Coming from /u/eternalkerri's comment on another thread, I'm curious as to the general level of literacy among the founding fathers, especially compared to what would be expected of them in their time (for example, would European nobles have viewed them as intelligent, well-read men, or as having meager educations?). Is there any evidence that they read/wrote/spoke in more or fewer languages than European leaders of the same time, and what the causes would be for that? It seems easy to assume that Europeans would have more use of various languages in their daily life and duties, but would the American founders be more developed in the classics? Did the same apply to other colonial groups?
Also, is there any evidence that the founders would've intentionally adjusted their language to either sound more formal and authoritative, or to sound more casual and 'commonfolk'? Did this differ from practices in Europe? If not, is there evidence for when this practice started?
By and large, the American political class in the 1770s + 1780s considered themselves quite well read (and frequently were) and on many levels, contemporaries for their British counterparts. This idea holds up, to some degree, but is dependent upon region. For instance, a plantation owner in the Tidewater region would have had the financial resources and wherewithal to send his children to the best European schools, get them the finest tutors, and make sure that they were as cosmopolitan as possible. They often bankrupted themselves in this pursuit, but it tended to yield the desired results. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and George Washington are all good examples. Other landowners + people of means could try and imitate, but given the costs involved imitation was about all they could normally achieve. Despite all of this, European aristocracy tended to view colonials as rabble irrespective of their social standing. A great example is the relationship between British regulars and colonial militias during the 7 years War (1756-1763).
The assumption that Europeans would have had more use of various languages is only true among the highest levels of aristocracy or merchants. Even then - French was the court language at the time so most of them would have spoken French + English (possibly Spanish). Otherwise, people tended to speak their own local variations of English, French, Spanish, etc., as the possibility for travel was quite limited.
In terms of adjusting language - there are not many examples of the founders adjusting their language to fit their audience (poor vs. rich). Remember that at the time political society was different then now. Democracy was a dirty word, republics were revolutionary, and most political societies were tiny %s of the population. The common folk were largely regarded as rabble and dangerous. Madison's Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers offer great evidence for this fact. These men were primarily concerned with warding off tyranny from above and below. They sought balance above all else and though they believed in certain basic (natural or otherwise) rights (not all of them agreed with this idea). As a result, they would not have deigned political discussion with common folk. In Europe, political discussions remained the province of the rich until the early 19th century when the French Revolutionary Wars changed the equation. The modern conception of speaking directly to the masses can be tied to the progressive movement in the United States (1880s-1910s) and esp. the slow democratization of suffrage during this period.
Hope this helps!
As a side question to this, if they were speaking another language (French, Spanish, etc) would their conversations be the same level of vocabulary i.e. not for the common man?