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)

Jesus. Now we’re arguing WWII?

We are arguing about a subjugating power establishing *FAKE* governments who enforce the will of the occupying power and who use innocent people to produce weapons of subjugation.

The NAZIS are an example that I thought you could understand. The Jews manufacturing their weapons may have been innocent, but they were still manufacturing the weapons the NAZIS would use to hurt other people.

I asked you how the US Army made the Klan go around murdering innocent people and you switch the subject to WWII.

The innocent people were helping the *OCCUPIERS* to gain power for the purpose of subjugating the people of the land they were occupying.

And scaring them away from helping the occupiers is a lot more humane than killing them. I don't have any numbers on how many murders they committed, but I suspect it is as highly inflated as the claims of slaves beaten and whipped before the war.

I think their primary effort was to scare them away from giving Republicans power at the polls, though they should have probably realized their efforts would ultimately be futile.

So do you know finally "get it"? Had the army not been there occupying their land and abusing their people, there never would have been a KKK.

The Army caused the KKK, just like every occupation army provokes a local response to resist and fight back against the occupiers.

x: "My reference wasn’t to the 1780s and the Framers of the Constitution, but to Baldwin’s 1830s comment..."

Of course, I understand your point.
You would criticize Baldwin on the same grounds as radicals like Henry David Thoreau, who argued, in effect: the US Constitution be d*mned, authorities should do everything conceivable to abolish slavery, even if that meant breaking the Constitution.

However, in 1833 Johnson v. Tomkins Baldwin acknowledged that

"Slavery is abhorrent to all our ideas of natural right and justice, but it is recognized by the Constitution, and is not to be overthrown by the courts"

Btw, Henry Baldwin was a Jacksonian Democrat -- advisor to candidate Andrew Jackson in the 1824 & 1828 campaigns, appointed by Pres. Jackson to SCOTUS in 1830.
So, while Baldwin was not born a Southerner, he did align closely with Jacksonian Southern Democratic values, and may well have influenced Jackson's support for high tariffs as represented in the notorious 1828 Tariff of Abominations.

Baldwin's support for high tariffs made it impossible for Jackson to get Senate confirmation on appointing Baldwin to his Cabinet, due to opposition from the likes of SC Sen. Calhoun.
But it did not prevent Jackson from nominating Baldwin to SCOTUS, since Baldwin's views aligned with Southerners on such issues as Johnson v. Tomkins (1833) and later, more famously, on Armistad (1841).

Anyway, my point is that many Founders did take actions to oppose slavery, and that they did not give up on the project after 1800.
They abolished or restricted slavery wherever they could, including:

In the Northwest Territories (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin)
Imports of foreign slaves (1807)
Northern Territories -- Missouri Compromise 1820.
Compromise of 1850 -- admitting California as a free-state, in exchange for federalizing Fugitive Slave enforcement.
Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- allowed western territories to choose slavery, but also helped prevent a southern transcontinental railroad route, which would have opened up New Mexico, Arizona and even California to plantation style slavery.

What changed over those 50+ years was not the willingness of Northerners to abolish slavery wherever possible, but rather the aggressiveness of slaveholders in asserting that slavery was no longer to be thought of as a temporarily necessary evil, to be gradually abolished.
Rather now slavery was claimed a necessary and universal good to be expanded and protected everywhere.

Supporting such aggressiveness were many Northerners (aka "doughfaces") who benefitted from plantation grown products, notably cotton, but others too, and saw no threats from slavery to their own ways of life.
So it took decades, and a Great Awakening, for a majority of Northerners to see slavery as a direct threat morally, economically and politically.

It may have begun in earnest with the 1850 Compromise, the tipping point could be the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the biggest event driving Northern abolitionism may well have been Crazy Roger's 1857 Dred Scott ruling.
By 1859, Bleeding Kansas had spilled over into Harpers Ferry, Virginia.

x: "I didn’t mention it here, but I was also thinking of the myth that Stephen A. Douglas was “personally opposed” to slavery."

In my view, slavery was ascendant, if not triumphant, throughout the antebellum period.
We can scour our history books in vain to find examples of abolitionist victories before the Civil War.
At best we find only compromises, where slaveholders got something they wanted in exchange for anti-slavery voters getting something of value.

In the case of Stephen Douglas' 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which potentially turned all western territories into slave-states, what Douglas got in exchange was to kill Secretary of War Jefferson Davis's Southern route for the transcontinental railroad -- for which Congress had just paid $10 million (~$100 billion in today's values) for the Gadsden Purchase (30,000 square miles, roughly the size of South Carolina or Maine).

A southern transcontinental railroad route built in the 1850s would have turned New Mexico, Arizona and even, potentially California, into strongholds of the plantation slave economy.

Finally, by 1860, Douglas was still arguing for "popular sovereignty" in western territories, even after Crazy Roger's 1857 Dred Scott ruling seemingly rendered Douglas's "popular sovereignty" mute.
This turned already volatile Southern Fire Eaters into berserkers who walked out of their Democratic National Convention and formed their own 1860 Rump Southern Democrat party, led by Kentucky Sen. Breckenridge.

But, after Dred Scott, did Douglas still have a legal leg to stand on?
Yes, absolutely!!, because:

In 1860, Douglas argued just as Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice William Cushing had argued in 1783 Quock Walker -- that slavery can only legally exist in places where laws positively support enforcing slavery, and that without such laws, slavery was effectively abolished.
And, since Congress had no authority to impose slavery anywhere, it required acts of territory legislatures to legalize slavery in western territories.
That's why, in Douglas' mind, Dred Scott meant nothing regarding western territories.

That insistence by Douglas split the Democrat Party in 1860, elected Abraham Lincoln president and so arguably resulted in Civil War, emancipation and abolition.

So, was Douglas himself anti-slavery?
No, not really, but in 1860 he stood on principle, "popular sovereignty" and that drove Southern Fire Eaters berserk, leading to Civil War and abolition, sadly, long after Douglas himself had passed on.

Watching Birth of a Nation is not an education.

I wouldn't know, I have never watched it.

The Klan only cared about one thing… keeping their filthy hands on the levers of power.

When the levers of power are on your throat, that's the only thing anyone would care about. That's what the French Underground cared about.

They were murderers and scum, and you take their side.

You make accusations. Your best form of argument is accusing people, you don't deal well with putting forth an actual rational argument.

What I am doing is not taking their side, i'm pointing out that they actually had a side, and it is pretty much the same side as anyone who has been overwhelmed by an invading army. You fight back, and you do anything you think might work to get that boot off of your neck.

Here’s the kind of crap you’re defending.

And if you had read your own link, you would have found this:

"The Klan violence stemmed from the state election of 1870, the first held after the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. African Americans voted in large numbers, enabling Republicans to dominate the election. As a result, most of South Carolina’s white population viewed the new state government as illegitimate. Republican governor Robert K. Scott angered whites further by organizing armed black militia companies with the goal of protecting black political rights."

What was it I had told you? The Liberals were using these people to gain power so that they could continue to oppress and exploit the Southerners, as well as milk the government for their own enrichment. These people were being used as a weapon, no different than how the *LIBERAL* party uses illegal aliens today.

It's always about power.

There’s was no “Northern Occupation Army” when the Klan started their wave of terror.

Occupation lasted until 1877. So once again you are opining on material that you don't know very well.

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.

Massachusetts Constitution of 1780

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 that oif seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

https://archive.org/details/notesonhistoryof00moor [main page]

https://archive.org/stream/notesonhistoryof00moor/notesonhistoryof00moor_djvu.txt [text]

https://dn790007.ca.archive.org/0/items/notesonhistoryof00moor/notesonhistoryof00moor_bw.pdf [PDF]

George H. Moore, Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts, (1866), pp 176-223.wpd

The discussion of the 1780 Constitution begins at page 200. This very old text used an archaic font which may be difficult to read. For quotes below, I have converted the archaic font to a modern font.

At 200:

IX.
We come now to the Constitution of 1780, the instrument by which it is alleged that slavery was abolished in Massachusetts. In the illustration of our subject, its history is very important, and demands careful and accurate criticism.

At 202-05:

In 1836, Chief-Justice Shaw made an interesting statement on this point:
"How or by what act particularly, slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, whether by the adoption of the opinion in Somerset's case, as a declaration and modification of the common law, or by the Declaration of Independence, or by the Constitution of 1780, it is not now very easy to determine, and it is rather a matter of curiosity than utility; it being agreed on all hands, that if not abolished before, it was so by the Declaration of Rights." 18 Pickering 209. [18 Pickering (Mass.) 193, 209 (1836)]
Few persons can now be found hardy enough to date the abolition of slavery in Masachusetts from Lord Mansfield's decision in the Somerset cafe, or the Declaration of Independence. But the received opinion in Massachusetts is, that the first article of the Declaration of Rights was not simply the declaration of an abstract; principle or dogma, which might be wrought out into a practical system by subsequent legislation, but was intended to have the active force and conclusive authority of law; to divest the title of the master, to break the bonds of the slave, to annul the condition of servitude, and to emancipate and set free by its own force and efficacy, without awaiting the enforcement of its principles by judicial decision. Compare 7 Gray, 478. 5 Leigh, 622.
We have made diligent inquiry, search, and examination, without discovering the slightest trace of positive contemporary evidence to show that this opinion is well founded. The family traditions which have designated the elder John Lowell as the author of the Declaration, and assigned the intention to abolish slavery as the express motive for its origin, will not stand the test of historical criticism. The truth is, that the bold judicial construction by which it was afterwards made the instrument of virtual abolition, was only gradually reached and sustained by public opinion—the Court having advanced many steps further than was intended by the Convention or understood by the people, in their decision on this subject.
If it were possible that such a purpose could have been avowed in the Convention and wrought into their work, without opposition, it certainly could not have passed absolutely without notice. Such a conversion would be too sudden to be genuine; and if we follow the facts in their natural chronological order, the actual result will fall into its due place and position without force or violation of the truth of history. Now there is no evidence of opposition, either in the Convention or out of it. Not even a notice of this important revolution, in the newspapers of the day or elsewhere, has rewarded our earnest and careful search. John Adams, the author of the Bill of Rights, was not in favor of immediate emancipation (see ante, p. 110). The most strenuous anti-slavery men were unconscious of any such intention or result for a long time afterward; and the newspapers continued to advertise the tales of negroes as before. There is nothing to show that so great a change was contemplated or realized, and those who maintain it would have us believe that the people of Massachusetts, like the Romans on another memorable occasion, suddenly became quite another people.
The address of the Convention, on submitting the result of their labors to their constituents, makes no allusion whatever to this subject. No one can read it —setting forth as it does the principal features of the new plan of government, the grounds and reasons upon which they had formed it, with their explanations of the principal parts of the system—and retain the belief that they had consciously, deliberately, and intentionally adopted the first clause in the Declaration of Rights for the express purpose of abolishing slavery in Massachusetts. The same Bill of Rights provided that "no part of the property of any individual, can, with juftice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people," and, in another clause, that " no subject shall be . . . deprived of his property but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land." Constitution, p. 10-11. Did the members of that Convention intend deliberately to divest the recognized title to property of their fellow-citizens, amounting to not less than half a million of dollars, without a word of explanation of the high grounds of justice or public policy on which they based their action? If any further evidence is needed in this connedion, it may be found in the subsequent suits, with the entire proceedings and arguments of counsel, by which the result of virtual abolition was finally secured; as well as in the legislative proceedings which followed — all utterly inconsistent with the theory of a direct and intentional abolition by the Convention and People. Compare Washburn in M. H. S. Coll., iv.. 333-346.

What I am doing is not taking their side, i'm pointing out that they actually had a side, and it is pretty much the same side as anyone who has been overwhelmed by an invading army. You fight back, and you do anything you think might work to get that boot off of your neck.

In 1866, there was no boot on anyone’s neck. Your history is as screwed up as you are.

By January 1866 the United States Army in the ten Confederate states (leaving out Texas) was only 61,800 soldiers, not two million. Basically this meant that about 6,000 men were allocated per insurrectionist state. Two months later, there were only 41,000 soldiers there. By September 1866, a year and three months after the Grand Review, there were just over 17,000 men in those ten states, less than 2,000 Federal soldiers per state.
Texas did have a larger proportion of Federal soldiers stationed in it after the war. In August 1865 there were 48,259 Union troops in Texas. Even in January of 1866 there were still 25,085 United States soldiers there. However, very few were concerned with Reconstruction. Most were there to keep an eye on Emperor Maximilian and his French troops trying to construct a European colony in Mexico.
The decision by President Andrew Johnson to cut the costs of occupation also impacted the efficacy of the occupying army. Johnson sold most of the Army’s horses as a cost-saving measure after the war, which meant that about 90 percent of the soldiers in the South were infantry. The soldiers on foot were seeking out the mounted guerrillas of the KKK, the Knights of the White Camellia, and other mounted terrorist groups by marching on foot in “hot” pursuit!
A second decision by Johnson also had an impact. Most of the white troops under arms in April of 1865 were near the expiration of their terms of enlistment. When regiments were released after the Grand Review, the whole regiment went home, including those just recently recruited. However, many United States Colored Troops still had more than a year left to serve in the summer of 1865. Unfortunately, Johnson, a noted racist, did not want them to be stationed in the South. Most were removed from those states that participated in the rebellion.So the United States Colored Troops, of whom more than half of their volunteers came from the South, were largely moved out of that region by the fall of 1865.
Now we can look at the microlevel impact. Let us look at the number of Federal soldiers in Mississippi, for example. Federal troops in the state went from 16,500 men in July 1865 down to 4,500 in February 1866. By May 1866 there were only 439 troops left in the whole state. After serious outbreaks of Ku Klux Klan violence in 1868, troops were increased by about a thousand men and then began to go down again in 1869, with little more than a full strength regiment for the whole state. Mississippi had nearly 800,000 people living there at the time. The growing terror could not be controlled by a thousand soldiers.
In Tennessee, where the Ku Klux Klan came into being in the first half of 1866, there were 53,459 Union troops in July 1865, of whom 11,782 were cavalry. By June 1866 when the Ku Klux Klan first manifested itself, there were only 1,416 United States troops for the whole state; none of whom were cavalry!
In Memphis in May of 1866 a riot led by white police officers killed 30 to 46 African Americans. There were only 235 Federal troops in that strategic Mississippi River city, which had a population of nearly 40,000.
In South Carolina, where the war started and Confederate sympathies were among the strongest in the South, we see a similar denuding of Federal forces. South Carolina had 10,307 United States troops in July 1865, but it had fallen off to just 1,992 in June 1866.
In Georgia, where Confederate Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon was reportedly behind the growth of the Klan in 1866 and 1867, Federal troops had declined to only 593 soldiers by the time the Klan was founded in June 1866.
The myth of a heavily occupied South during Reconstruction was part of the effective propaganda cooked up by the proponents of the Lost Cause in the last third of the 19th century. This myth has been repeated all the way up to the present day. And it is effective.
Source: Echoes of Reconstruction

You can take your idolization of the Klan and shove it where the sun don’t shine. There were no boots on anyone’s neck when the Klan started their reign of terror.

You can take your idolization of the Klan and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

You need to stop your g*dd@mn lying about me. You don't have an argument, so you resort to name calling. You need to stop it.

You seem to believe that the Southern states, whom most people claim fought a long and bloody war for four years just to keep their slaves... freely voted to give up their slaves, and freely voted to make these slaves citizens, and freely voted to allow these slaves to vote.

Do you not grasp how stupid that sounds? That people would give up 5 billion dollars because they just decided to give it up?

If you don't think they were forced to do this against their will, then you are too simple to bother arguing with.

You talk about the numbers of federal troops. The numbers would become whatever they needed to be, if trouble started anywhere.

In the South, there were so many people killed, and the rest impoverished, that it didn't take a lot of numbers to keep them subjugated.

You do realize, the Northern manpower outnumbered the Southern manpower about 4 or 5 to 1?

There were plenty enough boots on their neck. There would always be as many as were needed.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Only because your brain is fried in Marxian ideology & economics, so you can't think straight.
No, the truth of it is not about "profits".

But it was all about population numbers, and the dividing line between peaceful abolition -- such as Brazil experienced in 1888 -- and violence seems to be around 15% of the population.
IOW, where slaves accounted for 15% or more of the total population, then abolition resulted in organized violence by slaveholders.
But where slaves were fewer than 15% of a population, then abolition could happen peacefully.

Examples:

Brazil: the slave population in 1888 was only 5% of its total population.
In Brazil, slaves were just as critical to major industries -- sugar, coffee, rubber and gold mining -- as pre-1861 slaves were in Southern US states' cotton, tobacco and sugar plantations.
Brazil's slave population had peaked at around 25% in 1830, but was reduced to 5% in 1888 due to abolition of slave imports (1850) and laws like the 1871 Law of the Free Womb, which allowed for compensated manumissions.
But, since Brazilian slave numbers (5%) were far fewer than Southern States (35%), abolition was accomplished in Brazil without organized slaveholder rebellion or violence against the government.
US Border States: US states with fewer than 15% slaves refused to secede, even after the Battle of Fort Sumter.
Haiti: on the flip-side, successful slave rebellion, such as in Haiti, 1791-1804, takes a slave population of 90% of the total population.
No US state came anywhere close to such numbers.
Northern US: slave populations were never more than ~1%, and with slavery reduced gradually, abolition was relatively painless for slaveholders, even without compensation.

Point is: it wasn't about "profits", it was about % numbers of slave populations.

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.