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

[DiogenesLamp]

Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage

It would make more sense to say "Immorally held in bondage", because there was nothing "unlawful" about it.

The laws and morality often diverge, but they shouldn't. Laws and morality should always be on the same side.

[DiogenesLamp]

That is complete bull sh*t, as any number of examples can show.

Corwin Amendment.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have a method for finding the Illinois Black Codes, but I don't think I have anything regarding the Jim Crow laws, other than from memory.

The one that comes to mind is the "Grandfather Clause."

[DiogenesLamp]

In 1779 Massachusetts's constitutional convention, under guidance from John Adams, drafted its state constitution, including:

And it said absolutely nothing about slaves being free. That's where the twisting of the words came in.

They took a variation of the words from the Declaration of Independence, which also did not free any slaves, and PROCLAIMED, it was the intent of the new Massachusetts constitution to free all slaves.

Blatant lie. There was absolutely no intent to do that behind those words.

Court didn't care. Ruled for plaintiff, and Massachusetts did what every good little socialist tyrant would do. Stole people's property.

[Ditto]

Court didn't care. Ruled for plaintiff, and Massachusetts did what every good little socialist tyrant would do. Stole people's property.

Do you know you are absolutely nuts, or do you just play nuts on the internet?

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Bottom line: like all US Founders, Franklin considered his first and foremost priority to be establishing a Union of States which would include both slave states and free states."

This is the correct assessment. I can't for the life of me understand why the Civil War Caucus wants to delete the British Empire as if the Americans declared independence of themselves, the Americans. Why would America want to be independent of America? I don't know. But we are where we are. As soon as you mention the word "slavery" POOF It's like magic its like see no evil hear no evil speak no evil around here and nobody never heard of no Empire nowhere. King? There was no king. Never heard of him.

Anyways, despite prioritizing union, that is in no way disqualifiying of Franklin's abolitionism, Jay's abolitionism, Hopkins' abolitionism, nor Dickinson's, Rush's, or Boudinot's abolitionism since in the end, they did, also, make it a point to move into the column of slavery needed to be abolished.

As I was reminded recently by a very wise man, don't forget about John Newton. If we can disqualify Benjamin Franklin or John Jay as abolitionists, then we must also reject any notion that John Newton was an abolitionist as well. This is not a notion that I accept, but I did not create this rule.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"My recollection is that liberal biased judges deliberately twisted some words in the newly created Massachusetts constitution to declare it abolished slavery, but this was just blatant lying."

Oh yeah. In 1783 the Mass court did this; the Quock Walker cases.

And it was such an egregious act, that John Adams went buck wild crazy in 1784 and called out the courts, campaigned all over the state for the ruling's reversal, contacted Founding Fathers in other states to get them to all rally against out of control judges, and by 1788, they had a constitutional amendment written by John Adams himself, putting a stop to judicial activism.

That all happened, right DiogenesLamp? Adams was so furious about it he ripped out what little hair he had left and went on a 2 decade campaign against the courts. Right?

I can't find any living Founding Father who was upset with that ruling. Can you find any?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Corwin Amendment"

Corwin changed nothing, but it held Border States in the Union long enough to defeat Confederates and abolish slavery via the 13th Amendment.

That makes Corwin an important piece of anti-slavery legislation!

[jeffersondem]

“That makes Corwin an important piece of anti-slavery legislation!”

Was it you that argued Justice Taney's brilliant opinion in the Dred Scott case was an important antislavery judicial ruling?

Or am I thinking of something else?

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "In 1779 Massachusetts's constitutional convention, under guidance from John Adams, drafted its state constitution, including:"

DiogenesLamp: "And it said absolutely nothing about slaves being free.
That's where the twisting of the words came in.
They took a variation of the words from the Declaration of Independence, which also did not free any slaves, and PROCLAIMED, it was the intent of the new Massachusetts constitution to free all slaves."

You missed a key distinction, and it begins with understanding that the same "flowery language" appears in several important documents of the time, including:

1. 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights
2. 1776 US Declaration of Independence
3. 1776 Pennsylvania state constitution
4. 1776 North Carolina Declaration of Rights
5. 1777 Vermont Republic constitution
6. 1780 Massachusetts state constitution
7. 1784 New Hampshire state constitution

All of these used the same "flowery language" about "all men are born free and equal" but there was an important distinction:

1. While the Declaration of Independence is a genuine statement of principles, it's not a legally binding commitment to any future laws.

2. The Virginia and North Carolina Declarations of Rights are legally binding commitments, however they both contain important qualifiers, notably in Virginia's:
   “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

   Virginia's key term, "state of society", is an Enlightenment philosophical phrase -- as distinguished from "state of nature" -- implying a civilized society ruled by just laws.
   "State of society" applied specifically to free white adult property-owning men, not necessarily to all other whites (i.e., women, children, criminals, etc.) and certainly not to slaves or Indian "savages".
   That is how Virginia and North Carolina reconciled "all men are created equal" with slavery.

3. So, the distinction is: other states' documents had no such qualifiers.
   State constitutions in Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire did include "all men are born free and equal" declarations, however, none of those included the qualifier about entering a "state of society".
   That's why, in those Northern states, declarations about "all men are born free and equal" were considered adequate by themselves to strike down any laws enforcing slavery.
   And since slavery can only exist where legally protected, once the protections were removed, slavery was effectively abolished.

IOW, no law was necessary in Massachusetts saying "slavery is hereby abolished", once the Massachusetts constitution effectively eliminated laws enforcing slavery, it immediately ceased to exist in Massachusetts.

At least, that was the ruling of Massachusetts Chief Justice William Cushing in 1783, a ruling that was not challenged at the time, or at any time since in Massachusetts.
Btw, Cushing was a friend and colleague of the Massachusetts constitution's author, John Adams, since at least 1776.

[Ditto]

Btw, Cushing was a friend and colleague of the Massachusetts constitution's author, John Adams, since at least 1776.

And Cushing was appointed to the First Supreme Court by none other than George Washington.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you know you are absolutely nuts, or do you just play nuts on the internet?

I don't know how intelligent you are, and I don't know if you grasp the concept of "objectivity" or adherence to the law.

I'm not in favor of slavery, but I am very much in favor of applying the law correctly. Slavery is immoral and never should have been legal, but the fact is, it *WAS* legal, and it is wishful thinking to pretend it wasn't.

Being *LEGAL*, you have to accept what was the law of that time period, and though you may hate slavery, You need to hate even more government officials ignoring the law or pretending it says something else.

Activist Judges has been a bane on this nation's existence. They gave us Abortion on demand, homosexual "marriage", banned prayer in schools, re-wrote the requirements for the Presidency, created "Anchor Babies", decided a man could not feed his own animals with wheat he grew on his own land, and created hundreds of wrong-headed decisions that take away the rights of people.

I oppose abortion, but in any discussion regarding the *LEGALITY* of it, I'm going to argue what the law says, not what I wish it said.

In 1780 Massachusetts, slaves were "property", and the court just took away "property" because they didn't agree with the idea that slavery was legal, and they knew better what the law *SHOULD* be, than everyone else.

They imposed *THEIR* views on their state, and those views were incorrect, and factually wrong.

This is tyranny, and as bad as slavery is, tyranny is worse, because it imposes a slave like condition on free men.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why would America want to be independent of America? I don't know.

It's not your call to make. I have long wanted to be separated from those g*dd@mn perverts in Massachusetts. On every thing I care about, they are on the wrong side of the issue. They love f@ggotry, they love stealing people's money, they love abortion, they love immorality, and I would very much like to not have their poisonous influence in the nation of which I am a part.

Same with California, and other liberal enclaves. I want them *OUT*! of the Union. Or I want to secede from *THEM*!

And I'm pretty sure the Confederates felt the same way about those Massholes in Massachusetts.

But the Declaration of Independence does not articulate a position that people have to agree with the reasons why a people would want independence. It declares they have a *RIGHT* to it, for whatever reasons they feel it necessary.

Massachusetts and Connecticut, threatened to secede in 1814. I wish they had.

If nothing else, the thought of the massed armies of all the states beating the sh*t out of them for their perverted ways, gives me pleasure.

But I would rather they were *OUT!* with no strings attached.

[Ditto]

In 1780 Massachusetts, slaves were "property", and the court just took away "property" because they didn't agree with the idea that slavery was legal, and they knew better what the law *SHOULD* be, than everyone else.

There's where you are wrong. They followed the law which was their new Constitution and determined that it did not allow one man to own another. It’s that simple.

You just either don't like that they followed the law or you are conflating 18th century judges with our 21st century progressive activist judges who don’t give two s**** what the law actually says.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can't find any living Founding Father who was upset with that ruling. Can you find any?

Should I bother? What does that matter to me? I see it clearly and accurately as an abusive case of judicial overreach, and rather than you attempting to explain to me how it was not such a thing, you try to argue "Other famous men of that time period did not object!!!"

Perhaps the sentiment among the populace was indeed against slavery? and if they put it to a vote, it would go the way of abolishing it!

But they didn't. They used judicial activism and judicial tyranny to enact this non-statute assertion as law.

But to re-emphasize my point, *I* don't make up my mind of what to think about something based on what *OTHERS* think about it, including the Founders. I may listen to their reasoning and change my mind, but just the fact that they have taken a position does not make me take the same position.

I need to acquaint you with the Asch conformity experiments.

To summarize them, they found that 80% of the population will claim to believe something if they perceive the majority as believing it too, and they will do this if the majority is clearly wrong.

Most people have such a need to belong to the herd, that they will parrot whatever the herd thinks, whether it be true or not.

Well i've always been contrary, and I have a tendency to go the opposite way of whatever the herd thinks. Sometimes the herd is right. They call this "The Wisdom of Crowds."

But the herd will also believe in "Witches", "Nazism", "Martian Invasion", and every silly thing under the sun.

People should think for themselves, and not be content to arrive at their position simply because someone they respect had that position.

[DiogenesLamp]

Corwin changed nothing...

I disagree. It revealed that Republican politics was just a smoke screen for the masses. What they really believed in was the continuation of that money from the South.

Abolition of Slavery? Not so much.

[DiogenesLamp]

You missed a key distinction, and it begins with understanding that the same "flowery language" appears in several important documents of the time,

That is immaterial. Unless they specifically say they were speaking of slaves held in bondage, the only rational interpretation was that they meant "White" men, and nobody else.

That was what was meant in the Declaration of Independence, and it was only later that they began insisting it ought to apply to slaves.

Unless a statute or a constitution specifically says it was intended to apply to slaves, it is *LYING* to claim it was.

And those liar Judges knew they were lying, and knew fully well those words were written with white people only in mind.

[DiogenesLamp]

They followed the law which was their new Constitution and determined that it did not allow one man to own another.

That is incorrect. *LYING* activist judges *ALLEGED* that the phrase "all men are born free and equal" abolished slavery. It didn't. It was a deliberate misinterpretation of the meaning and intent of the authors that wrote it, and the democratic process that enacted into law.

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 speaks of "Freeholders" repeatedly. It is nonsense to believe it was referring to slaves, rather than "Freeholders" when it declared "all men are born free and equal."

If they meant it to apply to slaves, they would have *SAID SO*, not try to sneak it through.

[Ditto]

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 speaks of "Freeholders" repeatedly.

Looks like you don’t know what the word freeholder means. Maybe you ought to look that up before you make a total ass of yourself.

[DiogenesLamp]

Looks like you don’t know what the word freeholder means. Maybe you ought to look that up before you make a total ass of yourself.

From the 1760 version of Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language

Any black "Freeholders" in 1780 Massachusetts?