Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by 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
And so, critic answers critic.
Maybe they thought including slavery would be in their own economic and political best self interest."
But there's no "maybe" about it.
Our Founders absolutely believed that "a more perfect Union" would "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" -- that's it.
So, go ahead and speculate all you wish, that's what they said.
As for slavery, nearly all believed that while slavery was sometimes necessary to tolerate, it was also desirable to abolish slavery wherever possible.
No contradictions there -- they were content to do what they could to abolish slavery and leave the rest to future generations.
My reference wasn’t to the 1780s and the Framers of the Constitution, but to Baldwin’s 1830s comment and his other decisions relating to slavery. I was also thinking about how Thomas Jefferson reconciled himself to slavery in the last 20 years of his life, to how Robert E. Lee and others got credit for being “personally opposed” to slavery when they did nothing to oppose it, and to the similarity to the rhetoric of more recent politicians when it came to abortion. I didn’t mention it here, but I was also thinking of the myth that Stephen A. Douglas was “personally opposed” to slavery. The assumption was that slavery couldn’t be just fine with somebody, but the consensus now seems to be that it was for Douglas.
And an interesting aspect of this list is that they could all get their morals on the cheap. Very little profit from slaves in these areas, so why not preach from the pedestal of righteousness?
I am so cynical. I fully believe that if slavery was making them money in the North, we would still have it.
Actually we do. The Uyghurs in China and Chinese prison labor are all slaves, and people here just lap it up.
They don't mind slavery, they just don't want to be identified with it.
I keep being astonished that I have to explain this to you. Can you not grasp how this is so yourself?
I think you will more likely believe and understand it if you work it out yourself.
"Don't want no black people around here."
And people think they did it for noble reasons. That still cracks me up. :)
That's it? There is actually a little bit more in the preamble than you are willing to acknowledge.
Such as the phrase “provide for the common defence” - another way of saying protecting against military invasion. That is something I mentioned in my post 236 but you either didn't see or reject outright.
Such as the phrase “insure domestic Tranquility.” Yes, it includes the letters “tran” but it is not what you think. In this case tranquility means protecting political stability; mentioned in my post 236.
How do you strengthen your arguments by refusing to admit that is in the preamble?
Such as the phrase “promote the general welfare”; another phrase that you have exorcised. People smarter than me say its meaning includes to promote economic prosperity; again part of my beautiful post 236.
When you add together the parts of the preamble that you have subtracted it means our founders laid down corner stones to create a constitution they thought would be in their own economic and political best self interest.
Oh come on Professor. You are so damn smart and I am so damn stupid, please explain how the US Army convinced those poor innocent Klu Kluxers to run around and murder thousands of people. Was it mind control or something they put in the water? Us poor ignorant souls are waiting for your superior intellect to explain it.
Silly fellow. If you were alive in the 1850s you’d hear people saying that slavery should move into the territories and that slaveowners should be able to bring their slaves into any state. So free workers and enterprises that relied on free labor would have to compete with slave labor. Nobody was seriously talking about free Blacks coming North or West to compete with you. The question was whether the House Divided would become all slave or (eventually ... perhaps) all free. And if you opposed the expansion of slavery you weren’t competing for some moral crown. You were standing up for free society against slavery. What was the problem with that?
You have put your finger on the exact cause for why most people hated slavery. It wasn't because they cared about the slaves.
Nobody was seriously talking about free Blacks coming North or West to compete with you.
Illinois was. They passed laws to absolutely prevent it. These laws were so horrific, that the only conclusion you can reach is that they hated black people. These weren't slaves. These were free black people whom they absolutely did not want coming into their state.
And if you opposed the expansion of slavery you weren’t competing for some moral crown.
No, you were spreading a deliberate lie for the sake of gaining political power. I saw a video about Zachary Taylor a couple of weeks ago. He had fought in the Mexican/American war, and he had been all through the west and southwest. He was a whig, and his allies were annoyed with his indifference to the "expansion of slavery into the territories." He told them the entire idea is ridiculous, and that it wasn't possible.
So people at that time were well aware that "expansion of slavery into the territories" was just lying propaganda meant to scare people.
You were standing up for free society against slavery
I have read statements from prominent figures in the past, including Abraham Lincoln, that makes it clear they didn't want any black people in the territories, and they didn't care if they were free. They just didn't want any black people in their communities.
What was the problem with that?
The problem with that is that the motives (of most, not all) were self interest and prejudice, not ethics or morality. Sure, they covered themselves in the flag of morality, but this is what people do. They look for noble sounding reasons to do what they want, and that's how they tell the story to others.
Let's talk about the Vichy government and the French Underground.
The French Underground were of course the murdering criminals defying the authority of their government, n'est-ce pas?
“I didn’t mention it here, but I was also thinking of the myth that Stephen A. Douglas was “personally opposed” to slavery. The assumption was that slavery couldn’t be just fine with somebody, but the consensus now seems to be that it was for Douglas.”
Do you remember who said the following?
“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Repeat for emphasis: “I have no inclination to do so.”
Yes, in 1790 there were ~40,000 Northern slaves, ~650,000 Southern slaves.
In the North, Massachusetts & Vermont never recorded a slave in their census returns, though Vermont had fewer slaves before 1780 and was more gradual in abolition.
The 1790 Massachusetts census shows around 5,000 freed-blacks (~1% of total population), but we have no estimates on how many of those were slaves in 1780.
My guess is roughly half, since there were about 2,000 Massachusetts African-Americans who served in George Washington's Continental Army under promises of freedom in exchange for military service.
By 1783 they had returned from service with not only their promised freedom, but also military pay and bonuses.
This means a large number of freedmen were also freeholders and so eligible for citizenship rights such as voting and serving on juries.
As for how many slaves were converted into indentured servants -- there is no evidence of that, but it's entirely logical to suppose that many previous slave-servants were told in 1783: they were now free to leave, and if they decided to stay, they would be paid wages.
So, they decided to stay on as before, only now occasionally picking up a few dollars in spending money.
Regardless, what we know for certain is that Massachusetts' African-American population increased from about 5,000 in 1790 to nearly 10,000 in 1860, and that they loved their state enough to provide three full regiments (~3,000 men: 54th & 55th Infantry and 5th Cavalry) to the Union Army during the Civil War.
ladyjane: "To this day Massachusetts has never passed a law to abolish slavery."
Right, but according to Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice William Cushing, in the 1783 Quock Walker case (Cushing later became a SCOTUS justice, appointed by Pres. Washington, and briefly SCOTUS Chief Justice):
Cushing argued, in effect, that no laws were needed abolishing slavery, once all laws enforcing slavery had themselves been struck down.
Plus, Massachusetts did ratify:
Why thank you Professor. I have to admit, I never would have considered that the KKK were just freedom fighters as they terrorized and murdered innocent people much like the people who resisted those poor NAZIs in France. ( Hummm? Where’s that put the US Army that also fought against your poor NAZIs.?).
It’s so nice to have someone with a superior intellect like yours to keep the class informed. < / sarcasm >
That was in early 1861 before he became president. At that point, he had no lawful right and no power to interfere with slavery. After several years of war with the south where slaves became a strategic advantage for the Confederates he developed the emancipation proclamation, an executive order by the CiC for military necessity. By the closing months of the war, the people of the north saw what slavery had wrought on the nation and the 13 th Amendment passed by Congress and by December of that year was ratified.
Neither the emancipation proclamation or the 13th Amendment would have happened without the war. War changed everything.
Thank you for a really good summary of the slave situation in Massachusetts. People up there like to brag that they were the first to outlaw slavery centuries ago.
It’s difficult for people now to understand that slaves really didn’t have any good alternatives back then. A man needed land to farm or a good skill, e.g., farrier, printer. If they didn’t have either they had no way to support themselves. Women had fewer alternatives.
In the colonies, even if you were white, if you couldn’t support your family the town would ‘auction’ you off. People would bid on the opportunity to provide room and board for the family in return for their work until they were able to provide for themselves and their family. There was no welfare back then.
Families with money might send their second or later born male son to divinity school to become a minister or support their travel to a remote area where land was cheaper. Farmers with many boys couldn’t provide enough land for each of them to support raising a family.
Many people these days think their ancestors should have immediately freed all the slaves. That would have been a disaster. The colonies were in no position to provide support for thousands of people with limited skills. A century later there were even some slaves in the south who couldn’t support themselves living independently and wanted to return to slavery. Life was not easy back then.
So the Allies should not have bombed NAZI production facilities because innocent Jews worked their under NAZI compulsion?
The innocent tools of the occupiers are off limits, eh? Well what would you propose to do about the production of the weaponry of subjugation?
Answer the damn question Professor.
He said it afterward too. In fact, it's in his first inaugural address. But the way you say it implies that you think it's okay to lie until you get power so that you can enact your agenda.
At that point, he had no lawful right and no power to interfere with slavery.
He never did. At no time did he ever have the legal right to do what he did, he just did it anyway.
After several years of war with the south where slaves became a strategic advantage for the Confederates he developed the emancipation proclamation, an executive order by the CiC for military necessity.
It was not put forth solely for Military benefit, but also to gain a diplomatic advantage over the South. He knew slavery was unpopular in England, and the English had been playing footsie with the South for quite awhile during the war, and they had toyed with the idea of recognizing them as an independent government, which could have been a real headache for Lincoln.
By pushing his Emancipation Proclamation, he tapped into the British public's dislike of slavery, and made it less likely their government would provide official recognition of the South, and possibly slow down or stop their unofficial material support.
By the closing months of the war, the people of the north saw what slavery had wrought on the nation...
If you are talking about the deaths of 750,000 people, slavery didn't do that. It was the need to *CONTROL* the very lucrative commodities trade which pumped 700 million into the Northern economy every year, that did that. Slavery is only indirectly connected to that.
As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the Federal government was all for an amendment that would guarantee slavery indefinitely, so long as the South remained under *THEIR CONTROL*.
The sticking point between the two sides was INDEPENDENCE not the continuation of slavery.
But of course the Northern public was absolutely propagandized into believing evil slavery was the cause of everything that happened, because the bastards making all the money didn't tell them the war was really about money, they misled them into believing it was about slavery, just like they had misled them about "expansion of slavery" into places it could not possibly expand into.
You don't get it. The same nasty corrupt bastards using the Federal government to enrich themselves today, are the same sort of nasty corrupt bastards that used the government to enrich themselves back then.
They lie about what they are doing and why they are doing it. The "why" is always about making themselves rich and powerful, and the "what" is using the government either directly through bogus spending sent to their allies, (global warming hoax) or indirectly through selling government law or policies for bribes from both foreign and domestic interests who are willing to pay them. (Like the corrupt Bidens and Clintons.)
...and the 13 th Amendment passed by Congress and by December of that year was ratified.
No it wasn't. Armies *ORDERED* states to "ratify" it, and these rubber stamp Vichy governments simply did what they were ordered to do.
Now you may not grasp this, but that is not how the *LEGAL* amendment process works. That is how a dictatorship amendment process works.
The constitutionally legal process requires the consent of the actual citizens, not puppet governments controlled by Washington DC.
But people don't really care about following the Constitution provided they get the result they want, by fair means or foul.
Neither the emancipation proclamation or the 13th Amendment would have happened without the war.
Or the 14th, which has been the most abused and misused amendment since its creation. It has been the excuse used by dysfunctional Federal Judges to impose the most ridiculous nonsense on the states and on the people of America, and we have the fake ratifications by occupying armies to thank for this mess.
Hey Professor Know it All. Answer the damn question and quit changing the subject. How did the US Army force the KKK to go around murdering innocent people?
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.