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)

"And you are trying to pretend each of these has equal weight and numbers"

They do not have to have equal weight and numbers in terms of souls present on the mainland.

They just have to have equal recognition as a matter of legality.

Article 4 section 2 does not exclude indentured servants. Nor remptioners. That makes all three classes equal in the eyes of the law.

You are so full of crap. Show the data, not you fuzzy math. Show the data..

My math just shows how unfair the situation is *IF* I am correct about the Southerners producing 72% of the taxes.

If that isn't true, then my math doesn't matter. Only what is true matters.

So let me ask you, where did the taxes come from in 1860?

You continue to refuse to show your data. I can only assume that you have none and you are just repeating an old Lost Cause myth on the cause of the Civil War.

No one was arguing about tariffs in 1860. They argued about Kansas/Nebraska, Dred Scott, and Popular sovereignty. No one even claimed that the South paid 72% of taxes. No one. That’s just another one of your myths.

They do not have to have equal weight and numbers in terms of souls present on the mainland.

Do you not grasp the Horse/Zebra analogy?

It comes from the Tv show "House M.D."

He is diagnosing a patient. He notes that the symptoms of disease are like seeing hoofprints. It is natural to assume the hoofprints mean "Horse" because Horses are common.

But he points out it could be a Zebra, because Zebras make similar hoofprints, but the safe way to bet is "Horse."

So when a language describes a situation that fits 4 million slaves, but it also fits a few dozen "indentured servants", it is safe to assume the Framers were talking about the 4 million slaves, and not the few dozen "indentured servants."

Article IV, Section 2 means "slave."

I haven’t seen the show House. Huge Laurie looks like a Trump hater to me, like everybody else in Hollywood. I don’t need ‘em.

As for Zebra and Horse, yes I understand the two have differences. You’re forgetting that both are equine.

It’s not like we’re talking about a Giraffe here, which is not an equine and is more like a Tapir and especially like an Okapi.

When talking about equine, you’re trying to keep the Zebra and omit the Horse. You can’t pretend the horse doesn’t exist and isn’t included. Or, fine, keep the horse and omit the zebra. Either way it doesn’t matter.

Article IV, Section 2 means all equine, not just Zebras. To stop speaking in an unnecessary code lingo, Article IV, Section 2 means all non-free labor, not just slaves.

That includes slaves, yes. That also includes other equine such as redemptioners. And yes, it also includes other equine such as indentured. Regardless of the larger or smaller populations. You may not like it but the fact remains, an indentured servant is an equine too. Hey its your analogy.

Your need is to omit this, but that omission is historical malpractice.

We might as well just bring in the whole Civil War caucus here.

Why is it that I can find Colonial Patriots who were abolitionists, but you guys can't find one single loyalist who was an abolitionist?

Patriots:

1: Benjamin Franklin
2: John Jay
3: Stephen Hopkins
4: Benjamin Rush
5: John Dickinson
6: Elias Boudinot

Loyalists: (The King's Men)

1: ?
2: ?
3: ?
4: ?
5: ?
6: ?

Is that because it was the Americans who invented abolitionism? I think so!

Is that because it was the Americans who invented abolitionism? I think so!

Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?

There was a wonderful movie about both men.

"The Ones who kept all their slaves?"

"I don't think you are coping well with history that won't bend to what you wish it to be.

I'm coping just fine with it because I haven't stopped being consistent. It is very fun and enjoyable being consistent, you should give it a try.

Post 7: "Benjamin Franklin was a slaveowner most of his life."

Post 149: "Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?"

Oh John Newton deserves an exemption for being a slave trader then he turned abolitionist? I agree, Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, John Jay deserve the equal exemption.

But I wouldn't expect that from you guys and your Britain First inconsistent mentality.

In your original position, Jay and Franklin are disqualified as slave owners from being abolitionists - it's not possible, well, you've disqualified John Newton too. It's not possible for John Newton to be an abolitionist.

I didn't make this rule. You guys did. Make it make sense.

"Have you never heard of William Wilberforce or John Newton?"

American abolitionists preceded them both, particularly on activism. Benjamin Rush and Anthony Benezet were out there trying to get things done in the early 1770s, a decade before Newton and several decades before Wilberforce. Franklin authored his abolitionist attack on the Somersett Case in 1772 months after its ruling. Newton wouldn't join the abolitionist society in Britain until 1787, if I remember correctly. Also I think a founding member.

It is only a simple timeline question. It means nothing more at all than what does the timeline say.

So I'll state it again. American abolitionists were first; that is, the Americans were the pioneers.

Don't like it? Consult your timeline.

It makes sense you can't name any loyalist abolitionists. (I am sure there were some, they just would've been as rare as a unicorn) The crown kept its loyalist slave owners extremely well paid.

Jamaica, who perhaps had the absolute most slaves out of any of the Empire's slave colonies, had exactly zero abolitionists in it that I am aware of. Why would Jamaica have any abolitionists? Britain kept them all wealthy. Extremely wealthy. "Get rich off of the backs of your slaves in your plantations and shut your trap" - the crown's message.

I’m just going to say this again, just as a standalone comment.

When I say abolitionism I obviously mean transatlantic abolitionism in the context of Africans, black slaves on plantations, slavery, and the era of the American Revolution.

This should not need to be said. Yet, it needs to be said.

You know.... I find that hard to argue with. Ok.

It was the Americans who were first to visibly implement transatlantic abolitionism though.

In the context of all that is being said this should be acceptable as a fair same-same argument going back to post 1.

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.