said — quote — “I’m sick of being a wet nurse for a 71-year-old.” James Mattis, Trump’s first secretary of defense, and John Kelly, later his chief of staff, often described themselves like babysitters; they made a pact to never be overseas at the same time, lest Trump do something truly deranged.

Here’s the title of a 2017 article in Politico : “White House aides lean on delays and distraction to manage Trump.” The first paragraph reads, “As White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus mused to associates that telling President Donald Trump no was usually not an effective strategy. Telling him ‘next week’ was often the better idea.”

In 2018, The New York Times published a bombshell Op-Ed by an anonymous member of the Trump administration who said he, a Republican, was part of the internal resistance to Donald Trump, in which — quote — “many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” That author later revealed himself to be Miles Taylor, the chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security. In a 2020 interview with ABC , he described the lengths he and others took to shield America — to shield their own staff — from the commander in chief’s whims and rages:

Miles Taylor: The president at the time would get into these phone rants with us, the secretary, myself, about Jerry Brown, and how frustrated he was with Jerry Brown and later Gavin Newsom, because they didn’t support him. And he didn’t have a base of supporters in California. So as wildfires were burning down houses in the state, the president basically said to us, “I don’t care. These people haven’t done enough to deserve it. Cut off the money.” In fact, that phone call that I referenced with FEMA officials, the secretary and I were so concerned because we didn’t want our senior leadership to be exposed to how undisciplined and tumultuous the White House was, because it made it harder for them to do their jobs. So after that call, FEMA officials said, “What do we do? The president has just told us to cut off money to people whose homes are burning down.” Our answer was: We’re not going to do it. Don’t worry. We’ll go back to the president. But then, George, months after, again in January 2019, the president said he wanted to do it. And again, I think subsequently, he tweeted about doing it. Fortunately, it never happened. FEMA didn’t follow through on it, because I think because they determined from their lawyers that a tweet wasn’t an official order.

The Trump administration was rife with this sort of thing. In 2019 a senior national security official told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “Everyone at this point ignores what the president says and just does their job. The American people should take some measure of confidence in that.”

During his presidency, Trump repeatedly proposed firing Patriot missiles at suspected drug labs in Mexico. He mused about launching nuclear weapons at other countries, and in one very strange case, at a hurricane. He has talked often and insistently on his desire to turn the machinery of the government against his domestic political enemies. He talked often about pulling out of NATO. He mused about the efficacy of untested or dangerous treatments for Covid. In 2020, during the protests following George Floyd’s murder, Trump raged at his staff, demanding they turn the full force of the military against the protesters. Here’s Mark Esper, who served as Trump’s secretary of defense, on “60 Minutes”:

Mark Esper: I thought that we’re at a different spot now, where he’s going to finally give a direct order to deploy paratroopers into the streets of Washington, D.C., and I’m thinking with weapons and bayonets. And this would be horrible. Norah O’Donnell: What specifically was he suggesting that the U.S. military should do to these protesters? Esper: He says, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” And he is suggesting that that’s what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.

After Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he refused to admit that loss, perhaps refused to even believe that loss. I’m personally persuaded by the reporting that he’d come to believe very weird theories both of fraud and that he could be reinstated as president. And yes, there is a part of all of us that resists believing our own defeat. How many politicians who’ve been voted out of office would’ve preferred to ignore those results, to claim fraud and cling to power? Not all of them, certainly. Most of the people who serve in politics are patriots. They understand that the peaceful transition of power is sacred and that their ambition is profane. But even the politicians who are not patriots recognize the likely outcome of fighting the results of a fair election: dishonor, defeat and possible prosecution.

Trump did not care. He was unrestrained by those inhibitions. He tried, in every possible way he could, to overturn the election. He called state election officials and demanded they find votes for him that did not exist. Here’s Trump threatening Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, in a phone call that later leaked:

Trump: The ballots are corrupt, and you’re going to find that they are, which is totally illegal. It’s, it is, it’s more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a, you know, that’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And, and you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can. Both of which are criminal fines. And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So, look, all I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.

It didn’t end there, with state after state refusing to bend its results to Trump’s whims, he demanded his vice president, Mike Pence, refuse to certify the election. Pence certified it anyway. When a mob stormed the Capitol, chanting, in part, “Hang Mike Pence,” Trump did nothing. He watched it on television.

Even now, knowing everything we know about that day — the people who died, the people who were injured, how close we might have come to a massacre in the halls of Congress — here is how Trump describes it:

Trump: The vice president, I disagree with him on what he did. I totally disagreed with him on what he did. Very importantly, you had hundreds of thousands of people come to Washington. They didn’t come because of me. They came because of the election. They thought the election was a rigged election, and that’s why they came. Some of those people went down to the Capitol. I said, peacefully and patriotically. Nothing done wrong at all. Nothing done wrong. And action was taken. Strong action. Ashli Babbitt was killed. Nobody was killed. There were no guns down there. We didn’t have guns. The others had guns, but we didn’t have guns.

What is remarkable to me about that answer — which, to be sure, Trump gave just last week at a Univision town hall — is that it doesn’t serve Trump’s own interests. He needs to reassure people about this. That’s the problem with lacking the restraint that most of us have. That restraint helps us act strategically, carefully. When I described the way politicians calculate their answers earlier, I wasn’t insulting them. There is a reason they do that. When JD Vance showed up at the vice-presidential debate as a kinder, gentler, more accommodating version of himself, all that anger and contempt sanded off, he did that for a reason. He inhibited himself to achieve his goals. But Trump has no ability to do the same. That is why he lost the debate with Harris so decisively. When he is pressured, when he is emotional, he cannot stop himself. He can’t inhibit himself. Here he is on “Fox and Friends,” being lobbed an easy question, a softball, about making nice with Nikki Haley, whose help he could really use right now, whose help has been offered to him:

Trump: Nikki Haley and I fought, and I beat her by 50, 60, 90 points. I beat her in her own state by numbers that nobody’s ever been beaten by. I beat Nikki badly. I beat everyone else too badly.

If you want to see Trump lose the 2024 election, that answer is perfect. If you want to see him win it — which he does, which his staff does — that answer is insane. The man cannot help himself. He is missing the part of his mind that tells him what not to say, what not to do. He may be cunning and intuitive. He may know how to work a room and command a crowd. He may know how to spy the weakness in another person and dominate them. But he cannot control himself.

The best argument you can make about Trump’s first term is that there was a constructive tension between his disinhibition and the constraints of the staff and the bureaucracy and the institutions that surrounded him. Yes, some of his ideas were bad, dangerous and unconstitutional. But those mostly didn’t happen: They were stopped by his aides, by the so-called deep state, by the courts, by civil society.

And the way he pushed, the way he didn’t constrain himself to what other presidents would have done or said, maybe that led to changes that — at least if you agree with him — were positive. Changes that wouldn’t have happened under another president: tariffs on China, a sharp drop in border crossings, NATO allies spending more on defense.

But now the people around Trump have spent four years plotting to dismantle everything that stopped Trump the first time. That’s what Project 2025, and the nearly 20,000 résumés it reportedly vetted, is really all about. That’s what Trump’s inner circle is spending its time and energy doing. Don Jr. told The Wall Street Journal, “We want people who are actually going to follow the president, the duly elected president, not act as sort of unelected officials that know better, because they don’t know better.” He went on to say, “We’re doing a lot with vetting. My job is to prevent those guys.”

I’ve heard this from a number of people preparing for a second Trump term. Personnel was a problem in the first. Vetting for loyalty is the answer. Don Jr. was one of the people who reportedly persuaded Trump to pick Vance. Back in May, before Vance was chosen but when he was known to be under consideration, when he was clearly running for the job, he sat down with my colleague Ross Douthat, who asked him an interesting question . When, Ross asked, did Vance decide he actually liked Donald Trump?

Vance said it was when he first met Trump, in 2021, and Trump told him a story about being deceived by his generals about the troop levels in the Middle East. Vance said the conversation made him realize Trump was deeper than he’d been given credit for, and Vance realized, “I was deeply offended by this. Talk about a threat to democracy — the generals not listening to the president of the United States about matters like troop deployment.”

Vance is one of many now who’ve made it their mission to see that Trump’s future orders are carried out, no matter their content. If Trump was constrained by others in his first term, Vance wants to make sure the same does not happen in a second term. And Vance has been arguing this for some time. Here he is in 2021, again arguing that the true threat to democracy isn’t Trump trying to overturn elections or Trump doing dangerous things in office but Trump’s will being frustrated by the bureaucracy around him:

JD Vance: The administrative state controls everything, right? So to the point that when Donald Trump wins, he can’t even sometimes get his people in core positions of authority in the administrative state. It’s like, well, do we have a constitutional republic? The founding fathers actually created a very powerful chief executive, a very powerful president. But if he can’t even fire the people in his own administration, is this really a successful republic?

The thing to see here is that Trump’s supporters want to have it both ways: They point to what didn’t happen in his first term as proof that the same or worse would not happen in his second term. But they themselves are trying to remove everything that stopped Trump’s worst impulses from becoming geopolitical or constitutional crises. Here, for instance, is Vance at the vice-presidential debate:

Vance: Remember, he said that on Jan. 6, the protesters ought to protest peacefully. And on Jan. 20, what happened? Joe Biden became the president. Donald Trump left the White House. And now, of course, unfortunately, we have all of the negative policies that have come from the Harris-Biden administration.

But here, at the All In conference, is Vance describing what would’ve been different if he’d been the vice president on Jan. 6:

Vance: Do I think that Mike Pence could have played a better role? Yes. But again, the two premises that I take issue is, one, Pence was not asked to overturn the election. He couldn’t have, but two, the reason — Jason Calacanis: He was asked to not certify it. Vance: Sure. Jason Calacanis: So would you have certified — Vance: Again, I would’ve asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of an election that we had in these important states. Calacanis: So you wouldn’t have certified. To be clear. Vance: I would’ve asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors. Calacanis: I think that’s what you’re saying. Vance: That’s what I would’ve done.

I am not here to tell you that Donald Trump’s age is not a problem. He would be, upon his inauguration, the oldest president ever to assume the office. Recently he has begun canceling scheduled interviews, his staff apparently citing exhaustion.

And we know that aging can make disinhibition worse. The August 2020 edition of the journal Psychology and Aging was entirely devoted to research on how the ability to control our behavior appears, in many studies, to decline as we get older. It is hard not to think of that research when I read that Trump’s rallies have stretched to an average of 82 minutes, up from about 45 minutes in 2016. Trump’s ability to ramble on a stage is often used as evidence of his continued vigor. I think it’s the opposite. I think his inability to stop rambling on a stage is evidence that what little capacity he once had to control himself is weakening. And what else are we to make of riffs like this one in the final weeks of a campaign?

Trump: But Arnold Palmer was all man. And I say that in all due respect to women, and I love women. [Applause.] But this guy, this guy, this is a guy that was all man. This man was strong and tough. And I refuse to say it, but when he took showers with the other pros, they came out of there — they said, “Oh, my God. That’s unbelievable.” [Laughter.]

But Trump’s age is not what worries me most. This was not a man possessed of personal restraint in 2016 or 2020, either.

What has changed even more than Trump are the people and institutions around him. The leader of the House Republicans is Mike Johnson, not Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell is stepping down from Senate leadership. And while I do not consider McConnell a profile in courage, his successor will be more in need of Trump’s patronage. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, for all their flaws, are out, while Don Jr. and Lara Trump are in. JD Vance wormed his way onto the ticket by promising to do what Mike Pence would not. Elon Musk is doing everything in his power to buy influence, centrality even, in another Trump administration. The Supreme Court has given Trump immunity from prosecution for official presidential actions. Republicans have spent four years plotting to take control of the administrative state — to stock it with loyalists who would never, ever do anything to impede Trump — and turn the entire machinery of the government to Trump’s whims.

Donald Trump is not cognitively fit to be president. The presidency is a position that requires an occupant able to act strategically and carefully. That Trump is not such a person is obvious if you watch the man. And so, for years, his supporters have said: Don’t watch the man. Don’t listen to what he says. Look at the results. But those results reflected the power and ability of others to check Trump, to inhibit him when he could not inhibit himself. It is not just the man who is now unfit; it is the people and institutions that surround him.

Here is one difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The people who work most closely with Joe Biden, his top staff, have always said he is up to the job of the presidency. Fit cognitively. Fit morally. The people who worked most closely with Donald Trump, many of his cabinet secretaries, many of them now say he is not.

But to admit the obvious is to be excommunicated, to go from one of Trump’s amazing hires — he only brings on the best people — to one of his deranged enemies, a loser, someone he fired. And so he is now surrounded by yes-men and enablers, by opportunists and scam artists, by ideologues and foot soldiers.

What we saw on that stage in Pennsylvania, as Trump D.J.’d, was not Donald Trump frozen, paralyzed, uncertain. It was the people around him frozen, paralyzed, uncertain. He knew exactly where he was. He was doing exactly what he wanted to do. But there was no one there, or no one left, who could stop him.

You can listen to the audio essay by following “The Ezra Klein Show” NYT Audio App , Apple , Spotify , Amazon Music , YouTube , iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts . View a list of book recommendations from our guests here .

This audio essay for “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by our supervising editor, Claire Gordon. Fact-checking by Jack McCordick. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Aman Sahota. Our supervising editor is Claire Gordon. The show’s production team also includes Annie Galvin, Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Elias Isquith and Kristin Lin. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

An earlier version of this article misspelled the given name of a woman killed at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. She was Ashli Babbitt, not Ashley.

When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at [email protected] . Learn more

Ezra Klein joined Opinion in 2021. Previously, he was the founder, editor in chief and then editor at large of Vox; the host of the podcast “The Ezra Klein Show”; and the author of “Why We’re Polarized.” Before that, he was a columnist and editor at The Washington Post, where he founded and led the Wonkblog vertical. He is on Threads .