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
Where do you keep coming up with this "Marxism" nonsense? You know better, but I guess it makes you feel good to say such things.
As Americans all of us are indoctrinated from youth. The government schools do this to us from the earliest of ages(it usually begins just after being a toddler), and before the schools are even finished indoctrinating us the media add on to this indoctrination. Universities deepen the indoctrination if someone attends.
Very few people take any time to reject that indoctrination, and they carry the indoctrination with them for the rest of their lives.
"It’s ALL part of US History. ALL. OF. IT."
Then you should have no problem at all with exclaiming explicitly that many of the U.S.'s Founding Fathers were slavery abolitionists. If you cannot do this then you're only excoriating yourself by not accepting all of it, you're only accepting of the progressive indoctrination.
You cannot have it both ways.
"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?"
You didn't. Nowhere did you try to be consistent. Do not hold other people to a standard you are unwilling or incapable of holding to yourself while you come in here and excoriate others. Be consistent, and be consistent first. Consistency is very important.
1: The U.S. invented slavery, all the Founders were racists, and it all goes back to the year 1619, and the Founders couldn't wait to get their grubby hands on it and keep the black man down. They were demanding slavery.
2: The U.S. inherited slavery from the Empire, many of the Founders were abolitionists and fought against the empire on this very topic.
You only get to have one, either number 1 or number 2. Pick wisely.
No contradictions there -- they were content to do what they could to abolish slavery and leave the rest to future generations."
This needed to be repeated.
It is just bizarre to watch the Civil War caucus do its level best to duck and weave this information.
They don't explicitly say it is incorrect. They just propagandize it or ignore it as too inconvenient to address.
Its just very weird. It makes no sense.
It should not exist.
Massachusetts has never needed to pass a slavery abolition law, the Mass. Constitution itself is very clear about the issue. Massachusetts' own culture as an abolitionist state going back to 1769 also could not be more clear.
The Founding Fathers were so happy about how Massachusetts handled the abolition of slavery in 1783 that none of the Founders believed what Massachusetts had done was wrong. None of them that I am aware of saw need for redress.
Cushing was even rewarded later. Twice. He was put on the Supreme Court and eventually made Chief.
You and your crew have deified the "Fugitive Slave Clause" in a way that is unwarranted considering that originally that clause applied to three classes of persons:
1) Indentured servants
2) Redemptioners
3) Slaves
Complain all you want. You can't unmake it. It's no wonder your whole crew are so rejecting of notions of Originalism. You only want what the clause came to be, not what it started out as.
It's just that they do not want to discuss one specific item/era. That is, the Abolitionist Founding Fathers. So any other is alright.
This was not meant to be sarcasm and should not be interpreted as such.
That is an interesting comment.
I would have thought most business people - even farmers - would think profits are important; nearly determinative.
Acquiring agricultural inputs for the purpose of acquiring inputs without regard to profits doesn't seem like a good business plan.
Said differently, the agricultural workforce needs were probably driven by calculations of profits - not by a free/all other persons ratio plucked out of thin air.
Three/fifths was a (political) compromise ratio plucked out of thin air.
I will say this: the more money made with a successful business model, the harder it is to throw the model and profits away.
Excuse the anecdote but I have known farm families that did not believe in smoking but grew and sold tobacco to others for no other reason than putting food on the table and paying the bank note.
The Army caused the KKK."
There is a lot of logic to this.(It also has its flaws but I refuse to get pulled into the CW swamp) The exact reasons for the Army and the logical resistance that arises because of it are, of course, as was also mentioned about the French Underground, the same reasons generally speaking during the American Revolution.
It's all the same reasons why the Founding Fathers opposed the Empire's Slavery. Not "American Slavery". The Empire's slavery which was indistinguishable from what existed in the Caribbean/West Indies.
The Empire's slavery. Which was later inherited by the U.S. against the U.S.'s will. It was forced on the United States. I will not, will not let this go, the facts themselves simply don't require me to let it go.
Slavery was forced on the United States by the British Empire.
It was not plucked out of thin air. You do not listen and do not read so your impenetrable fortress of ignorance is limitless.
That is not what he is doing. It can look that way on the surface and it was in-artfully stated. But that's not what it is.
I know all about the Massachusetts Constitution. It was written by my third cousin - many times removed of course. While the constitution is clear there were still many slaves in Massachusetts. They just called them servants.
Yes it was. He was justifying the KKK by equating it with the French Resistance and comparing the Union Army in the south to the NAZI army in France. His mythical “boot on the neck” of the south never happened as I showed. There weren’t enough troops there to oppress anyone.
Take note, I made a similar equation.
Did they start receiving paychecks beginning at that time as a servant would be expected to receive?
It's all the same reasons why the Founding Fathers opposed the Empire's Slavery. Not "American Slavery". The Empire's slavery which was indistinguishable from what existed in the Caribbean/West Indies.The Empire's slavery. Which was later inherited by the U.S. against the U.S.'s will.
Oh please! In 1788, thirteen states unanimously adopted the provisions in the Constitution which held slavery legal, and the fugitive slave law was the organic law in all thirteen states. 1788 is well after the Paris Peace Accords recognition of the independence of the thirteen states. The Evil Empire had no say in the matter.
It's all the same reasons why the Founding Fathers opposed the Empire's Slavery.
Ten (10) of the first twelve (12) elected Presidents were slaveowners. Washington and Jefferson remained slaveowners until the day they died.
Weren't you the guy bitching about how "gay marriage" and "abortion" coming out of the 14th amendment is a misreading of intent?
1) Indentured servants
0.1 %
2) Redemptioners
0.05 %
3) Slaves
99.85%
Who kept their own slaves in bondage.
A bit like the Drunk guy claiming he is sober.
Yeah. The Americans absolutely didn't want those profits. If only those D@mn British hadn't kept forcing them to take all that money.
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.