From The Time Of The Founding Fathers To The Late 1800

Were the founding fathers really as awesome as they are remembered?

No. Once again, no.Today, in a secular society with Christian roots, the Founding Fathers play roughly the role that the Disciples of Christ and writers of the Gospels once played. The endless flow of biographies cranked out about those guys constitute a Lives of the Saints, and give reasonably well educated people an excuse to the ignore the whole body of political thought, philosophy and literature that developed in the 19th and 20th centuries and poses some very uncomfortable questions for Americans.In the second half of the 20th century, the term ‘American Revolution’ has come to replace ‘War of Independence,’ (I think to make the founding of the United States more competitive with the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, in terms of attractiveness to the Third World). Unfortunately the event was not a revolution, it was a war of independence. The colonists started out subject to a hereditary king, and a bicameral legislature consisting of an upper house of a nobility and a lower chamber elected by a highly restricted franchise. The new nation started out with an indirectly elected king and a bicameral legislature consisting of an upper chamber populated with indirectly elected oligarchs and a lower house elected by a highly restricted franchise. Some revolution (but a very successful war of independence).One final salient point, the founding fathers intellectually were provincials very much following the various strands of Enlightenment thought that was sweeping Europe in the 18th century. The were not, themselves, leaders of it, and their focus was more on the political philosophy (and scientific ferment) than, for instance, social philosophy or language. The reason that when Franklin went to Paris he so successfully played the hick was that the part fit.So, to answer your question in a sentence: no, the modern worship of the Founding Fathers meets current needs, and has very little to do with who they were or how they fit into their world.

What would the Founding Fathers think and do to Donald Trump if they time traveled to modern America and saw Mister Trump's action?

A2A, AnonymousI think it would take a lot of time for then to understand the context and the setting in which Mr. Trump is thriving. They don't really know the political climate as we do, because they haven't experienced the events of the last few decades that has shaped the present so. Or even, you know, the last couple of centuries. You'd have to first describe, in detail, every major event in American history from their deaths until now so they could actually understand why Mr Trump is not popular with you.Because, if they just see a few clips of him speaking, they'd probably say:"Golly, finally a reasonable man in this godforsaken place""He puts the negroes in their place" (African-Americans didn't have anything close to equal rights even officially in the time they lived and were viewed as closer to animals than humans)"He doesn't dilly dally with the damn Brits" (as you're probably aware, the Founding Fathers did not view the UK in a favorable light) "He seems like a god-fearing Christian man" (religion was very important to... like everyone in the late 18th century, especially to some of the Christian fundamentalists who helped found the US)"Finally a man who stands put up to those damn European monarchs!" (The US was founded on the ideals of classical liberalism and was, at the time, in a big-dick contest with the deeply conservative absolute monarchies of Europe, who had dominated the colonies for centuries)"He doesn't let Spaniards and savages into our nation. I'll help you build that wall Mr Trump!" (The Founding Fathers didn't view Spanish colonists and the native Amerindians that they mixed with favorably either and probably wouldn't like them in their territories near the southern border)

What reason did the Founding Fathers have for not giving women the right to vote when the Republic was first created in 1791?

The world was a much different place 200+ years ago. There was no birth control and women spent much of their lives pregnant and caring for children. Many children died in infancy, many women died in child birth, and many pregnancies were lost due to accident or illness. So this meant that if a couple wanted children, the wife was going to spend most of her life making it happen. My grandmother was one of 13 children.This greatly reduced the chances of a woman being employed outside the home. The husband was the primary wage earner and he essentially had to earn enough to support a wife and children. A woman’s role was primarily a mother and homemaker. The husband was typically the property owner, and his home, his wife and children were his property, along with any slaves he owned. A woman, who was considered property, could not herself own property. This is why we still sometimes hear the phrase during a wedding ceremony “Who giveth this woman?”, meaning, where is the father of the bride who is transferring ownership of his daughter to her new husband? Thankfully, much of that has changed.Now, in the early days, large land owners had the most to lose if the country was conquered by an invading army. It made sense then, that the land owners were involved in politics and were the voters. These were mostly men who had inherited their land, and often inherited some slaves, or who had gone out into the wildness on their own and carved out a ranch or a farm, and at some point, would go into town searching for a wife. For men who wanted a well-bred Eastern wife, there were mail-order brides!If you want to see an excellent fictional representation of that time period, that is also fun to watch (even though I generally loathe musicals!), I recommend the movie Seven Brides For Seven Brothers.So, as I understand it, the founders created the voting system for the land owners, who in the beginning, were always male.

Which French chef from the late 1800’s is considered the father of modern cuisine?

There will probably be some disagreement on this one, as there were several leaps that occurred across multiple generations. The fact that the question stipulates the late 1800’s indicates there may be a particular answer that is expected.The first was arguably François Pierre La Varenne - Wikipedia (1615–78) in the age of King Louis XIV, who broke with the Italian traditions that had revolutionized medieval and Renaissance French cookery in the 16th century and early 17th century.Marie-Antoine Carême - Wikipedia (1784 – 1833) lived during Napolean’s time and is remembered as the founder of the haute cuisine concept. He was the first to receive the appellation "king of chefs and chef of kings". Cheese and wine are a major part of the cuisine, as well as the invention of original sauces.Both of the above shifted French cooking away from its foreign influences and developed France's own indigenous style.Auguste Escoffier - Wikipedia (1846 – 1935) certainly qualifies as from the late 1800’s - Escoffier's recipes, techniques and approaches to kitchen management remain highly influential today. In particular, he built on Careme’s work with sauces - Carême considered the four grandes sauces to be espagnole, veloute, allemande, and bechamel. In the early 20th century, the Escoffier refined Carême's list of basic sauces, dropping allemande and adding hollandaise and sauce tomate. Escoffier was France's preeminent chef in the early part of the 20th century, and the adoring French press transferred the title of "king of chefs and chef of kings" to him.So in my humble opinion, as in many things, each era stood on the era before - on the shoulders of giants as it were.