Huge pieces of shit.
Thomas Payne and Benny Franklin can chill with me though.
and fuck hamilton for giving white libs an excuse to completely ignore their faults
The Founding Fathers are akchtually PoC now, so if you criticize them you're doing a racism.
It is crazy to think though that even Thomas Jefferson wanted free education, college, etc. and today it is considered radical and undoable. I guess social programs are ok when the only recipients are white men.
quite literally true for most of american history. free education and access to land were the key tenets to "free soil" philosophy which powered the US through the 19th century. there was a lot of tumult (and, not surprisingly, union wars/red scares) when the frontier closed.
The End of The Myth by Greg Grandin is all about this (and has the cushbomb seal of approval)
Most of them threw a temper tantrum when asked to pay taxes what can you expect lol
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
Benjamin Franklin was a trotskyist and advocated for permanent revolution?
smh you're misreading that quote, you have to understand the language of the time. by "tree of liberty" he meant his teenage slave's hoo-ha, and by "blood of patriots" he meant his jizz
Don't forget that a primary motivation for the "Founding Fathers" was protecting slavery from a challenge brewing in the UK that would have outlawed it entirely. Read The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America by Horne for more facts like these, and fun quotes about how George Washington just couldn't wait until he got to genocide all of the Native Americans.
Yep, that and the British telling them they couldn't just steal more native lands like they were used to. They also didn't like the idea of paying for the necessary services like military protection that the UK was providing...
What if instead of Founding Fathers it was Pounding Fathers and they just demolished our asses?
Why don't "originalist" constitutional scholars use the 1st draft of the constitution to interpret "framer's intent", rather than the 2nd version after 12 years of bribes, argument and compromise? Their whole thing is "no living document, just interpret the original text" yet they use the 2nd version. Granted the whole thing is disingenuous hypocrisy but it's a funny point to raise whenever they stunt like that
