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)

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.”

And that is total bull crap. Yes the language said that but if you were anything other than a BSer on this page you would know damn well they didn't want just nine. They needed all 13 in order to keep the British out.

You really do twist the truth to suit your ends,. You are not an honest person, IMHO.

If you care to defend slavery, feel free. If you want to say the Confederates were right, go right ahead. But damn it, don’t distort our history to do it.

"Of the 13 original slave states, 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution in 1787. This includes Pennsylvania and Massachusetts."

No. Rhode Island was not even present(represented) at the 1787 Convention being the troublemaker it had always been at that time, but even excluding this technicality that there were only 12 still no.

They voted to enshrine non-slavery into the United States Constitution in 1787.

Any CTRL + F can quickly return exactly zero results on the actual text of the Constitution. This is a simple textualist task in our modern era of word browsers and advanced web browsers. The words slave or slavery are simply not there. The words were explicitly removed by the abolitionists and rightly so. And they stated the very simple reason why the word could not be included.

It was believed to be wrong "to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." August 25th, 1787. That's the day.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_825.asp

And so, the idea that there can be a property in men, is not admitted as a constitutional truth. Excluding the word is not conclusive of enshrining slavery. And yes, the Founders were very exacting in making sure they tried their best to put words in place. They didn't make a mistake on this one, one way or the other. A group of Founders didn't slip, fall over, and trip then and look up and realize oh my gosh I forgot to include the word slave!

No.

Conclusive of enshrining slavery would be that the word is used multiple times in the Constitution. At "best" what they did was look the other way knowing that the only way union was going to work was through toleration and activism for abolitionism on a state-by-state basis. This was also explicitly referenced at the Convention.

And I know he opposed slavery strongly enough that he directed that his slaves be freed after his death.

And you “know that” because you swallowed that lost cause BS. Here’s a fact

At eighty-one years old in 1787, he became the President of the Philadelphia Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, which was also often referred to as the Abolition Society. The Abolition Society, which was formed by a group of abolitionist Quakers and Anthony Benezet in 1774, concentrated not only on abolishing slavery but also on helping enslaved people transition to a life of liberty. The organization was the first in America and encouraged the formation of abolitionist societies in other colonies.

In 1787, weeks before the start of the Constitutional Convention, Franklin signed a public antislavery appeal, which stated that “the Creator of the world” had made “of one flesh, all the children of men” [3]. It was believed that Franklin, like many revolutionary leaders, supported the idea that a nation built on the promise of inalienable rights acquired at birth could not remain true while enabling slavery.

In 1789 he wrote and published several essays supporting the abolition of slavery, including an Address to the public, dated November 9th of that same year. In the address, the former slave owner wrote that the institution was an “atrocious debasement of human nature” [4] and called for adequate resources to support emancipated people in society, such as education and employment. Furthermore, Franklin’s last public act was to petition Congress on behalf of the society, requesting that they “cut the cancer of slavery out of the American body politic,” and grant liberty “to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage.”

Source: https://benjaminfranklinhouse.org/education/benjamin-franklin-and-slavery/

Not quite the same as your Lost Cause Mythology is it?

He is making a mishmash of the “Perpetual” Union (the original US Constitution known as “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”, which required the ratification of all thirteen Colonies), and the “More Perfect” Union (our current US Constitution) which only required nine (2/3) of the States to make the changes to create our present “more perfect Union” Constitution. The thirteen Colonies were already onboard once they ratified the “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”. Despite the lies of Jeffersondem, States that did not sign onto the “more perfect Union” were not any less a part of the Union as a result. And, despite his lies, all thirteen States did eventually sign onto the ratification of the “more perfect Constitution”. I’m glad you are not falling for his BS. Not a word out of his mouth is credible. He is very far gone in Lost Cause Mythology.

“And so, the idea that there can be a property in men, is not admitted as a constitutional truth.”

That is an interest comment.

Comes now President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address:

“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

“It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous.”

It does cause wonder that Abraham Lincoln could find slavery “plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions” but you, after being weaned on the “Won Cause Myths” claim you can't find it.

“ Abraham Lincoln could find ~~slavery~~ (the clause I now read) is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions….There, I fixed it.

Apparently you can’t even quote Lincoln properly. On the other hand, here is what Frederick Douglass said about the very same Article IV, section 2, clause 3: “ that the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, section 2) does not apply to slaves but rather to "Person[s] held to Service or Labour", which do not include slaves, because a slave "is a simple article of property. He does not owe and cannot owe service. He cannot even make a contract"…….

"That is an interest comment.
Comes now President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address:"

No.

This is not yet another one of your Civil War hijack threads.

Try again.

"but you, after being weaned on the “Won Cause Myths” claim you can't find it."

When I'm allowed back into this debate based on my own words, let me know.

“Yes the language said that but if you were anything other than a BSer on this page you would know damn well they didn't want just nine. They needed all 13 in order to keep the British out.”

I'm not sure if you are repudiating me or the words and intent of the founding fathers.

The founders certainly wanted all they could get, including Canada which was encouraged to join the U.S. in the original union (Articles of Confederation).

Since Canada wouldn't join, and getting all 13 states was iffy, they did the next best thing when forming the second union; they set the minimum number of states to make a country at nine.

Sure, the British could attack the U.S. from Canada and other directions but that was a risk they had to take.

The idea that northern slave states "fought with all their strength" to keep slavery out of the Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution is part of the "Won Cause Myth."

The idea that northern slave states "fought with all their strength" to keep slavery out of the Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution is part of the "Won Cause Myth."

Who said that other than those weird voices in your head? I didn’t say the Northern states fought against slavery. Most didn’t care one way or another. What I would say is that some very wise men who crafted the Constitution used their influence to keep the document from being a pro slavery document. That included many slave holders among them who saw slavery as being inconsistent with a free republic. They were sure that slavery would die on its own before long.

King Cotton, which you idolize, changed that.

What is it with you two, anyways? Are you incapable of separating anything away from the Civil War? Is it really that difficult?

It is like the thing you don't see, until you see it, and once you've seen it, you can't unsee it.

You start to notice that so much derives from it. The Civil War is like that.

Now I know you want to blame it on the lying Judges, and they deserve their fair share of the blame, but there is plenty of blame for the people who wrote those amendments so badly, and for the illegal manner in which those amendments were "ratified."

And we are still living with the consequences of all that.

So this "Deep State" that Trump is fighting now? I started looking at the origins of this thing years ago, before I ever started getting involved in the Civil War stuff. I recognized the Deep State as a problem, and I explored how the people who are in it, came to be in it.

I started noticing a pattern of "Ivy League" education, and generally coming from the "elite" of the Northeast.

Eventually, that thread came to merge with what I was learning about the Civil War, and I now see them as the same thread, it's just that I didn't understand the origins of it until later.

Any CTRL + F can quickly return exactly zero results on the actual text of the Constitution.

Let's try that. I'll search for "Labour."

Oh, it works! Only three entries for the word "Labour" and they all trace back to this paragraph. Here it is!

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

What does it mean? Sounds like they are talking about some sort of compelled labor or something.

What did they do that was different from what the 13 colonies did? (other than have a more bloodthirsty opponent than George III)

First, they went with no legitimate reason. They didn’t like the guy who was elected president, but Lincoln had done nothing to them. His only real promise was to block the spread of slavery to the territories. But he promised not to touch slavery where it already existed. But that was enough to fire up your rough, tough one reb can take on ten of those dough faced Yankees. More bloodthirsty than George III.? Well better more deadly weapons for sure, but both sides had pretty much the same weapons.

So unlike the patriots of 1776, your treasonous hero’s of 1861 were fighting for only one thing… to spread slavery.

“What I would say is that some very wise men who crafted the Constitution used their influence to keep the document from being a pro slavery document.”

That is an interesting comment.

The original slave states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island all voted to include in the Constitution the ability to continue the importation of slaves and the return of fugitive slaves and you say that is not a pro-slavery document?

I have to add that North and South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia also agreed to the pro-slavery provisions so we must always cast 4/13ths responsibility in that direction.

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.