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?

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.

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:

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.

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)

Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and all the other free states managed to profitably grow cash crops without slavery.

I assume they could have grown those same crops in the South, but for some reason they chose to grow Cotton, Tobacco, Hemp, Indigo, Sugar Cane, etc.

Could it be the profits were better for the crops they grew in the South?

As to the territories, I’d say Kansas, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado, Wyoming, and most areas outside the Desert SW are pretty good areas for crops and livestock as well.

Not for cotton. Not for the sort of crops slaves were used for. I think there was a substantial difference in value between the sort of crops that would grow in the areas you mentioned and what sort of crops they used slaves for.

Otherwise, why didn't they just grow corn and cabbages in the South? If the money is the same, why bother with a difficult plant like cotton?

After all, the first slaves sent across the ocean by the Spanish were worked to death in the gold and silver mines.

Yes they were, and for some reason nobody ever slams the Spanish as much as they did the US plantation farmers who didn't try to work any slaves to death. What the Spanish did was several levels of horrible above anything which ever happened in the US, but they seem to be ignored by all the people infatuated with slavery.

Could it be there is no money in criticizing the far worse Spanish?

But you are kinda ignoring my point. If slaves were good for mining, why didn't they use them?

If your confederates could have used slaves for that work they would have gladly worked them to death doing so.

Well firstly, they are not my confederates. I have no connection to confederates, or the South, for that matter. My Grandfather came from Denmark around 1900, and he married a girl from Indiana, if I remember correctly. He never settled in any Southern state. The whole Civil War thing was over before he arrived.

I've got no ancestor dog in this fight. I have no Southern relatives in this fight. I have no bias to look at the whole event. I just see what I see.

Secondly, I don't think anyone was working slaves to death. The cost of a slave in the 1860s was around $1,000.00 in 1860 dollars, which is about $100,000.00 nowadays.

Nobody was going to work them to death any more than they would work a horse to death. It was bad business to ruin them.

Odd that the blacks switched from voting straight Republican to voting straight Democrat. How did that happen?

https://www.dayleon360.com/post/a-shift-in-loyalty-why-african-americans-switched-from-republican-to-democratic-voting-patterns

Conclusion
The shift of African American voters from the Republican to the Democratic Party is a story of evolving political landscapes and changing priorities. Initially loyal to the Republicans due to their stance on civil rights post-Civil War, Black voters began to feel neglected as the party’s focus shifted. The New Deal in the 1930s and the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s were pivotal moments that drew African Americans towards the Democrats, who were seen as more supportive of their rights and interests. Over time, the Democratic Party’s commitment to civil rights and social justice solidified this allegiance. Today, while some shifts and criticisms exist, the historical journey of African American voters highlights the importance of addressing the needs and concerns of all communities in the political arena.

I wonder how much of the story you know?

Significantly more than you know. The Republicans of 1860 were primarialy an anti slavery party. Many of their leaders were former Whigs who favored “ internal improvements” meaning government support for roads, canals and general civil works to enhance commerce. That Diagenesi, no matter how you think you can spin it is not buying votes with free stuff.

Through the post civil war period the government grew but not like we have seen it in recent decades. They added the agriculture department, interior and commerce department, interstate trade commission.

The period of big growth happened under FDR and the Democrat congresses of the 1930s followed by the amazingly corrupt LBJ and the Democrat congresses of the 60s.

If you want to see exactly what the swamp looks like on paper, go here: https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/ReadLibraryItem.ashx?SFN=sRk63zIObEK7wIKeVf2d6rBVFEZvVdq+YUKmd1/139RBhBFhiCJgA9r4KGhhdxIn&SF=VHhnJrOeEAnGaa/rtk/JOg==

110 pages of mostly Democrat free stuff.

I wonder how much of the story you know?

The period of big growth happened under FDR and the Democrat congresses of the 1930s followed by the amazingly corrupt LBJ and the Democrat congresses of the 60s.

110 pages of mostly Democrat free stuff.

I wonder how much of the story you know?

The period of big growth happened under FDR and the Democrat congresses of the 1930s followed by the amazingly corrupt LBJ and the Democrat congresses of the 60s.

110 pages of mostly Democrat free stuff.

“If you think it is pro slavery, why does it have a sunset written into it.”

It did not have a date-certain sunset. Section 9 states importation “shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year” 1808.

There was no guarantee importation of slaves (from outside the United States) would ever end; although it did end at the earliest possible date because southerners joined with northerners to make it happen.

Southerners voted to include the possible 20 year phaseout figuring they would be able to import all the labor they needed in two decades and let natural population growth do the rest.

To the extent southerners were sharp businessmen they may have selfishly consulted in 1807 the law of supply and demand - control the supply and supply the demand.

The Constitutional provision allowing the possible end of slave importation (from outside the United States) in 1808 did not hinder obtaining slaves from other U.S. slave states.

The one provision in Section 9 that could be considered "anti-slavery" was the permissive tax up to $10 per person. However, the tax in proportion to the value of the slave was so slight it is hard to argue it was seriously intended to discourage the practice. In reality it was just a little more money into general revenue that benefited all the states.

I condemn slavery in the strongest possible terms.

Many of their leaders were former Whigs who favored “ internal improvements” meaning government support for roads, canals and general civil works to enhance commerce.

All that spending of taxpayer's money warms the hearts of certain types of politicians. Hamilton started this stuff.

That Diagenesi, no matter how you think you can spin it is not buying votes with free stuff.

Not so fast. People vote their pocketbooks, and if you are on the receiving end of government spending, you will always vote to continue it. It's a positive feedback loop.

Through the post civil war period the government grew but not like we have seen it in recent decades.

But where was the seed planted? I say Hamilton, but Lincoln watered the hell out of the Government Growth tree.

The period of big growth happened under FDR and the Democrat congresses of the 1930s followed by the amazingly corrupt LBJ and the Democrat congresses of the 60s.

What party had the Roosevelts historically belonged to? Also, why was FDR different?

But you glossed over a very significant and important step between the 1950s and the 1970s. A lot happened in there, and most people don't understand what happened.

Can you give me more details on this period?

Where does it say you can just take you ball and go home.

Where does it say that? It says that in the Declaration of Independence.

It says it quite clearly and quite plainly, and it cannot be misinterpreted.

Here is the thesis sentence of the Document.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So you’re saying the US Constitution violates the law and is null and void?

Not the way I understand it, it doesn't. But the way you interpret it, yes it does. It violates "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

Wow. Both of you with the nonresponses.

LOL

Let’s take inventory. I create a long dissertation about abolitionism prior to 1800 and the Founders of the Republic. I ask you about separation between the Civil War and the Revolution.

You give me the Civil War and Trump. haha

The Civil War and Trump is not in relation to abolitionism as it relates to the abolitionist Founding Fathers.

Note: I did see what you did in this comment but I’m choosing to ignore it. For now.

Ok, I'll reply now.

"Because of the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution."

This is actually quite the stunning admission.

I'm beginning to believe you look at those principles like a salad bar. "I'll take these", "a lot of this", "but nope, I do not want any of that one"

Where is the word "all"? Not all of the principles? Why only some of them? Any why not all of the Founders, just the two written documents? What is wrong with the Founders, in your view?

Are the Articles of Confederation just a bunch of nonsense? So you don't need those?

Are the Articles of Association just a bunch of anti-British bigotry? Too connected with the separation?

"I am looking forward to checking out the references and links."

and

"Let’s read what Frederick Douglass had to say:"

I just wanted to say, when you do take the time to go into the references I used (Kind of wish I had used more) you will find that several of them are books which I worked to transform into audio books.

I do this for efficiency purposes, among many other reasons.

And with respect to Douglass, I have read the speech - right into my microphone. Its one of my better recordings, but I think if someone really wanted to they could knock a homerun with it.

https://librivox.org/short-nonfiction-collection-vol-088-by-various/ - Entry number 1 in this list of recordings

Direct MP3: https://www.archive.org/download/snf088_2112_librivox/snf088_amerconstitutionandtheslave_douglass_pa_128kb.mp3

And then I created the Wikipedia page. Very few modifications have been made from my original version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_of_the_United_States:_is_it_pro-slavery_or_anti-slavery%3F

We have dozens of audio books here https://freerepublic.com/tag/freeperbookclub/index?tab=articles

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.