[John Jay] might not have been the worst slaveowner, may have been one of the best. But does that make him good?

In a word, yes. As one author observed, the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. Compare the material lot of Jay’s slaves to that of their wage-earning counterparts in New York or in the more well-known setting of Dickens’s London. Their enslavement was not defensible, but it’s not clear how many of them would have preferred to be “free” chimney sweeps. (Wage slavery is a thing, too.)

The myth of the good slaveowner may be a myth, but if we are to take the Constitution seriously, it is good that we take its authors seriously. This article is uncensored because “good” slaveowners understood the importance of free speech to democracy. Just what purpose is served by taking these authors down?

If there is a Constitutional provision you’d like to get rid of — something in the Bill of Rights, say — that makes your life miserable — by all means attack the authors. Otherwise, slavery having been abolished and discredited as thoroughly as any institution in history, you do only harm to yourself and the nation by exploring the venality of our founders. There just must be bigger and more nutritious fish for you to fry.