I don't think you two have to peck at each other in order to have a debate about historical context and moral relativity.
I think Banks and Napoleon both have to attack and mock to have anything close to meaningful discussion at all, most of the time.
Josh I can't speak for Nap, but I gave you a serious response to your feeling of disappointment to our founding father's morality, which you conveniently ignored.
It must be a tremendous gift to be able to look back about 250 years and so easily condemn the actions of well-intentioned patriots in their less than perfect efforts to fashion a revolutionary new form of government by and for the people, within the construct of the morality of the day, and one that had a structure and flexibility to evolve while it remained true to principles.
Josh put on your big-boy pants and accept criticism, and then thank god for the gift of the ability to look well into the past and having 20-200 hindsight.
LMAOx
If that's what passes for a serious critique in your head, then there is not much to be said in response.
I accept it in the spirit in which you now claim it was intended, but the closing line about my "self-righteousness and hubris" kind of detracts from your own self-righteousness and mockery.
Looking back 250 years is one way of looking at it, Banks. 232 for the Constitution.
But you act as if the issues of slavery were unknown at the time, when they were not. Slavery was known to be wrong in 1777 and 1787 and all the years in the middle. I don't need to look back. I can look at the writings of the time (and have done so on multiple occasions). I have read the debates in the Continental Congress and the discussions around it.
James Madison figured that cutting off the importation of slaves after 20 years was a
big win over the extant form of governance, without more than a nod to the practice, itself, and its place in their society.
So, put on any kind of pants you want, but know that Jefferson's sleeping with his young slave (aka rape) was challenged for its propriety at the time. It's not
hindsight, but the view of the 18th century.
I get that their views and practices were okay and you want to excuse it because it was way back then and therefore must be okay.
It wasn't okay then. It wasn't okay when SCOTUS passed the Dred Scott decision which came directly out of the Founding Fathers'
morality.
And you can mock me from now to doomsday for believing that. But it's not "self-righteousness." It's just not bogus relative morality, either. It's historical perspective.
Here's the key --> unlike Ham, I don't think I am morally superior to them. Or him. I just don't think they were morally superior to me, for all that they were vastly more capable in lots of ways than I am.