Why would you say such a thing, as if it were some kind of insult?
In fact, my feeeeeeeeeelings toward our Founders are the same as any normal person (especially conservative) has towards their own parents, or newly-wed spouses towards each other.
No newly-wed considers their spouse a "faultless demi-god", but does give them the ultimate living respect of sharing their lives, and raising a family together.
So how can that possibly be a bad thing, in your eyes or anybody else's?
Of course they were fallible, did not always live up to their own lofty rhetoric.
But no history book I've ever read says they were the opposite of what they claimed.
In fact, for better or worse, they were men of the Enlightenment (imho, its crowning glory), who believed in the power of reason and the Creator of Natural Laws & Rights of Men.
And the final proof of their sincerity is the government they created -- the US Constitution -- a limited, representative republic.
But you are correct in this sense: I never fault our Founders for what they didn't do (i.e., end slavery in the South), but always credit them for what they did do (i.e., US Constitution).
Sherman Logan: "In your loonng response I noted you left out the rather salient part of my comparison of the Founders to the Fire-Eaters.
That is the purpose of their rebellion.
The Founders’ rebelled to expand liberty, the Fire-Eaters to prevent its expansion."
I didn't mention it, for one, because of course I agree.
But for another, it's almost irrelevant and shifts focus away from the real point: both the Brits and Confederates started war against Americans, and both lost.
That's the correct comparison.
Sherman Logan: "All other comparison points pale in comparison.
Which is why the Founders were morally (not legally, as you seem important to stress) justified in their rebellion.
The Fire-Eaters were neither legally nor morally justified."
But my argument on the "legality" of the American Revolution is the same as the Civil War: the military powers (Brits & Confederates) which provoked & started wars against Americans thereby abdicated all legal & moral authority to govern.
In both cases they committed the ultimate act of bad-faith in revoking their 84 year-old Charter/Constitution under which Americans had previously lived.
They unilaterally broke the contract "at pleasure", and that act made their own claims unlawful.
Your commentary is full of non sequiturs and you continually draw absolute conclusions from them. I don't see where there is any point in trying to discuss this with you. It's like trying to argue about Kim Jong Un's policies with a North Korean Zampolit. There is simply no effort on your part to be objective.