This is my first time commenting here so here’s my crack at this.

You make a great point comparing the founding fathers and Napoleon. Both sets were revolutionary governments, both sets owned slaves, both sets were very important political figures in history due to their advances in government. However, the differences between the two become pretty big the closer you look at them.

Let’s start off with slavery. In the thirteen colonies, slavery was a widely accepted practice which was commonplace for the nation, especially in the south. Once the revolution is won and the constitution along with the bill of rights is drafted and released, you will instantly see some hypocrisy and irony in their words. How can all men be created equal if some are enslaved? Well, the founding fathers were certainly not oblivious of this issue, but choose to keep slavery for a couple reasons. First off, slavery was such an ingrained part of the economy and market that it would be extremely shocking to suddenly just rip slavery out of the economic equation. Secondly, slaves were considered private property in the United States, not independent people. If slavery were suddenly abolished, people would view this new government as one which steals their property, which would be ironic considering how committed the founders were to property rights. As a side note, not all of the founding fathers owned slaves and not every founding father supported slavery. This also opens another facet of your questions, which is that the founders were a group of many men with different views and ideas, thus being harder to pin blame on as opposed to a singular figure such as Napoleon. It is also worth noting that the founders didn’t get a free pass for owning slaves and were criticized for their decision by different groups, including Garrisonians and Republicans.

Here’s the main difference between Napoleon and the founders in regards to slavery. Before the reign of Napoleon, slavery in France had actually been formally abolished in 1794. Under Napoleon in 1802, slavery was reinstated. The fact that Napoleon brought back the enslavement of people which were previously set free was both criticized at the time and continues to be criticized to this day.

Another aspect of Napoleon is his military campaigns. Napoleon, at the end of the day, was a conqueror. Whether you think that’s fine or not is up to you, but his career and history in warfare is undeniably controversial. Napoleon set out across Europe in a vast military campaign which ended in French hegemony over vast amounts of European people’s and nations. In compare to the United States and the founders, the military remained fairly tame. Besides military action against Native American tribes, there was no great conquering military campaigns of the newly born United States. Compared to the extreme expansionism of Napoleon, the founder were relatively isolationist.

Another aspect to their image is how they were viewed at the time. The founding fathers were and still remains to be viewed by the majority of Americans as good hearted patriots who fought against the odds to free their fellow countrymen from tyranny. The founding fathers were very popular at the time of their careers due to how unpopular the British rule was. In comparison, Napoleon was a controversial figure during his career, which is evident by the multiple assassination attempts on him. Napoleon was viewed by some as an autocratic tyrant by some, while the founders were viewed as a bulwark against similar authoritarianism. The political system are also important to the modern interpretations of both sides. The founding fathers created a democratic system which attempted to let the voices of people heard in the government and have power to the people. In comparison, Napoleon centralized the powers of the republic into a much more authoritarian system, with Emperor Napoleon at its heart.

Another important part of Napoleon’s legacy is the fact that he was exiled from France at the end of his life and died on a small island away from mainland France.

This is a little bit of a nitpick, but you said that Napoleon built a lasting nation, which I would argue isn’t totally true, given that France saw 4 different republics and 1 new empire after Napoleon’s reign.

Although I feel I’ve highlighted controversial aspects of Napoleon, it’s important to remember that there are certainly admirable qualities of his. Napoleon was undeniably a very intelligent man who contributed greatly to warfare and also made important improvements in France through his policies of rational law and meritocracy. Even if there are many things people hate about Napoleon, there are certainly aspects of him and his reign which are worth commemorating.

I hope my answer cleared this up a little bit for you and answers some questions you have. Anyone feel free to critique my answer or add more that you feel is important.