Founding Fathers

Some of the them were pretty good.

Some of them were willing to grab power at the first chance. The Federalists were pretty shitty.

At the end of the day, the constitution is just a piece of paper, and is unable to prevent corruption and evil.

>Were these men as really good and pure as people make them out to be or were they corrupt like anyone else?

You're going to have to be a bit more specific considering you are referring to a great deal of people but the high profile ones that everyone likes to talk about (Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington etc.), were products of their time representing different ideals of their time. They were mostly upper-class, idealistic, educated land-owners. While the government they built wasn't completely free of contradiction, (all men are created equal but we stil have slaves) they managed to create a peaceful passing of power, which was a big deal at the time. I'm sure other people can explain this better but i'm tired.

>>1700216
>The Federalists were pretty shitty.
No? The Federalist had plenty of valid reasons. Read The Federalist Papers

>>1700169
unless they reinvented the wheel i doubt it

founding fathers were freemasons

What is that quote about the preservation of the opulent?

And isn't there a theory about how "we the people" was originally interpretted as "we the [people in the room: elite]"?

>>1700169

Once you actually start reading about the Founding Fathers, you'll quickly come to realize that they had disagreements among themselves just like anybody else and so referring to them as a homogenous group quickly becomes pointless. Pretty the only thing they all agreed on was America being a separate country from Britain.

For example, Jefferson and Washington really didn't get along. They didn't hate each other, but they weren't friends, and they generally didn't talk to each other unless they had too. After reading some about Jefferson, I got the impression that he was really jealous of all the respect Washington got from pretty much everybody. Jefferson was widely admired as well, but he didn't have nearly the influence that Washington did.

>>1703838
Unless you're an originalist judge. Then you just cherrypick what you think some founding fathers meant.

>>1700169
They were imperfect human beings, like any other, though they were certainly noteworthy historically/ideologically.

The idol worship that goes on in the US is just a tool to justify one political position or another. The founding fathers were sure as shit not a monolith.

>>1700169
>le either you are perfect in every single way or you are evil maymay
I want leftists to die already.

>>1703941
(you)

>>1700169
They weren't saints, but it's astounding how much the U.S. lucked out in getting that particular bunch at the helm. Most of them subscribed to Enlightenment-style thinking that emphasized the good of the nation over their own ambitions, so they were automatically superior to most modern politicians.

>>1702249
No that is blatantly wrong

>>1700216
This. Today the freedom of speech is pissed on as people are fired over their opinions.