(a) sold all their slaves making their plantations fiscally inviable, and ruining their financial situations, thus preventing them from being able to serve their countries,

else,

(b) stayed with the traditional British Monarchial, hierarchial, and class-system and never have put to words such historical political philosophy which is still today considered one of the milestones in the evolution of democracy?

Seems to me that raising this point is a red herring, else a sour grape. Also seems to me that they were doing their best, not just panning to the media or lobbying for votes. They really were trying to reform their society to overcome the intrinsic structural weaknesses and injustices which trenchant classism, racism, sexism, and aristocracy maintained.

I mean come on, the entire U.S. was so divided and confused about the slavery issue that the most destructive war in U.S. history had to be fought just to arrive at a consensus about the fact that the notion of a "human" was meant to include people of color. And you expected the founding fathers to have enforced else lived out this interpretation in 1776? Very idealistic, but also runs the risk of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Don't expect Ford Motor Company to magically transform into Whole Foods tomorrow morning, but be pleased when they at least take a baby step or two in that direction, eh?

Critique the philosphy if you must, but don't cut it off at the knees of the messenger who had the guts to write it down eh?

Locus Coeruleus (1/23/2007)

---

Still doesn't invalidate the concept. Two wrongs do not make a right, and your raising of the point that the formulators of the philosophy were hypocritical runs the risk of commiting a second wrong, by preventing the spread, dissemination, and digestion of the philosophy itself.

Critique the philosphy if you must, but don't cut it off at the knees of the messenger who had the guts to write it down eh?

Oh, I don't dispute the validity of the concept, it is quite honourable in this day and age, I agree. I was merely pointing out the irony, as psweet suggested.

The irony... now we've come full circle!

Quite honorable in ANY day and age I'd say! Words for the Ages one might say. Holy words, or fighting words, dependin' on what your debatin' partner has to say in response

Locus Coeruleus (1/23/2007)

---

Quite honorable in ANY day and age I'd say! Words for ages one might say. Holy words, or fighting words, dependin' on what your debatin' partner has to say in response

Quite right good sir, you've hit the nail on the head most squarely!

To be fair, I was quite fine to fly in here, take my cheap shot, to point out the irony, as has been said, and leave it at that, but Psweet took me to task on it, and thusly I certainly couldn't just leave it at that!

Now, now Locus! *wags finger* On reason only! . . . well, reason and maybe a wee bit of humor

If you can't laugh WITH your debatin' partner, then who CAN you laugh with?

but you called it hypocracy :runs:

:runs back to make another point:  Scipio, you forgot (c) they could have just ignored the subject altogether and said slavery was just fine and where would we be today?  The fact that they were self critical tells a lot about their humility.  If I say I need to quit smoking while I puff on my cigar, does that make me a hypocrit or one who is realizing he needs to change but has not reached the end of his journey but has just taken the first step... :breaths then runs a little further:

:runs back for one last comment:

Your drinkin' partner? :runs and realizes this thread isn't about drinking or slavery so hides in a hedge: