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

[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.