If the Smithsonian Institution was more interested in promoting a patriotic version of U.S. history, would it put the Abolitionist Founding Fathers on display?

An interesting thing is happening right now and its really a fantastic opportunity to highlight just how useful our current roster of audio books is in the context of how home schoolers and others can remind our fellow Americans that yes, our Founding Fathers did get it right - and that includes on the topic of slavery, and where can you find the truth? How can you give others the truth? How can we all join together to undermine America's historical class who does not want anybody to know the real American history?

Slavery was indeed bad. Let's get that out of the way, and those four words stand on their own merit. Slavery was indeed bad. Now, we have to ask the opposite. Was early American abolitionism an universal good? I think it was. Was early American abolitionism a thing we can be proud of? Is early American abolitionism a thing we should be proud of? If not, then this discussion is not for you. But if you are proud of America and you are proud of the early American abolitionists, then I'm certain you are going to learn something here. So get ready.

The Smithsonian is something that all of us used to think was something that was on our side. We used to think the Smithsonian had America's best interests at heart. We have come to realize that this cannot be true, not as long as the Smithsonian has a one-sided vision for telling the U.S.'s story. If the narrative is really going to be one sided, then the Smithsonian have cast themselves as propagandists.

So who were America's Abolitionist Founding Fathers? Well, they were Founding Fathers to be sure. Signers of the Declaration, signers of the Continental Association, members of the Continental Congress, and signers of other documents less well known and also the Articles of Confederation and Constitution itself. This is also by no means meant to be an exhaustive and all encompassing list covering every aspect and nook and cranny, I did not prepare for that in advance.

The Founding Father who everybody will recognize, who was also an ardent abolitionist, was Benjamin Franklin. Franklin is often times most remembered for Poor Richard's Almanack, also for the key and the kite in the lightning storm. But Franklin was also a great man in another way - his ardent belief in the necessity of abolitionism.

A quick point of contention before I continue. For some odd reasons, many conservatives are decidedly not proud of this. I must say, I cannot fathom why. You aren't ceding any ground to progressives by promoting the Abolitionist Founding Fathers. In fact, the opposite is actually true. The progressives have spent generations engaging in a mass coverup of U.S. history and a sweeping under the rug of all things positive about U.S. history.

The Abolitionist Founding Fathers? Yes, of course I found it under the rug. I pulled it out from under the rug and now I want people to see how beautiful it is. Look at how it shines! Look at how it sparkles! I just find it odd that some claimaints of America First suddenly forget to be First with this specific topic. You really need to question your motives.

Now, was Benjamin Franklin the only abolitionist among the people who Founded the United States? Of course not! But surely I must be now be about to be forced into Founders that history forgot because they did one thing and nobody ever heard from them again.

Nope. I was thinking John Jay, who not only was an abolitionist but taught his son William to be an abolitionist. John Jay was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. That's right, one of the authors of The Federalist was an opponent of the institution of slavery. Bet your history teachers didn't teach you that one did they! Mine didn't. And why would teachers teach this, they're engaged in a mass coverup about the topic. Jay was a towering figure at America's founding. Besides helping with the Federalist Papers and being a governor of the important state of New York, he negotiated the end of the Revolutionary War with the 1783 Treaty of Paris and followed it up later with the Jay Treaty in 84, bringing a decade of peace to the U.S. between Britain.

Now ask yourself this question. How come the Smithsonian Institute is incapable of figuring this out? How come the Smithsonian is incapable of discovering this? Well, they aren't incapable. Their ATTITUDE prevents them. Their STINKING ATTITUDE, the Smithsonian's ARROGANCE, that is what keeps the Smithsonian from teaching people of how integral abolitionism of slavery was at the very beginning of the U.S.'s journey. And yes, it was integral. It wasn't nearly the top priority, but anybody who says slavery abolitionism was non-existent is flat out lying when we can all see the documentation, see the dates of when those documents were written, and see that it is true. And in good enough time, it'll be audio as well. I'm just sorry I can't work faster.

Now, I have yet to work on the creation of an audio book for John Jay, but I will some day, and about Franklin there are several audio books at LibriVox to help make educating about his life easier.

Let's move on. Let's talk for a moment about Stephen Hopkins, who today is entirely forgotten but in the 1770s was very well known as a pamphlet writer until he (like many others) were eclipsed by the explosive popularity of Paine's Common Sense. We often hear about how so many of the Founders were pamphleteers, and even teachers will teach this without specifics. Ask yourself, why is it we never hear specifically about what exactly were those pamphlets? Was was in those pamplhets? Who were the other pampleteers? Was there 3 others, was there 3,000? Who? Where? Well, Hopkins was one of them and his pamphlet, "The Rights of Colonies Examined", was resoundingly popular. Hopkins went on to eventually sign the Declaration of Independence and was Governor of Rhode Island.

The real key to Hopkins importance though (in today's context) is his opposition to slavery. He authored one of the first of its kind laws in the colonies (at this point the U.S. did not exist) in the year 1774, and the law completely did away with the slave trade. And, and, the law was passed through the legislature. So all of Rhode Island was onboard with the concept. But in the colonies, Governors were crown creatures instead of being elected. They were puppets. Their real job was to thwart colonial freedom and enforce kingly desires. And this crown's puppet refused to enforce the law. So even in spite of being a law duly passed by the people's representatives to abolish the slave trade, the crown still killed it. Rhode Island kept going in slave trading into the 1800s, entirely in line with the crown's wishes. Not the patriots' wishes, the crown. The crown owns this, without any distinction at all.

Now, this episode is one instance of where I come in as you just saw and I say the most incindiary thing (and fact-based thing BTW) that the British Empire forced slavery on the U.S. And its true. The British Empire forced slavery on the U.S. Hopkins' work is one example of this. Those 13 colonies saw this again and again, laws either being ignored or outright vetoed by the King's pen, so none dared go any further. Why bother passing dead laws? That is so clearly a waste of time. But had the colonies had the freedom and independence to pass their own laws without crown creatures being jerks and without the threat of a kingly veto, it is a very real assertion to say that at least one or a few of the colonies would have become free-soil by the time Independence Day appeared. The reverse is also true. Nobody can state that the U.S. chose slavery. Even those most critical of the Founding Fathers only dare go so far as to say that slavery was a "tolerated" institution by the Founders. And in using this word "tolerate", they do in fact expose their deception. The emperor once again has no clothes.

Benjamin Rush, another signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a very busy man. On top of being a physician he having his finger on the pulse of patriotic endeavors, and was also an abolitionist. In his work as an abolitionist, Benjamin Rush wrote a pamphlet titled "An Address to the Inhabitants of British America". But this pamphlet was not just a free-standing work, it was written with a specific agenda. Benjamin Rush worked together with prominent abolitionist Anthony Benezet on this project. Historian Maurice Jackson pointed out that Benezet and Rush worked together using this pamphlet to put pressure on the Pennsylvania legislature to pass a law putting heavy tariffs on the importation of slaves in order to hopefully put a stop to it. (Let This Voice Be Heard, pp. 122-123)

This sort of pressure campaign between Benezet and Rush, specifically in the context of colonial slavery of black Africans, was unheard of anywhere in the world and was the first of its kind. This kind of pressure campaign using pamphlets and later images, paintings and where available photographs, would be copied by British abolitionists and even later American abolitionists during the era of the Civil War. Benjamin Rush, a Founding Father, and Anthony Benezet are the source of all of it. That's why Jackson calls Benezet the "Father of Atlantic Abolitionism", its because Britain did not invent this.

Abolitionism was wholly invented and created right here in the United States(colonies). British abolitionists copied us. We did that. We own it. And we deserve the credit for it. Now, let's cover briefly Rush's actual pamphlet. What was written in it? Among other things, Rush wrote:

Rush does not mince words here. Who does Rush blame for slavery in American colonies? Britain. How can slavery in the colonies be stopped? Petition Parliament. Who created slavery in American colonies? The British Empire did that. It wasn't the United States who did that, a simple calendar proves that. It wasn't some random tribal lords in Africa who did that, they never set foot outside of Africa. And Rush also links together clearly that slavery is the slave trade, and the slave trade is slavery. The two are one in the same. Stopping one (they believed at the time) is how to stop the other. If you want to say the abolitionists got the idea incorrect looking backwards hey that's great. They got it wrong. But let's be sober, let's not get drunk off of modern propaganda that somehow the slave trade and slavery are different. They are not. The abolitionists all viewed the two as exactly the same and it was this way with the British abolitionists as well.

Now, if you so choose you can listen to an audio book of Rush's auto biography here. The lives of all of the Founding Fathers is so important for all of us to continually learn, study, and reflect on. Let's continue`.

John Dickinson, again one of the signers of the Declaration and also one of the largest slave owners in his colony/state at the time. Another wildly popular pamphleteer writing "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania", perhaps the only other pamphlet from the time(besides Common Sense) that Americans remain somewhat knowledgable about its existence. Dickinson became an abolitionist in connection with his Quakerism similar to Anthony Benezet, and would manumit every last one of his slaves along with becoming a vocal advocate for laws abolishing both slavery and the slave trade. We currently have an audio book in production about the life of Dickinson and hopefully some day soon I can happily tell everybody about the completion of that work and its contents. And, most importantly, Dickinson's very important life and the lessons we can learn from him. That is the goal. Continuing education about our wonderful Founding Fathers.

Elias Boudinot, not a signer of the Declaration but he was a President of the Continental Congress, also took up the banner of opposition to slavery, He joined the Pennsylvania Anti Slavery Society (which Franklin was one-time President of) and in addition to work in abolitionist causes he was a founder of the American Bible Society. Like so many of our Founders, the life of Elias Boudinot has been completely eradicated and for that, I do have an audio book of his Life and Times in the works but it will be complete when it is complete.

So there you have it, six prominent Founding Fathers who were both well known in their day, as well as being definitively involved with abolitionist movements during the times of the birth of the United States either right before it or shortly after its establishment.

Do you want to sabotage progressivism? Talk about America's Abolitionist Founding Fathers. They are one in the same: talking about the abolitionist Founding Fathers is sabotaging progressivism. I, definitely, make it a point to at all places and all times frustrate progressivism by runing their hard work over this last century, so I will obviously have more to say about America's Abolitionist Founding Fathers. Especially as I can get more audio books introduced about their life and works to supercharge the educational capabilities about the wondrous and fantastic Founding of the United States of America.

Note: Outside of visible abolitionism there were many Founders who were ardently anti-slavery even if they did not act on it. Additionally, there were some who did own many slaves while being against slavery as a concept and institution. Among those known to oppose slavery would be George Mason, Roger Sherman, Henry Laurens, Gouverneur Morris, both of the Adams', John and Samuel, and most controversially Thomas Jefferson among others; Jefferson acted repeatedly legislatively to actually get rid of slavery making him truly unique in any of the relating categories. And even more Founders were privately against slavery but properly put union above all objects, the two most prominent names being George Washington and Patrick Henry.

As a final thought, I leave you with two very well documented works on early abolitionism and in relation to the Founding Fathers, and the life of Anthony Benezet.(both text and audio)

Yes, labor contracts of a non-slave type did exist when the Constitution was written.

They even had a name. They were called “indentured servants”, and they were also called “redemptioners”. Now, yes, also, there were slaves themselves. They were also covered.

Here, you must need this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptioner

You do not need to omit this.

"The original slave states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island all voted to include in the Constitution the ability to continue the importation of slaves and the return of fugitive slaves and you say that is not a pro-slavery document?"

Voting in a definitive end to something is not "pro" anything. They all said: This ends in 1808.

That is not pro. That's anti.

"If you think it is pro slavery, why does it have a sunset written into it."

Well duh, if you think something utterly necessary then you sunset it. That's the best way to make it last forever!

(sarcasm needed?)

Since you want to quote the Declaration, why don’t you tell us how the Federal Government became “ destructive to these ends” . What had anyone done to them? Your confederate ancestors never laid that out like the patriots of 1776 did I the declaration. All they said was they loved slavery.

You have to be really disturbed if you can somehow connect Alexander Hamilton with a reprobate political hack like Lyndon Johnson or Joe Biden. Really disturbed.

Well I didn't do that, but that seems to be how you read what I said.

Lincoln and Lyndon are probably closer in terms of how they did things. Lincoln thought bribing congressmen and other political officials was a good way to solve problems. That's how he won the nomination and got Seward to be his secretary of State.

Since you want to quote the Declaration, why don’t you tell us how the Federal Government became “ destructive to these ends” .

Have you ever heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

It means what some men find ugly, others may find beautiful, and it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what is ugly and what is beautiful.

Whether or not you are being oppressed is exactly like that.

In any case, the Declaration doesn't put conditions on the right to independence. It says that people have a right to independence for any reason they want.

Again, you are over the top. Do you know that Lincoln was not even within a couple hundred miles of the 1860 Republican convention where he was nominated? And what’s wrong with Seward as Sec of State? He was damn good at the job.

And to compare them with Landslide Lyndon or Joe “The Big Guy” Biden is actually sick.

Again, you are over the top. Do you know that Lincoln was not even within a couple hundred miles of the 1860 Republican convention where he was nominated?

Yes, and Biden wasn't in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Nevada when his minions stole the election for him.

And what’s wrong with Seward as Sec of State?

He was the favored nominee for president before Lincoln's goons did their intimidation, bribery, interference, and obstruction. He would have been a far better President than Lincoln.

You need to read up about what really happened in the Chicago convention.

Here is a start.

https://chicagohistorytoday.wordpress.com/2017/05/18/dirty-tricks-at-the-wigwam-5-18-1860/

It says that people have a right to independence for any reason they want.

No it does not say that and if you think it does you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Allow me to quote the Declaration some more for you.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So I ask again… what were the long train of abuses that got your boys going in 1861. I know you have no answer, but I just like to ask.

Kind of a cartoon version of the convention. It wasn’t counterfeit tickets that stopped Seward from winning on the first ballot. Every delegate voted. It was “enemies” he had made over the years that kept him from winning on the first ballot. On the second ballot, Lincoln and Seward were virtually tied. On the 3rd ballot Lincoln won the nomination. There was no fraud that won for Lincoln. It was the fact that he was agreeable to virtually all the delegates while Seward while agreeable to many, did have enemies.

So I ask again… what were the long train of abuses that got your boys going in 1861.

Again, not "my boys". Family wasn't here, and i'm not related to any of them.

So what was the prime abuse? Taking their money which they wanted to keep.

I guess you are new to this discussion. I have maintained for the last several years that the only motivation for the Civil War was money. Who pays it, and who collects it. That's it.

So now you're a tariffs caused the split guy.

Using the term "tariff" is misleading to the scope of money taking that went on. About 60% of all the profits made from slavery in the South, went to the North.

Are you okay working for 40% of your earnings?

And then there was the gouging for products you had to buy because the prices of foreign made products of a similar nature were artificially inflated to force you to buy the Northern products instead.

It was way more than just tariffs.

Cotton sellers were forced to use northern shipping, and the prices were set such that it was just a little cheaper than the fines and confiscation would be.

what was the tariff rate in 1860?

It varied, depending on the good being purchased, but it ranged from 20% up to 50%, or thereabouts.

“Well duh, if you think something utterly necessary then you sunset it.”

That is an interesting comment.

Please provide your definition of “sunset.”

“So I ask again… what were the long train of abuses that got your boys going in 1861.”

Confiscatory taxation and sanctuary states that protected conspirators of John Brown’s murder raid. Start with that.

Confiscatory taxation and sanctuary states that protected conspirators of John Brown’s murder raid. Start with that.

Those wealthy men in Massachusetts did try to start a massive slave rebellion. It could have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Terrorism? Seems like it to me.

Here’s the same clarification I asked jeffersondem:

Why are you incapable of saying in broad terms that the civil war is over there and the american revolution is over here, with their obvious and unmistakable distinctions?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.