Following the conversation in another thread, I thought I would throw out a question for consideration:How was it possible that there were so many great minds together during the early years of the American republic?  Was it just a coincidence or was something else at play?Two things come to mind for me - political persuasion and oppression.  First, the Founding Fathers appear to have come from the similar, more liberalized stock of Whiggism in Britain.  They did not necessarily subscribe to the same ideals as the Conservative Whigs in Britain, perhaps due to a more egalitarian basis in the Colonies.  I don't have numbers on this but I would imagine that the disparity between rich and poor in the Colonies was much closer than that in England, so those in the Colonies had "less to lose", so to speak.  I think that the English aristocrats who probably comprised most of the conservatives there stood to lose power by holding to the more liberal version of their political party.The Founding Fathers were also "grouped" with the rest of the Colonists in that they were all "oppressed" together.  Perhaps "oppressed" is an overly harsh term, so in other words they all had their rights infringed upon together.  This would have led to an "us versus them" mindset, breaking down pre-existing differences in political philosophy or practices.  Opposition against the king would have unified the Colonists.I think that these two things would have given the Colonists more reason to "agree" than to "disagree", thereby helping them to get more done and allowing their ideas to flourish and bear fruit.  There were obviously differences among the Founding Fathers, but these did not get in the way of democratic progress.  It is when political leaders are together "on the same level" that they are able to make change, and when division prevails little is accomplished.