Warnings From The Founding Generation

[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 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

Actually it's all documented, if not part of the great Founding propaganda mythology. Nothing 'hostile' about facts. The 'Revolution' wasn't started because 'the little people' wanted one, it was a middle and upper class one. After a long period of benign neglect, the Crown had suffered a financial setback and decided that the colonies ought to pay for their own expenses, a complete outrage to those with taxable businesses and assets, and others had problems with suits before the English courts, over how land was distributed among officers after military actions, as in Washington's case.

 

[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

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.

My apologies, but 'most' people know shit.

please allow me to respond in another post following this one

 

[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

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.

For myself I needed to go back too my sources/books/notes on Morris. I tend to see the name and automatically think of Roger Morris great American patriot, and Loyalist. The Colonists were Subjects of GB, but also Americans. . Most Americans today, have difficulty wrapping their heads around the fact that the colonists were called, and called themselves - Americans

Robert Morris along with John Dickinson were loyalist subjects who struggled with becoming rebels and were the two who abstained so Pennsylvania could vote for Independence .. this after John Adam's breathtaking and awe inspiring speech. Morris' roles in the revolution, and later in the Congress forming the Confederation and still later the US of A, get mixed up and misconstrued. Was Morris more than a bean counter? We know Jefferson was more of a clerk, and a committee was charged with drafting the document that he gets most credit for . as if the works is his alone. Adams was on a huge number of committees. Morris? do you know all of the committees he served on during events leading up to, and also during the rebellion?

 

[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.

My apologies, but 'most' people know shit.

please allow me to re[pond in another post following this one

I already know all the Founding myths, what is true, what isn't, but thanks anyway; I know more than enough to arrive at the real facts without any help from ideologues of any stripe..

 

[JBvM]

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

Actually it's all documented, if not part of the great Founding propaganda mythology. Nothing 'hostile' about facts.

The 'Revolution' wasn't started because 'the little people' wanted one, it was a middle and upper class one. After a long period of benign neglect, the Crown had suffered a financial setback and decided that the colonies ought to pay for their own expenses, a complete outrage to those with taxable businesses and assets, and others had problems with suits before the English courts, over how land was distributed among officers after military actions, as in Washington's case.

The myths surrounding the founding, I would distinguish from labeling as propaganda. That is where I see your views as hostile, or with an agenda. To takes facts and interpret them the way you do could be considered counter propaganda, as like counter revolution. Myths have to do with symbolism and do serve legitimate and useful purposes outside a context that is nefarious in nature.

I'm not sure the myths i know of speak to Adams and others as 'the little people' although that might be a part of the nefarious and conspiratorial arguments out there. I speak of myths that portray John and Sam Adams, Jefferson and his plantation peers, as farmers. We know many of the Sons of Liberty were Merchants, and thinking of those people as classes in today's context is silly. The nation at that time had three major regions, and in those three regions different classes did not rule, as much as they were beneficiaries of the system they existed in. They were all subjects, not citizens. That seriously important distinction should inform and serious and honest discussion.

 

[JBvM]

I already know all the Founding myths, what is true, what isn't, but thanks anyway; I know more than enough to arrive at the real facts without any help from ideologues of any stripe..

Forgive me if I find your protestations to be hollow. Do you ever claim to fight or argue in the name of freedom and liberty?

 

[Picaro]

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

Actually it's all documented, if not part of the great Founding propaganda mythology. Nothing 'hostile' about facts.

The 'Revolution' wasn't started because 'the little people' wanted one, it was a middle and upper class one. After a long period of benign neglect, the Crown had suffered a financial setback and decided that the colonies ought to pay for their own expenses, a complete outrage to those with taxable businesses and assets, and others had problems with suits before the English courts, over how land was distributed among officers after military actions, as in Washington's case.

The myths surrounding the founding, I would distinguish from labeling as propaganda. That is where I see your views as hostile, or with an agenda. To takes facts and interpret them the way you do could be considered counter propaganda, as like counter revolution. Myths have to do with symbolism and do serve legitimate and useful purposes outside a context that is nefarious in nature.

I'm not sure the myths i know of speak to Adams and others as 'the little people' although that might be a part of the nefarious and conspiratorial arguments out there. I speak of myths that portray John and Sam Adams, Jefferson and his plantation peers, as farmers. We know many of the Sons of Liberty were Merchants, and thinking of those people as classes in today's context is silly. The nation at that time had three major regions, and in those three regions different classes did not rule, as much as they were beneficiaries of the system they existed in. They were all subjects, not citizens. That seriously important distinction should inform and serious and honest discussion.

With aristocrats and the wealthy, patriotism takes a distant back seat to personal interests. That is why the poor and middling classes are always the most patriotic; such affairs are of a far more existential interest for them, they can't run off anywhere. you think the long history of human nature is 'silly', and can't be judged, well, that is your lack of understanding, and not anything real. We have thousands of years of it to go by. Want to cover some of it?

 

[JBvM]

With aristocrats and the wealthy, patriotism takes a distant back seat to personal interests. That is why the poor and middling classes are always the most patriotic; such affairs are of a far more existential interest for them, they can't run off anywhere. you think the long history of human nature is 'silly', and can't be judged, well, that is your lack of understanding, and not anything real. We have thousands of years of it to go by. Want to cover some of it?

the long history of human nature is 'silly', can be judged

the problem

is with you

and your failed attempts at rewriting history