1
1
0
Responses: 4
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Ummm...going to have to doubt that one my friend. Speaking from a complete detached perspective as a historian...I'm willing to go along with a few "learned" 18th Century white guys applauding the eventual abolition of slavery (albeit at a later date that didn't impact their bottom lines), and perhaps even universal suffrage (again, once it was pretty much a forgone conclusion)...a female member of Congress ? Probably not.
We can, and should challenge some of their views as time moves forward...they did provide, willingly or unwittingly, the means to do so and maintain civil government. However, it's a fallacy to believe that whether we're discussing the current attitudes on LGBT "lifestyles", the nature of "semi-automatic rifles" under the 2A, or the conflict between the Speaker and the President...that these men would be anything other than utterly confused regarding our present mindsets and the debates precipitated by them.
We can, and should challenge some of their views as time moves forward...they did provide, willingly or unwittingly, the means to do so and maintain civil government. However, it's a fallacy to believe that whether we're discussing the current attitudes on LGBT "lifestyles", the nature of "semi-automatic rifles" under the 2A, or the conflict between the Speaker and the President...that these men would be anything other than utterly confused regarding our present mindsets and the debates precipitated by them.
(1)
Comment
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
>1 y
SSG Robert Mark Odom - Yes, but humor can be used to express more serious thoughts. No disrespect intended, but on both sides, people seem to be trying to "interpret" the Founders' original intent towards defending their own modern aims. Personally, I think it's very easy to understand what Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin desired for the nation they founded...it's just not always the way we'd like to see it ourselves.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next