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
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.
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.
Tax the landowners and force foreclosure then give away land in 40 acre parcels. Well documented.
Can you put an estimated dollar value on this theft by the occupation forces?
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%.
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.
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.
Cool story. Now do what Benjamin Franklin actually wrote.
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.
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.
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.
Are you making a civil war context comment or are you attacking the Founding Fathers?
Just stating fact. Another fact is the US flag slave vessels were all from New England.
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.
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.
Is this like the British Army on British territory? My understanding is they held New York for quite awhile.
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.
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.
"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
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.