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

[DiogenesLamp]

LOL. Wow. A Yankee outrage you don’t want to pontificate on.

Trying to track down and articulate all the manners in which Union troops looted, or allowed others to loot, the people in the Southern states would be too lengthy for either one of us to enjoy.

You can find out all about it by reading it online if you are of a mind to do so, but I wouldn't be surprised if the money and land they stole was worth and additional 5 billion dollars if not more.

Wardaddy or Central Va, I think you know more about the after war theft and looting, if you would care to share it with this guy.

[DiogenesLamp]

So many myths.

I am trying to help you see through them. You tend to get caught up in the weeds though, rather than looking at the essential points.

[central_va]

Tax the landowners and force foreclosure then give away land in 40 acre parcels. Well documented.

[DiogenesLamp]

Can you put an estimated dollar value on this theft by the occupation forces?

[central_va]

Economic Impact on the South
Wealth Distribution
The Civil War caused a significant decline in Southern wealth, with estimates indicating a decrease of about 60%.
The median wealth of the richest 1% of Southerners was over three times higher than that of their Northern counterparts before the war.
Post-war, Southern wealth holders experienced a nearly 75% drop in property value, while Northern wealth increased by approximately 50%.

[ProgressingAmerica]

It has everything to do with it. As does John Adams as the author.

[DiogenesLamp]

It has everything to do with it. As does John Adams as the author.

No. That is you reading into it what you want to believe, which is the exact same thing you complain about when judges do it to the 14th amendment.

A constitutional clause to abolish slavery says "Slavery is Abolished." It doesn't say "all men are created free and equal", especially after a variation of this phrase had already been included in the Declaration, and it *ALSO* did not refer to slaves in the context in which it was written. It *ONLY* referred to English subjects.

It is a later day invention that it was meant to refer to slaves.

[ProgressingAmerica]

" The Evil Empire did not force slavery on the United States of America prior to 1776."

The Empire used its veto to prevent our colonial laws. The effect is not static and contained.

"hje Evil Empire did not fdorce anything on the United States of America after July 4, 1776."

The Empire used its veto to prevent our colonial laws. The effect is not static and contained.

"Continue to beclown yourself."

The Empire used its veto to prevent our colonial laws. The effect is not static and contained.

"The thirteen colonies were not the United States of America. They were British colonies. You are Mr. Irrrelevancy."

The Empire used its veto to prevent our colonial laws. The effect is not static and contained.

"Upon becoming thirteen free, sovereign, and independent states, all thirteen original states continued slavery under The Articles of Confederation, and subsequently under the Constitution. They did this as free, sovereign and independent states as an exercise of their own free will."

The Empire used its veto to prevent our colonial laws. The effect is not static and contained.

"The United States of America continued slavery of its own free will as free, sovereign states, independent of the Evil Empire and everyone else."

The Empire used its veto to prevent our colonial laws. The effect is not static and contained.

"Never once do you document any of the original states prohibiting slavery upon their becoming a free, sovereign and independent state, and adopting laws of their own free will."

Long standing, decades or centuries old slave laws are not unraveled in a day. This would have a need to be explained further to a communist used to living under a dictatorship that had no concept of how a free people operates, but a free citizen who was used to living in a republic that has layers of democratic processes should fully understand, this bolded sentence is wholly adequate and 100% complete. Long standing, decades or centuries old slave laws are not unraveled in a day. And this is further complicated by the fact that upon Independence, the colonists had to setup governments independent of the crown. While slavery did upset them it was never their top priority.

"Never once do you mention that in 1860, there were more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states."

Your navel gazing at the civil war is grotesque. I refuse.

" Never once do you mention that 10 of the first 12 elected presidents, beginning with lifetime slave owner George Washington, was a slave owner. "

I expect people who grow up in a British slave colony to own slaves. I expect people who grow up in a British slave colony as proud Englishmen to own slaves.

"The British colonies were not the United States of America."

The Empire used its veto to prevent our colonial laws. The effect is not static and contained.

"After a colony became a free, sovereign and independent state, they acted of their own free will, independent of the Crown or anybody else."

No. This is a deception as constructed. You enjoy fancying the Founding Fathers as if they were tinpot commie dictators who if people disagreed they were thrown into gulags and then the Founders were free to re-make society and unmake society in a day. I'm not letting you get away with such a fraud, Mr. Kabuki. There is no case for you to compare the Founders to Hugo Chavez. Your words are invalid.

Its grotesque to see you compare the Founders to Stalin, or I don't even know who you have in mind with this ridiculousness.

The Empire laws were leftover legacy constructs and any abolitionist movement gains had to be rebuilt once again after they had been pushed out from whatever years prior they occurred. This, again, is frustrated by the very natural drive to setup government structures independent of the crown, this natural drive being a part of the majority of the people state by state. As well all know, the Articles did not succeed and once again everybody had to stop what they were doing and focus on setting up a government.

But since you navel gaze at the Civil War and don't know much about the American Revolution or really it seems about anything else, its not surprising how little you know about it. In some states it was a higher priority than others to abolish the slavery institution problem. It took Pennsylvania a mere 4 years, but New York it took much longer.

Taking longer is not in any way a point for insult. New York abolished the Empire's slavery in 1799, a full 34 years prior to your beloved Empire.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Cool story. Now do what Benjamin Franklin actually wrote.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"I don't even comprehend what you are attempting to say here."

I know. I am watching your game. If you were motivated to comprehend you would've made attempts to comprehend it the first several times I said that the king hurt the south and you wouldn't specifically go out of your way to duck and weave out of it - affording yourself the future luxury of claiming ignorance. You have a beautiful scheme, I'll give you that.

But I'll be nice and point you back. Here: https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4336363/posts?page=215#215

All of you civil war guys are kabuki artists.

The king hurt the south. I'll just keep saying it, I don't care. It's the truth so I have no need to stop saying it. The king hurt the south.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've watched your commentary for some time, and while I understand and even sort of applaud what you are trying to do, It just comes across as naive to me.

Yes, we would all love it if our nation has always stood for equality and freedom and all the other good things, but this is not reality.

We've got some ugly history that you can't just pretend never happened, nor can you blame it on others.

We did these things. They were bad, but we did them.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"It isn't a "foundational belief" if you don't act upon it."

It is a "foundational belief" when they do act upon it, its just that the way they acted on it is not in a way that DiogenesLamp approves of acting on it.

Again with this kabuki of "they owned slaves" as if legislative efforts magically don't exist or even moreso, legislative efforts magically are irrelevant.

Enough. Stop blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery. Enough.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Are you making a civil war context comment or are you attacking the Founding Fathers?

[central_va]

Just stating fact. Another fact is the US flag slave vessels were all from New England.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Woodpusher: "If hypocrisy were a founding principle, the Framers would’ve nailed it."

It makes me happy (but also sad) to see the America haters so plain in their language.

Of course I disagree. But you finally said it. So there it is. It is no wonder when I use the words America First none of you civil war guys flinch.

My illumination of the Abolitionist Founding Fathers has been quite revealing in more ways than I ever expected. There are a lot of NYT1619ers around here.

[Ditto]

Can you put an estimated dollar value on this theft by the occupation forces?

What the hell did they steal? You never say what it was.

And “occupation forces”? It was the United States Army on United States territory. They were not an occupying army.

[DiogenesLamp]

And “occupation forces”? It was the United States Army on United States territory.

Is this like the British Army on British territory? My understanding is they held New York for quite awhile.

[ProgressingAmerica]

This thread is getting out of hand. I'm going to explain to you three (JD, DL, WP) exactly why there's a wall of separation between the Founders abolitionism and the abolitionists that the south had to deal with during the Civil War.

I originally asked:

Are you incapable of separating anything away from the Civil War? Is it really that difficult? It should be utterly simple to say “the Civil War and all of that” (pointing in one direction) that’s over there.

“The Revolution and the Founders” (pointing in the opposite direction) that’s over here.

So why are they separate? It's all about William Lloyd Garrison. The man was a stinking idiot, a true mental midget. Garrison was dumber than a box of rox. But the key is the historical malpractice that so many historians have tried to propagandize in that "American abolitionism began with the Garrisonians".

No, only Civil War abolitionism began with the Garrisonians; all abolitionism has its roots in the struggle against the Empire. There is a ten year or more gap in the timeline where the previous generation of abolitionists thought they had won. They thought they had killed it. They thought that in getting rid of the trade, they got rid of all of it.

Just as exactly as the British abolitionists thought. They too have a gap in the timeline in Britain. Abolitionism rises up, they get the 1808 slave trade killed, and then abolitionism disappears. Where does it go? Why all the silence? In both the U.S. and Britain?

That is why.

You guys didn't see it, so it needed to be said. The timeline gap tells the story. All of the anti Americanism now rearing its ugly head in here does not need to be so. Stop attacking the Founders, it is unwarranted.

[DiogenesLamp]

Can you explain your idea more clearly?

You seem to be saying that "because there was a gap in abolitionists efforts following the ban on importation, the founders were abolitionists", or some such.

Non sequitur, and that's if I actually understand what you are trying to say.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I said: "They got to 3/5ths because it was a known number back in the Articles of Confederation."

"Could you kindly identify the provision of the Articles of Confederation which relates to three fifths of anything?"

Sure. It was actually an amendment, the date is April 18, 1783. So my earlier wording was ever so slightly off. And to be clear because my previous wording was intentionally brief, the 3/5th number was familiar, but not in the context of slaves. It was a taxation issue.

https://books.google.com/books?id=FgtAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA205#v=onepage&q&f=false