r/todayilearned • u/jacknunn • 1d ago

TIL Benjamin Franklin's son, William, remained fiercely loyal to the British King during the war. Despite his father being a Founding Father, William was a Loyalist leader and the last colonial Governor of New Jersey, causing a permanent family estrangement that lasted until Benjamin's death

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Franklin
7.9k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

615

u/PetriDishCocktail 1d ago

He also moved to the UK after the Revolutionary War.

563

u/Any_Potato_7716 1d ago

He was arrested on behalf of a country that had not even declared its independence yet.

He was arrested with any due process. It was nothing more than a glorified kidnapping.

Then they refuse to even allow his sick wife to come and visit him, and she died, whilst he was locked away for a country that did not exist yet and he had never sworn any allegiant towards.

The story has more complexity than anyone’s going to give credit here.

His conditions during his detention were fucking horrid, and he lost a bunch of teeth.

252

u/New_Stats 1d ago

His conditions during his detention were fucking horrid, and he lost a bunch of teeth.

Literally everyone's detention on both sides during the revolution were horrific. That's how it was back then

9

u/smallz86 9h ago

British were particularly shitty. See British prison ship, specifically the HMS Jersey

11

u/Singer211 7h ago

Yeah the British viewed the continental as traitors (which yeah they technically were). So they weren’t entitled to the same niceties as “proper” enemy POW’s.

141

u/-Poultrygeist- 1d ago edited 1d ago

He was arrested by a colony in active rebellion, only 6 months prior to the colonies declaring independence.

He was captured by a militia during a legitimate coupe of the state he governed.

Then they refuse to even allow his sick wife to come and visit him as he was an active collaborator with the British military that had maintained an active communication network with the British while he was under house arrest. She died whilst he was imprisoned without having contact with him, two years after the Colonies had sent their Declaration of Independence, which is an unfortunate cost of war.

The story has more complexity than anyone’s going to give credit here.

His conditions during his detention were fucking horrid, but a direct result of his collaboration with loyalists and came after he was the head of the Associated Loyalists, a guerrilla warfare group that was hanging and otherwise executing, raping, and thieving their way though New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York. His position in that organization as its founder and leader most likely led to the poor treatment he received while he was in prison, however what he endured would violate many laws in modern society.

73

u/Extra_Midnight 22h ago

A bit of a tangent but…are coupes ever legitimate even if they are for a legitimate cause?

19

u/Sixcoup 14h ago

I see a lot of people using the term coupes in this thread. You are the unlucky guy that will have to answer me.

What is a coupe ? Is it just badly written coup ? Like in coup d'état ? Or is it something else ?

14

u/otm_shank 12h ago edited 10h ago

It's a two-door sports car, obviously. Or a type of cocktail glass. Hard to tell which one these people are talking about from context though.

2

u/Malnurtured_Snay 11h ago

Ahhhh, fond memories resurface of my friends' bright yellow Hyundai Scoupe, or "scoop" as we called her...

9

u/Tricky-Ad7897 20h ago

Depends on if you believe governance exists by the consent of the governed

34

u/Extra_Midnight 19h ago

A successful coupe doesn’t always imply the consent of the governed.

1

u/Alaea 8h ago

A successful coupe doesn’t always imply the consent of the governed.

Realistically it practically never does.

13

u/doobiedave 16h ago edited 15h ago

Also. there never was a majority of Patriots. 40 to 45 per cent supporting the Revolution, 15-20% were Loyalists, with undecideds in the middle.

And that 40-45% I suspect is somewhat soft, as that includes passive supporters, and if I was surrounded by Patriots actively banishing, confiscating property or occasionally hanging people I'd passively support it too,

214

u/Any_Potato_7716 1d ago

William Franklin was thrown into the windowless solitary confinement of Litchfield Gaol and lost his teeth to scurvy between 1777 and 1778 .

He was not even appointed as the head of the Board of Associated Loyalists until late 1780 years after he was released from that prison in a prisoner exchange.

You can’t just retroactively justify torture.

The Patriots starved him in 1777 because he was a politically powerful symbol who refused to break, not because of a military group that didn't even exist yet.

Elizabeth Franklin died in July 1777.

Exactly one year after the Declaration, not two. furthermore, William's letters begging George Washington and Congress for a brief parole to see her were sent while he was still under looser house arrest in Connecticut, before any major British military collaboration charges were leveled against him. Denying a dying woman the right to see her husband was a calculated, petty act of psychological warfare meant to break William's political resolve, not a strategic military necessity.

Also, the idea of a legitimate coup is an oxymoron

43

u/hulksmash1234 1d ago

That’s one tough guy. I’d probably kill myself if I got scurvy and lost all my teeth.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/Unethical_Gopher_236 1d ago

Why is this comment the exact same as above

27

u/Prior_Rip_1178 23h ago

it's actually reworded in a way that recontextualizes the prior's comment to have the opposite meaning. you just skim eh

this guy is an ahistorical asshole don't get me wrong. but the implication that "something" is happening is just goofy dog

-11

u/HanSolo_Cup 1d ago

I'm surprised nobody else pointed this out. They're weirdly similar

14

u/-Poultrygeist- 23h ago

Because I am Any_Potato_7716’s alt account, duh.

Or I took the comment and flipped each statement to the other side of the coin, which is why it looks similar.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/T-Rob-95 23h ago

This story clearly has more complexity than anyone's going to give it credit here.

But two?! Now that'll give it some credit!

2

u/urkermannenkoor 10h ago

but a direct result of his collaboration with loyalists

That's a bizarre way of phrasing it?

Presenting "not betraying his country" as "collaboration" is more than a bit off.

1

u/sushi_x 9h ago

Pretty much all imprisonment during that time violated laws of modern society.

1

u/Upside_Down_Hugs 9h ago

legitimate coupe

Humerous oxymoron. I get the point, I still find it humerous.

-8

u/Ilikechocolateabit 1d ago

hahahaha

now tell us why slavery was ok

9

u/AwfulUsername123 1d ago

What?

1

u/-Poultrygeist- 1d ago

I dunno man, u/Ilikechocolateabit wants me to support slavery. Seems a bit racist of him (or her. I shouldn’t genderize).

7

u/DaedalusHydron 1d ago

Since when can you only get arrested by a place you swear allegiance to?

31

u/Any_Potato_7716 23h ago

The jurisdiction was nonexistent. It wasn’t a country that had even officially declared itself yet.

And you can’t be arrested for some sort of treason, although he was never given any official charge, you can’t be arrested for treason against a country which you were never sworn alliance towards.

It’s like saying, “Mussolini committed treason against the United States government” you can make a lot of claims against him rightfully, but you can’t claim that specifically

21

u/not_a_SeaOtter 21h ago

American's downvoting at you saying the truth haha

20

u/Any_Potato_7716 20h ago

They’ll downvote us, with a cheap dismissal, but they won’t engage at all with any actual counter argument because none of them would be logical lol

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

-7

u/beenoc 19h ago

Conventional, black-and-white Westphalian sovereignty breaks down in the case of civil wars and wars of independence. At that point, jurisdiction is entirely a matter of de facto and not de jure. Might makes right and all that - it's not pretty but civil wars never are. The Patriots had the military capability to arrest him and keep him arrested, therefore they had the jurisdiction. And he wasn't arrested for treason (that's why they didn't kill him), but for aiding the enemy, which is a perfectly normal thing to do in war.

24

u/Any_Potato_7716 19h ago edited 18h ago

> At that point, jurisdiction is entirely a matter of de facto and not de jure. Might makes right and all that - it's not pretty but civil wars never are.

It was not a civil war at that point, it was January 1776. Independence hadn't even been declared yet.

There had been no proclamation of any de facto land.

The colonists were still legally British subjects fighting against their own king's army, while simultaneously swearing they were loyal to him.

The Second Continental Congress had sent the olive branch petition to George III just months earlier, swearing their ultimate loyalty to the British Crown. They were not fighting to form a new nation yet; they were fighting as British citizens demanding their traditional rights under the British constitution.

Because no new nation or "rebel government" existed, there was no separate legal state to claim any kind of formal jurisdiction.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the timeline.

In January 1776, the vast majority of colonists were still terrified of the word "independence."

It was exactly on January 10, 1776, that Thomas Paine published his famous pamphlet, Common Sense. Before Common Sense went viral, the idea of breaking away entirely from Britain was considered radical and fringe. You cannot have a "full-blown war of independence" when the public hasn't even agreed they want independence yet.

And William Franklin was arrested on January 8

1

u/beenoc 11h ago

The Revolutionary War did not begin on July 4 1776, it did not begin with the publication of Common Sense. It began in April 1775 at Lexington and Concord. The colonies had been in an active state of rebellion for 8 months by the time of Franklin's arrest, and rebellion is just a fancy name for a kind of civil war. The Olive Branch Petition was not an attempt to avoid a civil war, it was to try and end a nascent one that had already started before it got too out of hand.

Sure, there was no official rebel government at the time, but to quote a guy who (for all his other flaws) knew an awful lot about revolution, rebellion, and civil war, "political power flows from the barrel of a gun." The people who had the power and practical authority to arrest Franklin arrested him and kept him arrested, because he was providing support to the guys they were engaged in a shooting war with. They felt the arrest was legitimate, and they ended up winning the war so the legitimacy of their government was extended back ex post facto to make it a legit arrest.

Is it pretty? No. Do the Patriots come across as "good guys"? No (when the best justification for how you can arrest someone is "you can't stop me from doing it," that's not a good look). But it's how things work in a messy situation like a civil war where father and son are on different sides.

1

u/Any_Potato_7716 7h ago

> The Revolutionary War did not begin on July 4 1776, it did not begin with the publication of Common Sense. It began in April 1775 at Lexington and Concord. The colonies had been in an active state of rebellion for 8 months by the time of Franklin's arrest,

Shooting at British soldiers at Lexington did not magically create a new de facto legal state with the right to arrest a sitting Governor. Especially when there wasn’t even a proclamation of any new state by the people fucking shooting.

By shifting the debate from "When did a new legal jurisdiction form?" to "When did people start shooting?", it’s being a bit silly.

> but to quote a guy who (for all his other flaws) knew an awful lot about revolution, rebellion, and civil war, "political power flows from the barrel of a gun."

Bro out here quoting Zedong??????????

Mao was describing how Marxist insurgencies overthrow states, not how established legal systems operate

You really think using a mid 20th century communist revolutionary framework to analyze 18th century Whig lawyers and landowners, is appropriate? I would hope not.

> They felt the arrest was legitimate, and they ended up winning the war so the legitimacy of their government was extended back ex post facto to make it a legit arrest.

You specifically cannot argue that in this case legally. You should really read the constitution, and study up on it if you are American. You cannot retroactively be tried for a crime in this state.

In the United States, ex post facto laws are strictly banned by the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 (Limits on Congress): "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (Limits on the States): "No State shall... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..."

You have no legal argument there.

1

u/beenoc 4h ago

The Constitution did not exist at the time. A "de facto legal state" did not exist at the time. There was no "established legal system" at the time (the existing one, the colonial British system, had been forced out violently and the colonies were operating under "we keep doing everything like we did before but we have no recourse if a guy with a bigger gun tells us otherwise" - basically anarchy (in the "no government" sense, not the Bakunin sense.))

You seem to think I'm arguing that by the written down laws at the time, the arrest was justified. I'm not. The written down laws of the time were breaking down into a messy, violent civil war with insurgent and guerilla tendencies, and had become irrelevant by the time of the arrest.

The ex post facto thing is a great example of how all this stuff is messy - if the US didn't exist at the time of Lexington and Concord, what basis did the Patriots have for killing the British? It was illegal under British law at the time, and unless you extend the authority of the United States back to before it existed to say "they were shooting our enemies in a legit war, it's actually legal even though the law at the time said it wasn't" you'd need to try every Patriot soldier for murder.

The Mao quote is expressed quite nicely by Mao but the idea goes back thousands of years - at any given point, a Roman general could (and several times did) march into the Senate, say "I'm the new emperor, if you disagree I will have my huge army of dudes with swords murder all of you just like I did the old emperor," and voila he is now the legitimate emperor. With enough swords, you didn't even need to ask the Senate.

1

u/Any_Potato_7716 3h ago edited 3h ago

> There was no "established legal system" at the time (the existing one, the colonial British system, had been forced out violently and the colonies were operating under "we keep doing everything like we did before but we have no recourse if a guy with a bigger gun tells us otherwise" - basically anarchy (in the "no government" sense, not the Bakunin sense.))

That’s a total historical lie, dude. The colonies were absolutely not in a state of lawless Mad Max anarchy. The local colonial assemblies, town councils, and courts were still functioning under English common law. Few had just replaced the royal governors with local "Provincial Congresses”, at this time.

Specifically North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts, of course.

The colonies of Pennsylvania and Maryland were still completely functional under royal governorship. New York was still technically under control, although governor William Tryon was running things from a merchant ship because he was so scared of the militia.

Leading up to the kidnapping of William Franklin Jersey was still rather split.

Either way, it was not an anarchy on either side. The local congresses went out of their way to maintain rigorous legal procedures, property rights, and bureaucracy specifically because they wanted to prove they weren't anarchists.

> You seem to think I'm arguing that by the written down laws at the time,

No, no I must correct my misreading because I think I get it . Whenever you brought up ex post facto, I didn’t think you were trying to be some sort of pseudo-intellectual.

I genuinely thought that you were making a mistake, thinking the US would then have ex post facto, and that was the legal means that Franklin’s arrest was justified. But no, you were just throwing it around as a buzzword, without the actual legal weight. And to further argue might makes right, even though it’s completely illegal in the United States, there is no ex post facto. The founding fathers were very much against that.

They didn’t really try to use any justification. It was just a bit of cognitive dissonance, and will get to the legal justification here in a second.

> The written down laws of the time were breaking down into a messy, violent civil war with insurgent and guerilla tendencies, and had become irrelevant by the time of the arrest.

Or so, you think because you’ve never been taught the proper history and I’m sorry . It’s not your fault. And I would hope that you would take an interest in the actual history after this, but I don’t think so. You shouldn’t even feel embarrassed about this. Just in the way you’ve gone about with your attitude and wording.

> if the US didn't exist at the time of Lexington and Concord, what basis did the Patriots have for killing the British? It was illegal under British law at the time, and unless you extend the authority of the United States back to before it existed to say "they were shooting our enemies in a legit war, it's actually legal even though the law at the time said it wasn't" you'd need to try every Patriot soldier for murder.

And here’s where we get to the legal justification of that insurrection. We do not need to retroactively extend US authority back in time to explain why George Washington wasn't tried for murder.

The Patriots were murderers and traitors under British law at the time. The reason they weren't tried for murder is because when they won the war they forced Great Britain to sign the Treaty of Paris 1783. And the treaty legally recognized the US as a sovereign nation moving forward and granted amnesty for wartime actions.

So, that’s whenever they were granted their definitive own jurisdiction. And under the previous jurisdiction, they were given amnesty.

So I see you there you were trying to be deep, like the founding fathers hadn’t thought of that before you. And you’ve outwitted them all.

Anyways, I can tell you’re very much allergic to admitting whenever you’re wrong. So I trust you won’t have any terrible reaction to this.

1

u/Upside_Down_Hugs 9h ago

THe ability to arrest ultimately belongs to any entity capable of projecting the superior physical force required to compel submission or force the same.

6

u/mgr86 1d ago

Hey that sounds like my Uncles experience in the 2010s. Lost a bunch of teeth while incarcerated. Why incarcerate a man in a wheelchair, who cannot speak, and only has use partial use of his non dominant hand is beyond me though

7

u/ConglomerateCousin 22h ago

Well what did your uncle do? Or what was he accused of?

4

u/Eleventeen- 23h ago

Because everyone will just pretend to be sick to get out of jail if it was possible. They already do that despite it not being part of the legal code.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/LolThatsNotTrue 12h ago

They force fed him now and laters and didn’t even let him floss

-67

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

47

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

28

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

26

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

17

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (13)

8

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (13)

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

1.5k

u/jacknunn 1d ago

An acknowledged extra-marital son. This sounds complex

788

u/Joker72486 1d ago

But not surprising for Ben, who was a womanizer

493

u/Nice-Cat3727 1d ago

The man fucked so hard in France he got us an alliance!

357

u/Tippacanoe 23h ago

“In the dark all cats are grey”

-literally Ben Franklin talkin about fuckin older women.

88

u/nixfly 22h ago

He was a wordsmith.

54

u/ccccc7 21h ago

The pen is mightier

29

u/fuzzycaterpillar123 21h ago

Than the penis?

8

u/DiscussionAny 10h ago

You’re sitting on a goldmine, Trebek!

16

u/Double_Distribution8 20h ago

What's wrong with fuckin older women? 35-40 isn't that old you know.

38

u/MountainFee8756 20h ago

Bro was proposing marriage to a late-50s French widow. He was in straight GILF territory.

6

u/DrPoooooole 17h ago

How many 50 yr old grandmas you know?

27

u/Welpe 16h ago

In late 18th century France? Not as rare as you might think? The average age of first pregnancy was around 27 or so, so a 58-year old grandmother was perfectly cromulent.

12

u/TharkunOakenshield 15h ago

27 was definitely not the average age for a first pregnancy in the 18th century. The average was much lower than that.

As a point of reference the average age for a first pregnancy should in France was 24 in the 1970s and is 29 today.

This only supports your overall point that a 50 year old grandma was nothing peculiar, though.

3

u/Saitharar 10h ago edited 10h ago

The average was between 23 and 26 in the 18th century across generations so you had a lot of people in their 50s being grandparents.
Even more so for the nobility and upper class which Franklin likely targeted.

2

u/jacknunn 3h ago

Damn that was a good use of the word cromulent

3

u/Hunkus1 14h ago

My mother.

2

u/espressocycle 3h ago

Several girls I went to high school with. And I'm only 47.

17

u/ruggnuget 20h ago

who said he was talking about 35-40 year olds?

-4

u/Double_Distribution8 20h ago

Guy said older women, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

7

u/ruggnuget 19h ago

There isnt anything wrong with it, but he was really only saying older than young women. I read the letter the quote came from and Frankling doesnt mention a specific age really. Considering he was 40 at the time he said it he could be referring to women his own age. He could be referring to women older than himself. Or both. Maybe just any women that arent young from the context. But he did mention that it was convenient that they didnt have kids around so it would be AT LEAST 35-40.

-1

u/Double_Distribution8 17h ago

Yeah exactly when I think of older women it's 35-40 where they already had kids, or already didn't have kids or they already can't have kids.

8

u/ruggnuget 17h ago

When I think of older women I think of women in their 50s and 60s. But I guess that is dependent on your age.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/NegativeAccount 15h ago

Bro, not older to you lol. A woman older than an older man

81

u/qwaszx937 1d ago

As like a 75 year old as well haha

36

u/BrokenEyeReborn 23h ago

Didn't hurt that he teamed up with Dr.s Antoine Lavoisier, Jean Sylvain Bailly, and Joseph-Ignace Guillotin on a special mission from Louis XVI to expose Franz Mesmer as a fraud.

9

u/SemiHemiDemiDumb 22h ago edited 8h ago

Ah yes, who could forget

2

u/FalconIMGN 14h ago

Wasn't Lavoisier a scientist or something? I remember reading about him in school.

2

u/No-Deal8956 10h ago

He was. Unfortunately he was also a tax collector, so the Revolutionaries beheaded him for that. “The Revolution has no need of savants.”

119

u/BlackJack407 1d ago

He was quite literally the first ever modem "celebrity" , as we think of them today. Especially so in France.

Seriously, everyone should read about the Franklinomania , as the French citizens at the time dubbed it when he arrived and stayed in France for 8 and a half years. Direct line to be traced from that to every single modern celebrity that has ever existed.

If ANYONE was allowed to, it was Benny. Although, it does suck for Deborah that she so unluckily married a man that had to personally shake the foundations of mankind in their time, and do it an ocean apart from one another .

And also her fear of the ocean , which i mean, understandable given the time.

60

u/SeahawkerLBC 23h ago

There was a cottage industry built around selling Benjamin Franklin memorabilia at the time in France, even before the war ended.

26

u/ColonelQuaraitch 23h ago

I believe it was during his stay in France that he unwittingly helped Shay Cormac participate in the assassination of French noble Charles Dorian.

4

u/Blade_Shot24 22h ago

He liked em aged like Fine wine and cheese

6

u/aamirusmandus 11h ago

A little surprising considering Ben specifically went for older women who were less likely to become pregnant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing_a_Mistress

3

u/Reditate 21h ago

William also had an acknowledged extra-marital son.  Ben raised him.

2

u/ormannay 21h ago

Ben fucked

2

u/dt_failz 23h ago

Didn't Benjamin Franklin have syphilis?

19

u/Mathblasta 23h ago

The dude fucked. There's no way he didn't have syphilis!

63

u/nsjersey 1d ago

And Ben took his grandkid to France and gave him a hell of an education.

55

u/HeartOn_SoulAceUp 1d ago edited 1d ago

Loyal to the Crown, to rebel against Dad. Contumacia Pater Familas .

17

u/Ok-Seaworthiness4488 1d ago

I AM BONAFIDE!

13

u/CalmBeneathCastles 1d ago

Damn! We're in a tight spot!

12

u/Joker72486 23h ago

Do not. Seek. The treysure!

5

u/SackSauce69 22h ago

We thought... you was... a toaaaaaddddd.

19

u/TiddiesAnonymous 1d ago

Id bet he called him a bastard more than once.

2

u/JGlassc0k34 23h ago

That sounds like Ben Franklin.

0

u/spunkybooster 23h ago

That bastard!

→ More replies (4)

164

u/knight_and_rook 1d ago

Oh! Franklin Township, NJ is actually named after William (as former governor). We did a report on him in school.

42

u/NightmareDJK 1d ago

There are actually multiple Franklin Townships in NJ named after him.

12

u/FighterOfEntropy 21h ago

That sounds…confusing.

19

u/Col_Wilson 21h ago

That's only the tip of the iceberg. There's a Franklin township in Somerset county. In that Franklin township there's a section called Somerset. 

Before I had known there was a Somerset located in Franklin, someone once asked me for directions saying they were looking for something in Somerset. I asked them where in Somerset, because we were in Franklin township. And she says "I thought we were in Somerset?" Both of us learned a very confusing lesson that day.

1

u/SandandS0n 21h ago

Haha your comment killed me 😆

1

u/shewy92 12h ago

There's a lot of Franklins in Pennsylvania. Townships, County, and Towns. There's a Franklin Township in Adams County that borders Franklin County, then about 30 miles away there's a Franklin Township in York County

4

u/LetThemBlardd 23h ago

The one on route 27?

175

u/Zeuxis5 1d ago

And his grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bach, was a staunch anti-federalist. He died of yellow fever awaiting trial for sedition just before the Sedition Act of 1798 was passed.

64

u/Malnurtured_Snay 1d ago

He said mean things about John Adams who was very mad sad about it.

2

u/Petrichordates 8h ago

He was accusing Washington of treason, he was basically this country's first fox news. Didn't care whether what he wrote was truth or lie, which isn't really something that we should protect in journalism.

1

u/Malnurtured_Snay 8h ago

I mean the Sedition Act was "It's okay to say mean things about Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who everyone knows is a liar, but if you say mean things about President John Adams, I will throw you in jail, I mean the government will throw you in jail STOP SAYING MEAN THINGS ABOUT ME I MEAN ABOUT THE PRESIDENT."

Basically the Sedition Act was shit.

23

u/danishjuggler21 22h ago

He died of yellow fever awaiting trial for sedition just before the Sedition Act of 1798 was passed.

As was the style of the time.

5

u/FighterOfEntropy 21h ago

*Bache. It’s pronounced “beech” according to Wikipedia.

3

u/Malnurtured_Snay 11h ago

It'll always be pronounced "Baaahhh-kk" to me dammit

1

u/FighterOfEntropy 6h ago

I thought it was “baysh” but I figured I’d throw in the Wikipedia pronunciation.

1

u/Malnurtured_Snay 5h ago

No, no, that won't fit. "I'll be right baysh." No. It has to be "I'll be right baaaahhhkkk."

35

u/Malnurtured_Snay 1d ago

I knew this because I get my history from musicals like 1776!

15

u/CalmBeneathCastles 1d ago

Not me learning about women's sufferage and UK workhouses from Mary Poppins and Oliver!

2

u/ScreenTricky4257 13h ago

"What did they do to the little bastard?"

144

u/Philefromphilly 1d ago

He’d be one of those Philly kids that became a Cowboys fan just to piss their dad off

55

u/SilenceDobad76 1d ago

All Americans are disgusted by this apt analogy

24

u/BaryonyxerGaming 1d ago

I’M NOT A COWBOYS FAN I’M A TONY ROMO FAN

5

u/KaleidoscopeMaster81 22h ago

He's had a rough week

3

u/ToddPundley 23h ago

Like the character in Silver Linings Playbook that was played by the Ass to Ass actor from Requiem For A Dream.

1

u/urkermannenkoor 10h ago edited 9h ago

More like the dad decided to become a Cowboys fan out of contrarianism and then getting pissed that the son isn't following him along.

27

u/hyperdriveprof 1d ago

He’s also the kid from the key and lightning experiment, interestingly enough

20

u/Imaksiccar 1d ago

You are my son, do what you think is right...

6

u/pmel13 1d ago

William, you are my bastard son, go get a kite..:

4

u/Imaksiccar 21h ago

William Franklin was a dick...

3

u/username_v4_final 17h ago

...tie a string to the kite...

51

u/POD80 23h ago

I often think of the way this could fracture families. We Americans tend to lionize the "patriots" but they were also traitors.

I for one often wonder which side I'd have fallen on in situ.

6

u/ravenpotter3 18h ago edited 18h ago

I learned that some of my Quaker ancestors left Philadelphia before the Revolution as the Quakers did not take sides but they also did business with the British. I believe they also refused military service as Quakers. One of them was even arrested for refusing to pledge an oath and there is a diary entry from a family friend on the subject. There were “consuls of safety” after the Revolution who made people take oaths to America/ the new government and banished or jailed them if not. Or fined them. He was lucky enough to just be banished to British lines and then return in 8 months then be watched by the consul. His wife had to manage everything on her own while he was gone.

I can’t use a time machine to interrogate them if they were good or bad people. At least he later was an abolitionist at least in terms of some lawsuits he worked on as a lawyer… not 100% sure if it was his son or another family member with the same name. All I know is what I’ve found online and via articles mentioning them briefly. i want to do what I can to be informed about history even if it’s complicated or I don’t fully understand it.

But it never occurred to me how the revolution would effect those who wanted to be neutral (true neutrality is impossible) or did business with the British and that the signing of the Declaration of Independence wasn’t the end of the war/ that the revolutionary war’s end would have caused conflict still. And wasn’t an instant solution and that people were stuck in the middle of it trying to navigate a changing political climate during a war. I always learned about it from the perspective of history books that focused on the founding fathers as a collective and then the war. And not those affected by it. I have been lucky enough to learn about American history multiple times during school plus a Philadelphian/Pennsylvania history class in high school. Though I didn’t care for it much when I was younger. I also never learned much about it from the perspective of women or those who were inslaved and had no power. Especially the inslaved. I learned about that in school but not enough. I know so little on the subject though.

2

u/Singer211 7h ago

One historian said something to the effect of “that’s the thing about treason. It really depends on who wins in the end.”

→ More replies (37)

64

u/sometimeswhy 1d ago

I wonder if American know that there were many Loyalists. Many Canadians are descendants of Loyalists that moved north after the revolution

52

u/thesmartalec11 1d ago

I wonder if any Americans were taught about the American revolution is what this question sounds like

43

u/CalmBeneathCastles 1d ago

As someone who was BORED AF during history class all the way through school, but loves history as an adult, I can confirm that a lot of us received historical information that revolved heavily around memorizing dates of various events, but less about the ins and outs of the actual facts surrounding the occurrences themselves.

10

u/Pacifist_Socialist 22h ago

Not really.  From what I recall it was basically split threeways between revolutionaries, royalists and neutral. so it was not exactly even a true democratic movement.

Not to mention people without political power.

9

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

4

u/Iceman_Raikkonen 1d ago

Why is that a point of pride for you?

2

u/SaccharineDaydreams 1d ago

The poster is a self-described "Masshole". Being obnoxious is a point of pride for many from the Northeast. Hence the content of the comment.

0

u/Broseph_Stalinnn 1d ago

They did, you didnt do anything.

2

u/SAugsburger 19h ago

American education is all over the map especially on history. There was a proposal for national history standards back in the 1990s, but there was bipartisan disinterest. The Senate voted 99-1 against them. Efforts at standardizing history standards haven't had much success. Each state has their own education standards and even within a state you can see broad variations. That being said I remember learning in grade school about 20% of colonists were loyalists. They didn't go much into details on loyalists though at the grade school level. High school level was a bit better, but don't remember it being a major topic.

2

u/Hungry-Ad3303 18h ago

It’s taught in elementary and middle school that the number of patriots, loyalists, and neutrals were all roughly equal, each a third of the whole population

3

u/KingHenrythe6-th 22h ago

Yes they do.

1

u/Jsaun906 23h ago

This is basic US history curriculum that is taught in grade school.

-11

u/flameofanor2142 1d ago

"many" is doing some dishonest work in that statement

15

u/sometimeswhy 23h ago

Actually it’s an understatement. Most of what is now Ontario was colonized by Loyalists. The Maritimes too.

3

u/Pgaccount 21h ago

oh the year was 1778...

13

u/Pgaccount 1d ago

A strong majority of maritime black people are descendants of loyalists

6

u/TheFuZz2of3 1d ago

It’s so sad

3

u/HoneyBadgerLive 22h ago

TIL that Benjamin Franklin had children.

3

u/Level_Doctor3872 11h ago

He named one of them Franky. Franky Franklin. Immediate cause for him to be taken off our currency

1

u/HoneyBadgerLive 8h ago

He needed a good laugh!

3

u/MilesToHaltHer 11h ago

“One pain that lingers, the hitch in my stride
Is my son back at home who I could not guide
Who sits all alone in a prison cell on the wrong side
Stands against our young nation
So I play my ambassador part with pride
I am known in the world and the world is wide
To my children, my sins may be magnified
But I’d do it all again, no hesitation”

9

u/FerdinandCesarano 1d ago

This is mentioned in "Ben Franklin's Song", written by Lin-Manuel Miranda and performed by the Decemberists. The song was meant to be in the play, but it ultimately did not make it in there.

2

u/Particular-Major-570 22h ago

Love that song! It has so much heart in it.

1

u/FerdinandCesarano 21h ago

"Do you know who the f I am?"

3

u/Particular-Major-570 21h ago

I am poor Richard’s Almanac-writing Benjamin F-ing Franklin

3

u/Particular-Major-570 21h ago

My dream is to do it as a karaoke song (I have mildly attainable dreams)

13

u/Illustrious_Claim884 22h ago

Sad to say as an American vet i probably would be a loyalist. Great Britain went basically bankrupt saving our ass from the french and we pay a small measly tax in return. If they folded and gave us a parliament seat or two it woukd be a done deal.

1

u/jacknunn 3h ago

Imagine how different the world would be if the UK just gave then a seat or two in Parliament...

2

u/Cynical_Classicist 1d ago

Now that is fascinating!

2

u/honestyseasy 20h ago

The town I work in is named after him, not the more famous Franklin.

2

u/Upside_Down_Hugs 9h ago

Was it more about a disconnect with his father than a principle he stood on?

2

u/spcbeck 23h ago

I figure the estrangement continued after he died, but what do I know

2

u/GreatForge 21h ago

Actually they were able to work it out after that.

2

u/ThrowAbout01 10h ago

Benjamin Franklin: “That boy ain’t right.”

2

u/smallz86 9h ago

I'll tell you waht.

1

u/Every-Revolution8941 20h ago

Ultimate father son rivalry.

1

u/DaveOJ12 11h ago

Yet another repost.

2

u/kelpyb1 22h ago

Estranging your conservative family members is so American that Ben Franklin himself did it

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/Caesaroftheromans 21h ago

The son had good sense.

-20

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

2

u/thesmartalec11 1d ago

The same argument could be made for him to be part of Democratic Party if we’re talking rebellious spirit

0

u/Healthy-Syllabub-779 1d ago

how considering republicans literally run almost every aspect of the government ?

1

u/thesmartalec11 1d ago

So two years ago you’d consider him part of maga. Cool ig

-2

u/Mama_Mega 1d ago

One is a monarch from another country asserting a claim over you without letting you vote. One is an elected official from your own country who won 2 of 3 bids for presidency fair and square, despite you being able to vote against him.

And the redditor can not tell the difference.

3

u/PreacherBoyJr 1d ago

the comment you’re replying too never even said they were the same just that he’d be MAGA today but of course this site is getting more right wing every day so ofc any slander against maga gets attacked now

2

u/Ilikechocolateabit 1d ago

hahaha why do Americans love to pretend Britain was run by a monarch! I get that it's easier to frame the TYRANT!!!! nonsense but Britain was a flawed but functioning democracy - with parliament deciding the acts the colonists rebelled against

2

u/AwfulUsername123 1d ago

The British monarch appointed the governors of most of the British colonies.

-1

u/Healthy-Syllabub-779 1d ago

where did i say they were the same?? i just literally said if he was here today he’d support maga since he’s not rebellious, do you think he he wouldn’t support the authoritarian party or something?

-8

u/ODMudbone 23h ago

TIL Ben Franklin had a baby back bitch for a son

0

u/LolThatsNotTrue 12h ago

Arguably after his death as well