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)

“It was GOD'S will that the United States remain united, and that our Manifesty Destiny would be fulfilled.”

That is absolutely the best argument to justify Lincoln's War: Lincoln was divinely told to kill hundreds of thousands of his political and economic competitors, suspend habeas corpus, and imprison newspaper publishers.

It is a strong argument because it is very difficult to disprove a religious claim - even a fantastic religious claim.

The postwar “Won Cause Myths” are weak by comparison. Consider the myth that the Declaration of Independence does not permit unilateral secession (i.e. the king must approve).

Or the “Won Cause Myth” that the Union slave state of Delaware fought the Confederate slave state of Florida to “free the slaves.”

Or the myth that the Union slave state of Maryland fought the Confederate slave state of Virginia to “free the slaves.”

Or the myth that the Union slave state of Kentucky fought the Confederate slave state of Tennessee to “free the slaves.”

Or the myth that the Union slave state of Missouri fought the Confederate slave state of Arkansas to “free the slaves.”

And so forth and so on.

In fairness, probably the only reason Pennsylvania and Massachusetts went along with giving slavery legal status in the Constitution was because it was in their own economic and political best self interest.

No, you are wrong on that. The reason they allowed slavery in the Constitution was in order to have unanimous consent to the document. They knew that at the very least South Carolina and Georgia would not have consented to the constitution with out slavery, and even Georgia may have gone along because of their concern for the British in Florida being a threat.

You had strong opponents of slavery such as Franklin in Pennsylvania who actually were involved in drafting the constitution. They did not go along for economic reasons. They saw it as necessary in order to stay United. They also saw slavery as a poor economic system which would end on its own soon enough. And it would have if not for the invention of the cotton gin, short fiber cotton and the growth of king cotton in the early decades of the 19th century. That, they could not have predicted.

X said: "The problem with Franklin was that he was a slave owner at one point."

Diogeneslamp said: "Benjamin Franklin was a slaveowner most of his life."

Hello X, (Username X, and also hello Diogeneslamp)

It is no problem at all, in reality. On one hand, the only way this Franklin's info can be a problem is if you are willing to accept The 1619 Project version of history without challenge and that you agree that the United States invented slavery against the Blacks in the U.S.'s imperialist colony of Virginia that the U.S. government founded in 1619 because of racism.

On the other hand if the fake history that the British Empire was a slaving Empire - yes, I get blasted all the time for saying this false thing - is actually true, Virginia is not a colony of the U.S., then we have to realize that slave-owning abolitionists is no problem at all and the timeline is the undisputed heavyweight knockout champion.

I keep trying to impress upon people that it was the patriots who embraced abolitionism, and it was the loyalists who embraced slaving. Nothing, nothing more exemplifies this fact than the slave-owning abolitionists and their lives as a timeline. All of our lives are timelines. Those like Franklin who was a slaveowner as an Englishman but an abolitionist as an American is part of what I mean. That's what the timeline shows. Tell me I'm wrong? That's why the heavyweight champion, the timeline, is undisputed. And your comment doesn't just apply to Franklin.

John Dickinson was a slaveowner as an Englishman. John Dickinson was an abolitionist as an American. The British didn't really start wholesale embracing abolitionism until after the 1800s. But here are our Founding Fathers leading the cause. Our Abolitionist Founding Fathers, they are properly called.

Progressivism cannot withstand any assault with this. They are powerless if we just rely on our abolitionist founding fathers. This is the power we leave on the table.

Again, John Jay was also a slave-owning abolitionist. John Jay was a slaveowner as an Englishman. John Jay was an abolitionist as an American.

Do you understand?

I'm dead serious with this question. Do you understand?

The slave-owning abolitionist Founding Fathers are the most valuable ones out of all of them. I wish we had more of them.

I think I've been quite clear with all of you over the months probably years. I do not accept The 1619 Project propaganda. I reject it wholly. All of it. Every shred is false. Whatever they say, the opposite is in fact the truth. That includes this item about the slave-owing abolitionists. If you think I'm wrong then can you tell me how Franklin the Englishman as a slaveowner, and Franklin the American as an abolitionist is powerless? How is this powerless? Be specific. Show me what The 1619 Project gets correct because I'm just completely missing it. Anything in The 1619 Project narrative, what do they get correct?

“The reason they allowed slavery in the Constitution was in order to have unanimous consent to the document.”

I don’t agree with you; here’s why.

The Constitution’s Article VII states: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.”

The Founders were prepared to lose as many as four of the original 13 states and still have a country of nine states.

In fact only 12 of the states had representatives sign the proposed Constitution sent to the states for ratification; Rhode Island did not originally sign.

The unanimous thing was part of the postwar “Won Cause Myth”.

Franklin was a strong enough abolitionist even going back to the year 1772 when the Somersett Case was decided back home. In 1772, Franklin wanted the slaves freed. That makes him a verifiable abolitionist at this date and time it is as clear as a bell.

Franklin had the guts to basically go it alone and publicly call out the British Empire's naked hypocrisy with the Somersett Case.

The Sommersett Case and the Slave Trade, 18–20 June 1772

Can sweetening our tea, &c. with sugar, be a circumstance of such absolute necessity? Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men? Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!

It is impossible to miss that Franklin is clearly white-hot pissed off in this very short writing. And it's not that the Somersett Case happened that has him upset. Franklin is upset that no slaves in any colony were actually freed, combined with their boasts afterward. What the British Empire proceeded to do after Somersett was to proclaim loudly everywhere the superiority of British principles.

Meanwhile the hypocrisy could not be ignored. Especially by a man who lived in one of the Empire's slave colonies, who was born in one of the Empire's slave colonies.

The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Pennsylvania, Franklin's home, or for that matter his birthplace of Massachusetts.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Virginia.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Maryland.
Or anywhere else in the 13 colonies. Additionally,
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Antigua.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Barbuda.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Jamaica, Barbados, Bermuda, or anywhere else in the Empire-controlled West Indies.(Caribbean)
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in what turned into Canada.
The Somersett Case had no bearing on slavery in India.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Nigeria.

Which, by the way, India, Nigeria, and several other places were not even affected by the 1833 British abolition bill. India didn't get abolitionism until 1848, and Nigeria I think wasn't even until 1901, several decades after the U.S. So in that regard the U.S. was first, jeffersondem, because we were 1865 and they were 1901.

Simply put, the Somersett Case is nothing but a study of hypocrisy in the context of any and I do believe all of the British Empire's colonies. I can't think of any one of the Empire's colonies that did not have slavery. That's what the Founding Fathers were born into. The Founders did not choose that! That's why it was normal for them initially and for most of their lives until they started becoming patriots and realizing that freedom was meant for all people, including souls born in Africa or of Africa. Not just Europeans.

Now, to be fair, the Somersett Case was never designed to free the slaves in any colony. But then with that fact on the table why is The 1619 Project blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery? Why is jeffersondem blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery? Why is diogeneslamp blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery?

Here is a simple test. Could have? Could have! Could have the Somersett Case ended slavery all across the British Empire. (regardless of any consequences, it's just a simple yes or no question)

The answer is yes. The empire could have chosen to do the Somersett Case differently and freed every last slave, right then and there. Could have, yes, been done. The simple answer is yes. The undeniable answer is yes. The ONLY answer is yes. They are a monarchy. If they wanted it done it would be done.

So then what the heck of anybody who blames America, colonies lacking independence and under the threat of kingly veto? It does not work.

“Franklin was a strong enough abolitionist even going back to the year 1772 when the Somersett Case was decided back home. In 1772, Franklin wanted the slaves freed. That makes him a verifiable abolitionist at this date and time it is as clear as a bell.Franklin had the guts to basically go it alone and publicly call out the British Empire's naked hypocrisy with the Somersett Case.The Sommersett Case and the Slave Trade, 18–20 June 1772 Can sweetening our tea, &c. with sugar, be a circumstance of such absolute necessity? Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men? Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!
It is impossible to miss that Franklin is clearly white-hot pissed off in this very short writing. And it's not that the Somersett Case happened that has him upset. Franklin is upset that no slaves in any colony were actually freed, combined with their boasts afterward. What the British Empire proceeded to do after Somersett was to proclaim loudly everywhere the superiority of British principles. Meanwhile the hypocrisy could not be ignored. Especially by a man who lived in one of the Empire's slave colonies, who was born in one of the Empire's slave colonies. The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Pennsylvania, Franklin's home, or for that matter his birthplace of Massachusetts.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Virginia.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Maryland.
Or anywhere else in the 13 colonies. Additionally,
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Antigua.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Barbuda.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Jamaica, Barbados, Bermuda, or anywhere else in the Empire-controlled West Indies.(Caribbean)
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in what turned into Canada.
The Somersett Case had no bearing on slavery in India.
The Somersett Case did not free the slaves in Nigeria.
Which, by the way, India, Nigeria, and several other places were not even affected by the 1833 British abolition bill. India didn't get abolitionism until 1848, and Nigeria I think wasn't even until 1901, several decades after the U.S. So in that regard the U.S. was first, jeffersondem, because we were 1865 and they were 1901. Simply put, the Somersett Case is nothing but a study of hypocrisy in the context of any and I do believe all of the British Empire's colonies. I can't think of any one of the Empire's colonies that did not have slavery. That's what the Founding Fathers were born into. The Founders did not choose that! That's why it was normal for them initially and for most of their lives until they started becoming patriots and realizing that freedom was meant for all people, including souls born in Africa or of Africa. Not just Europeans. Now, to be fair, the Somersett Case was never designed to free the slaves in any colony. But then with that fact on the table why is The 1619 Project blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery? Why is jeffersondem blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery? Why is diogeneslamp blaming the United States for the Empire's slavery?
Here is a simple test. Could have? Could have! Could have the Somersett Case ended slavery all across the British Empire. (regardless of any consequences, it's just a simple yes or no question) The answer is yes. The empire could have chosen to do the Somersett Case differently and freed every last slave, right then and there. Could have, yes, been done. The simple answer is yes. The undeniable answer is yes. The ONLY answer is yes. They are a monarchy. If they wanted it done it would be done.So then what the heck of anybody who blames America, colonies lacking independence and under the threat of kingly veto? It does not work.”

You seem to be struggling to support your shaky contention that the United States invented abolition.

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.