Personal power, leadership abilities, integrity and morals were much stronger with these people, and in their times in general.
There’s just no reason at all to think this. Most obviously, people who signed their names to the idea ‘all men were created equal’ while themselves owning slaves quite obviously did not possess a high degree of moral integrity.
There’s just no reason at all to think this. Most obviously, people who signed their names to the idea ‘all men were created equal’ while themselves owning slaves quite obviously did not possess a high degree of moral integrity.
could this have been a tree they planted knowing they would not live to see fruit?
Personal power, leadership abilities, integrity and morals were much stronger with these people, and in their times in general.
So I think they would ask:
How do you think you can lead a country when you are such a bunch of corrupted whimps?
There’s just no reason at all to think this. Most obviously, people who signed their names to the idea ‘all men were created equal’ while themselves owning slaves quite obviously did not possess a high degree of moral integrity.
More a different definition of “men”.
True, but one that conveniently allowed them to do what they were already doing anyway. As I say: not titans of moral probity.
could this have been a tree they planted knowing they would not live to see fruit?
That may explain why they didn’t abolish slavery, but does not justify the fact that they themselves owned slaves.
I did not say that it was good morals (from today’s point of view: most of what they did was actually criminal). I said strong ones.
Having strong morals is mutually exclusive with compromising your morals to enrich yourself, which we’ve established is something they did.
Interesting take. I presume you’ve never actually read any of the founding father’s treatises.
No, of course not, since I do not live in their corrupted country.
And you should not judge people only according to what they write.