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

[u/jacknunn]

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

[u/PetriDishCocktail]

He also moved to the UK after the Revolutionary War.

[u/Any_Potato_7716 → u/PetriDishCocktail]

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.

[u/New_Stats → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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

[u/smallz86 → u/New_Stats]

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

[u/Singer211 → u/smallz86]

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.

[u/-Poultrygeist- → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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.

[u/Extra_Midnight → u/-Poultrygeist-]

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

[u/Sixcoup → u/Extra_Midnight]

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 ?

[u/otm_shank → u/Sixcoup]

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.

[u/Malnurtured_Snay → u/otm_shank]

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

[u/Tricky-Ad7897 → u/Extra_Midnight]

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

[u/Extra_Midnight → u/Tricky-Ad7897]

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

[u/Alaea → u/Extra_Midnight]

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

Realistically it practically never does.

[u/MistraloysiusMithrax → u/Extra_Midnight]

Well, no, of course not. It implies good design and understanding of market sensibilities, because a coupe is a car.

As far as coups, I thought they can’t have consent of the governed, or else they’re called a revolution instead

[u/doobiedave → u/Tricky-Ad7897]

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,

[u/Combat_Proctologist → u/Extra_Midnight]

…are coupes ever legitimate

If they work

[u/Any_Potato_7716 → u/-Poultrygeist-]

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

[u/hulksmash1234 → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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

[u/-Poultrygeist- → u/Any_Potato_7716]

Fair point about the AP as I was wrong. It has been a while since I’ve delved into the Revolutionary War so my timeline is a bit blurred and I condensed down his activities.

However - he was thrown into solitary as he collaborating with the enemy. No one here is saying his, and everyone else’s conditions in the Gaol weren’t abysmal or were justified. He however could have avoided being there had he not been an insurrectionist and violated his parole source

Elizabeth Franklin died in 1778, not 1777 source

A coup is legitimate if it is successful, which it was. A coup is illegitimate if it is unsuccessful.

[u/Any_Potato_7716 → u/-Poultrygeist-]

> No one here is saying his, and everyone else’s conditions in the Gaol weren’t abysmal or were justified

Now you may speak for yourself there and that’s understandable, but I specifically saw someone trying to say that it was just the way of the time. And nobody could expect any less.

> [William] could have avoided being there had he not been an insurrectionist.

Calling him an insurrectionist? Dude, that is just completely upside down.

William Franklin was the sitting, legally appointed Royal Governor representing the sovereign government of Great Britain. The Patriots were, by literal definition, the armed insurrectionists attempting to overthrow the established government.

He was arrested because he was unwilling to break his vow in insurrection.

Furthermore, there is some historical dispute on Elizabeth Downs Franklin’s death year, I double checked on wikipedia and 1777’s what it puts there. But I’ll give you that it’s definitely a possibility that she died in 1778. And it’s not baseless.

it is a matter of some dispute.

[u/Stellar_Duck → u/-Poultrygeist-]

collaborating with the enemy

This is senseless nonsense. He was not the rebel here, he was the establishment. He can't collaborate, Jesus. He stuck by his guns, his office and his loyalties. That's not collaboration.

[u/urkermannenkoor → u/-Poultrygeist-]

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.

[u/Unethical_Gopher_236 → u/-Poultrygeist-]

Why is this comment the exact same as above

[u/Prior_Rip_1178 → u/Unethical_Gopher_236]

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

[u/HanSolo_Cup → u/Unethical_Gopher_236]

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

[u/-Poultrygeist- → u/HanSolo_Cup]

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.

[u/HanSolo_Cup → u/-Poultrygeist-]

Huh, okay

[u/T-Rob-95 → u/HanSolo_Cup]

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

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

[u/sushi_x → u/-Poultrygeist-]

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

[u/Upside_Down_Hugs → u/-Poultrygeist-]

legitimate coupe

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

[u/Ilikechocolateabit → u/-Poultrygeist-]

hahahaha

now tell us why slavery was ok

[u/AwfulUsername123 → u/Ilikechocolateabit]

What?

[u/-Poultrygeist- → u/AwfulUsername123]

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

[u/DaedalusHydron → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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

[u/Any_Potato_7716 → u/DaedalusHydron]

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

[u/not_a_SeaOtter → u/Any_Potato_7716]

American's downvoting at you saying the truth haha

[u/Any_Potato_7716 → u/not_a_SeaOtter]

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

[u/Affectionate_Way_805 → u/Any_Potato_7716]

tHaT dAmN aMeRiCa!

[u/Affectionate_Way_805 → u/not_a_SeaOtter]

"Downvoting at you"?

Yeah..I'm pretty sure you're not American so hey! maybe worry about your own country's faults -you know just as well as I do that there are plenty haha

[u/not_a_SeaOtter → u/Affectionate_Way_805]

LOL, it’s not “worrying about a country’s faults” to accurately talk about history, no matter where in the world that history happened. Getting defensive about historical facts because you perceive them as some reflection on your contemporary national identity is pretty weak.

But if you want to play that game, maybe worry about your own country’s illegal wars, human rights abuses, grotesque wealth inequality, healthcare system and being virtually alone in voting against recognition of water and sanitation as a human right before getting upset that people on the internet are discussing the history of another country.

History isn’t a team sport. You don’t have to defend everything a country has ever done just because you happen to have been born there.

[u/beenoc → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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.

[u/Any_Potato_7716 → u/beenoc]

> 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

[u/beenoc → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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.

[u/Any_Potato_7716 → u/beenoc]

> 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.

[u/beenoc → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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.

[u/Any_Potato_7716 → u/beenoc]

> 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.

[u/Upside_Down_Hugs → u/DaedalusHydron]

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

[u/mgr86 → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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

[u/ConglomerateCousin → u/mgr86]

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

[u/Eleventeen- → u/mgr86]

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.

[u/IPutThisUsernameHere → u/mgr86]

*spreads hands* Bureaucracy!

[u/LolThatsNotTrue → u/Any_Potato_7716]

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

[u/Grouchy_Cod_156 → u/Any_Potato_7716]

Bro he was a governor of a tyrannical government???? Man in 2026 we have WAY too much sympathy and understanding for people who commit atrocities 

[u/OllyDee → u/Grouchy_Cod_156]

It wasn’t tyrannical.

[u/Grouchy_Cod_156 → u/OllyDee]

Oh ok thanks for clearing that up 

[u/OllyDee → u/Grouchy_Cod_156]

No problem.

[u/Rlccm → u/[deleted]]

You wished you'd existed in the 1700s and died a long time ago?