Warnings From The Founding Generation

[JBvM]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

That makes absolutely no sense given the context here.

The context was wrong in the first place. From the very beginning of the op.

Not for my purposes. Maybe for a point you'd like to make

 

[Natural Citizen]

One thing is certain, the establishment does have a love for Hamilton.

But there are more relevant and more practical ways to go about making the point.

When you say 'the establishment' it is open to interpretation, which makes it meaningless in far too many ways to get into here.

The money printers. And trustees in constitutional subversion and implied power. All of them, irrelevant of their political identity.

 

[flacaltenn]

Didn't know Doc Franklin was full of angst about the swarthy vs the pale. Huzzah. THat's racist. If only he lived another 80 years or so..

In context he is being refreshingly honest. He speaks about people naturally self segregating and identifying with their own kind. It's not an evil, angry, violent response. It's more of observational worry. Of course he could only go on what was the known science of his time - sort of like the silly stories in the Holy books.

Ben includes his beloved French. Context, see?

Yeah. France was just the place to go whoring and mis-behave for any genuine Englishman of the times. And who did the Cont. Congress SEND to France to beg for support? And what did he ACTUALLY spend his time doing there?

Hypocrite.. That's just Euro-envy and their regional conflicts. Not a concern about race.

 

[sparky]

The man is talking about how the future can look. How a nation founded by the English colonists, and looking to expand, could lose it's English & British ways.

Which was their focus , being they were rebels in England's eyes

But where these really visionary sorts , or just escapees from an insane theorcray looking to make good for themselves?

Who were the FF's really?

were the not aristocrats ,with something to loose?

What was the jist of ideaology?

when only 3% or so signed onto a revolution, it needs to be asked

~S~

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Alexander Hamilton warned us about the convulsions and disorders that could weaken or destroy a republic like ours, as a consequences of the acts of popular demagogues and petty despots.

The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.

When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits - despotic in his ordinary demeanour - known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty - when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity - to join in the cry of danger to liberty - to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion - to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day - It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”

It has aptly been observed that Cato was the Tory-Cæsar the whig of his day. The former frequently resisted - the latter always flattered the follies of the people. Yet the former perished with the Republic the latter destroyed it.

No popular Government was ever without its Catalines & its Cæsars. These are its true enemies.
​

Then there was Wise Old Doctor Franklin warning that

in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted ... Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.​

Seems that this is in part the truth, it when the imported population starts to speak only English do they become Americans. My family does not speak Spanish, "Cuban" for the reason that they were instructed to do so by the Father. We now fit into Society of Americans. The family would not go back to Cuba for we have no interests there.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Didn't know Doc Franklin was full of angst about the swarthy vs the pale. Huzzah. THat's racist. If only he lived another 80 years or so..

In context he is being refreshingly honest. He speaks about people naturally self segregating and identifying with their own kind. It's not an evil, angry, violent response. It's more of observational worry. Of course he could only go on what was the known science of his time - sort of like the silly stories in the Holy books.

Ben includes his beloved French. Context, see?

Yeah. France was just the place to go whoring and mis-behave for any genuine Englishman of the times. And who did the Cont. Congress SEND to France to beg for support? And what did he ACTUALLY spend his time doing there?

Hypocrite.. That's just Euro-envy and their regional conflicts. Not a concern about race.

When in Rome to as the Romans do. Very old quote.

 

[JBvM]

Yeah. France was just the place to go whoring and mis-behave for any genuine Englishman of the times. And who did the Cont. Congress SEND to France to beg for support? And what did he ACTUALLY spend his time doing there?

Hypocrite.. That's just Euro-envy and their regional conflicts. Not a concern about race.

That is funny, but I believe the Francophile interests of Franklin's (and Jefferson's) went beyond the prurient. By all accounts Franklin charmed the pants off ( eek: pun!) of his hosts and cemented relations. He was the Jobs/Hawking/Sagan/Musk of his day, all rolled into one. Without France, and later the Dutch loans (Adams?), the founding generation would have resembled what are now the Canadians. that is my opinion.

The Euro envy was there on some level, but Europe envied the British their history of liberties, which extended into the colonies.

 

[JBvM]

The man is talking about how the future can look. How a nation founded by the English colonists, and looking to expand, could lose it's English & British ways.

1) Which was their focus , being they were rebels in England's eyes

2) But where these really visionary sorts , or just escapees from an insane theorcray looking to make good for themselves?

3) Who were the FF's really?

4) were the not aristocrats ,with something to loose?

5) What was the jist of ideaology?

6) when only 3% or so signed onto a revolution, it needs to be asked

~S~

1) Pardon? "Which was their focus?"

2) They were not escaping theocracy or any other dogmatic religious ideas. By the mid 1700s, Some of the leaders were 5th or 6th generation American colonists. They had their own culture in many ways. They were British subject, many from English stock, Scots, and some Irish (mostly Protestant Scots Irish). Even the British referred to them as Americans. Many of the leading protesters of British policies were secular and religious Loyalists demanding the Sovereign heed their pleas and settle things with the Parliament and Court members who were hostile to the colonists wishes. Many leading Loyalists after the revolt got into high gear, remained Loyalist even though the Rebels used their words and writings to justify the revolt.

3) Three distinct cultural groups, one in the Northeast, one on the mid Atlantic region, and of course the other in the South. They were landholders, elected officials, rabble-rousers, though none was really poor, or of the lower classes. Depending on the region they hailed from, some were of moderate means and wealth.

4) Nope.

5) That is an interesting subject that is impossible to boil down for a bumper sticker or meme

6) Only 3% signed on? I have no idea where you get that from, and I have chased down Loyalist views before 1776 and the views of more common folks. Lots of people kept diaries believe it or not. One fascinating man and his collection to look into (sort of a Rand Paul.Ted Cruz type of his day) is the stuff on one Harbottle Dorr, a Merchant. One thing man leave out is Mr. Dorr and others were also active in community elections and government t the local level.

 

[JBvM]

When FDR nominated a former KKK member to the Supreme Court, Justice Black was apparently influenced by bigotry against the Papists who were establishing schools throughout the Country in the 40's. Black rewrote the Constitution around 1948 claiming that there was a Constitutional "separation of church and state" that did not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The church and state issue was later expanded to outlaw Christmas trees on public property and later to demolish a Korean War monument that contained a 40 ft Cross. Clearly the 1st Amendment freedom of religion is under assault. President Obama authorized a bill ironically called the "fairness doctrine" that would have forced (at gunpoint?) talk radio to broadcast left wing propaganda. The bill never had legs but it is a symbol of the assault on another 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

OMG! You believe you can use Justice Black in this way? LOL let me open up one of the books I have by my side. be right back little fella

I did not forget this one.

 

[JBvM]

President Obama authorized a bill ironically called the "fairness doctrine" that would have forced (at gunpoint?) talk radio to broadcast left wing propaganda. The bill never had legs but it is a symbol of the assault on another 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

First, as FOX News itself reported in 2016: [ President Barack Obama declared opposition to the Fairness Doctrine during his presidential campaign and a White House Spokesman reaffirmed opposition in February 2009 speaking to media outlets. “White House Opposes Fairness Doctrine Revival, ]

Before the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, people like Rush Limbaugh, were among its chief beneficiaries, because Rightwing Imbeciles by law had to get equal times to respond. After it was repealed and Talk Radio was taken over by Rightwing Imbeciles, those people fought reinstating the doctrine.

But the doctrine did not demand Rightwing propaganda, it demanded Rightwingers have a voice,. They are the ones who would choose whether what they would shot was relevant, credible truthful responses or pure propaganda.

Obama was never on the side of reinstating the doctrine, and if it had been reinstated, it would NOT have dictated radio air left wing propaganda. It would have demanded Leftwingershave a voice,. They are the ones who would choose whether what they would shot was relevant, credible truthful responses or pure propaganda.

and that crazed fall back position of "At gunpoint" is incredibly stupid.

 

[JBvM]

When FDR nominated a former KKK member to the Supreme Court, Justice Black was apparently influenced by bigotry against the Papists who were establishing schools throughout the Country in the 40's.
Black rewrote the Constitution around 1948 claiming that there was a Constitutional "separation of church and state" that did not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Even an imbecile could look up Justice Black's true history and record. Over at oyez - we have:

"On September 11, 1923, Black joined the KKK after weighing the decision for over a year. Though he had never engaged in racial discrimination and often ruled in favor of African-Americans, he believed the membership would gain him political advancement. He resigned in 1925 at the beginning of his campaign for Alabama senator."

In a great book on SCOTUS: The Supreme Court - The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, *Jeffrey Rosen has this to say about Justice Black:

"Black, the former senator from Alabama and former member of the Ku Klux Klan, became the most influential liberal strict constructionist in the history of the Court."

[ *Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization whose mission is to educate the public about the U.S. Constitution. ]

Black is also famous for saying "I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit the government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision." - This doesn't sound like the man you portray.

and last but not the least: Justice Black in his ruling you reference used a scholarly defense from Jefferson

[[[ To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others: A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut - January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,
...
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
...
Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States
]]]

 

[JBvM]

Like I said "Even an imbecile could look up Justice Black's true history and record."

 

[sparky]

Yeah. France was just the place to go whoring and mis-behave for any genuine Englishman of the times. And who did the Cont. Congress SEND to France to beg for support? And what did he ACTUALLY spend his time doing there?

Hypocrite.. That's just Euro-envy and their regional conflicts. Not a concern about race.

That is funny, but I believe the Francophile interests of Franklin's (and Jefferson's) went beyond the prurient. By all accounts Franklin charmed the pants off ( eek: pun!) of his hosts and cemented relations. He was the Jobs/Hawking/Sagan/Musk of his day, all rolled into one. Without France, and later the Dutch loans (Adams?), the founding generation would have resembled what are now the Canadians. that is my opinion.

The Euro envy was there on some level, but Europe envied the British their history of liberties, which extended into the colonies.

Ben Franklin was undoubtely by all accounts a worldly sort

he knew an allegiance w/France would be in the colonists back pocket, because anything to stick it to the Brit empire was all high 5's with the French aristocracy

Ben also had quite the penchant for brothels ......
Trump n'a rien sur les escapades de Ben


~S~

 

[sparky]

6) Only 3% signed on? I have no idea where you get that from, and I have chased down Loyalist views before 1776 and the views of more common folks. Lots of people kept diaries believe it or not. One fascinating man and his collection to look into (sort of a Rand Paul.Ted Cruz type of his day) is the stuff on one Harbottle Dorr, a Merchant. One thing man leave out is Mr. Dorr and others were also active in community elections and government t the local level.

I've read it in multiple sites JB, here's one>

r/AskHistorians - In the revolutionary war, is it true only "3%" of Americans fought?

~S~

 

[JBvM]

6) Only 3% signed on? I have no idea where you get that from, and I have chased down Loyalist views before 1776 and the views of more common folks. Lots of people kept diaries believe it or not. One fascinating man and his collection to look into (sort of a Rand Paul.Ted Cruz type of his day) is the stuff on one Harbottle Dorr, a Merchant. One thing man leave out is Mr. Dorr and others were also active in community elections and government t the local level.

I've read it in multiple sites JB, here's one>

r/AskHistorians - In the revolutionary war, is it true only "3%" of Americans fought?

~S~

Three percent signed on, and three percent fought at any given time (on the rebellion side) are two different statements. I fully understand populating supposed 'facts' and some people purely regurgitating stories and myths regarding the Colonists. I'm not saying you fit either of those descriptors.

I usually troll around sources from the colonial ear, and later sources from the Loyalists in Canada, and Americans from earlier times who seem to have had no propagandist agenda. I believe there are far more sources online now that the Massachusetts Historical Society, Presidential and Historical Libraries, and public and private collections of papers are becoming more accessible.

The Smithsonian also has a treasure trove of materials and historical research projects seeking a clearer picture of the events and times of that era.

Myths of the American Revolution | History | Smithsonian

And Wowza Bay Bay! I can post links.I am off probation! Let Freedom Ring!

 

[Picaro]

Yeah. France was just the place to go whoring and mis-behave for any genuine Englishman of the times. And who did the Cont. Congress SEND to France to beg for support? And what did he ACTUALLY spend his time doing there?

Hypocrite.. That's just Euro-envy and their regional conflicts. Not a concern about race.

That is funny, but I believe the Francophile interests of Franklin's (and Jefferson's) went beyond the prurient. By all accounts Franklin charmed the pants off ( eek: pun!) of his hosts and cemented relations. He was the Jobs/Hawking/Sagan/Musk of his day, all rolled into one. Without France, and later the Dutch loans (Adams?), the founding generation would have resembled what are now the Canadians. that is my opinion.

The Euro envy was there on some level, but Europe envied the British their history of liberties, which extended into the colonies.

There is also the fact that the 'Americans' had a substantial lobby in Parliament behind them and against King George as well; no small part of the 'Revolution's' eventual success, either. But yes, the 'Revolution' at first was made up of wealthy pirates sniveling about a decrease in the tariffs cutting into their smuggling biz, and assorted aristocrats, like Washington for instance, facing expensive suits in England over his land swindles of British officers under his command, suits he would have lost and then had to give up a lot of his choice real estate along with financial penalties. It was only after King George sent over some truly stupid and arrogant cronies who managed to alienate almost an entre country already 90% for the Crown or neutral that 'The Cause' gained any popularity.

 

[Picaro]

6) Only 3% signed on? I have no idea where you get that from, and I have chased down Loyalist views before 1776 and the views of more common folks. Lots of people kept diaries believe it or not. One fascinating man and his collection to look into (sort of a Rand Paul.Ted Cruz type of his day) is the stuff on one Harbottle Dorr, a Merchant. One thing man leave out is Mr. Dorr and others were also active in community elections and government t the local level.

I've read it in multiple sites JB, here's one>

r/AskHistorians - In the revolutionary war, is it true only "3%" of Americans fought?

~S~

Three percent signed on, and three percent fought at any given time (on the rebellion side) are two different statements. I fully understand populating supposed 'facts' and some people purely regurgitating stories and myths regarding the Colonists. I'm not saying you fit either of those descriptors.

I usually troll around sources from the colonial ear, and later sources from the Loyalists in Canada, and Americans from earlier times who seem to have had no propagandist agenda. I believe there are far more sources online now that the Massachusetts Historical Society, Presidential and Historical Libraries, and public and private collections of papers are becoming more accessible.

The Smithsonian also has a treasure trove of materials and historical research projects seeking a clearer picture of the events and times of that era.

Myths of the American Revolution | History | Smithsonian

And Wowza Bay Bay! I can post links.I am off probation! Let Freedom Ring!

A book named The Founding Finaglers is also a good read, though not always accurate. For some reason people like to bash Robert Morris, and I don't know why, since most of the gossip against him was total rubbish. he was in fact key to the Revolution's success, more so than Franklin or Jefferson ever were. His Bank Of America was also a great success, in a country that sorely needed a bank, his became the 'unofficial' bank, while the United States Bank was a disaster, twice.

 

[JBvM]

A book named The Founding Finaglers is also a good read, though not always accurate. For some reason people like to bash Robert Morris, and I don't know why, since most of the gossip against him was total rubbish. he was in fact key to the Revolution's success, more so than Franklin or Jefferson ever were. His Bank Of America was also a great success, in a country that sorely needed a bank, his became the 'unofficial' bank, while the United States Bank was a disaster, twice.

I wouldn't be so sure the words and actions of Robert Morris were "key to the Revolution's success, more so than Franklin or Jefferson ever were" because on the diplomatic side, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and others were responsible for keeping the revolt from failing all alone. But the contributions of Morris are often overlooked, as are the contributions of many others. The Bank comes after the revolt and after a state has been established. I believe you are referring to his contributions to a successful US, and not the revolt of the 13 colonies

 

[JBvM]

Yeah. France was just the place to go whoring and mis-behave for any genuine Englishman of the times. And who did the Cont. Congress SEND to France to beg for support? And what did he ACTUALLY spend his time doing there?

Hypocrite.. That's just Euro-envy and their regional conflicts. Not a concern about race.

That is funny, but I believe the Francophile interests of Franklin's (and Jefferson's) went beyond the prurient. By all accounts Franklin charmed the pants off ( eek: pun!) of his hosts and cemented relations. He was the Jobs/Hawking/Sagan/Musk of his day, all rolled into one. Without France, and later the Dutch loans (Adams?), the founding generation would have resembled what are now the Canadians. that is my opinion.

The Euro envy was there on some level, but Europe envied the British their history of liberties, which extended into the colonies.

There is also the fact that the 'Americans' had a substantial lobby in Parliament behind them and against King George as well; no small part of the 'Revolution's' eventual success, either. But yes, the 'Revolution' at first was made up of wealthy pirates sniveling about a decrease in the tariffs cutting into their smuggling biz, and assorted aristocrats, like Washington for instance, facing expensive suits in England over his land swindles of British officers under his command, suits he would have lost and then had to give up a lot of his choice real estate along with financial penalties. It was only after King George sent over some truly stupid and arrogant cronies who managed to alienate almost an entire country already 90% for the Crown or neutral that 'The Cause' gained any popularity.

Yours is an extremely hostile, partisan view. While I can agree on some particulars, I believe your premises are often faulty which leads to faulty conclusions.But criticism of the myths are all welcome to seeking a sense of truth

 

[Picaro]

A book named The Founding Finaglers is also a good read, though not always accurate. For some reason people like to bash Robert Morris, and I don't know why, since most of the gossip against him was total rubbish. he was in fact key to the Revolution's success, more so than Franklin or Jefferson ever were. His Bank Of America was also a great success, in a country that sorely needed a bank, his became the 'unofficial' bank, while the United States Bank was a disaster, twice.

I wouldn't be so sure the words and actions of Robert Morris were "key to the Revolution's success, more so than Franklin or Jefferson ever were" because on the diplomatic side, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and others were responsible for keeping the revolt from failing all alone. But the contributions of Morris are often overlooked, as are the contributions of many others. The Bank comes after the revolt and after a state has been established. I believe you are referring to his contributions to a successful US, and not the revolt of the 13 colonies

No, it was activities during the Revolution that were key; Franklin and Jefferson were lobbyists, with already friendly ears; money was raided based on Morris's word and a merchant banker and skills as a logistical master. I didn't say the bank came during the war. I assume most people know the history and timeline.