Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Education; History; Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: abolitionism; founders; foundingfathers; slavery; smithsonian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-220 last
To: BroJoeK
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!

You are unbelievable. An absolute stab in the back to the slaves by the Republicans controlling Congress in 1861, and you are trying to convince people "it was part of a grand scheme to free them! "

And the 13th amendment is a fake amendment passed by tyranny. If the actual will of the people was enacted, there were never enough ratifying states to pass that "amendment."

We all like to pretend it is legitimate, but it was enacted through force, not democracy. It is a humiliation of our Constitutional law.

201 posted on 08/31/2025 10:45:07 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Crazy Roger Taney was out of his fricken' mind, a raging lunatic in judicial robes.

And on what basis do you say that? What particular thing did he do that makes you think he was a lunatic?

202 posted on 08/31/2025 10:46:34 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Yes, by 1780 there were freedmen who were also freeholders in Massachusetts.

Well I couldn't find any. All I found was that most of the freed men were in Boston.

Some could & did vote. They could also use the courts to, for example, sue for freedom, and at least in theory, could sit on juries.

Do you have any supporting evidence for this contention?

203 posted on 08/31/2025 10:51:08 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I'm sure somewhere in you Lost Cause myths you imagined that but I sure have never seen it and I have studied the Civil War era far more than you have.

That is hard to believe, because you often seem so unprepared for information I have revealed to you.

I am reminded of what President Reagan said about Liberals.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant...

"... It's that they know so much which isn't so."

204 posted on 08/31/2025 10:57:08 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

I’m over any race, to be honest.

What I’m not over, is the Founding Fathers. If they did some act that can be considered “good”, then I’m going to talk about it.


205 posted on 09/01/2025 2:50:02 AM PDT 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 198 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

None of this makes any sense at all. I don’t know who is trying to review. Please explain.


206 posted on 09/01/2025 2:51:46 AM PDT 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 199 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"The Ones who kept all their slaves?"

Former. If the rule is good enough for a former slave trader, it's good for Americans too.

They are abolitionists. It is clear that you are not coping well with history that won't bend to what you wish it to be.

207 posted on 09/01/2025 3:34:49 AM PDT 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 6 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
My point in mentioning free holder was to illustrate *WHO* the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 was referring to when they said "All men are born free and equal." They were referring to their citizenry, and *NOT* slaves.

Again, you are just flat out wrong. In those days, only freeholders (I.e. citizens who owned real estate and therefore paid taxes) could vote. Not all whites were freeholders, i.e. taxpayers. Some blacks were freeholders, and could vote. It had nothing to do with their rights as individuals.

You just make stuff up as you go.

208 posted on 09/01/2025 6:56:43 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
They are abolitionists.

Slave owning abolitionists. Their position seems to be "Yeah, we know it is wrong, but we just can't help ourselves. "

It is clear that you are not coping well with history that won't bend to what you wish it to be.

I am reminded of BroJoeK's interpretation of the Corwin Amendment as a good thing for all the black people it tried to keep in slavery.

He just wants to believe what he wants to believe, as do you.

209 posted on 09/01/2025 7:24:06 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
As I have noticed you continuously ignoring *MY* points, and coming back with all sorts of stuff I consider a deflection, and/or a distraction, I am just not feeling very compelled to discuss anything with you further.

You want to preach, but you don't want to listen, or give any of my points a fair consideration.

You can believe what you like, but neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 were written with black people or slaves in mind when they were written. The *INTENT* of their respective governments was to articulate the rights of white people, with no thought given to slaves.

The fact that the reality of their society as slave holding states absolutely contradict what they later claimed those words mean, should be all the proof any rational man needs to understand what they actually meant in 1776 and 1780 respectively.

And Article IV, section 2 is referring to "slaves", not indentured servants. You are trying to put a fig leaf on it, but it isn't fooling anyone.

210 posted on 09/01/2025 7:31:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem

You really had to search for that obscure opinion. Do you know that most people who followed the court then considered Justice Baldwin to be insane? Literally insane.


211 posted on 09/01/2025 8:21:33 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Where you been you old fart.


212 posted on 09/01/2025 8:22:25 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Slave owning abolitionists. Their position seems to be “Yeah, we know it is wrong, but we just can’t help ourselves.””

This applies equally to slave trading abolitionists like John Newton, whose position seems to be “Yeah, we know it is wrong, but we just can’t help ourselves.” you’re trying too hard to go out of your way to be inconsistent this can’t be accidental.


213 posted on 09/01/2025 8:43:40 AM PDT 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 209 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
you’re trying too hard to go out of your way to be inconsistent this can’t be accidental.

I am absolutely oblivious to any inconsistency that you seem to be noticing. I'm not trying to be anything. I'm noticing stuff that doesn't fit with what you wish to believe about the founding era.

I'm contrary like that.

You are like the painter who is painting the King, and removing all the warts and blemishes because he wants to present the king in the best possible light.

I'm just coming along and repainting the warts and blemishes so that it is more accurate.

214 posted on 09/01/2025 11:15:06 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"You are like the painter who is painting the King"

Wow, that language is marvelous. Look at that! Aww the poor king. Look at that, would you just look at that language that was used. Unlike the rest of what we've had recently, this is getting at honesty though. Wow look, LOOK at that. :-)

Couldn't have anything make your precious slaving vetoing king or your precious slave trading abolitionists look any the bit like they actually are, but the Founding Fathers get the worst possible light and can't possibly be abolitionists if involved with slavery in any quantity even though it was the Empire who mistreated us. (and again I like John Newton; I enjoy that Newton changed his mind; it's your consistency that's bitter. Newton is just as much wonderful as the Founders are to me)

Your greatest consistency though is in that you do not make any effort to claim America First. That you do deserve credit for. See. I do notice.

"I'm noticing stuff that doesn't fit with what you wish to believe about the founding era."

Yep, yep. But not a single flaw anywhere else do you see. It's only West of the Atlantic. What you don't say is what holds the key. Nothing at home on the Isles was ever wrong, ever. That marvelous language up above deserves to be framed of "painting the king".

"I'm just coming along and repainting the warts and blemishes so that it is more accurate."

Yes, I see how every bit of it is only on one side of the Atlantic, the West side. I do see that. Its entirely stacked on this one side. Almost as if it isn't accidental. Almost as if you've chosen a side - not the American side. It's not actually that the King literally did veto anti-slaving laws, look at your language, look at that marvelous language up above "painting the king". In your view I'm just painting the veto on. For you, the fact and evidence in the first draft of the Declaration, the Virginia Constitution 1776, the Constitutional Convention they say it originated with the Empire, the text of Virginia's law the text of the veto itself and the text of Virginia's response.

None of that matters for you. The evidence could not be more irrelevant. It's still the Founders at fault for you, and the King only needs to be the King to be the innocent because (POOF) there is no evidence. What text? What Virginia Constitution, Virginia never wrote a Constitution! What evidence? Where! Who! It might as well be that I wrote the text of the veto, I got in my time machine and put it into the historical record. Because the king is clearly innocent and there's just painting going on.

The sad thing is, you're usually proclaiming how the North mistreated the South and you can't get enough of the civil war, which at least on the surface places you on the side of the South in Civil War contexts but that's not really where you stand. You're not in any way on the South's side. A part of me wants to goad you into how big of a God Lincoln was just to see you disconnect from it all and forget that you put yourself on Britain's side. But its not worth it because you don't see how you undermined your usual Civil War schtick.

You're apparently not seeing that Virginia is a Southern State. How did you forget that Virginia is a part of the South? These were Southerners who were mistreated by the King. That still isn't enough to register with you and your Civil War ideology. God bless your King. God bless your King and all his mistreatment of even Southerners. Even if you want to marginalize it as if the Virginians authored the most racist of all laws in all of world history and they wanted to throw Blacks into gas chambers at the end of the day Virginia did in fact pass this law and the King did in fact veto that law that the people hoped for. There's no way to not cast this as the King mistreating the South. But that doesn't register with you. God bless your King. There's your priority. Right there.

That makes all your Civil War stuff fake. I'm really glad I never got sucked into that boring topic after all, cause in the end you didn't even mean it. All the decades you've invested into it, it's all fake. Virginia was a Southern state and the King mistreated the South.

215 posted on 09/01/2025 1:57:41 PM PDT 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 214 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
Your greatest consistency though is in that you do not make any effort to claim America First. That you do deserve credit for. See. I do notice.

I have previously commented on your ability to notice things that aren't there. Here is another example.

Of course I want America first. What sort of moron doesn't?

But why should we slap a coat of pain on our ugly past? I think truth serves us better.

216 posted on 09/01/2025 2:18:09 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Ditto; DiogenesLamp; ProgressingAmerica; x; woodpusher; BroJoeK
“Do you know that most people who followed the court then considered Justice Baldwin to be insane? Literally insane.”

I see you have been reading Wikipedia again.

Maybe not. Maybe you are just taking a page out of Brother Joe's playbook. Less than 48 hours ago Brother Joe woke up and realized he didn't like an 1857 Supreme Court decision so he posted thusly: “Crazy Roger Taney was out of his fricken’ mind, a raging lunatic in judicial robes.”

This was in regards to a 7-2 Supreme Court decision. No indication if Brother Joe thought the other six justices were raging lunatics.

Or maybe you are taking a page out of the playbook of our good friend across the aisle: Sister Maxine Waters. A little over 48 hours ago she announced a campaign to overturn the 2024 presidential election using the 25th amendment.

Same general theme: President Trump is probably crazy.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-maxine-waters-calls-using-25th-amendment-find-out-whats-wrong-donald-trump

The smear that President Trump is insane has actually been going on for some time headlines show.

https://newrepublic.com/article/192786/trump-tariffs-insane-method-madness

https://www.salon.com/2024/03/25/forensic-psychiatrist-on-physical-signs-of-mental-decline-changes-in-movement-and-gait/

https://www.nj.com/politics/2025/02/putins-top-propagandist-trump-sounds-like-insane-asylum-patient.html

There is no shame in your being blindsided by the finding of a northern Supreme Court Justice that slavery was the corner stone of the United States Constitution. That information is not part of the “Won Cause Myths” that you have been taught.

Just don't be like Brother Joe and let it happen to you over and over again.

217 posted on 09/01/2025 5:02:06 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
I see you have been reading Wikipedia again.

No, not Wikipedia,

Baldwin missed the 1833 term of the Court while he was hospitalized for what was called "incurable lunacy." Justice Joseph Story felt that his colleague was "partially deranged at all times." Baldwin reportedly continued to suffer from bouts of bizarre, even violent behavior on the bench after he returned. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Richard Peters, Jr. wrote that five people in one day said that the Justice was "crazy." His views were also highly unconventional, as Baldwin acknowledged in a treatise on the Constitution and U.S. government. He left scant impact on the law.

Source: https://supreme.justia.com/justices/henry-baldwin/

But ya, I know. Just another damn yankee source trying to contradict your impeccable rebel history.

218 posted on 09/01/2025 5:28:42 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
Maybe not. Maybe you are just taking a page out of Brother Joe's playbook. Less than 48 hours ago Brother Joe woke up and realized he didn't like an 1857 Supreme Court decision so he posted thusly: “Crazy Roger Taney was out of his fricken’ mind, a raging lunatic in judicial robes.”

This was in regards to a 7-2 Supreme Court decision. No indication if Brother Joe thought the other six justices were raging lunatics.

This was an opinion that was never judicially overruled with a finding that it was wrong on the law. It was overturned by a constitutional amendment.

The Opinion of the Court found that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Conclusion of Dred Scott opinion by Taney:

Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Mandate is an official mode of communicating the judgment of the appellate court to the lower court.

As the mandate issued to the Circuit Court in the case of Scott v. Sandford shows, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and remanded the case to that court with instructions to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

Missouri, C.C.U.S.

No. 7

Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er.
vs.
John F.A. Sandford

Filed 30th December 1854.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

March 6th, 1857. —

- - - - - - - - - -

No. 7

Ptff. in Er.

Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. Sandford

In error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court.

Ch. Jus. Taney
6th March 1857


219 posted on 09/01/2025 5:36:57 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

“I’m sure somewhere in you Lost Cause myths you imagined that but I sure have never seen it and I have studied the Civil War era far more than you have.” (sic)

That sure didn’t age well.


220 posted on 09/01/2025 6:37:41 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-220 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson