Ben Franklin's World

Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
That's kind of like those "Learn a foreign language while you sleep!" tapes they used to sell, remember those? That's a cool way to enjoy the podcasts. What you said about your post-lunch class is pretty much what happens when I try to listen to the podcasts -- zzzzz. lol What are you listening to right now?
Click to expand...

I just finished Episode 036.

"In today’s episode, Abigail Swingen, professor of history at Texas Tech University and author of Competing Visions of Empire: Labor, Slavery, and the Origins of the British Atlantic Empire, leads us on an exploration of how colonists and British imperial officers viewed the colonies and their place within the British Empire during the late 17th and early 18th centuries."

That was what prompted my comment that: "I am pretty much reaching the conclusion that this country was founded upon the pretense of a lot of ill intent, we broke away from the source of that, but the bad vibe remained and we have been trying to turn that energy around ever since."

The British viewed the colonies as something to serve them, a subordinate source of profit; the colonists viewed themselves as equal to the UK. That's why it melted down.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello ThatOwlWoman,



I just finished Episode 036.

"In today’s episode, Abigail Swingen, professor of history at Texas Tech University and author of Competing Visions of Empire: Labor, Slavery, and the Origins of the British Atlantic Empire, leads us on an exploration of how colonists and British imperial officers viewed the colonies and their place within the British Empire during the late 17th and early 18th centuries."

That was what prompted my comment that: "I am pretty much reaching the conclusion that this country was founded upon the pretense of a lot of ill intent, we broke away from the source of that, but the bad vibe remained and we have been trying to turn that energy around ever since."

The British viewed the colonies as something to serve them, a subordinate source of profit; the colonists viewed themselves as equal to the UK. That's why it melted down.
Click to expand...

The idea of owing no fealty to a king or queen must have been a pretty novel concept for them, too, eh?
 
1865 is a great podcast focusing on the assassination of Lincoln. It is an audio play and very engaging.

American History Tellers and many of Wondery's history podcasts are also well-done.
 
Last edited:
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
The idea of owing no fealty to a king or queen must have been a pretty novel concept for them, too, eh?
Click to expand...

The United States was a monster of Britain's own creation. A thing to be admired and cajoled, controlled and used for a while, and then feared and kept at arm's length. It was like starting a wildfire and then having to run from it.
 
PoliTalker said:
The United States was a monster of Britain's own creation. A thing to be admired and cajoled, controlled and used for a while, and then feared and kept at arm's length. It was like starting a wildfire and then having to run from it.
Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting that as colonies we rebelled against the crown and made ourselves independent... yet on Jan. 6th, 2021 another group of self-styled patriots rebelled against the Constitution and the rule of law in an attempt to restore the crown and put a #TangerineTyrant on the throne?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Isn't it interesting that as colonies we rebelled against the crown and made ourselves independent... yet on Jan. 6th, 2021 another group of self-styled patriots rebelled against the Constitution and the rule of law in an attempt to restore the crown and put a #TangerineTyrant on the throne?
Click to expand...
That might be the most ignorant comparison yet.

Attempting to stop an elected president from taking office being equated to overthrowing a King.

Whatever makes the treason feel justified.... but wow

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Whythink said:
That might be the most ignorant comparison yet.

Attempting to stop an elected president from taking office being equated to overthrowing a King.

Whatever makes the treason feel justified.... but wow

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you support the insurrection? You would have been pleased if they'd managed to hang Pence and put the Toadstool back in our White House?
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
Isn't it interesting that as colonies we rebelled against the crown and made ourselves independent... yet on Jan. 6th, 2021 another group of self-styled patriots rebelled against the Constitution and the rule of law in an attempt to restore the crown and put a #TangerineTyrant on the throne?
Click to expand...

It is remarkable. We are a nation born of rebellion. This foundational part of who we are has been played-up for profit by unscrupulous and unpatriotic capitalists.

The Jan 6th insurrectionists sincerely believed they were doing what was just in the spirit of people's opposition to tyrannical power. But I believe their perception is flawed and based on propaganda. It is well-known that great profits are available for those who peddle fear, and many of these operatives, including Trump, play up this angle to their distinct advantage.

Numerous psychological studies have shown that people are more susceptible to advertising at a point in time when their emotions have just been raised. It is as if the cognizant abilities are momentarily placed on hold while the mind processes an emotional stimulus. This allows advertisers to utilize this trick of presenting something scary, and then immediately presenting a sales pitch. It is a very effective way to sell product.

'Buy now while supplies last!'

What could possibly be scarier than the prospect of losing the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States?

This is a constant theme in anti-liberal programming.

"Big government is going to control every aspect of your life!"

"Liberals are going to tax you to death!"

"Socialism will destroy everything in it's path!"

These very scary prospects have been used to sell guns and survival equipment for the 'coming storm' of upheaval. And just recently we learned that one social media website used a spin-off of these themes to create a completely false narrative from a 'mysterious sympathetic government insider' named nothing more than the letter 'Q,' for the sole purpose of generating more web traffic in order to sell more, and generate more profit.

Improperly regulated capitalism has a way of taking advantage of the unsuspecting to fleece them of their money.

And if the country is pushed towards upheaval in the process?

Those responsible will disavow any responsibility.

They got theirs. The hell with you.
 
Hello Whythink,

Whythink said:
Nope, I am the ignorant one who misread your post.

My bad.

Sorry

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That does not make you ignorant at all. It was simply a mistake, probably rushing, haste makes waste, etc.

We all make mistakes. That does not make you ignorant.

Actually, you are very smart to realize the mistake, own up to it, and apologize.

By making amends, it is smoothed over, you have earned respect, and learned a lesson.

That is way more than most would do, and places you in the top tier of posters here as far as maturity goes.

Well done!
 
OK, I got up to Episode 039 and I can not get past it.

What a shocker! Why did many colonists prefer a King?

Oh, I could move on, but Episode 039 is so packed with amazing and intriguing information, I keep listening to it over and over and over.

And every time, I absorb more of it.

It is that filled with absolutely vital details of how this nation was formed.

It seems that in order to understand how America was created, one must first understand how Britain came about.

I only had a vague understanding of that. Yes, I guess I knew that at some point they had sort of rebelled against a bad king, and decided they needed a Parliament. I just had no idea how that affected America. Basically, Britain already went through hanging a King and setting up a Parliament long before the USA came along; but what happened was the King used to have total reign over foreign affairs, which included the American colonies. But when Parliament took that power away from the King, it began to do things that really pissed off the colonists.

It wasn't so much the monarchy America rebelled against. It was what Parliament was doing. Imposing all these restrictions and taxes with no representation. Many colonists wished they just had the King's rule back. It was quite the debate in the colonies. But there was no way the colonists had any power to return control to the King, and there was no way they were getting seats in Parliament, so the only thing they could do was split away.

Early iterations of proposed American Constitutions had no office of President. The 'Royalists' were not pleased with the thought of an American version of a two house legislative body similar to Parliament. It wasn't until 1787 that the idea of an Executive was proposed. When first proposed, the thought was the president should have far more authority, more than Congress, an absolute veto which could not be overridden, and the power to select office holders without Senate confirmation.

I'm glad they kicked that idea around a while before they came up with what we've got now.

"The American Revolution was a revolution against Parliament; not a king.

This is the idea offered by Eric Nelson in his new book The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding.

Today, we explore the Royalist Revolution and how it affected the politics of the American Revolution, with Eric Nelson.

In this episode, Eric Nelson, the Robert M. Beren Professor of Government at Harvard University and author of The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding, joins us to discuss a new interpretation of the American Revolution: The American Revolution was a revolution against Parliament, not King George III.

During our conversation, Eric helps us brush up on our English constitutional history so we can better understand what the royalist revolution was and how it came about. He also leads us on an exploration of how Great Britain governed its 13 British North American colonies and why some colonists argued that King George III should have more power to govern them, not less."
 
PoliTalker said:
OK, I got up to Episode 039 and I can not get past it.

What a shocker! Why did many colonists prefer a King?

Oh, I could move on, but Episode 039 is so packed with amazing and intriguing information, I keep listening to it over and over and over.

And every time, I absorb more of it.

It is that filled with absolutely vital details of how this nation was formed.

It seems that in order to understand how America was created, one must first understand how Britain came about.

I only had a vague understanding of that. Yes, I guess I knew that at some point they had sort of rebelled against a bad king, and decided they needed a Parliament. I just had no idea how that affected America. Basically, Britain already went through hanging a King and setting up a Parliament long before the USA came along; but what happened was the King used to have total reign over foreign affairs, which included the American colonies. But when Parliament took that power away from the King, it began to do things that really pissed off the colonists.

It wasn't so much the monarchy America rebelled against. It was what Parliament was doing. Imposing all these restrictions and taxes with no representation. Many colonists wished they just had the King's rule back. It was quite the debate in the colonies. But there was no way the colonists had any power to return control to the King, and there was no way they were getting seats in Parliament, so the only thing they could do was split away.

Early iterations of proposed American Constitutions had no office of President. The 'Royalists' were not pleased with the thought of an American version of a two house legislative body similar to Parliament. It wasn't until 1787 that the idea of an Executive was proposed. When first proposed, the thought was the president should have far more authority, more than Congress, an absolute veto which could not be overridden, and the power to select office holders without Senate confirmation.

I'm glad they kicked that idea around a while before they came up with what we've got now.

"The American Revolution was a revolution against Parliament; not a king.

This is the idea offered by Eric Nelson in his new book The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding.

Today, we explore the Royalist Revolution and how it affected the politics of the American Revolution, with Eric Nelson.

In this episode, Eric Nelson, the Robert M. Beren Professor of Government at Harvard University and author of The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding, joins us to discuss a new interpretation of the American Revolution: The American Revolution was a revolution against Parliament, not King George III.

During our conversation, Eric helps us brush up on our English constitutional history so we can better understand what the royalist revolution was and how it came about. He also leads us on an exploration of how Great Britain governed its 13 British North American colonies and why some colonists argued that King George III should have more power to govern them, not less."
Click to expand...

One definitely cannot understand the American Revolution without understanding English history. The Glorious Revolution had turned Britain into a constitutional monarchy by 1688, so the the King of England was playing second fiddle to Parliament for almost a century before the American Revolution.

America's landed gentry and prosperous mercantile class, aka Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et al. really just wanted their rights as Englishmen honored. Rights they felt Parliament did not honor for them.

The founders were not fighting for a radical revolution intent on a brand new and unprecedented vision of human liberty. They were fighting for their rights as Englishmen they felt they were entitled to under English constitutional law, but which they felt had been denied to them as free, property-holding Englishmen

If Britain had treated the USA the way they did Canada, there probably never would have been American Revolution. We would have just been an autonomous self governing Commonwealth within the British Empire.
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
One definitely cannot understand the American Revolution without understanding English history. The Glorious Revolution had turned Britain into a constitutional monarchy by 1688, so the the King of England was playing second fiddle to Parliament for almost a century before the American Revolution.

America's landed gentry and prosperous mercantile class, aka Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et al. really just wanted their rights as Englishmen honored. Rights they felt Parliament did not honor for them.

The founders were not fighting for a radical revolution intent on a brand new and unprecedented vision of human liberty. They were fighting for their rights as Englishmen they felt they were entitled to under English constitutional law, but which they felt had been denied to them as free, property-holding Englishmen

If Britain had treated the USA the way they did Canada, there probably never would have been American Revolution. We would have just been an autonomous self governing Commonwealth within the British Empire.
Click to expand...

It was interesting to learn the differences between the 13 colonies. Some of them had a corporate charter, like Virginia, others granted autonomy to one person or family, like Pennsylvania and Maryland, and New York was a Royal appointment, won from the Dutch in a conquest. Most colonies could make law, only if it was approved by the King's council, others had more power without such oversight.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



It was interesting to learn the differences between the 13 colonies. Some of them had a corporate charter, like Virginia, others granted autonomy to one person or family, like Pennsylvania and Maryland, and New York was a Royal appointment, won from the Dutch in a conquest. Most colonies could make law, only if it was approved by the King's council, others had more power without such oversight.
Click to expand...

I feel like high school history gives short shrift to the pre-revolutionary era, and it largely remains a black hole for most Americans. I seem to remember high school history mentioning the Puritan colonists of the 1620s, but then quickly jumping ahead to the 1770s.

I always felt like Maryland was oddly Catholic-heavy for a southern, border state. Until I learned Maryland was basically founded as a Catholic colony, and some of that legacy carries through to today.
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
I feel like high school history gives short shrift to the pre-revolutionary era, and it largely remains a black hole for most Americans. I seem to remember high school history mentioning the Puritan colonists of the 1620s, but then quickly jumping ahead to the 1770s.

I always felt like Maryland was oddly Catholic-heavy for a southern, border state. Until I learned Maryland was basically founded as a Catholic colony, and some of that legacy carries through to today.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that. Very interesting.

The Supreme Court appears to be an American invention. The governor of most colonies was the highest judge in the colony, but most colonists could appeal to the King. Mainland British citizens could take their appeals to the House of Lords. But not so for the colonists. They were treated differently.
 
Wow. We might have had Canada join the 13 colonies to become part of the USA but Ben Franklin poisoned the idea by insisting that they speak English.

There were talks with Canada before the American Revolution. Franklin was part of it.

It was widely recognized that it would have been beneficial to the 13 colonies to have Canada join in the revolution and become part of the newly formed country. It was also realized that if Canada did not do that, then the British could use Canada as a platform from which to attack the colonists. (which they did)

But Franklin insisted French-speaking Quebec needed to abandon French and learn English!

What a mistake.

It could have resulted in no United States.

Glad that didn't happen. Whew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top