Hello Bob,   
      
   >RW>True enough, but they had to give it more than just a "yeah   
   >RW>yeah" at least a wink and a nod.  Aslo there were those who   
   >RW>weren't slave owners, though most were, as you say "rich   
   >RW>white men" including Franklin.   
      
   >LL>Still, we should not really judge them.  Especially by our   
   >LL>standards, as the world (society) they lived in was much   
   >LL>different than our own.   
      
   BK>Yes, we should. It was no more right then than it would be now.   
   BK>And there were people then telling them it wasn't right. In   
   BK>fact, a lot of those writing the constitution knew it was wrong,   
   BK>which is why they had to compromise.   
      
   Judging people of yesteryear by our own standards of today is not   
   being fair to them, or us.  What will the world of tomorrow think of   
   what we do today?  Some of the things we do are bound to be seen as   
   morally repugnant.  For example, we still approve of state-sanctioned   
   murder (the death penalty).  We still believe there is such a thing   
   as a "just" war.  We continue to have a health care system that is   
   not accessible for many in our society (the first of all human rights   
   is the right to accessible health care as that is part of the right   
   to life).  The list can go on and on.   
      
   Yes, slavery is wrong.  By our own standards, we know that.   
   But by the standards of people who came before us, they did   
   not know that.  Oh, some did.  But how many folks listened?   
   And how long did it take before the idea truly got hold?   
      
   --Lee   
      
      
    * SLMR 2.1a * Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints? Two dat? Two dat?   
      
   --- Maximus 3.01   
    * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.mooo.com (3:800/432)