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?

To: jeffersondem; BroJoeK

[quoting BroJoeK] While forms of Indian slavery did exist in the Southwest — especially under Spanish and Mexican regimes — it was not equivalent to the chattel slavery of African Americans in the Deep South.

Indigenous labor was sometimes coerced or exploited, but the scale, legal structure, and racial ideology of Southern plantation slavery were not replicated in Arizona.

Cotton farming in Arizona did not flourish until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, long after the Civil War and abolition of slavery.

The San Carlos Irrigation Project, begun in the early 1900s, was a federal effort to restore water to Native communities and support agriculture — not to promote plantation-style slavery.

Arizona’s arid climate and water scarcity made large-scale cotton plantations technically possible but economically and socially distinct from Southern slavery-based models.

The claim conflates indigenous irrigation traditions with Southern slavery, and projects a plantation model onto a region and history where it doesn’t fit. While irrigation farming proved viable in Arizona, it did not validate or support the Southern plantation system — either economically, socially, or ethically.

441 posted on 09/11/2025 10:57:26 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: jeffersondem

Yes it applied to slave owners in the North. It’s you not I that has this North v South thing. That crap is just childish. As to where did the 3/5 thing come from this is it. When writing the Constitution slave owners wanted slaves to count as whole persons for purposes of representation. Anti slave forces didn’t think slaves should count at all. The 3/5th solution already existed and was chosen. It wasn’t a North v South thing in 1788 except in your fevered imagination.

442 posted on 09/12/2025 7:10:38 AM PDT by Ditto

To: woodpusher; jeffersondem; DiogenesLamp; BroJoeK; x; Ditto

"Instead, by choice, you said nothing."

You quoted my exact words in your post 356. Is this woodpusher just a bot account?

"That was a proposed amendment"

An echo has developed in here. Its good we are agreeing on the dates though.

443 posted on 09/12/2025 7:59:11 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (We cannot vote our way out of these problems. The only way out is to activist our way out.)

Please tell the class how the corrupt money grubbing North was stealing from those poor Southerners.

You are new to these discussions. I have presented this information so many times i'm just tired of doing it.

Also, I think you are so biased it won't matter what I show you, you will deny it, say it means something else, or deflect and ignore it.

To summarize, they were stealing money from the Southerners the same way they steal it from all of us today. With clever tricks, clever laws, and high taxation.

The South produced 72% of the total revenue for the Federal government, and virtually all of it was spent in the North to make the North wealthy.

444 posted on 09/12/2025 8:15:35 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")

To: DiogenesLamp

You are new to these discussions. I have presented this information so many times i'm just tired of doing it.

You are the newbie here, not me. I have been here since this was called The White Water forum. I think I was about the 4th person to register, so you can take your imaginary seniority and shove it

Also, I think you are so biased it won't matter what I show you, you will deny it, say it means something else, or deflect and ignore it.

If you made a cogent argument, I’d be glad to listen. You never make those arguments. Instead you repeat long ago disproven myths or obsucate and refuse to answer.

To summarize, they were stealing money from the Southerners the same way they steal it from all of us today. With clever tricks, clever laws, and high taxation. The South produced 72% of the total revenue for the Federal government, and virtually all of it was spent in the North to make the North wealthy.

Again, you repeat myths. Here’s the facts.

Gallman (1960, pp. 46–47) showed the 1859 current-price valuation of the production of Cotton was $199.7 million; Tobacco, $31.7 m; Rice, $3.4 m; Sugar Cane, $8.5 m; and Hemp, $6.4 m. (We will add hemp to the list to be more inclusive and because its production was comparable to rice in importance by the eve of the Civil War.) The total for these five crops was $249.7 million.
Robert E. Gallman (1966) estimated 1859 GNP at current prices at $4170 million. Thus, the five staple crops most associated with slavery accounted for about 6 percent of GNP in 1859/60.9
This share was not over one-half of GNP. Indeed, there was no way that the share could be that high. All of agricultural output, summing both the north and south, accounted for only about one-third of total GNP in 1860, according to Gallman's numbers
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014498323000463#sec0012

And just to add a little graphic spice for you….

Now I’ll remind you that the entire federal budget in 1859 was $78 million, most of that paid by tariffs. I showed you this before and you just ignored it preferring you mythical history instead. I’m sure you will do that again. So Professor, take your Lost Cause nonsense and enjoy yourself.

445 posted on 09/12/2025 9:27:54 AM PDT by Ditto

To: DiogenesLamp

Hmmm. Are you sure you are even replying to the correct person?

446 posted on 09/12/2025 9:42:26 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (We cannot vote our way out of these problems. The only way out is to activist our way out.)

You are the newbie here, not me. I have been here since this was called The White Water forum. I think I was about the 4th person to register, so you can take your imaginary seniority and shove it

You don't read very well either. I said you were new to these discussions I didn't say you were new to Free Republic. You may not understand the concept of a FREE Republic, but you have been here awhile.

If you made a cogent argument, I’d be glad to listen. You never make those arguments.

Which tells me you don't listen.

And thank you for posting that map. Your allies on this topic are groaning that you put it up, because I use that map all the time to prove my point. They are absolutely sick of seeing that map.

Now why do you suppose that I would use that map when it purports to show what *YOU* want it to show?

You still haven't figured that out yet. :)

Now I’ll remind you that the entire federal budget in 1859 was $78 million, most of that paid by tariffs.

And I'll tell you what Lincoln said that you probably didn't know.

"'He [Lincoln] said something about the withdrawal of the troops from Sumter on the ground of military necessity. Said I, "that will never do under heaven. You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace."-"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?"-Said he, "Fifty or sixty millions." "Why sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest." He said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, "You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right. Now, the only way that you can manage them is to withdraw from them the means of making a blow until time for reflection, time for influence which can be brought to bear, can be gained, and settle the matter. If you do not take this course, if there is a gun fired at Sumter-I do not care on which side it is fired-the thing is gone." "Oh," said he, "sir, that is impossible."'
- Colonel John Baldwin, Feb 10, 1866

60 Million out of 78 Million is 76%. 50 Million out of 78 Million is 64%.

Even with the lower number, Lincoln's government was funded at 64% coming from the South.

But you keep on posting that map. Maybe you will one day understand what it signifies.

And you won't like it.

447 posted on 09/12/2025 9:56:56 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")

To: ProgressingAmerica

Hmmm. Are you sure you are even replying to the correct person?

Message 425, to which I was replying, was from you.

448 posted on 09/12/2025 9:58:22 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")

449 posted on 09/12/2025 10:08:41 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")

To: DiogenesLamp

I don’t recall, that seems to just be a reference to an earlier comment. Was that from me?

450 posted on 09/12/2025 10:09:39 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (We cannot vote our way out of these problems. The only way out is to activist our way out.)

To: DiogenesLamp

That’s $50 or 60 million for the entire nation, not the south. Your idea that the south paid for the entire government is total bs. The Northern States were far more productive and economically viable. The South was simply an agricultural back water. And note that none of the Confederates back in the day said anything close to that. None said that the North was stealing all their money. This is pure Thomas DiLorenzo nonsense.

451 posted on 09/12/2025 10:52:24 AM PDT by Ditto

That’s $50 or 60 million for the entire nation, not the south.

I'm sorry to tell you fella, but that was the money from the South only. The South produced the bulk of all Federal revenue. I have long pointed out the South produced 72% of the total federal revenue, but apparently it was even more than that.

Even BroJoek will tell you the South produced at least 50% of the revenue. I think one time I got him to admit up to 60%, but I never could get him all the way to 72%.

But does it change anything in your mind if the South was getting screwed by the tax policies of the US Government? Does it elicit any slight sympathy for them?

The Northern States were far more productive and economically viable.

The hard numbers show the North produced only 28% of the total export value for the nation. The South produced 72% of the export value for the nation.

Imports are paid for by exports, so the vast majority of the revenue was produced by the South, not the North.

Sure, the North had thriving local economies, but the taxes were being paid for by trade with Europe, and the North wasn't doing nearly as much in the South in that regard.

The South was simply an agricultural back water.

So we have been constantly told all our lives, but the truth is that they were paying the bills in Washington DC, while the North was reaping the benefits from all that cash coming out of the South's production.

And note that none of the Confederates back in the day said anything close to that. None said that the North was stealing all their money.

I thought I already linked you to an example where "Confederates back in the day" said something exactly like that. It may have been someone else I have been arguing with on a different website, but in any case, here ya go!

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-address-of-the-people-of-south-carolina-assembled-in-convention-to-the-people-of-the-slaveholding-states-of-the-united-states/

I will be surprised if you actually bother to read it.

452 posted on 09/12/2025 11:33:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")

To: DiogenesLamp

“A very large part of our duties are collected on the class of goods for which there is almost no demand at all from the South, either directly or indirectly – woolen and fur goods, for instance; of the goods require for the South not a few have been practically free. The whole slave population of the South consumes almost nothing ... The majority of the population habitually makes use of no foreign production except chicory, which, ground with peas, they call coffee. I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations. And as I can judge from observation of the comparative use of foreign goods at the South and at the North, not a tenth part of our duties have been defrayed by the South in the last twenty years”
The Cotton Kingdom, Vol. 1, by Frederick Law Olmsted, New York – London, 1861

453 posted on 09/12/2025 12:15:47 PM PDT by Ditto

You ignore what I wrote and what I showed you, and instead launched right into your rebuttal which is a quote from someone unnamed, and who may not even know what the hell he is talking about, from some book someone wrote.

And you wonder why I don't want to go to the trouble to dig anything up for you?

It's wasting my time.

454 posted on 09/12/2025 12:30:43 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")

To: DiogenesLamp

instead launched right into your rebuttal which is a quote from someone unnamed

It was from Fredrick Law Olmsted, but I can easily believe you never heard of him.

And you wonder why I don't want to go to the trouble to dig anything up for you?

Because everything you dig up is Neo confederate bs. Even the old Confederates would have told you that you’re full of crap. They sited one reason to secede…. slavery. That was their one and only reason.

455 posted on 09/12/2025 5:17:40 PM PDT by Ditto

To: ProgressingAmerica

To: woodpusher; jeffersondem; DiogenesLamp; BroJoeK; x; Ditto
"Instead, by choice, you said nothing."
You quoted my exact words in your post 356. Is this woodpusher just a bot account?
"That was a proposed amendment"
An echo has developed in here. Its good we are agreeing on the dates though.
443 posted on 9/12/2025, 9:59:11 AM by ProgressingAmerica (We cannot vote our way out of these problems. The only way out is to activist our way out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Regarding your exact words, with full context:

To: DiogenesLamp; BroJoeK; Ditto; x; woodpusher; jeffersondem
I just realized an error. I did not link to Benjamin Franklin’s excoriation of the Somersett Case as I thought I had done.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-19-02-0128
Franklin was correct to point out the Empire’s absurd hypocrisy and hoarding.
348 posted on 9/9/2025, 12:03:32 PM by ProgressingAmerica (We cannot vote our way out of these problems. The only way out is to activist our way out.)

Franklin's diatribe was from 1772 and there was no United States of America at that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Evil Empire forcing slavery or anything else on the United States of America.

A footnote at the link you provided but from which you quoted nothing:

Lord Mansfield’s decision to free him was widely interpreted, at the time and later, to mean that any slave arriving in England became free; and this was the purport of the judgment: above, XVII, 38 n. Technically, however, the Lord Chief Justice decided the case on narrower ground, that a slave might not be taken out of the country against his will; if he was resident in England, or willing to leave in bondage, he was not affected.

Mansfield, in Somerset did not free anybody, not even Somerset, as I documented in my #356.

Franklin griped about the slave trade and argued for emancipation. What should be done with a million or so emancipated black people, he did not say. That was then the Crown's problem. When the problem of the Evil Empire had become a problem for the Founders and Framers to solve, what did Ben Franklin do then? Did Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, vote in favor of the proposed Constitution, including the Fugitive Slave Clause?

Of course Massachusetts had a solution for the burden imposed by free blacks, as I documented in my #440 to you to which your response has been ***crickets***. Pass a state law (March 26, 1788) that ordered "Africans or Negro" persons to get out of the state, or be whipped and imprisoned, and upon release from prison, renew the same offer.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4336363/posts?page=440#440
To: ProgressingAmerica
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 shall 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 "Miscellaneous" 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 Massachusetts, 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.

440 posted on 9/12/2025, 12:27:59 AM by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

456 posted on 09/14/2025 10:32:10 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: BroJoeK; x; Ditto; DiogenesLamp; woodpusher; central_va

In my post 226 commending Brother x for a point well made I stated: “It helps to explain why 13 of the original 13 slave states voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.”

Comes now Brother Joe refuting with his bulked-up argument:

1777 — Vermont
1780 — Pennsylvania
1783 — Massachusetts
1783 — New Hampshire
1784 — Connecticut
1784 — Rhode Island
1787 — Ohio
1787 — Michigan
1787 — Indiana
1787 — Illinois
1787 — Wisconsin

Brother Joe seems to be out of the loop: Vermont, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin were not the 13 original states; over half his argument goes out the window.

It is a small point but why not get it right?

457 posted on 09/16/2025 6:39:46 AM PDT by jeffersondem

To: woodpusher; DiogenesLamp; jeffersondem

"Franklin's diatribe"

Diatribe. Ok, look. Why is there such a mental disconnect with you three? All three of you are having a logic flaw in your reasoning.

On the one hand we are told how there is all of this massive love for the Founders, "Oh yeah the Confederacy was the real heirs to the legacy of the Founders and keeping the dream alive, it was the Union who spat on it"(word it however you like), but every time I turn around you are either calling the Founders hypocrites, or saying that actual things the Empire did are just accusations and unfairly painting the king for actions taken. And now this.

Diatribe is not a word used when you have deep respect for the speaker/writer. Not that I have ever seen.

All I ever see from you three in regards to the Founding Fathers is venom and spew. Make it make sense. Right now all there is is a malfunction and contradictions everywhere.

458 posted on 09/16/2025 12:07:32 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (We cannot vote our way out of these problems. The only way out is to activist our way out.)

To: jeffersondem

Vermont waged a successful revolution beginning in 1777 and established itself as a free, sovereign and independent state. Vermont was neither a state nor a territory of the United States from 1777 to 1791 when it joined the American constitutional union.

Massachusetts voided slavery by some political jugglery and then ordered blacks to leave the state or be whipped and imprisoned and have a like order issued upon release from prison.

Ilinois declared the end of slavery in the state and instituted 99-year indentured servitude.

Rhode Island was the headquarters of the slave ships.

Ohio statehood was declared by an act of August 7, 1953. They discovered a century and a half late that they had never completed the process for statehood.

63 Stat. 407, P.L. 204, August 7, 1953, JOINT RESOLUTION For Admitting the State of Ohio into the Union, excerpt:

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Ohio, shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever.
Sec. 2. This joint resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803.
Approved August 7, 1953.

459 posted on 09/16/2025 12:25:57 PM PDT by woodpusher

To: ProgressingAmerica

Diatribe. Ok, look. Why is there such a mental disconnect with you three? All three of you are having a logic flaw in your reasoning.

Once again, here is the logical flaw in your reasoning.

Massachusetts Negro Criminal Law 1795

How by deed, not creative interpretation, the wonderful and beneficent 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 subject 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 same process shall 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 Massachusetts," and is not to be found in Part I., among those relating to "The Publick and Private Rights of Persons," nor among the "Miscellaneous" 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 Massachusetts, 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 consequences of that constitutional 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.

460 posted on 09/16/2025 12:33:06 PM PDT by woodpusher

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794