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]

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.

That's now two, and these are big names - two Abolitionist Founding Fathers.

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:

The first step to be taken to put a stop to slavery in this country, is to leave off importing slaves. For this purpose let our assemblies unite in petitioning the king and parliament to dissolve the African company. It is by this incorporated band of robbers that the trade has been chiefly carried on to America. (p.21)

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.

Now. Who couldn't possibly be proud of all this?

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)

Memoirs of the Life of Anthony Benezet

Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808)

An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic, on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK regarding "all men are born free and equal": "You missed a key distinction, and it begins with understanding that the same "flowery language" appears in several important documents of the time,"

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Says DiogenesLamp.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice William Cushing disagreed with you in 1783, and so did many others at the time.

Cushing was highly regarded by not just John Adams, but also by Pres. Washington, who in 1790 appointed Cushing to SCOTUS and again in 1796 appointed Cushing to be SCOTUS Chief Justice.
The Senate confirmed him, but Cushing held the post only a few days before resigning, citing health reasons.
So Cushing continued to serve as associate justice under Presidents Adams, Jefferson and Madison, until his death in 1811.

It's clear that our Founding Fathers agreed with Cushing, and not with the b*ll sh*t posted by DiogenesLamp.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "Corwin changed nothing..."

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Then you disagree with Pres. Lincoln, who said Corwin changed nothing in his understanding of the US Constitution.

As for the rest, that's simply your Lost Causer Marxist fantasies, not real history.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Ahh, yes the NW Ordinance as well. TJ had many direct legal confrontations with slavery outside the home.

I am admittedly touchy about this; pretty much any time the Founders are disrespected.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Cushing was highly regarded by not just John Adams, but also by Pres. Washington, who in 1790 appointed Cushing to SCOTUS and again in 1796 appointed Cushing to be SCOTUS Chief Justice."

That can't be. He was rewarded??? The 1783 Massachusetts slavery decision is said to be judicial activism, the decision was out of bounds, and of course none of the Founders were opposed to slavery - we are led to believe.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "As late as 1854 Henry David Thoreau expressed a blistering low opinion of Massachusetts morality because the state, in his opinion, was playing nice with slavery.
Said he:

“Show me a free state, and a court truly of justice, and I will fight for them, if need be; but show me Massachusetts, and I refuse her my allegiance, and express contempt for her courts.” "

Thoreau's cabin on Walden Pond, near Concord, Massachusetts:

Thoreau was a purist, ideological, and a radical abolitionist, who died in May 1862 at age 44, after years of failing health due to Tuberculosis.

So, he lived long enough to see the Civil War's beginning, but not its duration, ending or Reconstruction.

Thoreau was not directly political and hated big government, so may well have supported post-war Radical Republicans in some respects, but Thoreau would not have liked their use of government to heavy-handedly enforce Reconstruction.

Not to be confused with Ted Kaczynski's cabin in Lincoln, Montana:

[jeffersondem]

“Thoreau was not directly political and hated big government, so may well have supported post-war Radical Republicans in some respects, but Thoreau would not have liked their use of government to heavy-handedly enforce Reconstruction.”

I agree with Brother Joe.

That's bad.

[Ditto]

but Thoreau would not have liked their use of government to heavy-handedly enforce Reconstruction.”

Ya… what kind of monster would support using the army to stop the KKK from slaughtering people. < / sarcasm >

[jeffersondem]

“Ya… what kind of monster would support using the army to stop the KKK from slaughtering people. < / sarcasm >”

Let me put that in perspective.

During one turbulent year in one Southern state the Klan shot down a person every four hours and 17 minutes - and the governor said that represented a decreasing crime rate.

Let me correct myself: that is actually the rate at which people are being shot down in the streets of one city - Chicago - so far in 2025. And 75 percent of those shot down are black.

I’m wondering if the mayor of Chicago is under the direct control of the Klan.

https://heyjackass.com/

[Ditto]

Nice attempt at changing the subject.

Now, do you think it was wrong for President Grant to use the military to stop the Klan from murdering people in the 1970s. If so, I can only assume you think it’s wrong for President Trump to use the military to stop gangsters from murdering people now.

[DiogenesLamp]

I thought that might jerk your chain.

Trying to piss on my leg and tell me "it's raining" usually has that effect, but I wouldn't brag about it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice William Cushing disagreed with you in 1783, and so did many others at the time.

Well firstly, Massachusetts.

Secondly, don't post his conclusion, post his reasoning. Let us see if it passes the sanity test.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then you disagree with Pres. Lincoln, who said Corwin changed nothing in his understanding of the US Constitution.

Okay, your logic is flawed here. Lincoln was absolutely right. The Constitution already said everything the Corwin amendment said *EXCEPT* that part about it henceforth being impossible to repeal or amend it. That was new.

So I don't disagree with Lincoln on this point, and I still believe that "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."

[DiogenesLamp]

Ya… what kind of monster would support using the army to stop the KKK from slaughtering people.

You do know the Army is what created the KKK?

If the army had never been there, there never would have been a KKK.

And what do you think about illegal aliens voting?

[Fury]

This is ridiculous.

Slavery was an institution back in the founding of the US.

Those both for and against slavery are part of that history.

It’s ALL part of US History. ALL. OF. IT.

Can people not tell the patriotic story of the US AND discuss the issue of slavery AND the those involved in keeping it OR banishing it?

I believe part of the problem is that many people just cannot think critically. It seems to be about two tribes and neither trusts the other.

[Ditto]

You do know the Army is what created the KKK?

Do you just make this crap up on the spot, or do you have a team of comedy writers working for you? I have seen a bunch of Neo confederate BS before,but that one has to rank among the worst.

[jeffersondem]

“Nice attempt at changing the subject . . . I can only assume you think it’s wrong for President Trump to use the military to stop gangsters from murdering people now.”

You seem oblivious that you are repudiated by your own words.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you just make this crap up on the spot, or do you have a team of comedy writers working for you?

So you don't understand what I said. I think this has been a reoccurring problem with you.

I've sorta lost interest in what you have to say on this topic. You don't seem to know various details, and you absolutely don't want to think about things you don't like.

[BroJoeK]

x: "Slavery was the abortion issue of the day: it was convenient for a Northern politician to profess to be personally opposed to slavery while also opposed to ever doing anything about it."

jeffersondem to x: "You make a good point."

Sorry, no.
For once our FRiend x seems to have forgotten his history lessons, and sadly, jeffersondem refuses to ever learn.

jeffersondem to x: "It helps to explain why 13 of the original 13 slave states voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
No doubt there were many in the northern states that didn’t like slavery and only voted to put it into the Constitution because it was in their own economic and political best self interest."

No again.
In fact, by the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, 11 current and future states had already enacted gradual abolition laws or been declared as non-slave, including:

1787 Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, PA:

1. 1777 -- Vermont
2. 1780 -- Pennsylvania
3. 1783 -- Massachusetts
4. 1783 -- New Hampshire
5. 1784 -- Connecticut
6. 1784 -- Rhode Island
7. 1787 -- Ohio
8. 1787 -- Michigan
9. 1787 -- Indiana
10. 1787 -- Illinois
11. 1787 -- Wisconsin

In 1787, the following states had no anti-slavery laws:

1. New York (1799)
2. New Jersey (1804)
3. Delaware (1787 banned slave imports and exports from Delaware)
4. Maryland
5. Virginia
6. North Carolina
7. South Carolina
8. Georgia

New York (1799) and New Jersey (1804) would soon pass their own abolition laws, and there were leading voices in other Southern states supporting long-term restrictions or abolition of slavery, including:

1. Maryland: Charles Carroll (Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery) and Samuel Chase (DOI signer)
2. Virginia: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry (regretted & acted against slavery)
3. North Carolina: Hugh Williamson (Delegate to C.C.)
4. South Carolina: Edward Rutledge and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (supported abolition of Atlantic slave trade)
5. Georgia: Button Gwinnett (authored Georgia state constitution abolishing foreign slave imports)

Yes, some were more committed than others, but even in the cases of SC's Rutledge & CC Pinckney, while strongly supporting slavery at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, they did not oppose abolition of foreign slave imports or abolition in the US Northwest territories.

They were all willing to abolish slavery where that was possible.

By stark contrast, antebellum Southern Fire Eaters pushed to expand slavery wherever and whenever possible -- Western territories, Caribbean filibusters, Northern "sojourners", etc. -- by whatever means available:

"We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State."
A. Lincoln, "House Divided", 1858

jeffersondem to x: "We forget how mercenary northern Puritans were.
From the “Won Cause Myths” we are only told the north “fought to free the slaves.”"

Regardless of our Lost Causers' frequent & loud denials, the Union did "fight to free the slaves", because -- among other reasons -- they believed freeing Confederate slaves was necessary to preserving the Union, short-term and long-term.

jeffersondem to x: "Again, you make a good point."

[Ditto]

I've sorta lost interest in what you have to say on this topic. You don't seem to know various details, and you absolutely don't want to think about things you don't like.

Thank you Professor Knowledge. Now tell the class how the U S Army inspired the KKK to go around murdering people. I never knew the Army had that kind of power. Why did Congress see fit to pass the the Enforcement Acts to fight back against the Klan?

You are so totally full of crap.

[ladyjane]

Massachusetts likes to claim they were the first state to abolish slavery because no blacks were listed in their 1790 census. That’s because all slaves were called servants, not slaves. To this day Massachusetts has never passed a law to abolish slavery.