Conflict vs. Compromise Theme Analysis

Founding Brothers, a nonfiction book by Joseph Ellis, emphasizes that the period following the American Revolution was defined by an extraordinary amount of conflict, from petty disputes to discord so serious that it threatened the very existence of the republic. Compromise was an extremely necessary—and extremely difficult—task for the leaders of the nation. Indeed, Ellis argues that one of the most extraordinary aspects of the leaders of this era was their ability to resolve conflicts through compromise, and that this ability should be one of the defining elements of their legacy. At the same time, there is a major exception to this. The issue of slavery was so divisive that the Founding Fathers decided the question would have to be put on hold until a later date. While this decision is to some degree framed as a compromise in the book, it was also a capitulation to the pro-slavery side, as slavery was allowed to proliferate while the issue was “tabled.”

Founding Brothers shows that the post-Revolutionary period was riddled with conflict, which was fueled not only by genuine ideological disagreement but also by practical issues, personal and political rivalries, uncertainty, and rumor. The post-Revolutionary moment was particularly characterized by conflict due to the fact that, after the struggle against the British was won, the leaders of the United States were no longer united in common struggle: “Bound together in solidarity against the imperialistic enemy, the leadership fragments when the common enemy disappears and the different agenda for the new nation must confront its differences.” Following this loss of a “common enemy,” conflicts that had been ignored, suppressed, or simply hadn’t existed prior to the birth of the independent American nation suddenly materialized in full force. The legacy of the Revolution itself became a highly contested topic, as conflicts between Federalists and Republics turned into “ideological warfare” and certain leaders, such as John Adams, were accused of betraying the Revolution by favoring monarchical-style government.

The book emphasizes that the Founding Fathers should be admired for their ability to achieve compromise under these extraordinarily difficult circumstances. One of the examples of a successful resolution of conflict detailed in the book is the Compromise of 1790, in which Alexander Hamilton achieved his aim of the federal government assuming state debts, while Jefferson and Madison were granted their desire to have the nation’s capital in the South. The conflicts leading up to this compromise were extremely serious and threatening to the republic, and at times a solution seemed so unlikely as to appear ludicrous (as is demonstrated by the example of congressmen who joked that the capitol needed to be put on wheels and moved from place to place). However, through discussion, bargaining, and mutual trust, the leaders reached a compromise that is “most famous for averting a political crisis that many statesmen of the time considered a threat to the survival of the infant republic.”

On the other hand, Ellis also argues that the Compromise of 1790 “exposed the incompatible expectations concerning America’s future that animated these same statesmen.” While the Founding Fathers may have possessed extraordinary skill in achieving harmony between warring sides, in certain cases, such harmony could not be achieved because the visions and desires of these different sides were simply “incompatible.” This is particularly true in the case of slavery. The Founding Fathers’ decision to “table” the issue of slavery and revisit it at a later date left a sizable stain on the revolutionary generation’s legacy. Not only did this decision allow the horror and brutality of slavery to continue for many more years, it also laid the groundwork for the Civil War. The lesson of this is that conflict—particularly a conflict as fundamental as the issue of slavery—will never disappear simply by being ignored. Even if the conflict appears to momentarily subside, it will return in full force at a later date.

Ellis acknowledges that the Founding Father’s decision to dodge the question of slavery helped the United States survive its first decades as an independent nation. Yet Founding Brothers also stresses that it was not only for pragmatic reasons that the issue of slavery was put to one side. The Founding Fathers themselves faced internal conflict regarding the issue of slavery, as is made clear by their contradictory and evasive statements and actions on the matter. While most were united in condemning slavery as a moral evil, many avoided and suppressed serious discussion of abolition. Madison, for example, argued that the consideration of abolition was “premature, politically impractical, and counterproductive.”

Founding Brothers portrays a group of leaders able to reach agreement and compromise in the most unlikely circumstances, in a climate defined by passionate ideological disputes and uncertainty about the future. At the same time, the “evasiveness” of the Founding Fathers when it came to the issue of slavery was so problematic that it is difficult to straightforwardly praise their ability to compromise without centering this enormous caveat.