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

[DiogenesLamp]

Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage

It would make more sense to say "Immorally held in bondage", because there was nothing "unlawful" about it.

The laws and morality often diverge, but they shouldn't. Laws and morality should always be on the same side.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

Corwin Amendment.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have a method for finding the Illinois Black Codes, but I don't think I have anything regarding the Jim Crow laws, other than from memory.

The one that comes to mind is the "Grandfather Clause."

[DiogenesLamp]

In 1779 Massachusetts's constitutional convention, under guidance from John Adams, drafted its state constitution, including:

And it said absolutely nothing about slaves being free. That's where the twisting of the words came in.

They took a variation of the words from the Declaration of Independence, which also did not free any slaves, and PROCLAIMED, it was the intent of the new Massachusetts constitution to free all slaves.

Blatant lie. There was absolutely no intent to do that behind those words.

Court didn't care. Ruled for plaintiff, and Massachusetts did what every good little socialist tyrant would do. Stole people's property.

[Ditto]

Court didn't care. Ruled for plaintiff, and Massachusetts did what every good little socialist tyrant would do. Stole people's property.

Do you know you are absolutely nuts, or do you just play nuts on the internet?

[ProgressingAmerica]

"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."

This is the correct assessment. I can't for the life of me understand why the Civil War Caucus wants to delete the British Empire as if the Americans declared independence of themselves, the Americans. Why would America want to be independent of America? I don't know. But we are where we are. As soon as you mention the word "slavery" POOF It's like magic its like see no evil hear no evil speak no evil around here and nobody never heard of no Empire nowhere. King? There was no king. Never heard of him.

Anyways, despite prioritizing union, that is in no way disqualifiying of Franklin's abolitionism, Jay's abolitionism, Hopkins' abolitionism, nor Dickinson's, Rush's, or Boudinot's abolitionism since in the end, they did, also, make it a point to move into the column of slavery needed to be abolished.

As I was reminded recently by a very wise man, don't forget about John Newton. If we can disqualify Benjamin Franklin or John Jay as abolitionists, then we must also reject any notion that John Newton was an abolitionist as well. This is not a notion that I accept, but I did not create this rule.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"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."

Oh yeah. In 1783 the Mass court did this; the Quock Walker cases.

And it was such an egregious act, that John Adams went buck wild crazy in 1784 and called out the courts, campaigned all over the state for the ruling's reversal, contacted Founding Fathers in other states to get them to all rally against out of control judges, and by 1788, they had a constitutional amendment written by John Adams himself, putting a stop to judicial activism.

That all happened, right DiogenesLamp? Adams was so furious about it he ripped out what little hair he had left and went on a 2 decade campaign against the courts. Right?

I can't find any living Founding Father who was upset with that ruling. Can you find any?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Corwin Amendment"

Corwin changed nothing, but it held Border States in the Union long enough to defeat Confederates and abolish slavery via the 13th Amendment.

That makes Corwin an important piece of anti-slavery legislation!

[jeffersondem]

“That makes Corwin an important piece of anti-slavery legislation!”

Was it you that argued Justice Taney's brilliant opinion in the Dred Scott case was an important antislavery judicial ruling?

Or am I thinking of something else?

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "In 1779 Massachusetts's constitutional convention, under guidance from John Adams, drafted its state constitution, including:"

DiogenesLamp: "And it said absolutely nothing about slaves being free.
That's where the twisting of the words came in.
They took a variation of the words from the Declaration of Independence, which also did not free any slaves, and PROCLAIMED, it was the intent of the new Massachusetts constitution to free all slaves."

You missed a key distinction, and it begins with understanding that the same "flowery language" appears in several important documents of the time, including:

1. 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights
2. 1776 US Declaration of Independence
3. 1776 Pennsylvania state constitution
4. 1776 North Carolina Declaration of Rights
5. 1777 Vermont Republic constitution
6. 1780 Massachusetts state constitution
7. 1784 New Hampshire state constitution

All of these used the same "flowery language" about "all men are born free and equal" but there was an important distinction:

1. While the Declaration of Independence is a genuine statement of principles, it's not a legally binding commitment to any future laws.

2. The Virginia and North Carolina Declarations of Rights are legally binding commitments, however they both contain important qualifiers, notably in Virginia's:
   “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

   Virginia's key term, "state of society", is an Enlightenment philosophical phrase -- as distinguished from "state of nature" -- implying a civilized society ruled by just laws.
   "State of society" applied specifically to free white adult property-owning men, not necessarily to all other whites (i.e., women, children, criminals, etc.) and certainly not to slaves or Indian "savages".
   That is how Virginia and North Carolina reconciled "all men are created equal" with slavery.

3. So, the distinction is: other states' documents had no such qualifiers.
   State constitutions in Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire did include "all men are born free and equal" declarations, however, none of those included the qualifier about entering a "state of society".
   That's why, in those Northern states, declarations about "all men are born free and equal" were considered adequate by themselves to strike down any laws enforcing slavery.
   And since slavery can only exist where legally protected, once the protections were removed, slavery was effectively abolished.

IOW, no law was necessary in Massachusetts saying "slavery is hereby abolished", once the Massachusetts constitution effectively eliminated laws enforcing slavery, it immediately ceased to exist in Massachusetts.

At least, that was the ruling of Massachusetts Chief Justice William Cushing in 1783, a ruling that was not challenged at the time, or at any time since in Massachusetts.
Btw, Cushing was a friend and colleague of the Massachusetts constitution's author, John Adams, since at least 1776.

[Ditto]

Btw, Cushing was a friend and colleague of the Massachusetts constitution's author, John Adams, since at least 1776.

And Cushing was appointed to the First Supreme Court by none other than George Washington.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you know you are absolutely nuts, or do you just play nuts on the internet?

I don't know how intelligent you are, and I don't know if you grasp the concept of "objectivity" or adherence to the law.

I'm not in favor of slavery, but I am very much in favor of applying the law correctly. Slavery is immoral and never should have been legal, but the fact is, it *WAS* legal, and it is wishful thinking to pretend it wasn't.

Being *LEGAL*, you have to accept what was the law of that time period, and though you may hate slavery, You need to hate even more government officials ignoring the law or pretending it says something else.

Activist Judges has been a bane on this nation's existence. They gave us Abortion on demand, homosexual "marriage", banned prayer in schools, re-wrote the requirements for the Presidency, created "Anchor Babies", decided a man could not feed his own animals with wheat he grew on his own land, and created hundreds of wrong-headed decisions that take away the rights of people.

I oppose abortion, but in any discussion regarding the *LEGALITY* of it, I'm going to argue what the law says, not what I wish it said.

In 1780 Massachusetts, slaves were "property", and the court just took away "property" because they didn't agree with the idea that slavery was legal, and they knew better what the law *SHOULD* be, than everyone else.

They imposed *THEIR* views on their state, and those views were incorrect, and factually wrong.

This is tyranny, and as bad as slavery is, tyranny is worse, because it imposes a slave like condition on free men.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why would America want to be independent of America? I don't know.

It's not your call to make. I have long wanted to be separated from those g*dd@mn perverts in Massachusetts. On every thing I care about, they are on the wrong side of the issue. They love f@ggotry, they love stealing people's money, they love abortion, they love immorality, and I would very much like to not have their poisonous influence in the nation of which I am a part.

Same with California, and other liberal enclaves. I want them *OUT*! of the Union. Or I want to secede from *THEM*!

And I'm pretty sure the Confederates felt the same way about those Massholes in Massachusetts.

But the Declaration of Independence does not articulate a position that people have to agree with the reasons why a people would want independence. It declares they have a *RIGHT* to it, for whatever reasons they feel it necessary.

Massachusetts and Connecticut, threatened to secede in 1814. I wish they had.

If nothing else, the thought of the massed armies of all the states beating the sh*t out of them for their perverted ways, gives me pleasure.

But I would rather they were *OUT!* with no strings attached.

[Ditto]

In 1780 Massachusetts, slaves were "property", and the court just took away "property" because they didn't agree with the idea that slavery was legal, and they knew better what the law *SHOULD* be, than everyone else.

There's where you are wrong. They followed the law which was their new Constitution and determined that it did not allow one man to own another. It’s that simple.

You just either don't like that they followed the law or you are conflating 18th century judges with our 21st century progressive activist judges who don’t give two s**** what the law actually says.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can't find any living Founding Father who was upset with that ruling. Can you find any?

Should I bother? What does that matter to me? I see it clearly and accurately as an abusive case of judicial overreach, and rather than you attempting to explain to me how it was not such a thing, you try to argue "Other famous men of that time period did not object!!!"

Perhaps the sentiment among the populace was indeed against slavery? and if they put it to a vote, it would go the way of abolishing it!

But they didn't. They used judicial activism and judicial tyranny to enact this non-statute assertion as law.

But to re-emphasize my point, *I* don't make up my mind of what to think about something based on what *OTHERS* think about it, including the Founders. I may listen to their reasoning and change my mind, but just the fact that they have taken a position does not make me take the same position.

I need to acquaint you with the Asch conformity experiments.

To summarize them, they found that 80% of the population will claim to believe something if they perceive the majority as believing it too, and they will do this if the majority is clearly wrong.

Most people have such a need to belong to the herd, that they will parrot whatever the herd thinks, whether it be true or not.

Well i've always been contrary, and I have a tendency to go the opposite way of whatever the herd thinks. Sometimes the herd is right. They call this "The Wisdom of Crowds."

But the herd will also believe in "Witches", "Nazism", "Martian Invasion", and every silly thing under the sun.

People should think for themselves, and not be content to arrive at their position simply because someone they respect had that position.

[DiogenesLamp]

Corwin changed nothing...

I disagree. It revealed that Republican politics was just a smoke screen for the masses. What they really believed in was the continuation of that money from the South.

Abolition of Slavery? Not so much.

[DiogenesLamp]

You missed a key distinction, and it begins with understanding that the same "flowery language" appears in several important documents of the time,

That is immaterial. Unless they specifically say they were speaking of slaves held in bondage, the only rational interpretation was that they meant "White" men, and nobody else.

That was what was meant in the Declaration of Independence, and it was only later that they began insisting it ought to apply to slaves.

Unless a statute or a constitution specifically says it was intended to apply to slaves, it is *LYING* to claim it was.

And those liar Judges knew they were lying, and knew fully well those words were written with white people only in mind.

[DiogenesLamp]

They followed the law which was their new Constitution and determined that it did not allow one man to own another.

That is incorrect. *LYING* activist judges *ALLEGED* that the phrase "all men are born free and equal" abolished slavery. It didn't. It was a deliberate misinterpretation of the meaning and intent of the authors that wrote it, and the democratic process that enacted into law.

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 speaks of "Freeholders" repeatedly. It is nonsense to believe it was referring to slaves, rather than "Freeholders" when it declared "all men are born free and equal."

If they meant it to apply to slaves, they would have *SAID SO*, not try to sneak it through.

[Ditto]

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 speaks of "Freeholders" repeatedly.

Looks like you don’t know what the word freeholder means. Maybe you ought to look that up before you make a total ass of yourself.

[DiogenesLamp]

Looks like you don’t know what the word freeholder means. Maybe you ought to look that up before you make a total ass of yourself.

From the 1760 version of Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language

Any black "Freeholders" in 1780 Massachusetts?