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?

PGA Weblog ^ | 8/23/25

[ProgressingAmerica]

"And you are trying to pretend each of these has equal weight and numbers"

They do not have to have equal weight and numbers in terms of souls present on the mainland.

They just have to have equal recognition as a matter of legality.

Article 4 section 2 does not exclude indentured servants. Nor remptioners. That makes all three classes equal in the eyes of the law.

[Ditto]

You are so full of crap. Show the data, not you fuzzy math. Show the data..

[DiogenesLamp]

You are so full of crap. Show the data, not you fuzzy math. Show the data..

My math just shows how unfair the situation is *IF* I am correct about the Southerners producing 72% of the taxes.

If that isn't true, then my math doesn't matter. Only what is true matters.

So let me ask you, where did the taxes come from in 1860?

[Ditto]

You continue to refuse to show your data. I can only assume that you have none and you are just repeating an old Lost Cause myth on the cause of the Civil War.

No one was arguing about tariffs in 1860. They argued about Kansas/Nebraska, Dred Scott, and Popular sovereignty. No one even claimed that the South paid 72% of taxes. No one. That’s just another one of your myths.

[DiogenesLamp]

They do not have to have equal weight and numbers in terms of souls present on the mainland.

Do you not grasp the Horse/Zebra analogy?

It comes from the Tv show "House M.D."

He is diagnosing a patient. He notes that the symptoms of disease are like seeing hoofprints. It is natural to assume the hoofprints mean "Horse" because Horses are common.

But he points out it could be a Zebra, because Zebras make similar hoofprints, but the safe way to bet is "Horse."

So when a language describes a situation that fits 4 million slaves, but it also fits a few dozen "indentured servants", it is safe to assume the Framers were talking about the 4 million slaves, and not the few dozen "indentured servants."

Article IV, Section 2 means "slave."

[DiogenesLamp]

No one even claimed that the South paid 72% of taxes.

They were probably unaware at the time of what percentage they were paying, they just knew it was a lot, and they didn't like it.

I wouldn't like it either.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I haven’t seen the show House. Huge Laurie looks like a Trump hater to me, like everybody else in Hollywood. I don’t need ‘em.

As for Zebra and Horse, yes I understand the two have differences. You’re forgetting that both are equine.

It’s not like we’re talking about a Giraffe here, which is not an equine and is more like a Tapir and especially like an Okapi.

When talking about equine, you’re trying to keep the Zebra and omit the Horse. You can’t pretend the horse doesn’t exist and isn’t included. Or, fine, keep the horse and omit the zebra. Either way it doesn’t matter.

Article IV, Section 2 means all equine, not just Zebras. To stop speaking in an unnecessary code lingo, Article IV, Section 2 means all non-free labor, not just slaves.

That includes slaves, yes. That also includes other equine such as redemptioners. And yes, it also includes other equine such as indentured. Regardless of the larger or smaller populations. You may not like it but the fact remains, an indentured servant is an equine too. Hey its your analogy.

Your need is to omit this, but that omission is historical malpractice.

[ProgressingAmerica]

We might as well just bring in the whole Civil War caucus here.

Why is it that I can find Colonial Patriots who were abolitionists, but you guys can't find one single loyalist who was an abolitionist?

Patriots:

1: Benjamin Franklin
2: John Jay
3: Stephen Hopkins
4: Benjamin Rush
5: John Dickinson
6: Elias Boudinot

Loyalists: (The King's Men)

1: ?
2: ?
3: ?
4: ?
5: ?
6: ?

Is that because it was the Americans who invented abolitionism? I think so!

[DiogenesLamp]

Is that because it was the Americans who invented abolitionism? I think so!

Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?

There was a wonderful movie about both men.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"The Ones who kept all their slaves?"

"I don't think you are coping well with history that won't bend to what you wish it to be.

I'm coping just fine with it because I haven't stopped being consistent. It is very fun and enjoyable being consistent, you should give it a try.

Post 7: "Benjamin Franklin was a slaveowner most of his life."

Post 149: "Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?"

Oh John Newton deserves an exemption for being a slave trader then he turned abolitionist? I agree, Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, John Jay deserve the equal exemption.

But I wouldn't expect that from you guys and your Britain First inconsistent mentality.

In your original position, Jay and Franklin are disqualified as slave owners from being abolitionists - it's not possible, well, you've disqualified John Newton too. It's not possible for John Newton to be an abolitionist.

I didn't make this rule. You guys did. Make it make sense.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?"

American abolitionists preceded them both, particularly on activism. Benjamin Rush and Anthony Benezet were out there trying to get things done in the early 1770s, a decade before Newton and several decades before Wilberforce. Franklin authored his abolitionist attack on the Somersett Case in 1772 months after its ruling. Newton wouldn't join the abolitionist society in Britain until 1787, if I remember correctly. Also I think a founding member.

It is only a simple timeline question. It means nothing more at all than what does the timeline say.

So I'll state it again. American abolitionists were first; that is, the Americans were the pioneers.

Don't like it? Consult your timeline.

It makes sense you can't name any loyalist abolitionists. (I am sure there were some, they just would've been as rare as a unicorn) The crown kept its loyalist slave owners extremely well paid.

Jamaica, who perhaps had the absolute most slaves out of any of the Empire's slave colonies, had exactly zero abolitionists in it that I am aware of. Why would Jamaica have any abolitionists? Britain kept them all wealthy. Extremely wealthy. "Get rich off of the backs of your slaves in your plantations and shut your trap" - the crown's message.

[reasonisfaith]

“Is that because it was the Americans who invented abolitionism?”

No, it was God who did.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I’m just going to say this again, just as a standalone comment.

When I say abolitionism I obviously mean transatlantic abolitionism in the context of Africans, black slaves on plantations, slavery, and the era of the American Revolution.

This should not need to be said. Yet, it needs to be said.

[ProgressingAmerica]

You know.... I find that hard to argue with. Ok.

It was the Americans who were first to visibly implement transatlantic abolitionism though.

In the context of all that is being said this should be acceptable as a fair same-same argument going back to post 1.

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "But Franklin was also a great man in another way - his ardent belief in the necessity of abolitionism."

jeffersondem: "Benjamin Franklin was a slaveowner most of his life.
Near the end he became outspoken opponent of slavery even publishing articles against the practice."

It appears that Franklin owned a half-dozen slaves, from the time Franklin was 30 (1736) to age 75 (1781), when the last of his old slaves passed away.
However:

Dr. Thomas Bray:

1. In his 50s (after 1756), Franklin began to question the basics on which slavery was built -- African inferiority -- when he saw the results of schools teaching black children to read the Bible and learn Christianity.

2. So, in 1760, while in England, Franklin joined the Associates of Dr. Bray, who established such schools in England.

3. During the 1760s, Franklin helped establish Bray Schools in American cities like Philadelphia, New York, Newport, and Williamsburg.

4. In 1763, Franklin wrote that African “ignorance” was not innate but a result of slavery and lack of education, and that Black children were equally capable of learning as white children.

5. From the 1760s on, Franklin was close friends with Anthony Benezet, a Quaker abolitionist who founded a school for Black children and co-founded the original Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, in 1775.

So, in 1787, after 30 years of increasing abolitionism, Franklin became President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery -- the first abolitionist society in America.

In 1790, Franklin petitioned Congress to abolish slavery nationwide.
Franklin's petition was debated and rejected, and became the first of annual petitions from abolitionists -- often running dozens, sometimes hundreds of petitions per year -- even during the eight years of Congressional "gag rule" (1836-1844) intended to prevent anti-slavery petitions being discussed in Congress.

Bottom line: like all US Founders, Franklin considered his first and foremost priority to be establishing a Union of States which would include both slave states and free states.
Once that task was accomplished, Franklin's next biggest priority was freeing the slaves.

Franklin's Williamsburg, VA, Bray school at the Dudley Diggs house:

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: "Slavery never mattered to the elites in this country other than it's value as a path to power."

That is complete bull sh*t, as any number of examples can show.

See my post #155 above.

[PeaRidge]

Hello.

Do you have a summary, explanation, or saved post on the Jim Crow laws?

Thanks

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What law did Massachusetts pass to end slavery?
My recollection is that liberal biased judges deliberately twisted some words in the newly created Massachusetts constitution to declare it abolished slavery, but this was just blatant lying.
Activist courts ended slavery in Massachusetts.
Nobody passed any laws to do it."

And the bull sh*t just never stops with you, does it?
Here's the truth of it:

John Adams, Father of Massachusetts' State Constitution:

1. In 1779 Massachusetts's constitutional convention, under guidance from John Adams, drafted its state constitution, including:
   • "We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other, and of forming a new constitution of civil government for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain, and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government as the constitution of the commonwealth of Massachusetts."

   • "Part the First. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
     Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

2. In 1780 Massachusetts ratified its state constitution.

3. In 1781 the first anti-slavery lawsuits (Brom & Bett v. John Ashley) based on the new constitution, were submitted and won.

4. In 1783 in Commonwealth v. Jennison Massachusetts supreme court Chief Justice William Cushing declared:
   "Slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges [in the constitution] wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence."

5. There were no efforts in Massachusetts to dispute, overturn or otherwise invalidate Chief Justice Cushing's anti-slavery ruling.

6. Nor is there any record of a single Massachusetts slave (of circa 5,000 in 1780) being sold outside Massachusetts as a result of Cushing's ruling.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice William Cushing
Later Justice of the United States Supreme Court,
appointed by Pres. Washington in 1790:

In short, Cushing simply ruled what was obviously true: slavery was incompatible with Massachusetts new 1780 state constitution, and his ruling immediately freed all Massachusetts slaves, so no freedman could be sold out-of-state.

DiogenesLamp: "And of course, the Massachusetts slave owners simply took them out of state and sold them."

That's a lie.
There's no evidence to support even one Massachusetts slave sold out-of-state as a result of Justice Cushing's ruling.

DiogenesLamp: "Lots of fanfare for their activism, but didn't really do much for their declared cause."

It immediately freed all 5,000+ slaves in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts' population of freed-blacks grew to 6,000 in 1800 and 10,000 in 1860.

During the Civil War, Massachusetts provided 3 colored regiments:

1. 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment
2. 55th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment
3. 5th Massachusetts Cavalry

The 54th especially won fame, celebrated in the 1989 film Glory, including the first Medal of Honor won by an African American, Sergeant William Carney.

So, mock & lie all you want, African Americans freed under Massachusetts' 1780 constitution saw their freedom as something valuable enough to be worth fighting for.

[SJackson]

By the time of the Constitutions ratification five states, obviously northern, had abolished slavery.

[Ditto]

DiogenesLamp just makes stuff up and then is indignant when you tell him he is full of crap. You just did it with slavery in Mass, as I did on where tariffs were paid.