well, you have to consider the context. they had just done a treason together and killed a bunch of people they all agreed they didn't like, so there was some established trust and respect
And to your point, it was useful to paint the revolution as being some high minded, noble affair, rather than realpolitik wherein they recognized an opportunity to seize power from a weakening crown that tried to overplay its hand.
History, as they say, it's written by the victors.
American Exceptionalism would hold that there's something unique about formation of the US that enabled these steps, but consider that Europe is filled with democracies with similar rights despite arriving there via different trajectories.
The fact that the US continued both persecution against indigenous Americans and chattel slavery of Africans for years beyond its European peers gives the lie to the high-mindedness of their cause, and it should give us plenty of reason to hold any of these early views suspect.
These are not minor errors, they are fundamental injustices, and anybody who could so readily ignore them is not an authority worth appealing to.
As a history lesson? Sure, one can read what the early US philosophers and politicians wrote and derive value from it. But it would be a mistake to put them on some kind of pedestal and assume that they were uniquely qualified to create a superior structure for their new republic.
I am a liberal, and you also sound liberal, I am critiquing you from the context of seeing you as a trench mate in our impending civil war. I hope you understand that appeals to "racism" aren't winning you many friends. It's an absolutist position that ignores significant nuance and context, and worse it alienates moderates.
Our founding fathers did better than those before them and deserve some credit for that.
You are using today's morals to judge yesterday's actions with little reference to context. Were you in their positions, I doubt you could have done better. Their foundation is what gave you the privilege of judgement your post betrays.
I would be surprised if you can give me a cogent history lesson, but I will listen to you tell me how European democracies were started. I think America and France shares significant philosophical heritage. I think you are denying the amount of time and effort it takes philosophy or culture to permeate an aristocracy. I am admittedly fairly ignorant in the area, I am open to listening.
You can talk about American persecution of indigenous Americans compared to Europe, but Nazi Germany saw what Americans did and wanted to push eastward into slavic land in the same way Americans pushed westward. Quite literally Hitler wanted to do what Americans did to native Americans to Slavs, literally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum. So that idea of enlightened "high minded" Europe falls quite a bit short, particularly in the context of WW2. Porgroms seem hard to reconcile too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom. This is contemporary and we can hear murmurs of it all over the white world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement. It Nazi Germany propaganda used to justify what they did.
It's like you think it's an easier explanation that people are born with perfect philosophical knowledge and make a choice to be evil rather than it being an easier explanation that implications of actions and philosophical cogency are learned rather than being apriori obvious. Convenient to persecute, but within it belies lack of self reflection on your own evils and how they came to happen.
Our founding fathers were some of the giants whose shoulders MLK stood on. Go read the "I have a dream" speech and consider that the civil rights movement is taught in positive light in American public education and reconcile that with your cynicism. I agree that it is not as simple because MLK was the "speak softly" part of "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Ideas have meaning. Some ideas prompt people to risk their lives and that personal risk in the face of greater power is what ultimate creates change.
I don't think that is unique to America, but I do think it is part of American culture.
Timothy Snyder (the modern person who most closely resembles our founding fathers, to me) would call your attitude the "politics of inevitability." Realpolitik is inevitable after all, why try to fight something that is inevitable. Why talk about values in the face of inevitability? https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-politics-of-inevitabilit...
I am not an American exceptionalist because I do not think America is intrinsically better. I think that many people have sacrificed to make America better and those sacrifices in the name of ideals have led to better outcomes for many people.
The Declaration of Independence very clearly states why they didn't like England. It also says the act of treason that started the nation wasn't something they wanted to do but felt was necessary.
