The second volume contains the bulk of our Founding Mothers and many of the Wives of the Signers, however this book is still important in opening the series, setting the tone, and having some descriptions of American colonial life.
The cool thing (to me at least) is also that this book has already eclipsed having 20,000 downloads and its only been a month.
Today's release (about a week ago) is Bastiat's work "Economic Sophisms". The work is described thus:
Bastiat speaks with the greatest force to the highest order of intellects. At the same time, he is almost the only Political Economist whose style is brilliant and fascinating, whilst his irresistible logic is relieved by sallies of wit and humour which make his Sophismes as amusing as a novel.
Everything you might need is there, the link to the original text in case you prefer reading words instead of listening to them, clicking on his name opens up so you can see the 10 works of Bastiat available as audio mp3s, and also the link to Bastiat's Wikipedia page.
No. Stop. Right here. We need a greater discussion and a greater recognition of the Abolitionist Founding Fathers. We need more of a focus on this instead of everybody just moving on. The progressives do not move on ergo we do not move on. We need sharing the details, knowing the details, being able to in specifics push back against progressivism when they wield the weapon of the Founding Fathers and transatlantic slavery.
The way Charlie Kirk does. Most cannot do this the way Kirk did. In a debate a few years ago with Briahna Joy Gray, one of the topic shifts moved toward the Founding and specifically Charlie was very insistent in driving home the point that abolitionism began with the Founders. (Charlie Kirk never explicitly uses the word "transatlantic" but that is the exact context) He cites several examples but this one: (I am giving the timestamps so you can follow along in the video)
The first ever anti-slavery convention is hosted by Ben Franklin in Philadelphia in 1775 (44:10)
This one is perhaps the most specific. And it is true. Benjamin Franklin was a slave owning abolitionist Founding Father. Many of those who became abolitionists had no idea that slave owning was bad for most of their lives since the practice of slavery was so widely adopted and promoted by the Empire. If you had a colony, be it the colony of Virginia, colony of Barbados, colony north(became Canada), colonies of Carolinas, colony of Jamaica it was all the same. Slavery was there. That's not an accident. The colonists did not just trip, fall over, and OH WOW look we have slaves. Where did those come from I don't know slaves must have fallen out of the sky or maybe slaves put themselves there!
This was something the empire wanted because slavery brought in huge amounts of money for the crown and thus, slavery was everywhere. The empire is singularly to blame for slavery being in 26 out of its 26 colonies.(prior to U.S. Independence) There were NOT 26 coincidences and oh my gosh - the King, the King has no idea. Parliament says "what? Slavery? Bloody impossible!" Parliament knew. They supported slavery. The King supported slavery. They all knew.
Again, Charlie said
Before the Founders there was not a robust anti-slavery movement (44:15)
I recently made a long entry about the Abolitionist Founding Fathers, Franklin was one of 6 people named. All of this is true. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. were on the front lines of abolitionism and transatlantic abolitionism was in the first instant an "American thing". Abolitionism only showed up later in Europe after many copied the American abolitionist model. In a very small comment, he says of the Founding Fathers' inheriting slavery from the Empire: (The Founders did not choose transatlantic slavery)
They inherited the practice and then they got rid of it (45:05)
They never defended it (45:09)
That is, the Founders never defended transatlantic slavery. Gray looks a little confused that he would be so insistent on this topic, but he continued.
You talk about the 3/5ths compromise, which was actually an anti-slavery measure (45:45)
Before the American Founders, who fought to end slavery on this planet? (47:10)
Kirk is correct to ask this question, as well as pointing out that the 3/5ths compromise was anti-slavery. If someone is favorable to progressivism, favorable to the left wing, or favorable to The 1619 Project then it makes those people very uncomfortable when you highlight this indisputable fact. The 3/5ths compromise was anti-slavery. Why does this make anybody uncomfortable? It should make people celebrate! Kirk apparently has been reading a little too much Frederick Douglass, who was one of the first to explicitly state in plain language that the 3/5ths compromise was a measure designed to do damage to slaving. The most interesting thing is that Gray has finally had enough and she asks:
Its like a weird obsession! Let's concede they did a good thing, why is that so important to you? It's a cover, this is a distraction from the facts (47:54)
I can heavily relate to this accusation. I get accused of having a "weird obsession" with highlighting the Abolitionist Founding Fathers as well. ("Abolitionist Founding Fathers" is my phrase and nobody else's. Yes anybody is welcome to use it but I am just saying, nobody but me that I have seen uses this phrase. "Abolitionist Founding Fathers") I can't and don't speak for Charlie Kirk but I can say what my motivation is and its progressive historians in general, The 1619 Project in particular. All of this fake history is constantly pumped through the schools and millions of children every day become falsely convinced that the U.S. was founded with an original sin of slavery. In the end Kirk and Gray debated this for nearly 5 minutes with Kirk mostly advancing the pro-Founders narrative; and pro-abolitionism at that.
Smearing the Founders with slavery is simply not factual. It's fake history, historical malpractice. Why isn't The 1619 Project accused of being a "weird obsession" given how fraudulent it is? That fraud, that right there is enough to create an army of "obsessed" people who know the history is not accurately told. Any "original sin of slavery" belongs exclusively with the colonial Empire of Britain, an entity which no longer exists in this world; The British Empire. The Empire is gone. Did any or many of the Founding Fathers own slaves? Yes, slave owning was common among Englishmen in a British slave colony. Why is that weird? It is not weird. It is also not weird nor a coincidence that as the Founders stopped being Englishmen and started becoming patriots that they also in many cases stopped desiring to be slave owners. Slave owning was a crown thing, it was not an American thing, not in those days.
And I want to close by highlighting my mutliple uses of the word "transatlantic". It is common practice for those who dishonestly wield slavery as a weapon to take a step back and cite some odd-ball random fact like France abolished slavery in the 1300s or whatever year it was. France abolished white people owning white people; France abolished Frenchies owning Frenchies. That has absolutely nothing to do with transatlantic slavery, sugar plantations in the West Indies, slaves on ships sent across to the other side of the atlantic, The Cotton Gin, or abolitionist movements such as the kind of movements that Benjamin Franklin or William Wilberforce led. It's entirely 100% irrelevant. So yes, transatlantic, transatlantic, transatlantic. Stick to the topic.
That review is now available as a downloadable, free audio book. I hope everybody can make good use out of this.
https://librivox.org/examination-of-the-federal-constitution-by-noah-webster/
