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]

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

Not according to John Adams.

[ProgressingAmerica]

You don't understand anything. You can't even admit that the Founders did in fact act against slavery. You've at a minimum convinced yourself of the fraud that if it isn't personal slave ownership, nothing else matters.

And legislation? What legislation?

The timeline could not be more clear.

"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."

When I am allowed back into this discussion to defend my own words, you let me know. I'm not claiming ownership over your strawmen.

But don't say you keep watching and understanding then demonstrate that you are failing to understand. Pick a lane and stay there. You can't have both.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Ambiguously stating a fact. As such, you did not state any fact at all.

Were you making a civil war comment about civil war facts, or were you attacking the Founding Fathers?

[Ditto]

You know the damn difference. Just because you don’t like the outcome does not give you license to lie about what happened.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I mentioned Garrison’s name four times. How did you miss it?

[DiogenesLamp]

Not according to John Adams.

Quote, referring to the Declaration of Independence *BEFORE* it was signed by all the reps.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Bro. We’re talking about Massachusetts; the court case and the Mass. Constitution. Have you sincerely already forgotten? It hasn’t even been one day.

[DiogenesLamp]

You don't understand anything. You can't even admit that the Founders did in fact act against slavery.

Your term "founders" is overly broad in this context. Some did, most didn't.

You've at a minimum convinced yourself of the fraud that if it isn't personal slave ownership, nothing else matters.

If by that you mean that I don't think slave owning founders are "abolitionists" then you are right.

When I am allowed back into this discussion to defend my own words, you let me know. I'm not claiming ownership over your strawmen.

It's not a "straman". I freely admitted that this is how I see what you are saying. If you want to clarify, i'm fine with it.

[central_va]

I don’t judge 18th century historical figures by the standards of the 21st century.

[DiogenesLamp]

You know the damn difference.

Yes I do. Slave owning founders who fought for independence from England are fine, while slave owning founders who fought for independence from the corrupt money grubbing North, are not.

They did the exact same thing, but you are required to view the second group as bad for wanting independence, while you view the first group as good for wanting independence.

[DiogenesLamp]

I mentioned Garrison’s name four times. How did you miss it?

I don't remember who "Garrison" is, and so I didn't pay it any attention.

Why should I know who "Garrison" is? This reminds me of people talking about "influencers" and "rap stars" as if everybody knows them, when I in fact have no idea who they are, or why I would want to know who they are.

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

I figured it was something like that.

[Ditto]

Yes I do. Slave owning founders who fought for independence from England are fine, while slave owning founders who fought for independence from the corrupt money grubbing North, are not.

Please tell the class how the corrupt money grubbing North was stealing from those poor Southerners. Give some details, not just you imaginary outrages.

[Ditto]

3/5th number was familiar, but not in the context of slaves. It was a taxation issue.

Ya, it was a taxation issue. It said that slaves would be taxed as 3/5 of a person as opposed to a full person. That was what the slave owners demanded.

[jeffersondem]

“It said that slaves would be taxed as 3/5 of a person as opposed to a full person. That was what the slave owners demanded.”

That must have been welcomed by slave owners in the South.

Was it welcomed by slave owners in the North?

By asking this question I am giving you yet another opportunity to denounce, defend, or deny northern slavery.

[jeffersondem]

“Centuries long irrigation farming in the Gila and Salt River basis of Arizona, including Indian slaves and cotton, proved it could be done and was viable for Southern plantation style slavery . . .”

Your answer here is a repeat of what you said in your post 363: “Yes, it could be done, and it had been done for centuries before 1860, using Indian slaves and irrigation in the Gila and Salt Rivers, near what is today Phoenix, Arizona.”

Repeating something is not the same as providing support for something.

Can you tell us just a little more about the formal documentation you have proving Indian slaves centuries ago in Arizona - 13 inches of rain annually - created wealth from farming comparable to 18th century plantation-level wealth in states with four times the precipitation?

That doesn't seem reasonable.

[woodpusher]

Sure. It was actually an amendment, the date is April 18, 1783.

That was a proposed amendment. All proposed amendments required unanimous consent and all failed. New York refused to ratify the three-fifths tax proposal. There are no amendments to the AoC.

[woodpusher]

The Preamble is of no legal authority whatever. It was written by the Committee on style.

Learn some history beyond Wikipedia:

Massachusetts Negro Criminal Law 1795

How by deed, not creative interpretation, the wonderful and beneficient abolitionists of Massachusetts showed their love for the black man, who they held equal to themselves in every way.

Notes on Slavery in the State of Massachusetts, by George H. Moore, of The New-York Historical Society And Corresponding Member of The Massachusetts Historical Society, New York, D. Appleton & Co. 443 & 445 Broadway, MDCCCLXVI

228

The Massachusetts Law, entitled "An act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, Vagabonds, common Beggars, and other idle, disorderly, and lewd Persons," was presented in the Senate on the 6th of March, 1788. It went through the usual stages of legislation, with various amendments, and was finally passed on the 26th of March, 1788. It contains the following very remarkable provision:

"V. Be it further enabled by the authority aforesaid [the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled], that no person being an African or Negro, other than a subjct of the Emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of some one of the United States (to be evidenced by a certificate from the Secretary of the State of which he shall be a citizen), shall tarry within this Commonwealth, for a longer time than two months, and upon complaint made to any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, that any such person has been within the same more than two months, the said Justice shall order the said person to depart out of this Commonwealth, and in case that 'the said African or Negro shall not depart as aforesaid, any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, upon complaint and proof made that such person has continued within this Commonwealth ten days after notice given him or her to depart as afore-

- - - - -

229

said, shall commit the said person to any house of correction within the county, there to be kept to hard labour, agreeable to the rules and orders of the said house, until the Sessions of the Peace, next to be holden within and for the said county; and the matter of the said house of correction is hereby required and directed to transmit an attested copy of the warrant of commitment to the said Court on the first day of their said session, and if upon trial at the said Court, it shall be made to appear that the said person has thus continued within the Commonwealth, contrary to the tenor of this act, he or she shall be whipped not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart out of this Commonwealth within ten days; and if he or she shall not so depart, the fame process fliall be had and punishment inflicted, and so toties quoties.

The edition from which we copy is the earliest classified edition of "The Perpetual Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachufetts," and is not to be found in Part I., among those relating to "The Publick and Private Rights of Persons," nor among the "Mifcellaneous" Statutes, but in "Part IV.," concerning "Criminal Matters." We doubt if anything in human legislation can be found which comes nearer branding color as a crime!

By this law, it will be observed that all negroes,

- - - - -

230

resident in Massachufetts, not citizens of some one of the States, were required to depart in two months, on penalty of being apprehended, whipped, and ordered to depart. The process and punishment could be renewed every two months. The only contemporary explanation of the design of the law which we have met with is to the effect that it was intended to prevent fugitive slaves from resorting to that State, in hopes to obtain freedom, and then being thrown as a deadweight upon that community. Belknap 1795. A recent writer states that this " enactment was said to have been the work of her [Massachusetts] leading lawyers, who were sufficiently sagacious to foresee the dangerous confequences of that conftitutional provision which, on restoring fugitives from labor, not only threatened to disturb the public peace, but the stability of the system." Amory's Life of Sullivan, I., 226, note. We give this illustration of legal sagacity in Massachusetts for what it is worth, although we are satisfied that the statute itself clearly illustrates the intention of those who framed it. Expositio contemporanea eft optima.

[woodpusher]

You are free to present whatever you want regarding whatever Franklin said about R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somerset, (1772) Lofft 1, 98 E.R. 499, 20 S.T. 1. Instead, by choice, you said nothing.

I am sure by your logic, considering modern interpretations of the words of the Constitution, you may tell us that Franklin firmly supported gay marriage.

[woodpusher]

Massachusetts Negro Criminal Law 1795

How by deed, not creative interpretation, the wonderful and beneficient abolitionists of Massachusetts showed their love for the black man, who they held equal to themselves in every way.

Notes on Slavery in the State of Massachusetts, by George H. Moore, of The New-York Historical Society And Corresponding Member of The Massachusetts Historical Society, New York, D. Appleton & Co. 443 & 445 Broadway, MDCCCLXVI

228

The Massachusetts Law, entitled "An act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, Vagabonds, common Beggars, and other idle, disorderly, and lewd Persons," was presented in the Senate on the 6th of March, 1788. It went through the usual stages of legislation, with various amendments, and was finally passed on the 26th of March, 1788. It contains the following very remarkable provision:

"V. Be it further enabled by the authority aforesaid [the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled], that no person being an African or Negro, other than a subjct of the Emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of some one of the United States (to be evidenced by a certificate from the Secretary of the State of which he shall be a citizen), shall tarry within this Commonwealth, for a longer time than two months, and upon complaint made to any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, that any such person has been within the same more than two months, the said Justice shall order the said person to depart out of this Commonwealth, and in case that 'the said African or Negro shall not depart as aforesaid, any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, upon complaint and proof made that such person has continued within this Commonwealth ten days after notice given him or her to depart as afore-

- - - - -

229

said, shall commit the said person to any house of correction within the county, there to be kept to hard labour, agreeable to the rules and orders of the said house, until the Sessions of the Peace, next to be holden within and for the said county; and the matter of the said house of correction is hereby required and directed to transmit an attested copy of the warrant of commitment to the said Court on the first day of their said session, and if upon trial at the said Court, it shall be made to appear that the said person has thus continued within the Commonwealth, contrary to the tenor of this act, he or she shall be whipped not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart out of this Commonwealth within ten days; and if he or she shall not so depart, the fame process fliall be had and punishment inflicted, and so toties quoties.

The edition from which we copy is the earliest classified edition of "The Perpetual Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachufetts," and is not to be found in Part I., among those relating to "The Publick and Private Rights of Persons," nor among the "Mifcellaneous" Statutes, but in "Part IV.," concerning "Criminal Matters." We doubt if anything in human legislation can be found which comes nearer branding color as a crime!

By this law, it will be observed that all negroes,

- - - - -

230

resident in Massachufetts, not citizens of some one of the States, were required to depart in two months, on penalty of being apprehended, whipped, and ordered to depart. The process and punishment could be renewed every two months. The only contemporary explanation of the design of the law which we have met with is to the effect that it was intended to prevent fugitive slaves from resorting to that State, in hopes to obtain freedom, and then being thrown as a deadweight upon that community. Belknap 1795. A recent writer states that this " enactment was said to have been the work of her [Massachusetts] leading lawyers, who were sufficiently sagacious to foresee the dangerous confequences of that conftitutional provision which, on restoring fugitives from labor, not only threatened to disturb the public peace, but the stability of the system." Amory's Life of Sullivan, I., 226, note. We give this illustration of legal sagacity in Massachusetts for what it is worth, although we are satisfied that the statute itself clearly illustrates the intention of those who framed it. Expositio contemporanea eft optima.