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

[DiogenesLamp]

There weren’t enough troops there to oppress anyone.

Yeah, that's right. They just didn't want that 5 billion dollars.

Who can blame them? I get very mad when people try to make me keep all the capital investment I spent a lifetime creating.

Why won't people let me give away everything I own? Why are they so insistent that I keep all that money?

.

.

.

Sometimes I am amazed at the level of brainwashing that is still working to this day!

Lincoln was a people manipulating genius. People still don't realize he's fooled (almost) all the people, all the time.

[ProgressingAmerica]

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.

Nope.

Fail.

Slavery was not invented in 1788, slavery was not invented in 1776. Stop. You have zero customers buying this garbage narrative.

The crown routinely vetoed abolitionist laws in the colonies. Had the colonies actually had the independence they desired prior to having to declare it and spark a war, at least one or two of those colonies would have been free-soil among the original thirteen that were what created the U.S.

Save your history revisionism for someone else who doesn't actually have the full text of one of the vetoes issued from the crown. Along with the colony's law that sparked said veto; along with their powerless colonial plea for redress and the inhumanity of it all.

Your kabuki theater is not working woodpusher. You require people who don't know their history. That person is not me.

Kabuki point number 1: I said the Empire's slavery was indistinguishable between the thirteen colonies and the Caribbean. You know you can't disagree, you were wise not to. And you won't be doing so in the future either.

Kabuki point number 2: I said the Founders opposed the Empire's slavery. Many of them did, I have specifically named them and you have no room at all to say that somehow slavery in the Caribbean which was the same as the thirteen colonies is somehow the fault of America. So you don't try. And why would you try, it's nonsense. The slave empire had over 20 slave colonies prior to Independence: Virginia and Jamaica being among them.

Kabuki point number 3: I said the U.S. inherited slavery against its will from the Empire. Never once do you explicitly say that slavery was in high demand among the founders. Never once. You always try to dissemble and try to find holes in the argument to justify your Civil War agenda. That's really the part that's annoying. You'll happily throw acid in the faces of the Founders for the altar of CW; but even that isn't it, it's throwing acid in the faces of the Founders like you're an Islamist while every bit of this whole lore rests somehow on the notion that the Civil War was the continuation of the legend of the American Revolution. If so, why did you throw acid in their faces? How does that work you can't have it both ways.

If slavery was not in high demand among the Founders as it is claimed in the 1619 Project, then your whole schtick falls to the ground in pieces.

You can keep on dancing. I know you'll be back with more pretzel shaped nonsense though.

[ProgressingAmerica]

This 1619 Project narrative is irrelevant.

Legal (abolitionist) mechanisms created are much more imperative than minuscule personal failings.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Weren't you the guy bitching about how "gay marriage" and "abortion" coming out of the 14th amendment is a misreading of intent?"

I was, and still will be. Knowing that the living Founding Fathers agreed with Cushing and even promoted him, twice, means my consistency isn't in danger here.

Can you cite all of the push-back that the living Founders elicited after Massachusetts's 1783 decision? You're going to need that.

Cushing's rewards appear to be a mountain you cannot summit on this topic Mr. Zebra.

[jeffersondem]

“It (3/5ths) 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 an interesting comment.

Three/fifths, also known as 48/80ths, was unanimously agreed to be the perfect compromise.

Can you remind me why the ratio 47/80ths and 49/80ths were rejected as being totally unacceptable?

[ProgressingAmerica]

Cool story. Now cite 1776 numbers instead. Then we can compare the two between your 1865 numbers already provided.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Actually, it's exactly like historians claiming that a slave trader is an abolitionist.

Slave trading abolitionists and slave owning abolitionists are real. Complain all you want it isn't going away.

"Who kept their own slaves in bondage."

Besides, there's this seeming hypocrisy again, quick to jump into the steamroller. But you have already made it clear that you have more loyalty to the empire than the Founders anyways, even when the crown mistreated Southerners, so this all makes sense.

Did you even know that the empire no longer actually exists? Maybe you didn't get the memo. You're protecting something so zealously that no longer even exists.

So. Here's the memo.

The British Empire is gone. You no longer have any need to protect it as you do.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Yeah. The Americans absolutely didn't want those profits"

They said it in plain text. That's good enough for me.

I trust Americans. America First. That should not be odd to you but here we are.

[ProgressingAmerica]

The other ratio that was on the table at the Convention was 5/5ths. Why make up fake stuff?

The 5/5ths ratio was rejected because:

Wait for it.

Abolitionism. There were many abolitionists at the Constitutional Convention. Slave owners didn't debate with slave owners on how best to limit the slave power. Only fools believe such tomfoolery. They got to 3/5ths because it was a known number back in the Articles of Confederation.

It was anti-slavery people who pushed for that lower number of 3/5ths. Try all you want jeffersondem no matter how you cut the cake the 3/5ths compromise is not pro-slavery.

[ladyjane]

I’m pretty sure there were no paychecks in those days. A roof over your head, enough wood to keep you warm for the winter and food in your stomach was the most important thing then.

Doing genealogy I have found it amazing that second and third born sons would be able to hook up a wagon and move 100 miles away to find land, chop wood, build a shelter and raise a family. Life was not easy back them.

[Ditto]

Yeah, that's right. They just didn't want that 5 billion dollars.

This is a new myth for me. What the hell 5 Billion dollars are you talking about?

Are you saying the Union Army was in the south to steel $5 Billion and they had to suppress the KKK to do it? You really are getting to be nuts.

[DiogenesLamp]

I was, and still will be. Knowing that the living Founding Fathers agreed with Cushing and even promoted him, twice, means my consistency isn't in danger here.

You are being absolutely inconsistent.

I've had this argument before with BroJoeK.

If the *INTENT* was to abolish slavery, you say it plainly and clearly. You don't just put in some mellifluous language about "all men are born free and equal."

You say "Slavery is abolished." Plainly. Subject to no interpretation and no ambiguity.

That you claim to think otherwise shows me that you are lying to yourself, which is one thing I never could do.

That people liked the result is irrelevant to the fact it was absolutely made up by using a clever verbal trick, and not by being the acknowledged will of the people as expressed through an open democratic process.

Which is also something it has in common with the 14th amendment, which was also *NOT* the acknowledged will of the people as expressed through an open democratic process.

Both are examples of the exercise of power *OUTSIDE* the Democratic process. Both are examples of laws created *WITHOUT* the consent of the people.

[DiogenesLamp]

Cool story. Now cite 1776 numbers instead. Then we can compare the two between your 1865 numbers already provided.

As the constitution was written in 1787, shouldn't only those numbers be in consideration?

[DiogenesLamp]

Slave trading abolitionists and slave owning abolitionists are real. Complain all you want it isn't going away.

You have an error of logic here. You see, John Newton *STOPPED* slave trading when he became an abolitionist.

Washington, Jefferson et al, continued holding slaves, and therefore they weren't actual abolitionists.

This "do as I say, not as I do" mindset is hypocrisy.

You can't be in favor of abolition if you don't actually abolition.

[DiogenesLamp]

They said it in plain text. That's good enough for me.

If you think the only way to communicate your position is to write, then you are sadly mistaken.

Taking payments for slave labor speaks more loudly than anything they could write.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was anti-slavery people who pushed for that lower number of 3/5ths. Try all you want jeffersondem no matter how you cut the cake the 3/5ths compromise is not pro-slavery.

It's pro profit. The dispute was over how much *POWER* in congress would be distributed on the basis of representation.

The Northern states bitterly resented the idea of allowing the Southern states to claim slaves for the purpose of representation.

Now I know you want to try to portray their actions as some great moral effort, but the bottom line is it was just pure greed.

Controlling government meant laws favorable to the people who controlled it, and the interests of the South and the Interests of the North diverged long before the Civil War ever came about.

The South had control initially, but as time went on, they were doomed to lose that control as Northern populations grew quickly from immigration, and Southern populations grew slowly, because nobody who is sane wants to live in the Hot South.

The Northern population was always going to eventually dominate just from geographical considerations. As they slowly gained control of Congress, they enacted laws favorable to them, and unfavorable to the South.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is a new myth for me. What the hell 5 Billion dollars are you talking about?

It is examples like this that demonstrate you are really unprepared to engage in a debate on this subject. I bet you any other person involved in this discussion can tell you exactly what I mean when I says "they just voted to give away 5 billion dollars."

But you don't know what it means.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: " 'Don't want no black people around here.'
And people think they did it for noble reasons.
That still cracks me up. :)"

That's only because your brain is fried in b*ll sh*t and communist indoctrination.

The fact is that by the 1790 census there were ~60,000 free blacks, with populations living in every state.
Yes, some were restricted, but many were not and could choose where to live and how to earn their livings.
By 1860, freedmen numbers had exploded to over 476,000 meaning an average annual growth rate of nearly 4%.

Freed-black population growth was especially high in:

1. Alabama
2. Missouri
3. Kentucky
4. Ohio
5. Indiana
6. Illinois
7. Michigan
8. California

By contrast, US overall population growth is circa 1% today, at best, and reached around 1.7% during the 20-year "baby boom" from 1946 to ~1966.

These numbers strongly suggest that whatever official restrictions may have been passed on freed blacks, they did not prevent African Americans from moving, settling, prospering and growing in most states during the period 1790 to 1860.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "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."

Of course, that's what you and your mentor, Karl Marx, would say.
But it's still not what they said, ever.

[Ditto]

Ya I know that I am not up to your superior intellect. You have already repeated that over and over and over again. Now humor me, what the hell $5 billion are you talking about.