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

[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?