Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.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..
Ben includes his beloved French. Context, see?
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.
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.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.Then there was Wise Old Doctor Franklin warning that
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.
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.
When in Rome to as the Romans do. Very old quote.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.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..
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.
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.
1) Pardon? "Which was their focus?"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~
I did not forget this one.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 fellaWhen 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.
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.
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.
Ben Franklin was undoubtely by all accounts a worldly sortYeah. 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.
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.
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.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~
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.
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.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~
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.
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 truthYeah. 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.
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