6 ms·

They were absolutely outstanding men relative to their peers. Check your PC bullshit.

• vdaniuk 11y ago
  >Check your PC bullshit Come on, it's an anonymous troll account with an obvious goal of ridiculing pro-PC argument. Check your #{x}!
  • chkurprivilege 11y ago
    Yup
  • reitanqild 11y ago
    The annoying thing is he was close enough to fool me.
• zappo2938 11y ago
  It was complicated. George Washington in discussions with Benjamin Franklin said to Franklin that he couldn't free the slaves because the unity of the United States was far more important. The British didn't give up trying to control the United States until Andrew Jackson destroyed them in a battle at New Orleans and the British came very close to succeeding. "I rejoice in a belief that intellectual light will spring up in the dark corners of the earth; that freedom of enquiry will produce liberality of conduct; that mankind will reverse the absurd position that the many were, made for the few; and that they will not continue slaves in one part of the globe, when they can become freemen in another." -- Fro the first draft of George Washington's inaugural address. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had to deal with more pressing issues at the time and put off freeing slaves for a later generation.
  • sremani 11y ago
    Washington freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson, who had children with slave girl(s), did not grant any freedom after his death. Him being near broke could be a reason, but let us not forget that the Children of an American president and most possibly Grand Children lived in slavery till civil war.
    • transfire 11y ago
      Jefferson did free all his slaves that were his children -- Sally Hemings children (I have never heard of any evidence that he slept with any other). Most likely he did not free the rest of his slaves because he was in a great deal of debt when he died and didn't want that debt to burden his children.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• Amezarak 11y ago
  > They were absolutely outstanding men relative to their peers. Check your PC bullshit. Honestly, setting aside anachronistic moral issues, I don't think they are any different than a random selection of modern US politicians. Read through their letters and through contemporary news articles and you get the impression that in some ways they were even more fractious and petty. The vapid insults and conspiracy theories they published aimed at each other often make even Trump look good. (Probably the biggest misconception I had was that the 'Founding Fathers' got along pleasantly even if they had the occasional intellectual disagreement. Nope, not at all. And their political positions existed on a much, much broader scale than I had ever imagined.) They don't come across as remotely exemplary characters even compared to their peers. Then you have things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, where even white men were arrested and prosecuted for criticizing the President, and you realize we've got it pretty good these days. Frankly it seems almost incredible that the early republic survived. I think the real lesson to learn from the early days of America is that the right circumstances and processes can make a workable union out of even a hugely disparate population - but that there are still limits. Early America made it only because the shared sense of values and community was just enough.