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

[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

[Wallace T.]

Except for California, none of the territories west of Texas and what became Oklahoma were suitable for intensive cotton production. Even in California, it was the various water projects in the early 20th Century that made that state so agriculturally productive. There were some areas in California that could have produced cotton without irrigation but shipping out of San Francisco, the only real seaport at the time, would not have been able to compete with Southern and other cotton, especially a half century before the Panama Canal was completed.

Slavery in the Western territories was a nonstarter because the West was either too dry or too cold for cash crops like cotton that needed intensive labor. The Southern secession was more driven by the opportunity to expand slavery into the Caribbean islands and Latin America. This was the vision of the Knights of the Golden Circle. Spain's grasp on Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico was weak. They had visions of taking parts of eastern Mexico but the French beat them to that country.

[Ditto]

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

You can call them “ elite” if you want. I just call them Democrats doing what Democrats have done since the days of Andy Jackson, the Civil War Democrats who ran the Confederacy on to the FDR, LBJ and now Obama Democrats… scheming for more and more power.

I’m an old guy now… old enough to remember when the segregationists were all democrats… Falbus, Wallace, Fulbright, Johnson, Byrd, Gore, even Biden. They were segregationists because that gave them power. Once they realized blacks were getting the right to vote, they switched in an instant and became civil rights champions which gave them power.

You have a problem with the deep state, don’t blame the Civil War. Blame the corrupt Democrat party.

[Ditto]

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?

Ya… so what’s your point? It is not a pro slavery document. It is not anti slavery either. It simply accepts slavery as a fact although it never mentions the word.

[jeffersondem]

“It is not a pro slavery document.”

It is pro-slavery but not until Article I. And then only in the sense that that it based political power in the House of Representatives on the ratio of free persons to “all other Persons” (and excluding Indians not taxed); that it allowed the continued importation of slaves; and that it required the return of fugitive slaves.

Do you have any information that would help identify what is meant by “all other Persons”?

[Ditto]

Jefferson Davis didn’t agree with you.

One of the positions laid down by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, and which he denominated as one of his two truths, was, that slavery was excluded from the Territories of California and New Mexico by a decree of Nature. From that opinion I dissent. I hold that the pursuit of gold-washing and mining is better adapted to slave labor than to any other species of labor recognized among us, and is likely to be found in that new country for many years to come.

Source: SPEECH of MR. DAVIS, OF MISSISSIPPI,
ON THE SUBJECT OF
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES
DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 13 & 14, 1850.

http://civilwarcauses.org/davis1850.htm

[Ditto]

that it allowed the continued importation of slaves

Until the year 1808, at which time Congress banned further importation.

[Wallace T.]

That was Davis's opinion in 1850. Was that his opinion in 1861? By 1855, the California Gold Rush was over. Many of the Forty Niners had returned to their original homes by 1861. The thinking of Southern leaders was more towards expansion into the Caribbean and northern Latin America.

[DiogenesLamp]

First, they went with no legitimate reason.

If I ask you about your right to freedom of speech, are we to not allow you to speak unless you have a good reason?

If I ask you about your right to own a gun, should I make sure you have a good reason for owning one?

Does a *RIGHT* require permission from other people to insure it is being exercised for a good reason?

They left. They had a right to do so. Whether their reasons were good or not is immaterial to the fact they had a right to leave if they so chose.

His only real promise was to block the spread of slavery to the territories.

You may not be aware of the various discussions that has been had on this subject here on free republic. A lot of people have been told, and fully believe, the country was on the verge of having slavery "expand" into the territories.

Apart from the fact that the people of an area ought to have a right to decide for themselves what they think on any particular political point, slavery wasn't going to "expand" anywhere, at least not to any significant degree.

The Reason slavery existed in the South was because it was profitable. You could grow crops that you could sell for cash? You know what you can grow in the territories back in 1860? *NOTHING*. Even today, the only cotton growing in "the territories" is at irrigation hubs created by pumping water up from the Ogallala Aquifer, which couldn't be done in the 19th century.

So no cotton, no tobacco, no sugar, no indigo, no hemp, no corn, no nothing.

So what were the slaves going to do when they "expanded" into the territories? Well a man would have to be a fool to take slaves into the territories rather than leave them in Mississippi or Louisiana where each one could earn substantial money for him.

"Expansion" was a lie, meant to fearmonger and create opposition to slavery, not because it meant actual slaves in the territory, but to keep any state formed out of the territory from electing Senators that would favor the South.

You see, they had the game rigged pretty good to make the South pay for most everything. Abraham Lincoln himself said his yearly tax revenue from the south amounted to 65 million per year. So long as the South didn't have enough Senators or congressmen, they could keep siphoning money out of it.

It's about the money.

But he promised not to touch slavery where it already existed.

Well he certainly kept that promise to the Northern states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia and Delaware.

More bloodthirsty than George III.?

George III could have won that war had he just kept hammering, but he wanted the bloodshed to stop.

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

So their enemies have said since before the war, with it being impossible the entire time. Yet people believe them, rather than checking for themselves.

Here is a modern cotton map. Perhaps you can point out a place where slavery could have spread to.

Bear in mind that California, Arizona, New Mexico, and West Texas all require irrigation systems to grow cotton there. As for the rest of the "territories", if they can't grow cotton there today, they couldn't grow it there in the 1860s either.

[DiogenesLamp]

Except for California, none of the territories west of Texas and what became Oklahoma were suitable for intensive cotton production. Even in California, it was the various water projects in the early 20th Century that made that state so agriculturally productive. There were some areas in California that could have produced cotton without irrigation but shipping out of San Francisco, the only real seaport at the time, would not have been able to compete with Southern and other cotton, especially a half century before the Panama Canal was completed.

Slavery in the Western territories was a nonstarter because the West was either too dry or too cold for cash crops like cotton that needed intensive labor. The Southern secession was more driven by the opportunity to expand slavery into the Caribbean islands and Latin America. This was the vision of the Knights of the Golden Circle. Spain's grasp on Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico was weak. They had visions of taking parts of eastern Mexico but the French beat them to that country.

Thank you. Perhaps Ditto will be more inclined to believe it if it comes from someone other than me.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can call them “ elite” if you want. I just call them Democrats doing what Democrats have done since the days of Andy Jackson,

And the Northeast was a Democrat stronghold in the 1860s?

Were the Republicans strong in the South?

I’m an old guy now… old enough to remember when the segregationists were all democrats… Falbus, Wallace, Fulbright, Johnson, Byrd, Gore, even Biden. They were segregationists because that gave them power. Once they realized blacks were getting the right to vote, they switched in an instant and became civil rights champions which gave them power.

Odd that the blacks switched from voting straight Republican to voting straight Democrat. How did that happen?

[Fledermaus]

Hard to grow cotton in the desert. Who knew? 😀

[DiogenesLamp]

One of the positions laid down by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, and which he denominated as one of his two truths, was, that slavery was excluded from the Territories of California and New Mexico by a decree of Nature. From that opinion I dissent. I hold that the pursuit of gold-washing and mining is better adapted to slave labor than to any other species of labor recognized among us, and is likely to be found in that new country for many years to come.

Odd thing then. Back in those days, there wasn't much concern for people taking slaves into New Mexico territory. Sure, it was theoretically banned, but it wasn't enforced, and nobody cared. They pretty much just extended the line at 36°30' latitude.

So reading the wikipedia entry on "New Mexico Territory", I find this little nugget.

"Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and others maintained that the territory could not restrict slavery, as under the earlier Missouri Compromise. Others, including Abraham Lincoln, insisted that older Mexican Republic legal traditions of the territory, which abolished black slavery in 1834, took precedence and should be continued. (Indian slavery had been abolished in Spanish colonies in 1769.) Regardless of the official status, slavery was rare in antebellum New Mexico. Black slaves never numbered more than about a dozen."

Other sources i've ran across also seem to support the conclusion that black slaves were extremely rare in New Mexico territory.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hard to grow cotton in the desert. Who knew? 😀

Right? I've been through that area. I don't know why anyone would want to live out there.

A week or so ago I watched a video about Zachary Taylor. It talked about how he came to be president. While watching it I was surprised to learn that Zachary Taylor dismissed all concerns about slavery "expanding" into the territories. Turns out he had been all through that area during the Mexican/American war, and knew the idea was ridiculous.

He was a Henry Clay Whig, not a Democrat. Henry Clay was also Lincoln's mentor. He imbued Lincoln with the idea of "Mercantilism", which in my opinion is a little too activist government for my tastes.

[Ditto]

The Reason slavery existed in the South was because it was profitable. You could grow crops that you could sell for cash? You know what you can grow in the territories back in 1860?

Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and all the other free states managed to profitably grow cash crops without slavery. As to the territories, I’d say Kansas, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado, Wyoming, and most areas outside the Desert SW are pretty good areas for crops and livestock as well. The Homesteaders who went out there generally did very well for themselves… better than the mud sill farmer in the south.

As to your ilimformed comments on slaves used in mining, I’d point out that gold and silver mining moved from California to Nevada, and Arizona and Colorado while copper mining began in several Western states in later years. After all, the first slaves sent across the ocean by the Spanish were worked to death in the gold and silver mines. If your confederates could have used slaves for that work they would have gladly worked them to death doing so. After all, it was very profitable. ;~((

[Ditto]

Odd that the blacks switched from voting straight Republican to voting straight Democrat. How did that happen?

Free stuff coupled with Democrat lies.

[Ditto]

Odd that the blacks switched from voting straight Republican to voting straight Democrat. How did that happen?

Free stuff coupled with Democrat lies.

[Ditto]

Odd that the blacks switched from voting straight Republican to voting straight Democrat. How did that happen?

Free stuff coupled with Democrat lies.

[MayflowerMadam]

Someone needs to pass on this question to Truth Social and/or Ric Grenell — or whomever is heading up this investigation.

[jeffersondem]

“Until the year 1808, at which time Congress banned further importation.”

Article I, Section 9 - when taken in context - sounds pro-slavery to me.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Ditto]

Were the Republicans strong in the South?

The Republicans were not even on the ballot in seven Southern states. If they had canvassed to get on the ballot, they would have literally been killed. That’s how much your Confederates cared about the Republic.