Opinion of the Founding Fathers

[Ameriplan]

Many of them did not own slaves and opposed slavery.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     They were admirable people for resisting the King & demanding that they be treated fairly by the law. They were also flawed, just as everybody else is.

[The Mikado]

A mixed bag, like any group of that many people.  That said, many of them were truly incredible, great people (Washington, in particular, is every bit deserving of the effusive praise he gets).

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Some good, some less good, but there were also those who were truly exceptional, like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams.

[Phony Moderate]

Option 3.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

FFs (Normal.)

[useful idiot]

FF's. It's amazing how many great minds and impressive men were born in that generation in a couple of sparsely populated colonies.

I think that if we studied the founders more in school, and I don't mean the superficial crap kids get now, then we'd be a better place. I also think that taking a look at who each of the major founders was, and looking at their lives and beliefs without an agenda, would silence a lot of the stupid assertions that both the right and the left make.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

FFs (Normal.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A bunch of rebel scum who wanted the benefits of being part of the British Empire without helping to pay for its upkeep.  (Keep in mind, among my ancestors are Loyalists who had to flee to Canada for their own safety after being on the losing side.)

[Derek]

As for the slavery issue, it wasn't what we think of it as today. For example, Thomas Jefferson had slaves but the thought that it could be any other way just didn't exist yet because it hadn't been thought of. It was the British who started to bring slaves over here before we were even a country. That's the way it had always been here. There were plenty of people who weren't founding fathers and owned slaves.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Typical representatives of their class who acted in accordance with their objective class interests.

Or should that be classes? Why, yes. Yes it should. And a couple weren't so typical.

[opebo]

Typical representatives of their class who acted in accordance with their objective class interests.

Or should that be classes? Why, yes. Yes it should. And a couple weren't so typical.

Actually being eccentric was somewhat typical of at least one of the two classes involved.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

By the standards of their time, they were great FFs. Today however most of them, due to having almost ancient minds, wouldn't understand the present reality.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

By the standards of their time, they were great FFs. Today however most of them, due to having almost ancient minds, wouldn't understand the present reality.

Don't underestimate them.

Anyway they aren't really flesh and blood people anymore, merely an abstractification for the historically minded to fight over... Personally, I'm not really a fan of that abstractification.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Each signer knew a wanted poster was going to be on his head before the ink dryed.  FFs

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Some good, some less good, but there were also those who were truly exceptional, like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams.

LOL @ you being Thomas Jefferson. The overwhelming majority of your views are about as antithetical to his as can be.

So you don't believe him to be a hypocritical amoral ideologue who panders to the mob for political purposes?  I didn't think you had that high an opinion of ben.

[Torie]

On balance, this group of practical idealists (Jefferson less practical than the rest, but he was fortunate to have Madison around to keep him from going over the deep end), some being among the most educated and erudite personages on the planet at the time, accomplished something amazing which changed history, in a way that without a few critical personalities just would not have happened in the same way, with the same "game changing" results. I read a book within the last year (I can't remember the name at the moment), which made clearer to me than I had understood before, just how much the American revolution, and ensuing Constitution, sent shock waves throughout Europe, precipitating the French Revolution arguably, turning Catherine the Great into a reactionary, and so on. The Western world after was just not the same as before, in critically important ways.

And yes, my personal favorite should be obvious to anyway - Ben Franklin - an amazingly modern man for his era, with modern sensibilities, including being vociferously opposed to slavery.

Al makes the point, which used to be more popular in revisionist typically left wing historical circles, that the American Revolution was in some ways a conservative one, with the Founders, etc., worried about protecting their wealth, and worried about progressive tendencies in certain of the colonies. That was in the background,  but hardly in my opinion a driving force, and in any event, ironic, since most of the founders lost most of their wealth due to the revolution. So they lost their money (the richest guy, John Hancock, went broke), but gained a place in history, which will live as long as America itself exists, if not longer. Not a bad bargain.

[John Dibble]

Overall good, but not without their flaws.

A bunch of rebel scum who wanted the benefits of being part of the British Empire without helping to pay for its upkeep.  (Keep in mind, among my ancestors are Loyalists who had to flee to Canada for their own safety after being on the losing side.)

You mean benefits like representation in Parliament? That seems to have been a fair demand for them to have been making. (totally agree with you on the poor treatment of loyalists after the war being a bad thing, btw)

[The Mikado]

I would've likely been a Loyalist at the time of the Revolution and wouldn't have had a very high opinion of the Founders.  Looking back on it from 230 years later, I can be more objective.

[Antonio the Sixth]

FF, but often overrated.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al makes the point, which used to be more popular in revisionist typically left wing historical circles, that the American Revolution was in some ways a conservative one, with the Founders, etc., worried about protecting their wealth, and worried about progressive tendencies in certain of the colonies.

Actually that's not the point I was making

[minionofmidas]

On balance, this group of practical idealists (Jefferson less practical than the rest, but he was fortunate to have Madison around to keep him from going over the deep end), some being among the most educated and erudite personages on the planet at the time, accomplished something amazing which changed history, in a way that without a few critical personalities just would not have happened in the same way, with the same "game changing" results. I read a book within the last year (I can't remember the name at the moment), which made clearer to me than I had understood before, just how much the American revolution, and ensuing Constitution, sent shock waves throughout Europe, precipitating the French Revolution arguably, turning Catherine the Great into a reactionary, and so on. The Western world after was just not the same as before, in critically important ways.

Catherine the "Great" (as also Frederick II of Prussia) was born an insane ultrareactionary bigot. Their worship in the "enlightenment" era really just shows how much was wrong with that era.

It's true(ish... well, no, it is true rather than just trueish) that the American Revolution (though not the Constitution, of course. I'm not aware of any remotely contemporary European reaction to America's second constitution.) "sent shock waves throughout Europe" and precipitated the French Revolution. France's role in the War of Independence helped a lot, of course.
It's also true that without the successes of the far more important French Revolution, we wouldn't be particularly aware of the American contribution.

[Хahar 🤔]

Obviously there were some good ones (Paine stands out), but horrible on balance. There have been very few bright spots in American history, and the War of Independence was not among them.

[Torie]

Obviously there were some good ones (Paine stands out), but horrible on balance. There have been very few bright spots in American history, and the War of Independence was not among them.

Why do you have this opinion Xahar? 

[Хahar 🤔]

Obviously there were some good ones (Paine stands out), but horrible on balance. There have been very few bright spots in American history, and the War of Independence was not among them.

Why do you have this opinion Xahar? 

Their reasons for revolting were flimsy at best: they did not wish to contribute to the cost of maintaining the military force that defended them. For this reason, they drew the nation into a protracted war not long after the end of the Seven Years' War. A great many of them were hypocrites (Jefferson's hypocrisy is largest), and even those that were not slaveholders were elitists, as shown by the character of the governments they created. This in itself is not unusual for the times, but the fact that they couched their actions in words that were very much unusual for the times means that they ought to be held to a higher standard. Despite all their cries of freedom, Canada, which did not revolt, has throughout its history had a freer and better society than the one created in the Revolutionary War.