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)

Henry Baldwin wasn’t any great legal thinker. He was an ambitious climber, who made a career in business and politics before becoming a judge. His half-brother, Abraham Baldwin, went south and became a big man in Georgia, founder of the state university, signer of the Constitution, and Senator. Another brother entered Ohio politics.
Henry Baldwin wasn’t a stodgy, snotty Yankee. Although he was a Yale man and of Puritan ancestry, his father was a blacksmith. Baldwin left Connecticut for Pennsylvania and would have been considered a man of the Middle States or even a Westerner.

Baldwin had been active in the American Colonization Society early on. Did that mean that he was anti-slavery, or in favor of white supremacy, or something else altogether. in the very same decision where he called the compromise on slavery the foundation of our political system he also called slavery abhorrent. He was on record in many decisions saying that slaves were property rather than people and was the only justice to dissent in the Amistad case. Even Roger Taney was willing to let the rebellious enslaved Africans go free, but Baldwin wasn’t.

The difference between what Alexander Stephens said and what Henry Baldwin wrote is significant. For Alexander Stephens, slavery was the cornerstone of society, even of civilization, and definitely of the new Confederate nation. For Baldwin, it wasn’t slavery itself, but the compromises on slavery that was the foundation, not of society or civilization, but of the union. Without the compromises the country would split apart.

It’s been common here for some to condemn opponents of slavery for being gradualist and making compromises and celebrate supporters of slavery as honest, steadfast, principled men. But no, those who opposed abolition accepted slavery, sometimes reluctantly, sometimes enthusiastically and tailored their views to fit the “peculiar institution.” If Baldwin had stuck by his earlier view that slavery was morally wrong, he would have been led to make compromises and concessions, and accept gradualist half-measures to change things, but he’d already made his moral compromise with slavery by accepting it whole.

It wasn’t only the union or the Constitution that Baldwin was concerned about. It was also his party and his own political career. He was appointed by his friend Andrew Jackson because he was a reliable vote for everything Jackson believed, and his own fate was tied with that of Jackson and his party — the Democrats. It might also be that he saw in slavery a way for people like himself and his half-brother to rise in the world.

Like secessionists Keitt, Wigfall, and Ruffin, Baldwin was very eccentric, perhaps insane. He was committed to an asylum for a year and didn’t participate in court decisions that year. For more:

https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/crazy-henry-baldwin-the-mentally-ill-supreme-court-justice/

“He (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin) left scant impact on the law.”

I don't know if that statement is true but for the purpose of this post let's stipulate your statement is true: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin left scant impact on the law.

That is remarkable for you to say in the context of his declaration in Johnson v Thompkins that slavery was the “corner stone” of the United States Constitution.

I would have thought you might have suggested Baldwin was insane for such a finding and cite ten things to prove him wrong.

I am surprised you have not provided ten high sources of contemporaneous credibility that argued Supreme Court Justice Baldwin (a Connecticut-born opponent of slavery) had hijacked the anti-slavery U.S. Constitution and made it into a pro-slavery Constitution.

Did President Andrew Jackson rail against Baldwin for his “corner stone” declaration and demand his impeachment?

Did still-living former President John Quincy Adams rail against Baldwin and demand his impeachment or at least denounce the ruling?

Are there records showing subsequent presidents Martin Van Buren, William Harrison and John Tyler denounced Baldwin and his “corner stone” statement?

Do you know if Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, or Buchanan went on record as saying “Baldwin was wrong on the corner stone thing.”

President Lincoln was clear in his support of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution. What did Lincoln say about Baldwin's corner stone finding?

Probably nothing. Because as you say Baldwin's corner stone finding had scant impact on the existing law, the existing Constitution or existing public opinion. Baldwin's finding of the corner stone didn't cause a ripple because at the time it was accepted as true even if objectionable.

In fact, Baldwin expressed disgust with the existing slavery status quo as do I; I condemn slavery in the strongest possible terms.

The “foundation” reference was pretty obscure. I don’t find references to it in books about the time. It wasn’t an actual legal principle, so much as a pragmatic counsel. Had Baldwin said or written what he did 20 years later, it might have provoked some reaction, but the issue of slavery was on the back burner then, and by the time it was the burning issue, he was already dead.

Somebody writing for the neo-Confederate Abbeville Institute’s website dug Baldwin’s foundation quote up as a source for Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” and ignored the real differences between the two metaphors. If Baldwin influenced Stephens, it would have been pretty trivial and Stephens would have missed Baldwin’s point.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-so-called-cornerstone-speech/

Did Baldwin really deplore slavery as much as he claimed? We’ll never know. Slavery was the abortion issue of the day: it was convenient for a Northern politician to profess to be personally opposed to slavery while also opposed to ever doing anything about it. Do we call such people anti-slavery or anti-abortion, or do we just call them opportunists who duck the issue? Whatever Baldwin thought about Indians and expelling them to west of the Mississippi, he didn’t think the court should to anything about that either.

“Slavery was the abortion issue of the day: it was convenient for a Northern politician to profess to be personally opposed to slavery while also opposed to ever doing anything about it.”

You make a good point.

It helps to explain why 13 of the original 13 slave states voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.

No doubt there were many in the northern states that didn’t like slavery and only voted to put it into the Constitution because it was in their own economic and political best self interest.

We forget how mercenary northern Puritans were. From the “Won Cause Myths” we are only told the north “fought to free the slaves.”

Again, you make a good point.

It helps to explain why 13 of the original 13 slave states voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution. No doubt there were many in the northern states that didn’t like slavery and only voted to put it into the Constitution because it was in their own economic and political best self interest.

They put it in because there would not have been a united nation without it. The Constitution was a tough sell as it was. Without slavery it would be impossible. But even pro slavery men then saw slavery as a very marginal economic proposition and believed it would be eliminated at some point in the future. The cotton gin and upland cotton changed the economics of slavery and led to the eventual clash of regions. But in 1788/89 they didn’t vote for it because they wanted it. They voted for it to keep the nation unified.

Insisting otherwise shows your ignorance of history.

"for opposing slavery when they did nothing at all to oppose it."

Wha?

User X,

This is entirely nonsensical. "did nothing" does not match the historical record.

We have multiple instances of legislative attempts or legislative successes in regard to anti-slavery measures - at least with (the you named) Thomas Jefferson. I could not care less about the Civil War navel gazing.

Here is the problem. The idea that the only measure of someone's life is to say whether or not they did or did not own slaves and the rest of the picture is irrelevant is the kind of thing that is right out of The 1619 Project playbook.

Benjamin Franklin was President of an abolitionist organization. But of course that's irrelevant. He owned slaves.
John Jay tried twice. First failed, then the second time succeeded, at actually abolishing slavery in New York. But of course that's irrelevant. He owned slaves.
Thomas Jefferson tried legislating slavery out in the House of Burgesses during British rule. How is this doing nothing? After Independence, Jefferson succeeding in making the original abolitionist idea of abolishing the slave trade which all the abolitionists thought would put an end to slavery. How is this doing nothing? These are actual actions. It is literally something. How do you say actions equal non-actions? How does action = non-action? How?

It.

Doesn't.

Make.

Any.

Sense.

These ideas are pure, pure anti-Americanism. It just is. We need to start recognizing that our Founding Fathers did actually make moves, including legal moves in regard to either outright abolishing, or also winding down slavery.

Nobody ever actually says these anti-slavery things never happened. They did happen, people just ignore them. WHY?

You think everybody anti-slavery was exploiting the issue.

Not everybody. I think there were some hard core abolitionists that believed it was morally wrong and who actually cared about black people.

But I believe they were way outnumbered by the exploiters.

I was speaking about people who claimed to be appalled by slavery but did nothing to oppose it.

There were a lot of them.

There were plenty of people like that in the South as well as in the North.

I would expect they had a harder time of it in the South than people would in the North.

Opposing slavery in the South could get you killed or beaten. This reminds me of a funny story.

Years ago I and some others founded a gun rights group. We were a political group, and we had a lot of success. One of our members was a doctor, and he was a firebrand. Absolutely uncompromising. One day I asked him if he had ever done anything for the pro-life movement. He said he did, but it got too dangerous and he had to stop.

I asked "What did you do?" He said "I put pro-life stickers on the mail I sent out." And I said "and that was dangerous?"

He said "Yeah. People were breaking into my office, stealing my records, bashing my car windows in, leaving threatening phone calls... it was terrible. I had to stop doing it." I asked him where all this happened, and he said he was practicing in West Virginia.

His claims puzzled me for months. I didn't get it. I had never heard of such a reaction to some pro-life stickers.

Now the Doctor was from South Africa, and he didn't really have any familiarity with American demographics or customs or anything.

Some months later, he told me he would be gone for a week or so. He said he was a professional witness for a court case involving a medical situation. I asked him how long he had been doing it? He said "Oh, ever since I had that practice set up in West Virginia. Part of my practice was evaluating medical claims for the mining companies. I would testify against miners making claims against the company."

I said "You were testifying against members of the Mine Workers Union?" He said "Yes." I said, "did this happen to coincide with the time you were putting pro-life stickers on your mail? " He said "Yes."

I told him "You were lucky to get out of there alive." The Mine Workers Union is one of the most vicious and dangerous Unions in the United States. They play hardball. "

"You were testifying against members of the Mine Workers Union, and you thought it was the pro-life stickers causing you trouble? "

We gave Thomas Jefferson or Robert E. Lee brownie points for opposing slavery when they did nothing at all to oppose it.

Thomas Jefferson is probably responsible, more than anyone else, for actually ending slavery. Of course his contribution was at little cost to himself, but none the less he probably had a greater impact on abolishing it than anyone else in US history.

As for Robert E. Lee, I really don't know much about him. I actually know more about Nathan Bedford Forest than I do Robert E. Lee. I know Lee opposed slavery on moral grounds, and he taught Sunday School to slave children. That's about it.

“They (northern Founders) put it (slavery) in (United States Constitution) because there would not have been a united nation without it.”

That is an interesting comment.

Maybe they thought a united nation would have secure borders.

Maybe they thought secure borders would protect against military invasion.

Maybe they thought securing against military invasion would promote political stability.

Maybe they thought political stability would promote economic prosperity.

Maybe they thought including slavery would be in their own economic and political best self interest.

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.