Benjamin Franklin ~ 10/03 ~ Book Club Online Export

Welcome to Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin - An American Life by Walter Isaacson

Isaacson provides the full sweep of Benjamin Franklin's amazing life, from his days as a runaway printer to his triumphs as a statesman, scientist, and Founding Father." from the Publisher

"Srodes tells Franklin's incredible life story making full use of the previously neglected Franklin papers to provide the most riveting account yet of the journalist, scientist, politician, and unlikely adventurer." from the Publisher

Franklin - The Essential Founding Father by James Srodes

Any Franklin biography descriptive of the full 84-year Franklin life career should be a suitable platform from which our readers may participate. IT IS READERS CHOICE OF BOOKS! We are looking forward with great interest to this review of the career of this important founding father as a continuation of the tradition established by last year's discussion of John Adams. Everyone will be welcome!
Discussion Schedule

Oct. 1- 5: Family Background, Early Life, Education and Early Adult Years (1706 – 1732)

Oct. 6-10: Benjamin Franklin Printer/Publisher of Philadelphia becomes a Public Benefactor, Scientist, and Politician known throughout North America and Europe (1732-1757).

Oct. 11-15: Franklin becomes a Parliamentary Lobbyist representing the Colonies in London (1757-1770).

Oct. 16-20: The Revolution begins with Franklin still at his post in London (1771-1775) returning to Philadelphia to participate in the writing of the Declaration of Independence (1775 -1776).

Oct. 21-25: Representing the Rebel Government in France (1776-1785).

Oct. 26-31: Peacemaker and Final Years as America's Elder Statesman (1785-1790), Epilogue, Conclusions and Franklin's Place in History as judged by each participant.

Pages/Chapters to read in Isaacson and Srodes

Questions:

What changes did BF find in America upon his return from his nine-year trip abroad and did he approve of all of them?

What were some of the issues facing the state legislatures at this time and what role did Franklin play in the political activities that the leaders were engaged in?

Do you agree that Franklin “accomplished more than any man of his time”? (a direct quote from the Srodes book)

What qualities do you most admire in Franklin? If you had to name just one, what would it be?

INTERESTING LINKS
The Electric Franklin

Discussion Leaders: ELLA and HAROLD

B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Suggest a Book/Discussion

When discussing the book JOHN ADAMS by David McCullough, we touched on the subject of Benjamin Franklin and the part he played as goodwill ambassador for the colonies during the Revolutionary war in France particularly.

So I am very pleased that we have found two good recent books about this extraordinary man who wore many hats, including that of an inventor and a printer.

Please join us in what promises to be an excellent discussion!

Yes indeed, Ben Franklin is the one for this year's "Founding Fathers" discussion. During the past year on the History board and elsewhere there has been frequent mention of biographies of Revolution Era figures. Some of these have been John Hancock Aaron Burr, Benedict Arnold (no relation- he's English, I'm German), and of course Benjamin Franklin.

I think we have a winner in our decision to submit this proposal asking you to join us in discussing the distinguished career of Benjim Franklin described by one author as the "essential Founding Father." As explained in the heading participants will have the choice of reading either of two excellent current books. Everyone is Welcome, and any Seniors Netter interested in participating is asked to enter a post indicating that intent. We will need at least 3 and hopefully 4, 5, 6, or a dozen committed participants, to schedule the discussion. Will you will join the group?

Harold: I will try my best to read one of these books and participate in the discussion. I am about half way through "Undaunted Courage" and would like to finish it before Franklin. Also have two other novels I would lilke to get into. So hopefully I will make it before October.

Harold,

I have a few books: "Franklin, The First American;" "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin;" and "Franklin and his Enemies"

Don't have either of the books you are going to discuss but hope to check them out of the Library in time for the Discussion.

Tiger Tom

Got your e-mail about the proposed Franklin discussion, along with the links to your web site. Hey! I spent an hour rummaging around on it. It's GREAT. Thanks.

Howzat

I have the book The First American the Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin...would that serve? I would enjoy participating if it does. anna

Hi Harold and Ella,

I am excited to join the discussion. My husband, Bill, will help me choose one of the books this weekend. I missed the John Adams discussion. I don't want to miss this one.

While the two Franklin biographies featured in the heading are the most current there should be no problem with members basing their participation from reading one or more of the many other biographies. Since we plan a schedule. discussing each of the several principal successive phases of Franklin's career from his birth to death, other non-fiction, Franklin biographies should also be acceptable background. In fact interesting different interpretations may appear!

I will add a bit of further comment on the titles featured in the heading and why we choose them. Starting early this year Ella began to review available founding father's biographies (thank you Ella!). We came quite close to proposing a Benedict Arnold title, but after finding the Srodes Ben Franklin book and based on frequent mentions of Franklin on the other boards plus the recollection of his impact from the "John Adams" discussion, we selected Franklin and the Srodes book as the subject of this discussion.

Then on July 1st the Isaacson book was released. Immediately it began receiving the notice of all the books orientated media outlets and within three weeks it was second on the N.Y. Times non-fiction list (Behind Hilary's "Living History"). We felt we could not ignore this popularity since it appears to be on its way to becoming the most popular founding fathers biography since McCullough's "John Adams." Since both books cover Franklin's career through the many phases pretty much in sequence, we thought we could feature both titles in the heading.

As I said in the heading the principal difference between the two is that Isaacson gives more detail. I suspect its word count is at least 25% larger than Srodes. Base on my initial complete browsing (short of reading every word) of both books I consider Strodes as quite adequate but I also realize that Isaacson provides much valuable and interesting additional detail. As a practical matter, it would appear that under present conditions library waiting lists for Isaacson will be prohibitively long, but a library Copy of the Srodes title will likely be available from most libraries. For purchasers the B & N on-line purchase price (Click the title name in the heading) of Isaacson is $18.00; the Srodes price is a little bit less. There are probably additional shipping charges and in-store purchases may be higher. So as I said it is participant's choice and I am quite willing to extend this choice to other Franklin biographies albeit I'm sure some are better, some are worse than others.

I want to mention the fact that both Ella and I will be co-DL's, and Ella should be considered the "numero uno." Ella is currently tied to her "Queen Noor" discussion now in progress. Also I will be absent for about a week during the period on a pre-planned visit in New Mexico during which Ella will be the sole leader

Since you will accept The First American The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin by H.W.Brands then I will be glad to join in the discussion. It is 716 pages long with a large number of pages of source notes, an epilogue and a very large index to find particular areas.

I bought it last year since I missed the discussion on John Adams and wanted to read a thorough book on Franklin. I havent read it as yet but will start after September and the questions asked will lead me to read the same subject by another author...so count me in...anna

I had a look in our library catalogue but there is only two childrens biographies on Benjamin Franklin. I will ask my daughter to check out the Varsity Library. I probably will not get one of the suggested books as we are unlikely to have newish publications. This is because its not directly related to our history. Me being a furriner! I will try and get a biography of some sort so I can at least put my sixpence worth in! Just off to email Vanessa now!

Carolyn

Vanessa is looking on the weekend at the Varsity library for me. I will probably have to get another book than those suggested but at least I will have the facts and be able to join in! I know very little about Franklin the man so I am looking forward to October!

Kiwi Lady, you will be most welcome. If I remember correctly you are from New Zeeland. The perspective of people outside the U.S. is always appreciated.

I, too, have the Brands book, The First American and have read about 200 pages. I can recommend this book, though it is long and detailed, but also well written and interesting. I am not sure why there is this sudden interest in Franklin. The Brands book was the first new study in 50 years and now we have 2 more books to choose from.

I will probably not be able to participate as my fall schedule involves a lot of travel to the US at about the time when you will be discussing the book. I will however 'keep posted'.

Georgehd, we welcome your interest though circumstance may make your actual participation difficult. I think the current interest in Franklin has been developing over the last several years. Within Senior's Net Books It first bloomed in Dec 2001 in the McCullough, "John Adams" discussion. Clearly it was Franklin, not Adams who was the one best able to obtain aid from the French. I think Franklin's role impressed us all. Since then his name has appeared in posts on the history board, the Community board and the non-fiction board.

Ella and I as non-fiction coordinators have been interested in new founding father biographies for discussions. Ella has done much research in her library reviewing possible discussion. It is the total of all these things that led us to Franklin and the Srodes book. Then the favorable media impact of the Isaacson title released July 1, 2003 added more fuel to the Franklin fire.

I am now in the process of reading both the Isaacson and Srodes books together and am satisfied with both. In particular I like the Isaacson and now understand why it deserves its number 2 position on the N.Y. Times non-fiction list. I think it offers a good dose of necessary detail and at the same time it is not too long for Seniors casual reading. Georgehd we will appreciate from time to time your occasional comment from your reading of the Brand book even if your schedule will not permit your regular participation.

Georgehd and all of you who have posted here. You might be interested in our History and Historical Biography Board. Over the years Comments posted on this board has led to discussions of at least the following books: Ambrose, "Undaunted Courage;" Loewen, "Lies My Teacher Told Me;" From several authors, "Mutiny on the Bounty;" Wynik, "April 1865;" and Jennings, "The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire." Click Here for History and Historical Biography (Archive July 2003) and Click Here for History and Historical Biographies (New July 2003). Your participation on this board is always welcome.

I started it last night and feel it will be a very good book about an interesting American...it is long in pages and in words but the writer is good and it is a very intelligent study...so I am looking forward to comparing the different books...anna

Vanessa has located me two books - One about Franklin and his son and the other a straight biography of Ben Franklin. I think I will be well equipped to join in now! I can keep the books for a whole semester that is three months. Vanessa has been able to get me books when all else fails from the Varsity Library before. Looking forward to this discussion and learning more about your Constitution. As an aside we have no formal Constitution but have many laws to protect the individual. If we become a republic it will be a different story but so far the country leans toward retaining the monarchy as I do myself.

Carolyn

Harold, thanks for the info on the History and Bio discussions. I had not noted them and I too like to read bios from time to time. I currently have Lincoln, Lenin and Anthony Blunt waiting to be read.

The September Issue of The Smithsonian Magazine has a gigantic, absolutely stunning article on Benjamin Franklin, Revolutionary and it's fascinating reading if you're interested in the subject, I recommmend it. They also have a shorter article on Why Lewis and Clark Matter, very interesting issue for September, thought you would like to know.

ginny

Ginny thank you for the information. I have the Smithsonian that came just the other day. I was busy and laid it aside without checking its content. I'll read it now for sure.

Also Time Magazine the first week in July had Ben on the cover and an article on the Isaacsion book that had just been released by its publisher on July 1st. Isaacson is a former Time Magazine Editor. Do you suppose that had anything to do with the prompt Time broadside coverage?

Hahaha Harold! I have the TIME article saved to quote from and you have the Smithsonian - am looking forward to the discussion and the end of our unseasonably humid and hot weather!

Harold, Ella,

Have Issacson's book on the way. Had to join a book club to get a cheap price. So, I will be able to read along with you in the discussion.

Tiger Tom

Ella, We appear to have the required quorum. Is is it time to move this heading to the Upcoming Individual Book Discussions folder to begin in October?

Yes, I think so, Harold. Will request it and thanks to all who have signed on - this is going to be one of our best ones - with a subject like Benjamin Franklin, the charmer, how can it not be?

The noted title by author Willard Sterne Randall and published in 1984 by Little Brown and Company details Franklin and his relationship with his bastard son William " a brilliant young man who first served Benjamin as military advisor, legal counsel, and pamphleteer, eventually rising to be Royal Governor of New Jersey, only to become his father's implacable enemy."

The book is the story of the tortured relationship between these two extraordinary men. Benjamin hoped that through William he could found a political dynasty that would rival that of the Adam's family. William when the Revolution broke out refused to follow his father and remained loyal to the British Crown. " an enmity developed that was classic in nature and frightening in its ferocity." William, ultimately was exiled to Britain.

Potsherd it is good to hear from you again. I note that the Isaacson biography of Franklin connects him to at least two of the events covered by Jennings in our "Ambiguous Iroquois Empire" book discussed last winter. Franklin was a delegate representing Pennsylvania at the conference with the Delaware's after the Walking Purchase scandal and again at the Albany Conference that followed. I don’t remember if Jennings mentioned Franklin's involvement in these events. At the Albany Conference after the Indians left, Franklin made a proposal that would have created a structure uniting the American Colonies. The Conference approved the proposed plan but every one of the colonies as well as the English Government rejected it.

Your are right in noting the interesting split between Franklin and his son on the question of the revolution. While we hear much concerning family splits at the time of the Civil War, we don’t hear much of splintered families during the Revolution. Yet there were certainly very many. You will be welcome if you choose to join in our discussion.

Finally, I did prepare a Reader's Guide record of the Iroquois Empire discussion that I judge a tad more impressive than the discussion itself. If you have not seen it, Click Here for Reader's Guide, "The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire" by Francis Jennings.

Harold, your recap of the Ambiguous Iroquois Empire ( AIE) is outstanding to say the least. The AIE is a rather complicated happening and I have always been impressed by Jennings research efforts.

Regarding Franklin while Jennings does not mention Franklin I found excellet references of Franklins attendence/participation at both Albany and Easton conferences. Also the Quakers sent Franklin to represent their interests before the Crown. references for all this is _ Teedyuscung 1700-1763_ King of the Delawares by_ Anthony F.C. Wallace.

Will have to pick up a copy of Franklin by Isaacson. Sounds like has really done his homework. He it appears has a best seller on his hands.

Regards

Note everyone that the heading now includes a link to the schedule we propose to follow during the discussion beginning Oct 1st. This schedule is keyed to spectific date periods. This should permit those using any of the many Franklin biographies to participatre in the discussion. I urge every one to review the schedule and to read the paragraph at the end entitled "How to Use This Schecule."

Potsherd,

Before reading Willard Randall's 'A Little Revenge', the only thing I knew about Franklin was what we had in school. Of course then every historical figure was covered with nothing but glory and the cherry tree anecdote headed the list. This book introduced me to the idea that the Loyalist too had a viewpoint. But the punishment Franklin rained on his son because of this difference of opinion seemed to me extradionarly vidictive anit certainly didn't fit the picture of the B.F. who was known to be the very social and popular lady's man that charmed all of France.

Marge

Camper2 yes I was surprised at Franklins revengeful and bitter reaction regarding his son. However Franklins efforts and dedication to his new country and with his sons decision to remain loyal to the crown would appear to be irresolvable to BF. B F's princples and deep concern for the independence of this new colonized land overruled all else including his own flesh and blood. It must have been a heartrending decision for Franklin, with no comprise to the bitter end.

Book,

The copy of Issacson's book on Franklin has not yet shipped from Book Club. Don't know why as it has been available for months. So, if it arrives in mid September I may have to go along witht he Discussion reading chapter by chapter as is discussed.

Tiger Tom

Tiger Tom, your reading Isaacson going along during the discussion will not be a problem with though it might be with other titles. In your case I don't think you will have a problem following the discussion even wihout Isaacson since you have previously mentioned reading other Franklin Biographies.

This discussion is open to readers of any Franklin biography though after browsing several I do like Isaacson as a happy compromise between great detail and light enjoyable reading.

TOM - do you live close to a Library? If so, go there and take out SRODES's book on Franklin; should be readily available. That is what I am going to use during this discussion. Harold has read it and, although not as comprehensible as the Isaacson, it has most of the information we will be discussing.

I have 2 books they are not the same as the ones in the heading but one is a biography of Franklin by Edmund S Morgan. Its a brand new book from the University of Auckland Library and the other one is a Father and Son biography Benjamin and William Franklin by Sheila L Skemp. This also is from the University of Auckland Library. Hope no one wants it as if they call for it I have to give it back!!!!!!! They run a funny system that if someone wants it while you are reading it you have one week to hand it back in for the next person. Actually one book was purchased in 1999 and I would be the first person to read it, You can tell!

Carolyn

Carolyn, I think you will be well prepared to discuss Franklin with us by reading the sources you mentioned. In paticular the father/Son combination biography may give you a greater insite into that relationship than the general Ben Franklin biographies.

Note that the clickable schedule now in the heading divides the discussions into six date defined periods plus the seventh during which participants will give their conclusions regarding their concluding view of Franklin and his place in world history. I urge everyone planning to participate to read this schedule now and note the date defined divisions.

I am sure that some biographies are better than others particularly in the amount of fine print detail included and in the emphasis each individual author choose to attach to particular events. Yet I think that any serious biography will include coverage of the signifent events of Franklin's life. Obviously time will not permit long discussion on every event. During the five days alloted to each period we will concentrate on the principal ones as initiated by the DL's and Participants. Interesting differences in the different books quite likely will emerge contributing to the value of the mulri-source discussion.

Harold,

Got my copy of Issacson's Bio of Franklin.

It is on the top of my Bedside Book Pile.

Tiger Tom

Discussion,

Getting geared up for the discussion:

Just finished "Franklin, Wit and Wisdom" and "Frankling and his Enemies" half way through Autobiography of Franklin and will start on "Franklin, the First American" in a bit. Hope to be in Issacson's Frankling before the Discussion starts.

Tiger Tom

Hi. My name's Lisa. I've just joined up here at SeniorNet and am looking forward to the discussion of the Benjamin Franklin book (either one, LOL). I'll be picking it up on either Friday after work or Saturday. I'm on the tail end of reading McCullough's biography of John Adams and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I suppose I'm on a history kick.

Lisa

Bibliophile3168,

You are using almost the same handle as a friend of mine: He uses Bibliophile as his.

Welcome to the disucssion. It is not my place to welcome you as Harold and Ella are the discussion leaders and I am sure they will extend a welcome to you. But thought I would sneak in anyway.

Tiger Tom

Lisa, you will be most welcome in the Franklin discussion. Choose either (or any) of the books. Isaacson being about 100 pages longer than Srodes gives more detail that is interesting and worth while, but Srodes in my view gives enough if you do not have the time or inclination for the extra reading.

We'll see you here Oct 1st!

A BIG WELCOME TO LISA, A NEWCOMER TO OUR BOOKS! WE'RE SO GLAD YOU FOUND US AND WANT TO DISCUSS BOOKS!

We are revisiting one of our founding fathers and the Revolutionary War which topics we all remember from our earliest student days but have forgotten, or never learned, all the details of these very human men who signed the Declaration of Independence and were brave and courageous to take a stand for freedom from England, which was treasonous at the time and for which they could have been hanged by the King.

I have never known all the names so I looked them up on the Internet and just how many are you familiar with the: Signers of the Declaration of Independence

And which one of those shall we discuss next I wonder? We have already paid tribute to Thomas Jefferson, which discussion is archived here: American Sphinx by Joseph Ellis and of course he was a prominent figure in our discussion of John Adams by David McCullough

Has there been a biography of John Hancock; it seems to me I read not too long ago an article concerning the man, but I can't remember if it was a book or just a mention somewhere? Anyone know?

Were you aware that Ben Franklin lived to be 84 during a period in history when most men and women barely survived to the age of 50; so he was not typical at all of the period in which he lived; nor was he typical of any other of the founding fathers. Each were to be forever engraved in America's history books, our archives, our hearts with grateful thanks.

Look at Benjamin's face and what do you see?

What a grand discussion this will make and I'm looking forward to October lst so very much and of meeting all of you and reading your views on this unusual man.

An elegant site on Benjamin Franklin is found at_ US History.org at this site click on_ The Electric Franklin. Having been raised in the Philadelphia suburbs and worked in "the city " for many years Benjamin Franklins spirit forever resides in "the city"

Potsherd please posts the URL address of the Franklin Site you mentioned. We are considering a "Franklin on the Web" page linked from the heading. It will be a list of good Franklin web pages and the one you mentioned can be included.

Ella the Harlo Giles Unger biography of John Hancock has been discussed on the History board. Williewoody has proposed it as a discussion and I have the book and done a fast browse read. John Hancock was certainly less prominent as founding father than the top five but as an early advocate of independence and as a financer of the cause he probably deserves inclusion in the top ten.

There is another Unger biography that I have not read but which excites me as an appropriate discussion. This is the last year Unger biography of Lafitte. I think this would be most appropriate because he figured in two revolutions, the American and the French. In one book the reader gets a dose of both American and European history.

The Following is probably the Franklin site Potsherd is referring to in his message #41, Click Here. I agree it does seem to be a good one.

POTSHERD, I believe the site you meant for us to see is here:

The Electric Franklin

It is indeed a wonderful site and, Harold, we must put this in the heading! Go click around a little and you'll see why.

Logan Circle is beautiful - are you still living in Philadelphia, Potsherd?

Just for fun I copied a paragraph from Ben Franklin's first publication of the "The New-England Courant" which we will be discussing soon. Enjoy this:

" As for my Age, I'm some odd Years and a few Days under twice twenty and three, therefore I hope no One will hereafter object against my soaring now and then with the grave Wits of the Age, since I have dropt my callow feathers, and am pretty well fledg'd: but if they should tell me that I am not yet fit nor worthy to keep Company with such Illustrious Sages, for my Beard do'sn't yet reach down to my Girdle, I shall make them no other Answer than this, Barba non facit Philosophum."

Two great (??? hahaha) minds working in concert, Harold!

Ella and Harold yes you have the site I was refering to. It is a great site and will I believe impart a flavor to franklins and William Penns town. If any one was interested in touring Philadelphia this site would be a great guide.

Ella, I live south of the city now in Delaware and about an hour and minuets drive to center city Philadelphia.

One day walking down Hamilton walk at the Un. of Pennsylvania where they have a nice teak bench with a lovely bronze statue of Ben Franklin siting on one side of the bench it's interesting to walk by when someone is sitting on the bench with Franklin which presents the appearence that Franklin and the "real" person are conversing.

Ella yes Logon Circle is lovely and the kids in the summer as well as adults cool off in the water fountains. Logon, however was a scoundrel at best.

Thanks for the friendly welcome everyone. I'll finally be picking up the Franklin biography tomorrow...now to decide what book/books to put on hold while I'm reading it, LOL. My nightstand is threatening to cave in. Nevertheless, I'm going to go with the bio with more detail!

Lisa

The wisdom of this truly renaissance man is apropos today and in particular his quote as follows:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety "

Was surprised to see an article by Isaacson in the August 2003 issue of the Smithsonian _ ( Benjamin Franklin Joins the Revolution.) I was not familiar with Isaacson or any of his previous writings a side bar of the article provides some interesting background: Former editor of Time and former chairman of CNN. Recently became president of the Aspen Institute, a nonprofit policy forum in Washington, DC

Sounds intriguing. I might dip my toe in the water.

Robby

Come on in Robby, the water's fine!

WELCOME EVERYONE - I HOPE YOU ARE AS ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT DISCUSSING BEN FRANKLIN AND WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT HIM AS HAROLD AND I ARE!

As you will note, we have posed questions in the heading that we hope will be of interest, but certainly not limit our conversation! I expect it will be very broad in scope, as Benjamin Franklin deserves all that we can give him.

WHAT A FELLOW! WHAT A CAREER!

What do you suppose he is smiling about in all his portraits? Do you notice that both book covers show him smiling? Have you ever seen a portrait of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams smiling? I haven't!

And the glasses he has on - you probably know he invented bifocals, among many other inventions - we'll talk about them all!

You will notice also that we are allotting just five days for each period of Franklin's life, although don't feel rushed, we can take longer if necessary. So please sign in everyone, and let's discuss the first two questions above, okay?

1. They are: Josiah, Benjamin's father, immigrated to America to pursue religious freedom, and as an active religious life was a valued passport into acceptance among Boston's influential class, why would Benjamin Franklin (BF) have spurned his father's beliefs? Did this affect BF's future in any way?

2. Did you find any inherited personality traits that BF put to good use in the future?

Hm-m-m -- personality traits. We all know as well that Benjamin Franklin liked the ladies and they liked him. This trait seemed to be present in many renowned men in history. Do you suppose that there is a biological connection between passion for music, or art, or sculpture or scientific endeavor, for example. and passion for women?

Robby

Hello and welcome every one! This is the day to begin. Perhaps since we are using different books each of us might begin by noting the particular Franklin book or books that he/she might have read.

In my case it was principally Isaacson, but I have a copy of Srodes, and early on I did a quick read. We had originally intended to base the discussion on Srodes. For me at any rate it was quite a surprise when about July 4th I first learned of the Isaacson release. Three weeks later when it was number 2 on the N.Y. Times Non-Fiction List we could ignore it no longer, and realized for biographies, the discussion of a life and career from any decent biography should be practical. In my judgment while the Srodes is quite ample for the discussion, the extra detail in the additional 100 pages in Isaacson is worth the extra reading effort. And at least one of the other current biographies has another 200 pages allowing even more detail. While any of the many available Franklin biographies should be a fine platform from which to participate in the discussion, I think it will be interesting to hear what titles are being used by our participants.

Regarding the influence of BF's family background on his character, I don't think we should overlook the importance of his maternal side. His mother was the second wife of his father, Josiah Franklin who had immigrated with his first wife and young family in 1683. Franklins Mother, Josiah's 2nd wife was Abiah Folger the daughter of a very early immigrant who arrived in Boston in 1635 just 5 years after it's founding. The Folgers had been Flemish Protestant immigrants to England in the 16th century. Though their immigration to North America was sparked by a 1630's crackdown on dissenters by the Church of England, Abiah's father seems to have been restless for new economic opportunity and became somewhat of a rebel politically against proprietary interests. He also wrote a near-seditious pamphlet favoring the Indians during the 1676 conflict known as the King Phillips War.

It would seem that while both Franklin paternal and maternal families were reasonably devote Puritans, other vectors both economic and political also were prime factors influencing their thinking and lives. From this background sprang Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps it is not surprising to us when we read how he expanded on the heritage inherited from both sides of his family.

Robbie perhaps people like Ben Franklin, creative, passionate, innovative just have an absolute passion within them which encompasses every facet of their lives. Perhaps they are just true adrenaline junkies. We think of the lives of all the great artists and musicians most of them had several partners during their lifetimes or kept mistresses and wives.

The Printing press made the written word available to a huge body of people. Books became cheaper and newspapers began to flourish. People became more well informed and opinions and ideas more easily communicated to the general public.

I’m reading the James Srodes book, Harold, entitled FRANKLIN: THE ESSENTIAL FOUNDING FATHER, and although shorter than the Isaacson book has all one needs to know in order to understand Benjamin Franklin – if that can ever be achieved by reading about him – or knowing the man in his lifetime, for that matter. He was a very complex individual and I was struck by the number of times the author says he compartmentalized in his mind, as that is exactly what McCullough described as a habit – a wonderful habit – of Thomas Jefferson.

As we will see as we go further into his life he was a scientist, inventor, diplomat, writer, business strategist, political thinker and a pioneer in many fields.

But to get to the questions above, thanks for that information, Harold. Your book adds information to his parents. Josiah was a candle maker or more appropriately called a tallow chandler and as soon as he could he applied for membership in Old South Church which had a 10-year probation period in order to become a full member. Imagine!

Benjamin absorbed his father’s need for religion but never became a fervent follower in any one institution. Ben described his father as follows:

”He had an excellent constitution of body, was of middle stature, but well set, and very strong; he was ingenious, could draw prettily, was skilled a little in music, and had a clear pleasing voice, so that when he played psalm tunes on his violin and sung withal, as he sometimes did in an evening after the business of the day was over, it was extremely agreeable to hear. He had a mechanical genius too and, on occasion, was very handy in the use of other tradesmen’s tools; but his great excellence lay in a sound understanding and solid judgment in prudential matters, both in private and public affairs. In the latter, indeed, he was never employed, the numerous family he had to educate and the straitness of his circumstances keeping him close to his trade; but I remember well his being frequently visited by leading people, who consulted him for his opinion in affairs of the town, or of the church he belonged to, and showed a good deal of respect for his judgement and advice; he was also much consulted by private persons about their affairs when any difficulty occurred and frequently chosen an arbitrator between contending parties.”

Do I need to point out how son resembled father? Hahaha

HELLO ROBBY AND CAROLYN! WELCOME TO YOU BOTH TO OUR DISCUSSION! You both mentioned his sexuality which our books talk about in his adventures abroad for the most part (away from prying eyes perhaps?); however, you might be interested in this comment in my Srodes book:

”Benjamin apparently also inherited a robust sexuality. Before she died in 1689, in her thirties, Anne Franklin bore her husband seven children in all………Abiah Folger (second wife) would bear him another ten children!

JOSIAH SIRED 17 CHILDREN! More inherited traits later…….

HOPE TO HEAR FROM MORE OF YOU WITH BOOKS AND WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THIS SUBJECT!

Ella:--I didn't mention "sexuality" although I can see how it could have been construed as such. I used the word "passion" and Carolyn said exactly what I meant when she said: "People like Ben Franklin -- creative, passionate, innovative -- just have an absolute passion within them which encompasses every facet of their lives."

The underlining is mine. The passionate artist Picasso was passionate toward women. The passionate writer Hemingway was passionate toward women. Many performing artists in the musical and acting world lead a passionate life with acquaintances of the opposite gender (and sometimes the same gender). And this passion doesn't necessarily include sex.

As Carolyn says -- "Perhaps they are true adrenalin junkies."Maybe it's biological. Maybe it's genetic. French women flocked around Franklin even in his old age. Maybe people like that give off an aura.

Robby

What is this? I mixed passion with sexuality?? Shame on me! haha

TIME magazine called BF a "Babe Magnet" and said people, more than 2 centuries later, are still trying to figure out how a paunchy, balding, bifocaled septuagenarian managed to get French ladies in a flutter.

Can you tell us, Robby?

I don’t think there is any doubt that Franklin got along very well with the ladies. The record is clear on that point. He liked them and they seem to have liked the fact that he liked them and seemed to have liked him in return.. This subject will come up in several of the discussion sections

For now there is anther Franklin attribute that might be mentioned in this initial part of the discussion. I think the early record shows he had from the beginning a very sharp mind. By this I think he was exceedingly smart, and I expect he would have had no trouble in achieving a Harvard worthy score on our standard College admittance test required today. I really doubt that in this case he missed much by forgoing Harvard and going into the printing trade that he immediately made into a Journalism career leading later to Science and politics.

Ben Franklin learnt his trade in Britain. He also was a fanatical swimmer and had definite ideas about keeping healthy. Contrary to popular opinion at the time he believed that colds were transmitted from person to person and that getting wet had nothing to do with colds or chills as doctors today will tell you. He also walked in the rain and would often stay in the water up to three hours.

His personal faith was that he believed in a deity but did not hold with the puritan theology of his fathers church. He went about a lot of different churches before he made up his mind in fact he first of all believed that there was no such thing as immorality and he did not believe in the sort of God who saved one person and damned another. However a few years later he believed that God did have rules and that they were for the good of mankind. To be able to let loose to do as we pleased was not in the interest of the human race. For instance I have always been fascinated by the Levitical laws. If you read them carefully you will realise these laws were not just a ritual. They were put into place to keep the Jewish race healthy and to keep the society from self destructing. Ben Franklin was a man ahead of his time in many ways.

CAROLYN, you are correct about BF's ability to swim as he grew up on Boston's waterfront, but he learned the printing trade by being apprenticed to his older brother, James - who had learned the trade from spending a year in London. The two brothers did not take to each other in business at all, but BF spent 5 years under his brother's supervision and became a man full of ambition chafing under his brother's frugality.

The little money he obtained was spent for books, he read everything he could get his hands on. He remembered all his life the first book he read and owned which was John Bunyan's "PILGRIM'S PROGRESS" and from there he progressed into Plutarch's "LIVES" AND COTTON MATHER'S "ESSAYS TO DO GOOD."

He learned a personal style of convincing others of his opinions and that was never to be didactic; instead to use words and phrases such as "I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so" or "if I am not mistaken" - at one time he insstructed a young Thomas Jefferson "Never contradict anybody."

I did not mean to contradict you, Carolyn, (hahaha) but the pages are sitting on my lap at the moment and I can't help but quote.

Thank you Kiwi Lady for bringing up BF"s London residence while yet a teenager in the 1720's. I think this experience was very important in the setting of BF's future career course. In additions the circumstances that resulted in the trip also tells us much about the flaky character of colonial administration and the people who were involved in the colonial governments.

Isaacson does not tell us enough about Sir William Keith who he calls "Pennsylvania's elusive Governor----a well-meaning but feckless busybody." It was Governor Keith who sent BF to London on Colony business. When Franklin arrived he found that he was without the promised necessary letters of credit. That’s like going today on a one-way air ticket with your Company's credit card and finding it invalid whey you got there. Isaacson's only explanation of Keith's purpose in sending BF on the London mission was his weak and ineffective character and his desire to please everyone. DID ANY OF THE OTHER BOOKS GIVE A DEEPER EXPLANATION OF HIS PURPOSE?

In BF's case he was without funds in a city where he was unknown.. Yet he had the character and his previously earned Philladelphia Printers Journeyman credentials that enabled him to get a job at the famous London printing house of Samuel Palmer. While in this position he worked on and helped edit an edition of William Wollaston's "The Religion of Nature Delineated." Franklin agreed with Wollaston's thesis in part but dissented on other points. So BF at the tender age of 19 wrote his dissenting answer entitled, "A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain."

While as Isaacson points out, BF's dissertation was immature and undeserving of a place in the annals of philosophy, it yet represents for Franklin the first appearance of his near deist view of religion. Also the importance of the London trip is the contacts he made that later figured in his business and public service future.

There is another interesting fact apparent in Franklin's reception in London. When he arrived he was accepted as an Englishman every bit as much as if he was newly arrived from Manchester or Liverpool. I think this status was assumed by both the native Londoners and by BF himself. I see this status remaining in effect even as late as the late 1760's though after 1753 Franklins goal was the creation of Constitutional changes creating Colonial home rule.

Ella you are right- I should not rely on my memory so much! Regardless of the fact that his visit to Britain turned out to be a useless mission he did enjoy himself and made the best of things.

Kiwi Lady if we are talking about the 1724 trip to London by the still teen age Franklin, I would grant that it turned out quite different from what was expected at the start, but in my view and I think in the Isaacson view, it was anything but useless. BF turned it into a learning experience that essentially completed his education and shaped and influenced his career for the rest of his long life.

I am reading the biography "Franklin by David Freeman Hawke. Hawke writes that Franklin's father was a very wise man. Often, Josiah Franklin settled family disputes or arguments. Hawke also writes that Ben Franklin's father had a sense of humor. Ben Franklin seemed to have both of these qualities. Ben Franklin was a wise man and also, humorous man.

Hello Hats, please do keep us informed on the perspective given in the David Freeman Hawke biography of BF. What comment might you add concerning the effect of the 1724-25 London visit on BF's future career? Will anyone else weigh in on this subject?

What I was referring to Harold was his arrival in Britain and the lack of the promised introductions - the visit was not what he had expected. The biography I am reading by Morgan has little about this first trip except that he worked in a printing works and was well liked. It does say a lot about the trip home when Franklin spent much of his time on the voyage and in the several ports he stopped at before leaving British waters conducting maritime experiments. He had an insatiable curiosity about the natural world.

HELLO HATS!!! It’s been awhile since you’ve been in a discussion with me, good to have your comments always. You hit on a point that I suspect is very true of BF – he was a humorist – a wit! Another inherited trait from his father (which makes you wonder about his mother doesn’t it?) A person with wit and humor is always welcome in any company and I wonder if this was the quality that the ladies loved best of all.

CAROLYN, good to have your comments also – yes, on his way home from England after a two-year stay, he began his lifelong interest in scientific studies as he recorded movements of sharks and dolphins and other marine life.

When BF arrived in England he was very immature, a country bumpkin – so to speak – in a city that was bigger at the time than any city in Europe with the exception of Constantinople. Srodes comments that both Franklin and London were a work in progress and he gives us a condensed version of England at the time, which is fascinating.

Harold, perhaps you can explain this sentence: “England had officially become Great Britain in 1707.” It had colonies before then, didn’t it? Why the name change?

Despite the fact that Ben had been deceived by the Governor of Pennsylvania, he was clever, ambitious, strong and quick-minded and it didn’t take him long to put his skills to good use and almost immediately he landed a good job as a printer and began to earn a decent living.

Interesting that the Printers’ Union was organized even then – I knew a printer once and was amazed that he could go anywhere in the country, to any newspaper, and be given a job for at least a day, if not more.

Those of you who have the book, are you amused at BF’s “errata?” You know, at the same time I am commenting on BF I am reading the book “GANDHI” which we will be discussing next month, and I am amazed at the similarities at times. For example the young BF composed and printed a little pamphlet which stated that since” God was Almighty, everything that happened in the world was by divine intention and, therefore, concepts such as good and evil were irrelevant. Man was free to do what he wanted since God clearly intended it so.”

Obviously at this tender age, BF was rebelling against the rigid doctrine of his father - Ghandi, too, is attempting to find his own path to God and this argument arose.

When each of you, before reading this book, thought of Benjamin Franklin or were reminded of him in some way, did you think of him as a printer?

For some reason, I never did. I remember Poor Richard’s Almanac, of course, - “early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.” Oh, Yeah???? And, of course, he flew a kite and discovered electricity.

Other than that, I was very ignorant of all he did in the course of his long life. It’s a real pleasure to read about him!

When we were discussing the John Adams book, as I recall, John never thought much of Ben at all – is that your recollection, Harold?

When John went to Paris he thought Ben was fat and lazy and a big waste of time and money on the part of the Continental Congress.

later, ella (sorry for the length of this post, I get carried away at times when the subject is so fascinating)

I NEVER thought of Ben Franklin as a printer. You mention the printers union - here in NZ the printers were way ahead in their employment conditions compared to other trades. My great grandfather was a printer and he was head of the Union in fact he became the President of the National Federation of Labour. His father was radical as an employer and brought in many benefits in his factory including a 40 hour week many years before it became legislation. Wonder if it was working with the printed word and circulating information that helped the printers to decided to form a union and also the importance of getting out the printed word that the employers accepted a Union.

Interesting speculation, Carolyn! And it makes me wonder if the Printers Union was one of the first labor unions, does anyone know?

Harold, perhaps you can explain this sentence: “England had officially become Great Britain in 1707.” It had colonies before then, didn’t it? Why the name change?

That would have been the formal act combining England and Scotland under a single national Parliament. The Union Jack combining the English cross of St George and the Scottish cross of St Andrew became the National flag. The word "great" verbalizes the Greater position of the combined England and Scotland.

Prior to the 1707 union the two countries had been combined under the one monarchy in 1603 when James I succeeded Elizabeth I as king of England. King James I of England was King James VI of Scotland.. This event combined the two countries under a single King but left the separate Government intact. The 1707 act combined the two governments with a single National Parliament

I understand that recent devolution legislation under the Blair Government has again put more local administration not only in Scotland but also in Whales. Apparently the National Union remains in matters of foreign and International affairs.

I think there was a strong organized brotherhood among 18th century printers. Perhaps it was a Guild. I got the ideal from Isaaacson that BF'S Philadelphia journeyman credentials were recognized in London and were instrumental in geting him a job at the Palmer Print shop.

Note also that a print shop might be much more than a job printer. Any one might be a book publisher, a Newspaper, a magazine publisher or a combination of all of these

My SIL is Production Manager in a large Print shop. They do print books as well as business forms , letter heads, Posters for films. Lots of different things. Everything is designed on computer now and they have a big Graphics department. Things are very technical now and you really need a licence to operate the new machines. They are still very noisy however!

3. Srodes states that the printing press revolutionized society EVEN MORE than the computer and Internet’s impact today. Do you agree and, if so, can you state the reasons for your belief?

I think this is a good question only raised in the Srodes book How would you answer it?

My first inclination was to agree with Srodes's that the invention of the printing press did transform society more. It certainly facilitated the awaking of society from the deep sleep of the dark ages. Yet on second thought I note that it took some 500 years between the Invention of the printing press in about 1450 and the dawn of the computer era about 1950. I think in the 50 years the computer has been around, it has brought many more social changes than the printing press did in its first 50 years. I therefore arrive at the conclusion that it is far too early to answer the question today, but the Computer has certainly left the starting gate much faster than the printing press.

Of course I suppose in many ways the computer phase can be considered a mere extension of the revolution began in the 15 century. Perhaps the Printing press and the computer each symbolize a particular stage of this long-term social evolution?

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS QUESTION?

Here are some other questions that you might consider in the 2 days remaining in our part 1 discussion:

5. What habits did the young BF adopt that served him well in later life?

7 Did the fact that BF made his home in Philadelphia have any bearing on his future? In what ways?

8. Were you surprised by BF acknowledging his illegitimate son and caring for him in an era when illegitimacy was considered sinful? And were you also surprised at the common-law marriage that he and Deborah arranged? Did either of these two circumstances affect BF in any way, e.g. lack of respect in the community or in London?

9. In 1732 after BF's return from London and as he was establishing himself as a successful Philadelphia printer, how do you view his politics on the question of the political status of the North American Colonies?

I THINK QUESTIONS 8 AND 9 IN PARTICULAR DESERVE FURTHER DISCUSSION!

Harold, I was surprised that BF seemed to actually invent himself. He listed the do's and don'ts to become a more perfect person by setting down helpful rules to be followed in a notebook, no less! And this young man actually tried to follow these stringent rules. He was convinced you would then be a happier person and he encouraged others to join him in this philosiphy.

I would LOVE to hear an explantion of why the illegtimate son an common law wife caused so little ruckus. I can maybe understand history glossing over these events perhaps because they were overshadowed by his many accomplishments... But such sinful acts being tolerated quietly by the Puritans of the times? How was this accomplilshed?

Marge

The Puritans weren't that free of "sin." No point in throwing stones if you live in a glass house.

Robby

The club known as the Junto formed when Ben Franklin was a very young man I believe set him up for his great role in public service.This club of about 20 members from quite a range of society debated many issues. It began with a group of thinking young men regularly meeting for drinks food and debate. I believe from this club Franklin formed his ideas of how a democracy should be formed. The club remained in existence for some 40yrs. We would probably today refer to this club as a think tank. From quite a young age Franklin was interested in issues which affected the way people lived and worked - how society could be improved. How the nation could become great.

Before I answer Harold’s question, I do want to say A BIG HELLO TO MARGE! We are happy to have another person in our discussion, people have been slow to arrive! Welcome!

I have also wondered the same thing, Marge, that in that religious atmosphere – I mean his parents were at church Sundays, Wednesdays and probably a few evenings in between and so was the community, and they accepted Benjamin’s improprieties it seems – he wasn’t thrown out of any communities or societies (actually he created them).

This is not to say BF was an atheist, far from it. All his life he would search for a way to get closer to God, he was truly a believer and in awe of God and his creations. In my book, there are pages of BF’s beliefs, including his 13 Virtues – (again, so in tune with Gandhi, can’t believe this!).

But no hint of scandal about his son in this book at all except a note of gossip about the possibility of his son’s mother being a servant in his wife’s household or of Deborah, herself, being William’s mother.

It’s rather amazing isn’t it! Although there are references to books written about the private life of BF – one I see quickly is “THE PRIVATE FRANKLIN: THE MAN AND HIS FAMILY” written in 1975 by Eugenia W. Herbert; there are others which might give us more clues.

CAROLYN - the press is still noisy??? I remember seeing a linotype once years ago and was amazed that the operators could set type that quickly. From that huge thing no doubt came the typewriter don't you think? And now is all computers! Everything, rather frightening that when you think of it.

Harold, you stated that you think in the 50 years the computer has been around, it has brought many more social changes than the printing press did in its first 50 years., but then you qualified that by adding the statement that the “computer phase can be considered a mere extension of the revolution began in the 15 century.” I agree, I would add that perhaps the printing press was a more localized utility whereas it seems to me the computer is global and will have consequences undreamed of today.

Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, of the Quakers, changed rapidly in the early 1700’s as more immigrants from strange lands, such as Germany, settled there; and although the Quakers remained pious they let other people have their religious freedom; there was a popular saying – “Pennsylvania is heaven for farmers, paradise for artisans, and hell for officials and preachers.”

BF had freedom for his ideas, his marriage, his paper and its revolutionary ideas in a city that was fast becoming one of the largest of the colonies and Franklin’s newspaper prospered giving him a good income and later, becoming postmaster for all the American colonies, he revolutionized the postal system which did a great deal to bring the colonists closer together. Pennsylvania was the first to raise an army to defend its borders, a spark that was to ignite other such militias in days to come.

later, eg

Great observation, Carolyn! The Junto a think tank! Yes, it was all of that. When I read about it I thought more of a Lions Club or a Rotary Club. His Library Company was the best organization in my estimation.

Yes the press is still noisy! When I have had to phone my SIL at work in an emergency and he is in the print room he can hardly hear me and I can hardly hear him. He is one of the few managers who has actually done an advanced trade certificate in printing so he can really run his department well and yes he is not above taking over one of the machines in an emergency. There is a grave shortage of printers here and they get very big money.

Thank you Kiwi Lady for bring up the Junto in Philadelphia. This was another important step in BF's maturation process. One of you called it a Think Tank and I think this is a god description of what it was a private think tank of friends discussing urgent issues and problems.

And Hello Camper2, I am happy that you joined the discussion with your comments on Franklin' illegitimate son and common law marriage. . For one thing illegitimacy in the 18th century was not uncommon particularly in the upper class a condition that filtered down to lower levels. . In particular I suppose I was not too surprised given Franklin's less traditional attitude toward religion. I don’t think even his Fathers Puritanism in Boston was as rigid as the traditional Puritan model. Somehow the family seemed to have been more inclined to attach value to things other than religion alone. And in Benjamin Franklin's case we must remember that early-on he showed he was not a real Puritan or a Presbyterian. His writing as a teenager in England in 1725 critical of parts of the Wollaston dissertation show he was already a free thinker and before long Isaacson uses the term "near Deist" to describe his religious view. While I would be surprised if I had read in McCullough that John Adams had so erred, with BF somehow, it don’t' seem surprising at all. Also it seems to have little effect on William Franklin's later life and career.

And here is a final comment on illegitimacy as a Franklin Family tradition. At least two generations after BF also fathered illegitimate children, the son, William Franklin and William's son Temple Franklin followed the tradition with illegitimate children of their own.

Regarding the common law wedding there was a real legal reason for this. Remember BF had proposed to Deborah prior to leaving for London. Deborah's newly widowed mother wanted her to wait. During Franklin's long absence Deborah had married someone else. It did not work out and the husband left the colony for one of the British Islands in the West Indies. The rumor was that he had died. Isaacson suggests that the Common Law marriage was necessary because it carried a lesser legal consequence if the first husband reappeared alive. Again John Adams would never have entered marriage through such a ceremony, but for BF it appears to have been no problem.

Golly, so much to talk about here, you don't know what to leave out or put in a post! Isn't his life absolutely fascinating, what a man - a true American hero, one who had a simple beginning in life and rose to prominence in his world and in American history forever.

If you had a choice of meeting JOHN ADAMS, THOMAS JEFFERSON OR BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, which would you choose? Harold, we have discussed two of them and have read a book about BF - which one?

Anyone have an opinion?

Due to time constraints (tomorrow we start on our second section (see above) we must leave out so much - all the material on the Indians, the Quaker influence, the Penns (I would imagine there are books on the Penn Family of Pennsylvania), and James Logan (as someone mentioned before) was a rascal wasn't he?

You couldn't make up another story as sad as the one about BF's young son, Franky, who died of smallpox because he did not get innoculated. Ben, who was urging innoculation on the public through his newspaper, failed to get his own family innoculated - how dreadful!

We also read in this section of our books the beginning of BF's rebellion against Parliament as he wrote an essay in his paper decrying England's Molassas Act of 1733 and in later life Ben believed that this particular piece of legislation was the seed of the American Revolution as this was England's first blunt assertion of power to levy taxes on all the colonies.

later---ella

Ella,

Thomas Jefferson, hands down. Franklin second.

Tiger Tom

That is a good question. Previously in would have been easy with TJ the choice without hesitation. Today it is harder but by golly yes, I will choose Franklin. I think I would get along better with BF than TJ.

I would choose to meet Ben Franklin. He was a person who never met a stranger. I think he would have talked on any person's level. Ben Franklin did not fit into a "certain" class. He could talk to the laborer or the gentry.

Ben Franklin was a boy and man who wanted to learn and keep learning. This would make him a lot of fun to be around. I just love his inventive spirit.

9. In 1732 after BF's return from London and as he was establishing himself as a successful Philadelphia printer, how do you view his politics on the question of the political status of the North American Colonies?

I raised this question in this initial stage of our discussion because I want to emphasize throughout the discussion the continuing evolution that over some 65 years transformed BF from a loyal British subject to a rebel. During this initial period I do not see BF exhibiting much political interest. I have already remarked in an earlier post how transparent his North American colonial status was when he arrived in London in December 1724. In London he was accepted as an Englishman as easily as if he had come from Liverpool or Manchester. During this first discussion part BF's interest seemed solely directed toward his education and establishing himself in his printer's trade. Before the conclusion of the 2nd Part that begins tomorrow, we will see BF becoming active in Colonial politics and and raise for the first time the thought of constitutional changes uniting the North American British colonies..

Tiger Tom! Why?

HELLO HATS! I agree with your statement - "I think he would have talked on any person's level." I'm going to quote from TIME magazine's article on BF which also agrees with you:

"Instinctively more comfortable with democracy than were his fellow Founders and devoid of the snobbery that later critics would feel toward his own shopkeeping values, he had faith in the wisdom of the common man and felt that a new nation would draw its strength from what he called 'the middling people.' Through his self-improvement tips for cultivating personal virtues and through his civic-improvement schemes for furthering the common good, he helped to create, and to celebrate, a new ruling class of ordinary citizens who learned to be tolerant of the varied beliefs and dogmas of their neighbors."

I'm in that class of "common man" and a member of the "middling people." I would have liked to have met Benjamin Franklin the most also. Thomas Jefferson was a very quiet man, he was better at writing than in conversation and he would have been too "literate" for me, and John Adams would have talked incessantly about his own ideas and never given me or you a chance to say a thing - hahaha. But John had - SOMETHING! For Abigail to have loved him so devoutly, he must have been a grand person to have known.

Further quoting from TIME, (a good article):

"A successful publisher and consummate networker with an inventive curiousity, he would have felt right at home in the information revolution. We can easily imagine having a beer with him after work, showing him how to use a Palm Pilot, sharing the business plan for a new venture or discussing Bill Clinton's foibles and George Bush's foreign policy. He would laugh at the latest joke about a priest and a rabbi or about a farmer's daughter. We would admire both his earnestness and his self-aware irony. And we would relate to the way he tried to balance, sometimes uneasily, a pursuit of reputation, wealth, earthly virtues and spiritual values."

I'll return, Harold, later after reviewing a bit of the book, but you know what would be a darn good question!

What issues in the colonies are reminiscent of issues we face today? Franklin was very worried about the following"

"Why should the Palatine boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements and, by herding together, establish their language and manners to the exclusion of ours? 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?"

But that issue has been a problem since time began and humans evolved or were created, hasn't it? Nothing new in the colonies.

There are several notations in the book and in TIME, Harold, which perhaps answers the question of the birth of freedom for the colonies in Franklin’s mind. One is The Albany Plan (click here: The Albany Plan) which raised many questions in all those attending the conference, particularly the question of whether Parliament could tax the colonists without their consent. It also got the participants thinking about what could happen if they united.

And the literary character that Franklin invented – Silence Dogood (Silence Dogood) – in his newspaper was an avowed independent person: - "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; and the least appearance of an encroachment on those invaluable privileges is apt to make your blood boil exceedingly."

In 1755, when most of his fellow colonists were content to go along with taxes, BF wrote a scathing enunciation that concluded with what would eventually become an American rallying cry – “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Enough already!

First I had to find my book and then to begin reading it ...I have read the first several chapters of my book on Franklin and am anxious to read more. To be honest I never really felt he was so interesting in the past. I knew about his experimenting with electricity and his printing etc but this man was more well rounded and grounded then I had suspected. I will make some notes and get back with everyone. anna

Annafair, your comment on BF pretty well echos my own. Last year when we did the David McCulloug, "John Adams" book I too begain to see what I had over looked. Your post is most welcome and we hope you will make many more. If you have any questions or comment on the earlier posts, please enter them as a post.

Ella,

Didn't you find it interesting that BF used the personage and pen name of women in some of his editorial comments such as "Silence Dogood?" And a fine job that, in my opinion.

Marge

Hahaha Marge! Well, you know our Benjamin did like women!!

I'm having to go back and then go forward in the book on several of these comments and questions and it takes longer to post that way.

This might be a less than desirable way to have a discussion, I'm thinking, than if we all had the same book.

Do any of you have any comments about using different books? Is it a good practice or not?

WE HAVE NEW QUESTIONS IN THE HEADING - DID YOU ALL NOTICE??

I know that when Ben was publisher of his brother's newspaper, The New England Courant, it was strictly a newspaper. That is the one that Silence Dogood appeared in and made 14 appearances, but his brother, James, was not pleased at all.

Later, in Philadelphia Benjamin had a contract printing shop and ran the newspaper titled The Pennsylvania Gazette. Also, Ben and his partner, Meredith, had a contract to print money for Delaware and also money for PA.

Did anyone watch 60 Minutes last night? The episode about the secret association at Yale (it was Yale wasn't it?) - the Skull and Bones - made me think of the Junto that BF organized. And all of them (12 members I think) became famous in one way or another, helping each other advance, and doing good in their communities.

That's a resemblance - what would be a difference?

Must run - back later.

From what I have read about the skull and bones its not such an innocent group as the Junto. Its more like a networking group and is a secret society is it not? Is it not also composed of the elite rather than a cross section of society.

Hello Marge, Good to hear from you. Franklin did from time to time write under a pen name. I suspect it was quite common during his day. He had no problem writing under a woman's name apparently from a Woman/s perspective. A few years later during the Regency years and early Victorian years, woman authors frequently assumed male non-de plumes. One exception, Mary Shelley wrote the Frankenstein stories under her own female name.

As Ella mentioned the Part 2 questions are up. Regarding the first question we pretty well covered that last week but printing is still important to the discussion as I remember it was 1732, at the beginning of this period that BF began publishing the "Poor Richard's, Almanac." That is one thing that I remember hearing about during my elementary school days in Houston, but I don't think I understood what an almanac was

Yes, of course, you are right, CArolyn. Isn't it strange that BF got the idea for the Junto's Form and Focus from Cotton Mather - take a peek on the Internet at some of the sites relating to that gentlemen - he was weird! But here's one that relates to Ben and Cotton: Cotton Mather

Did you like his epitaph? Is it in your book?

I found his religious beliefs to be somewhat akin to my own. I'm in awe of God and believe that we are being tested as to our deeds on earth - Franklin sought always to be better; his list of virtues are ones we should all aspire, don't you think? Are they listed in the book you are reading?

But he was serious about them, he drew on a grid daily lines for each of the 13 virtues and marked at the end of each day when he had violated any one of the them.

The second question above relates to BF's job of postmaster - the Penns wanted to please him (that relationship between he and the Penns of Pennsylvania is one that is very complex, an off-on friendly one) and to recognize his public contributions, he was made joint deputy postmaster general for all the American Colonies. He made so many improvements in the system that if every post office in America does not have his picture posted we should protest.

"More than any other single accomplishment, Franklin's postal reforms truly drew the colonies together."

11. Discuss the activities of Franklin and his competitors that ended in Franklin becoming Colonial Postmaster. Why was it important for a printer such as Franklin to also be Postmaster?

Isn't it interesting to compare the job ethics of public officials in the 18 century with what we expect from public officials today. In Franklin's day the public officials were expected to use their job position for their benefit. The salary they were paid was quite meager or even nothing. Compensation came from their dealings with the public in connection with the administration of their public job.

In the 17th century Samuel Pepys was appointed Secretary to the Admiralty a position equivalent to today's highest civil service job in the Royal Navy. Pepys' salary was nothing, yet he was well paid by bribes and kickbacks from contractors selling provisions and supplies to the navy. In Franklin's day and later, Royal Navy captains were paid a lump sum for provisioning their ship. If they did it cheaply the balance would go to the officer's IRA.

In Franklins case initially a competitor publishers held the Post Master position denying Franklin the right to send his newspapers in the mail. There was a solution. Franklin simply paid the insidividual carriers for carrying his publication with the official mails. Later BF was appointed Post Master then his newspapers enjoyed the special privilege going with the job..

I will say this about Franklin's record in the Post master position. Isaacson says a letter mailed in Philadelphia could expect to be delivered in Boston within 5 days. This means a turnaround time of about 10 days between initial mailing and the return reply. That is not too different from the standard first class delivery today (likely at least 2 days). In the 1950s turnaround time was better than today with standard first class airmail generally receiving next day delivery from any where in the US. Today such quick service is available only for the payment of a substantial premium charge and only to select large city zip codes

It is a bit difficult to follow but will give it a try..My book The First American starts with a prologue. Franklin is in England and already famous and admired. He was comfortable and even thought we should remain tied to England. But when the Crown started treating Americans unfairly he left in anger and decided we would need to be a country separate from England and returned to America ..an AMERICAN.

The next book covers his family history, his birth and his apprentice to his brother. For a young man of 16 he was very bright and intelligent and studious. His letters as Silence read as someone who is older and formally educated.

I have now reached the part where he leaves Boston and finds himself in Philadelphia. This is the second "book"....I think what amazes me is his youth and his clear thinking. It seems almost like God sent this struggling country Ben Franklin to see us through...anna

Anna fair and all: Readers of books other than Isaacson and Srodes can participate by following the date defined schedule. Absolute any event relative to the life and career of BF occurring during the period are open for comment during the period's interval irrespective of the source including personal and social events such as friendship, indiscretions, travels recreation etc) It seemed to me that a discussion by readers of any of the several complete Franklin biographies currently available would be possible by dividing the discussion into six time periods each centered on a particular stage of Franklin's career. These divisions are:

1. Pre-1706 – 1732; Franklin's Family pre 1706. Franklin's early developmental career 1706 to 1732 - Education, first trip to London, marriage, personal and social activities and events during the period.

2. 1732 –1757; During this time BF became established as a printer and publisher. He also organized a number of civic improvements in Philadelphia, conducted and published scientific experiments, and became politically active. (Personal and social activities and events during the period).

3. 1757 – 1770; Franklin's career in London representing Pennsylvania and other Colonies- his efforts to obtain self government for the Colonies as a part of the Greater British Empire. (Personal and social activities and events during the period).

4. 1771 – 1776; Franklin's career during the early years of the American Revolution- his continuing efforts in London to achieve a suitable home rule compromise (1771 –1775), his return to Philadelphia, and his role in the writing of the Declaration of Independence (1775 – 1776). (Personal and social activities and events during the period).

5.1776 –1785; Franklin's role as a diplomat representing the revolutionary government in France- particularly the negotiation of the Aid Treaty with France. (Personal and social activities and events during the period).

6,1785 – 1790; Franklins role in the negotiating of the peace treaty ending the Revolutionary War and the recognition of the U.S. as an Independent Nation . Franklin's return to the U.S, his role in the writing of the U.S. Constitution, his final years as an elder sage in Philadelphia, and Franklin's role in U.S. and world history. (Personal and social activities and events during the period).

While I cannot give the page citations to the various books yet it would seem that any complete biography would provide the authors description of the many different events. In addition because of the nature of a biography as a progression of the events in the career of the principal, it would seem to follow that the different biographies would proceed through Franklins career from his birth to his death in its chronological order. While I cannot not give page numbers as I have done for Isaacson and as Ella has done for Srodes it would seem that others could be followed by reference to their Table of content and index.

Presently we are in Part 2 of the discussion define as the period of years between 1732 and 1757. Here is a question for every participant. Which of the events in Franklin's life during this period (1732 and 1757) do you consider most significant and why did you choose this particular event? Your reason for choosing the particular event might be based on the future effect it had on Franklins career, and/or its effect on future American and World history.

As an example for Part 2, I might choose the Albany Plan for a confederation of the North American Colonies. This came out of a Colonial Conference at Albany n 1754 in which Franklin was a delegate representing Pennsylvania. The main purpose of the conference was to discuss certain inter-cultural (Indian/English) trade issues with the Indians principally the Iroquois. At the conclusions of the Indian trade discussion the Colonial delegates held-over to discuss possible inter colonial union. At this time BF proposed a plan under which there would have been a union of the colonies with a single colonial Parliament that would legislate on colonial issues, particularly having the sole power to tax the colonists directly. The Parliament and Government in London would retain control of Foreign affairs. The plan was submitted to London and the 13 colonial legislatures. It was rejected by all including each of the colonies still too jealous of their own individual independence to favor submission to a single North American Parliament.

I judge this to be a very significant event because the ideal first proposed in 1754 became the goal of Franklin's career through 1771. Though its acceptance by the London government came too late to save the 13 North American Colonies, it bore fruit in the 1830's when a matured similar plan was adopted for Canadian self government. Later it was applied to many other colonies evolving until today many independent countries today sprang from this seed

So many civic projects originated from BF's fertile imagination - it boggles the mind, but I will list a few. I think we have already mentioned the Library Company, and John and Thomas Penn (those brothers ther were so adamant about not paying taxes to support a defense of their city) even donated a lot to build the library and contributed a few things.

My book mentions that Franklin joined the Masons - do you know I have all my life wondered what that organization was all about. I remember an Aunt of mine used to talk about someone she knew who was rather "uppity" about her husband being a "high" Mason. Why was it organized - did it have anything to do with religion at all?

In 1736 he organized the first fire company in the colonies. He also was appointed as the clerk to the legislative body - and had to attend all their meetings, take notes, etc.

He learned German so he could publish a newspaper for those German immigrants and enough Italian to correspond with a network of scientific friends there.

Inventions - THERE ARE A FEW!!! HAHAHA Your books all have a list of them I'm sure so I see no need to repeat them all here!

One interesting observation that may not be in your book - two medical scholars believe that Benjamin Franklin may have had ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and had this to say:

"It is dangerous to diagnose the dead, but Benjamin Franklin, for example, seems like a man with a case of ADD. Creative, impulsive, inventive, attending to many projects at a time, drawn to high stimulation through wit, politics, diplomacy, literature, science and romance, Franklin gives us ample ground to speculate that he may have had ADD and was the happier for it.

Today, they would have had such a person/child on drugs to quiet him down!!!

Harold, that French and Indian War is so confusing in this book. It's mentioned in every chapter instead of just one and I just can't get the "gist" of it! I know you had a discussion on the early Indians and all their problems so perhaps you can summarize that for us?

And I have a WHOLE CHAPTER ON FRANKLIN'S ROMANCES - or his dilly-dallying with the ladies, if you will! I'll bring that here tomorrow! He was tantalizing! One of his flirtations turned into a life-long friendship, but we don't know how far he and the lady went into that relationship - it's all speculative!

Tomorrow bring your own speculations on Franklin's romances

Harold, that French and Indian War is so confusing in this book. It's mentioned in every chapter instead of just one and I just can't get the "gist" of it! I know you had a discussion on the early Indians and all their problems so perhaps you can summarize that for us?

Ella, and all; Click Here for a short history of the French Indian War in three single page chapters. It came as the English colonies were maturing with well over a century of history since the original settlers came beginning in the early years of the preceding century. I suggest you read the short history available from the link

One principal result of the war was that a young Virginia militia officer, George Washington, received his first and really only military experience prior to leading the revolutionary armies a decade and a half later. Benjamin Franklin too played a prominent part. His role was obtaining food and other provisions for General Braddock's British forces. Franklin's greatest personal risk was financial. He found himself in a position where he was personally guaranteeing payment for the provisions and transport he was contracting for. After General Braddock was defeated and killed Franklin found himself being sued for payment of some 20,000 pounds. Fortunately the Massachusetts Governor found a way to pay the debt relieving BF of almost certain bankruptcy.

A very significant result of the war and its cost was the British reaction attempting to recover the cost by taxing the colonist. The result was a rapid disintegration of colonial loyalty to England and to colonial demands for home rule and eventual independence.

ANYONE AROUND??? ARE HAROLD AND I TALKING TO OURSELVES??? OLLY, OLLY, IN FREE! DO TELL US IF WE ARE ALONE OR IF YOU ARE OUT THERE?

I'm feeling somewhat desolate, Harold, are you?

I thought for sure someone would come talk about Franklin's dalliances (is that a word?) with the ladies.

I think I'll use TIME magazine who has quite a spread on Ben's sex appeal - and even pictures of "Ladies who caught his fancy." Of course, there is Deborah, the common law wife, who runs the store for him, gives him two children (little Franky died, poor child), but who refuses to go abroad with Ben, tolerates his affairs probably assured that most were not consummated. She dies alone while BF is in England.

Then there is Margaret Stevenson, a widow, with whom he lodges for 15 years total (and with whom he may have had an affair) but his attention is focused on her daughter Polly. He is entranced with this young lady and they correspond for a number of years, and after her husband dies she and her three children came to Philadelphia to live near him until he dies.

Catharine Ray - a wintry love (says TIME) is 23, vivacious, opinionated and uninhibited, when she meets Ben, 48, and they are mutually smitten, they correspond for the rest of their lives, although she marries and has six children.

The Srodes book quotes a woman by the name of Claude-Anne Lopez, who has devoted a lifetime of scholarship at Yale to Ben, and who writes of the foregoing affair thusly:

"A romance? Yes, but in the Franklin manner, hovering between the risque and the avuncular, taking a bold step forward and an ironic step backward, implying that he is tempted as a man but respectful as a friend."

Would you still like to know him? Does he sound interesting? I think very much so, and I would correspond with such a man for the rest of my life, indeed, yes!

Thanks, Harold, for the summary of the war and its consequences. Your clickable did not work for me - something, somewhere, is not up to snuff.

Can you imagine what was going through George Washington's mind when he was appointed (or asked, how did that go down) to lead an army made up of volunteers, with no experience, no uniforms, no supplies, etc. against mighty Great Britain and the only experience he had was the war (how long did that last anyway?) against the French and Indians.

How fortunate we are to have had such great men with foresight and tremendous courage as leaders of our country during this perilous period in our history.

Oh Where, Oh Where Did They Go!

BF did set up a unique living arrangement in London. To all appearance at any rate he was the head of the household Sort of like a sailor with a wife in every port. Not only that he treated Poly like a daughter. He even dabbled with the thought of an arranged marriage of Polly and his son William. Apparently William had other ideals and the thought was dropped.

Other members of the London household were two slaves that Franklin brought with him from America. One, a man promptly went AWOL. Isaacson said Franklin knew where he was but apparently made no effort to get him back. Isaacson says that English Law at the time would have recovered his human property. Isaacson does not speculate on the Franklin's thinking but his lack of action effectively resulted in the slave's Freedom.

This was about 1760 and I remember that H.G. Wells in his 1930's "Outline of History" tells of a Decision of an English Court about this time declaring slavery an obnoxious condition unknown to English Law. A slave, the court held, is free as his foot touches English soil. This noble rule was never applied to the colonies until 1833 when the Parliament abolished the Institution throughout the Empire and paid Slave holders principally in the British West Indies for their loss.

The other Slave BF brought to England, a woman, apparently remained in service. I do not remember any mention by Isaacson of her being brought back to America when he returned so perhaps she too obtained her freedom.

Harnold, Ella.

am in California with Grandkids. No time to read what with kids and traveling around looking at houses. Wife is dertrmined to move down here

When I get back to Washington State can participate more.

Tiger Tom

An invention of BF that receives little to almost no note is the Franklin writing chair. A friend of mine - Robert Whitley_ Furniture Maker, was commissioned by The American Philosophical Society (APS ( another one of Bens endeavors) to build a reproduction of Bens writing chair. Bob Whitley met with officers of the APS in which they took him to a huge fire proof vault. Bens chair with the large writing arm was removed and accurately sketched and measured. The chair is on display at APS in Philadelphia. Of somewhat related interest Whitley also was commissioned by the National Park Service to reproduce six each chairs for Independence Hall replacing six chairs used by the British for kindling wood.

Potsherd the writing table was not mentioned as I can recall in either Isaacson or Srodes. It is an interesting creation of a type that many of us today are inclined to devise to suit our own particular purpose. I my self over the course of my now rather long live have made several. The last one involved an incline plane frame on which my lap top computer might sit at a convenient angle for writing out of doors particularly in the gazebo where I have a telephone line connecting to the internet. The arrangement made it easier to type with my big arthritic hands on the small lap top keyboard.

The origination of the American Philosophical Society was one of the many civic improvement projects in which BF was involved. Potsherd do you know anything about its status today? Who are its members and how are they chosen?

I suppose Franklin's APS was intended as a Colonial version of the prestigious Royal Society to which BF himself was later elected to membership. A number of Americans were members both before and after the Revolution. Contemporary with Franklin was the American painter Benjamin West who was also a member and I understand he was its 2nd president. Our San Antonio Museum of Art has a large oil painting entitled, "Noah Sacrificing After the Flood," that he painted as a sketch for incorporation into a greater work decorating a proposed chapel for George III at Windsor Castle. The chapel project was canceled. West remained in England during the Revolution quite friendly with King George III though it is said he considered himself an American and refused an offered knighthood on those grounds. West is more noted for his Painting of William Pitt negotiating a treaty with the Indians and particularly his "Death of General Wolfe, Click Here. A later American member of the Royal society 50 years after the Revolution was John James Audubon who so impressed the British intellectual class during his 1826 visit arranging the publication of his Bird pictures, that he was made a member. Are there current U.S. members?

I'd would like to know also, POTSHERD! Don't you like the idea that a few of the Franklin-originated societies are still going strong today? What other organization is still around?

Your friend, the furniture-maker, must be darn good to get a commission such as that! What else does he make? What wood did he use?

Harold, your idea sounds pretty good to me, also!! By golly, you should make a few and set them around somewhere for sale.

Benjamin West sounds so familiar to me from the John Adams book - wasn't he a good friend or am I confused??

In our morning paper there was a picture of the Liberty Bell being moved very carefully with men standing on each side to listen to the vibrations of the bell - I just skimmed the article, was in a hurry, and didn't get the details. Where is being moved to? Why? Perhaps I should go back and read the article?????

later, e.g.

TIGER TOM! Thanks for coming online - it's grand to know someone is around even if you don't have much time - I must know eventually if your wife prevails in moving (as I would love to, also, but cannot persuade my husband!)

Benjamin West sounds so familiar to me from the John Adams book - wasn't he a good friend or am I confused??

Ella you may be right about Benjamin West being mentioned by McCullough, but I don't remember it. I wonder if you are thinking of another Benjamin, namely Dr Benjamin Rush. This Philadelphia Physician served with Franklin and John Adams in the Continental Congress. He was considered a noted Physician in his day. Later in the early 19th century John Adams consulted with him concerning treatment of his daughter's breast cancer. Rush advised surgery as the only hope which failed to save the daughters life.

Thomas Jefferson sent Merewether Lewis to consult with Rush while planning the trek to the Pacific. Rush gave him valuable suggestions on the type of ethnic information concerning the native people that he should gather. Also Lewis stocked a good supply of Rush's Thunderbolt a one-pill cure all calomel pill. This is a not very gentle mercury compound. I have long thought that it contributed to the death of the only L&C fatality, Sergeant Floyd whose death appears to have been the result of a ruptured appendix.

Click Here for a short biographical sketch of Dr Rush

Ella you may be right about Benjamin West being mentioned in the McCulough book. I do seeem to remember linking a picture of the West painting of the Penn Treaty with the Indians. Or was that a link I posted in the Iroquois discussion? I'm not sure!

Hello Tiger Tom, I somehow missed your earlier post. Have a good time with the grands in California. And if the situation arises do give my regards to Arnold who according to some seems to have made good or in the view of others went to the dogs. In any case he does seem to be the only Arnold currently in the news.

This will have to be a quickie as I am going to be away through most of today but thought a quick comment concerning the 3rd part of our discussion desirable. The Part 3 discussion questions are now in the heading.

The one thin that impressed me about Franklin's long years in London from the early 1760's right up to the outbreak of the revolution in the mid 1770's was his lifestyle. We have already mentioned the creation of his London household. So far as his working life it seems well divided between actual colony business and more personal activities including the meeting and intellectual interface with the great and near great English personalities. Some of these were David Hume James Watt Adam Smith , and Lord Hillsborough (and dversary). There were many more.

During these years BF travel extensively to all parts of the British Isles including Scotland and Ireland. Toward the end of the period he visited France and found he really liked Paris. This recreation was from time to time interrupted first with negotiation with the Penn's on the issue of modification of their proprietary rights in Pennsylvania tp permit the taxing of their land and later lobbying Parliament for colonial home rule. BF remained firmly loyal until quite late before in the face of complete rejection of his proposed compromise he too embraced the revolutionary view

Harold your post 114-

The APS is unusual among learned societies because its membership is comprised of top scholars from a wide variety of academic disciplines . Members are organized into five classes: Math and Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, The Arts and Professions and Leaders in Public and Private Affairs. As of Jan. 2003 elections the APS has 832 members there are 717 resident members ( citizens of the U.S.) and 135 foreign representing more than two dozen countries.

I believe Ben would be absolutely thrilled to see the growth and breadth of the APS. Harold go to Goggle and type in American Philosophical Society which will bring up their web site. The site is outstanding.

I'm going to do that, Potsherd, as soon as I leave here, but there was an article about David McCullough in our paper this morning (he was near Columbus, OH recently and talked about libraries). Here's a quote:

"I could not have had the career I've had without libraries." He waxed poetic about the Boston Public Library and the New York Public Library, but he saves a special place in his heart for CARPENTERS' HALL IN PHILADELPHIA, a humble little building that the Continental Congress first called home. FRANKLIN'S LIBRARY CO. was upstairs. I think it's fitting that all of our aspirations as a country began in a building that included a library."

McCullough is working on a book about the year 1776 and spoke of three men - Nathaniel Greene, Henry Knox and James Thatcher. The three, crucial in forging a nation, were informally educated. All they knew they had learned in books.

later, eg

Here's a clickable for the American Philisophical Society:

APS

It is rather extraordinary to keep reading in my book, Harold, that Benjamin had no thought of independence from England in and about 1760 when he was attempting to get Penn’s lands taxed. And, of course, England was in need of money badly at the time as the war with France had escalated to include a war with Spain and she thought of the colonies as merely a factory for producing money and goods needed.

45 million acres! That one family could own that much seems incredible. Sometime ago I read a biography of Ted Turner who, the author claimed, owns more land in America than any other individual and it was something like 600,00 acres, which is immense!

I’m sure there must be a book or two about the Penn Family of Pennsylvania – have you ever heard of one? They owned or were proprietors of the whole state.

To answer Question #1 in the heading, Franklin did succeed in getting some, if not all, of the Penn lands taxed in a compromise deal, which made the Pennsylvanians happy and Franklin was able to set up a fund for colonial military purchases.

Franklin remained in England, however, for a number of reasons, one of which he had grown weary of the infighting in Philadelphia of all the factions that he had to deal with – there were the peace Quakers, the defense Quakers, the pro-Penn forces and all the other problems inherent in the colony and also he needed to arrange for military supplies to be sent home.

Strodes tells us that Franklin’s strongest motivation to stay in England was a campaign he was waging to wrest control of Pennsylvania from the Thomas Penn – who was looking for more control over the colony!

On a trip east not long ago, actually around Philadelphia, we visited the black gunpowder site of the DuPont family which was established around 1800 - too late for the Revolutionary War, but certainly it was used thereafter!

It was fascinating; explosions there were devastataing so they took tight control over any sparks that might ignite the powder, even the horses wore heavy mittens on their hoofs to prevent sparks on the cobblestone yards.

Here is a site that is most interesting about the DuPonts and black powder: DuPonts

They just beat BF's old home town 24 - 21.

I was confused when I found the APA link posted yesterday did not claim any connection to the 18th century APA founded by Franklin. Click Here for a History of the APA. According to this page "it was founded in 1900 to promote the exchange of ideas among philosophers, to encourage creative and scholarly activity in philosophy, to facilitate the professional work and teaching of philosophers, and to represent philosophy as a discipline."

I wondered what happened to the old organization founded by Franklin and did a further Google search and found todays successor to the Franklin organization. Click Here For the Franklin APA today. Apparently these Societies are separate organizations. The first APA appears a pure professional organization of Professional Philosophers in the more academics sense. I note that people can nominate themselves for membership by filing a membership application giving their academic and professional qualification subject to evaluation and acceptance by the group.

The Franklin organization seems to define philosophy in the more general sense as all inclusive knowledge. New members are nominated by the active American members of the organization. It is still centered in Philadelphia. There are 717 American members and 135 foreign members. Apparently only the resident American members can nominate and vote in the election of new members.

The Franklin organization definitely seems alive and well today!

Ella Bob Whitley and some of his commissions to produce reproductions as follows: For the John F Kennedy library in Boston he reproduced JFK's oval office desk as per the original in red oak ( the original was fabricated from red oak timbers from the British Man of War Resolute). He spent a day in the oval office tracing, measuring photographing the desk. Lots of commissions from the National Park Service such as replicated four William Savery Queen Ann serpentine crested side chairs, restoration of a Queen Ann Spanish foot low boy for the Todd House, restored a Frederick Maus grandfather clock. In 1972 he was commissioned to design and create the chessboard and presentation chest that would hold the porcelain chess st given to the people of Russia by the United States. He also designed and fabricated the base of " the Dove of Peace" President Eisenhower was to have presented to Khrushehev however the Russian downing of our U2 spy plane the meeting never occurred. He works in the typical fine cabinet woods, walnut, mahogany, cherry, maple etc.. He works directly with a number of local loggers anda saw mill which slab cuts the timber for him. Bob then air drys all the woods he works with for several years. BTW he also is my youngest daughters God father_ commercial over.

What wonderful skills and I know it takes a tremendous amount of patience - I'm in awe of anyone that can do that kind of work. My husband has made a bit of furniture but never tackled the fine stuff. He always said he was going to do that when he retired - I'm still waiting after 12 years of retirement on his part.

Wonder where he gets the (black?)walnut and mahogany? He would have to get those elsewhere than the U.S. I believe.

Was he taught by a master carpenter or just picked up the skills himself - obviously his work is prized!

Thanks for telling me, I'm going to read that to my husband.

Do you supppose that British children have to learn or distinguish between all the monarchs of their country? All those III's and II's, etc. Our history, of course, is not as extensive and we have both first and last names, no Second's or Third's, if that is clear to anyone?

Anyway, here is an article on George III, poor fellow - he died blind, deaf and mad at Windsor Castle on January 29, 1820.

George III

The paragraph concerning the colonists states:

"Great Britain emerged from the conflict (the seven years war with France) as the world's greatest colonial power. England thrived under peacetime conditions, but George's commitment to taxing the American colonies to pay for military protection led to hostilities in 1775. The colonists proclaimed independence in 1776, but George obstinately continued the war until the final American victory at Yorktown in 1781. The Peace of Versailles, signed in 1783, ensured British acknowledgment of the United States of America. The defeat cost George dearly: his sanity was stretched to the breaking point and his political power decreased when William Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister in 1783. George reclaimed some of his power, driving Pitt from office from 1801-04, but his condition worsened again and he ceased to rule in 1811."

Has anyone ever heard of the disease that George III died of? Sounds more like syphillis to me.

And we read that Franklin had "implicit faith in the new king's sense of self-interest and justice and was of a reformist mind."

Franklin wasn't wrong too many times, but he certainly made an error in judging this King. What George III wanted was power! Franklin was at this time still a loyal citizen of Great Britain and was arguing that the colonies could be both united and more loyal to England if the mother country would let the colonists thrive, without any proprietors such as Thomas Penn.

18. What was the purpose of his second visit in 1764 and did he succeed?

19. What incidents happened in London to Franklin that made him doubt that a peaceful solution between the colonists and Great Britain may not be possible?

Regarding questions 18 and 19 I see Franklin's efforts during the years preceding the outbreak of the revolution as a frantic attempt to arrange a compromise that would allow the colonies a meaningful measure of self-government and home rule. He continue to refine and argue for an Union of the North American colonies with their own Parliament having the sole authority to impose direct taxes on the people. This involved continue evolutionary development of the plan he first suggested at the 1753 Albany conference.

The Tory government and the King in my mind share the responsibility for the rejection equally. Of course Franklin's negotiations were with the Parliamentary cabinet ministers who were adamantly opposed to self-government for the colonies. There was an element in the Parliament that would have compromised. I was surprised that this included the powerful Howe Family, one of whom was a RN Admiral and another an army General who later held high British command during the Revolution. The final rejection of compromise came at a Privy Council meeting on Jan 29 1774. Franklin wearing a red suit eloquently argued the home rule cause to no avail. The Council firmly rejected any compromise on the issue. Though Franklin remained in London another year negotiating possible new approaches with the Howe's and other English sympathizers in April 1775 he left London to return to Philadelphia and become a leader of the separatist cause. Ben Franklin again wore the same red suit he wore arguing to the Privy Council some 13 years later at the ceremony in Paris at which Louis XVI approved the Franco-American Aid Treaty.

The Franklin plan of colonial self-government was shelved for another sixty years until in the 1830's it was recovered from the dustbin to become the basis for Canadian home rule and eventual independence. Since the 1930's it has been applied countless times to other colonies to create independent home rule administrations.

Is Ben Franklin credited in your New Zeeland school classes as an originator of the plan for your independent Government?

Ella,

I agree with your diagnosis of George the III's illness. Sounds like a classic case to me. If memory serves me, I understand Queen Isabella's court was inflicted with the same disease thanks to Christopher Columbus and his crew after their return from a voyage.

Marge

Much has been written about the mental illness affecting King George III since the release of the 1990's play and movie, "The Madness of King George III." His illness first appeared in 1765 and began to appear more often after 1788 and in the early years of the 19th century. In 1810 it became permanent and the King was declared insane and his, son the Prince of Wales began his reign as Regent until George III died in 1820. The illness, not syphilis, is believed to have been porphyria a genetic disorder that led to the Kings insanity. Click Here for a web site that gives more information on the King's disorder. And Click Here for comments on the 1995 movie.

Syphilis was quite common among the English upper class in the 18th an 19th century. Winston Churchill's Father died of it. Yet King George is the most unlikely of the monarchs of the period to have come down with it. He seemed to have been the faithful husband of his German Princess wife who bore him some dozen children. Critics have to search far to find stories of royal infidelity. As I have mentioned in previous posts his many sons on the other hand were something else creating regiments of bastard children from their many mistresses, yet somehow they were unsuccessful in providing a male heir from their German Princess wives. Finally Victoria was delivered saving the line from extinction.

Incidentally Syphilis is thought to be one disease that the North American Natives gave the Europeans. It first appeared in Spain shortly after the return of Columbus. A few yeas later in France it was called the Spanish Pox; In England a few years after that it was the French Pox.

Thank you Harold for your enlightenment on the illness of George III. After clicking on the other websites I took offense at the opinion that the movie title needed to be changed and III omitted in George's history because Americans might be mislead into thinking they had MISSED the first two episodes? Wonderful! (Read dripping sarcasm here)

Marge

Thanks, Harold, for giving us the right info - who can remember all of that!

MARGE, in 1992 our capital city of Ohio, Columbus, celebrated Christoper Columbus' 500th anniversary of seeing the New World - and there was a huge exhibit at our Convention Center. A very good documentary film was shown about what the white man (good Chris Columbus) and others brought to the Indians and what the Indians gave to the Europeans. Some good, some not so good - diseases on both sides, foods, weapons of course, turkey - hahaha!

TIME magazine made a list, copying BF's passion for lists, of BF's virtues that he, more than anyone, helped to imprint onto our national fabric and I underlined a sentence in each:

"AN AVERSION TO TYRANNY: Franklin speculated that the harsh and tyrannical treatment given him by his brother James impressed him with an aversion to arbitrary power that stuck with him his whole life.

A FREE PRESS: It is unreasonaable to imagine that printers approve of everything they print, it is likewise unreasonable what some assert. That printers ought not to print anything but what they approve would put an end to free writing and the world would afterwards have nothing to read but what happened to be their opinions.

HUMOR: Silence Dogood and Poor Richard are examples of BF's wry humor, and his device for poking fun at social mores and political outrages was the hoax, which style was later adopted by such descendants as Mark Twin and Will Rogers among others.

HUMILITY: The battle against pride would challenge him, and amuse him, for the rest of his life. 'Even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome it, I would probably be proud of my humility.' (hahaha, I love that one)

IDEALISM IN FOREIGN POLICY: Franklin realized that appealing to a calculus of power was only part of the equation. So even as he catered to France's calculation of her national interest, he also played the rousing chords of America's exceptionalism, the sense that America stands apart from the rest of the world because of its virtuous nature and ideals

COMPROMISE: Compromises may not make great heroes, but they do make great democracies.

TOLERANCE: Franklin believed in God and the social usefulness of religion, but he did not subscribe to any particular sectarian doctrine. This led him to help raise money to build a new hall in Philadelphia that was, as he put it, 'expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something.

IN a world that was then, as alas it still is now, bloodied by those who seek to impose theocracies, Franklin helped to create a new type of nation that could draw strength from its religious pluralism.'"

POTSHERD: Is that church still standing? I don't know what it was called, do you?

"AN AVERSION TO TYRANNY: Franklin speculated that the harsh and tyrannical treatment given him by his brother James impressed him with an aversion to arbitrary power that stuck with him his whole life.

I will offer a brief comment on the apprentice system, as it existed in England and the North American colonies in Franklin's time. First and foremost in North america it was a most important part of the educational system of the day. One of the most informative books that I have read on Colonial society was the Stephanie Grauman Wolf Colonial social history "As Various as their Land" (Click Here). From this source it appears to me that the great majority of colonial men obtained their ability to earn their living through this process. This is certainly true if you count the on the job training system on the family farm. Also just considering the trades the number of men going through the apprentice system far exceeded those going through formal schools and colleges.

Franklin by becoming an apprentice printer made one of the better choice of trades. The apprentice term was normally for 7 years. The creation or an apprentice relationship involved a legal process indenturing the apprentice to the master for the period. Typically the apprentice became a part of the Master's household with a status only one step above that of a slave a principal difference being the time limitation defining the Apprentice's release.

Of course some Masters treated their Apprentices better than others. Based on my reading of Isaacson, I did not get the impression that BF was mistreated by his brother (based on the standards of the day). BF seems to have had the opportunity for much independent writing and publication during the period. Also BF was released from his indenture before the expiration of his apprentice term when he moved to Philadelphia. This release involved another legal document announcing his early freedom.

(Ella and all: If you get the chance to get the Stephanie Grauman Wolf Colonial social history "As Various as their Land" at your library, I urge you do so. I think it was one of the best books I have ever read on colonial society and how its outlook evolved until in the 1760's the North American English Colonist had become something quite different from the European English.)

“ The Great Hall” Ben Franklin in the Fall of 1749 and others established the- Publick Academy of Philadelphia (PAP) which was located at 7th and Market street in the Great Hall. That structure has not been preserved. The PAP in time was moved to “ The Presidents House” at 9th and Market street which also is gone. The final move of PAP was west on market street across the Schulykill river to a site known as the “ The Almshouse Farm.” which is the present site of the University of Pennsylvania. Of interest BF school became the first to teach general studies : Latin , math, english literature ect, versus Princeton, Yale, Harvard and William and Mary which were religion based. Another project of Bens was he set up a lottery to raise money to build a steeple for Christ Church - The” Nations Church” because of the famous Revolutionary era leaders who worshiped there. The completed church steeple was the tallest structure in the Colonies for 83 years.

One other point BF conceived of was the “matching grant” concept as a means of rasing money which today remains a valid, important, method for financing projects. This concept of Bens was some what subtle as well as brilliant and drove his political opponents nuts!

Another Colonial college that later grew into one of Americas elite universities is Princeton. This was founded just a few yeas after BF's academy in Elizabeth, NJ. The name of one of its founders too figured prominently in the history of the early Republic. This was Aaron Burr, the Father of the Aaron Burr who was Vice President of the U..S, (1901 – 1805). This school at its founding was a religious school. An early President , John Witherspoon was a signer of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 while the New Jersey Royal Governor William Franklin was trying desperately to retain his power.

Click here for a short review of the history of Princeton.

Click Here for a virtual tour of the early Campuses of the University of Pennsylvania as it existed in Franklin's time. There are six sketches of the first campus as it esisted 1751 - 1801.

Click Here for history Time Line of University of Pennsylvania.

Harold - that was so interesting! Thank you so much for those clickables. Did you know that originally (speaking of the first building built on the campus of the present University of Pennsylvania):

"where it was housed in a great mansion, intended to be the residence of the President of the United States."

I just remembered that Philadelphia was, at one time, going to be the capital city of the USA. And now I don't remember why it was moved to D.C. Perhaps it will come up later in my book which I am skimming over now.

Another thing I did not know or have forgotten was that many important persons in Boston and the colonies condemned the Boston Tea Party when it happened, even George Washington; they were all still hoping for some reconciliation with England. And BF, still in England, when it happened publicy denounced the act and at one point even said he would recover the losses from his pocket!

BF soon was back in America and in the midst of turmoil about the coming war in England and he was convinced that although the colonies were greatly outnumbered, that eventually America would prevail. At this time Ben was 69 years old, a widower, and his health was not all that good; most of the men he had once known were dead and he knew very few of the people who were debating the issues of a dangerous venture of war.

However, he brought many qualities to these debates - thirty years of accomplishments, vast experience, strength of character, sense of humor and wit. He had world acclaim - friendships with the great minds of his time had given him confidence that America could truly be an independent nation.

This is a partial answer to the question in the heading. BF, as a politican, had no equal in the colonies.

Here, late

I am back home, got my feet on the ground again and am ready to participate (late I know, but was on the road) where are we?

Tiger Tom

Tiger Tom, Certainly join in any time. True we are wandering about but we still have another day tomorrow on section 4,

Oct. 16-20: The Revolution begins with Franklin still at his post in London (1771-1775) returning to Philadelphia to participate in the writing of the Declaration of Independence (1775 -1776).

Tomorrow I will try to post some comments on Franklin's reception on his return to Philadelphia and his participation in the writing of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps you will have inputs on these issues too?

Harold,

Will try. Sorry I missed the earlier discussions.

I am intrigued by Franklin's humiliation in London having to stand for all that time while being insulted and abused.

I wonder how big a part that played in his becoming a party to the revolution seeing as how he was such a staunch British American.

Tiger Tom

Tiger, you are referring to Franklin's final argument for home rule in the Privy Council on Jan 29, 1774. Isaacson refers to this event as Franklin's cockpit ordeal. I mentioned this incident prematurely last week.

The cockpit ordeal was a humiliating experience for Franklin. Not only did the council emphatically reject his arguments for Home Rule, It also stripped Franklin of his Post Masters job.

Yet BF stayed on in London even though he had little opportunity to do any productive work. He did send a letter to William suggesting he resign his Governor post in N.J. Franklin was again unsuccessful on this family account as William persisted in his effort to keep his title.

Isaacson tells us that in the summer of 1774 King George quizzed his Chamberlain, Lord Dartmouth, as to Franklin's whereabouts. Dartmouth indicated he had heard BF was still in London. The King then replied that he had heard Franklin had departed for Switzerland. In fact BF stayed close to his lodgings on Craven Street seeing only close friends.

Isaacson tells us that some four years later on Feb 6.1778 in Paris Franklin wore the same old Blue Velvet suit (I said incorrectly Red Velvet last week) he had worn in the cockpit at the signing of the French Aid Treaty. Later on March 20, at the ceremony in which Louis XVI proclaimed the Treaty officially in effect Franklin shunned the prescribed Court dress and without sword or wig he wore his usual plain brown suit

Harold,

That must have been tough on a man of his age. Yet he bore it with dignity. I guess in a way it showed the attitude by some towards the Colonials.

Tiger Tom

In ancient times, long before Franklin, when the Privy Council met to discuss a top secret mater, they would hang a rose over the chamber entrance door. Hence "sub rosa" came into the English language-meaning secret.

Thomas, I think you are right. There was an element in Parliament that was unalterably against any self-government concession to the colonies and they appear to have had a working majority. They were the high Tories and though they had seemingly a working control of the government there does seem to have been many dissenters who seemed to support Franklin. I was surprised to read that the Howe's were in the group that counseled compromise. Previously I had only know of the two Lord Howe's, one as a British Army General and the other as a RN Admiral. Both of these officers later held active British command during the Revolution. Yet they were part of a last minute 1774 effort to negotiate a compromise.

Also we will read in the last section how quickly the high Tory majority evaporated resulting in the 1782 fall of the Lord North Government and a new government willing to allow a peace far more radical than than any ever proposed by Franklin prior to the time he finally left England in early 1775.

Before we conclude the 4th period of the subject we should give some consideration to Franklin's role in political developments after his return to Philadelphia particularly the writing of the Declaration of Independence. After returning early in 1775 Franklin seems quickly to have acquired a seat in the Continental Congress. He appears immediately to have moved to the separatist side probably out of the necessity he dispel quickly the suggestions that he had too long promoted compromise. Even so he did sign one last petition in July 1775. This was the "Olive Branch Petition to the King asking his support in the correction of Colonial grievances.

Isaacson gives Franklin much credit for his work in the writing of the Articles of Confederation in the summer of 1775. He credits Franklin with the great break through that would eventually define the American Federal System with a division of powers between the Federal Government and the States.

A year later in 1776 Franklin was on the Congressional committee empowered to write the Declaration of Independence. Isaacson discusses how the writing of the first draft fell to Jefferson. Isaacson has BF saying he nominated TJ to write the draft and argued that he should do so. I've got the idea after reading the Isaacson account that in truth BF would really have liked to write the draft document himself and was disappointed at not being able to do so. I can not help but wonder how different the final declaration would have been if it had been Franklins writing? BF of course was an active editor and many of his suggested revisions were Incorporated in the final document.

Apparently BF's performance was quite satisfactory to his fellow MC's because not long after the commitment to Independence, Congress sent Franklin off to France where he was to make a most important contribution to a final conclusion of the revolutionary goal.

Harold,

Franklin was suspected of being a loyalist for some time so he worked to dispell that idea as much as he could. That may have been one of the reasons he took so much a part in the Continental Congress and the drafting of the Articles of Confederation and the Decloration of Independence.

Tiger Tom

I've read all the posts and will be back later after doing some errands in town, but I want to ask you if the general public today sees or thinks of Benjamin as being involved in the Revolutionary War in any way or the writing of the Declaration of Independence, or to put it simply, as a politician?

Had anyone asked me before reading about him I would most probably have talked about his inventions (mainly electricity and the stove) and Poor Richard's Almanac and most probably as a printer.

I had little knowledge of his political activities both in London and Paris and as a member of the Continental Congress. I'll look at the Srodes book and will post again tonight. We did learn a little about his activities in Paris when we discussed JOHN ADAMS - McCullough's book - but what I remembered from that is that Adams did not have a very good opinion of BF.

Would you say that was accurate, Harold? What do you remember from that discussion?

HELLO TIGER TOM!! HAPPY TO HAVE YOU BACK!!

Before I start answering the new questions in the heading, there are a few remarks Srodes makes that are of general interest:

"Jefferson had come back to town....and Franklin took an avuncular liking to this tall, reticent skeptic. There was much to separate them by class, education and personal habits........Yet, there was much to bind them. Franklin and Jefferson were the brightest minds of the American Enlightenment. Like Franklin, Jefferson conducted experiments and made observations on all of nature.

In November, he (Franklin) was named to a Secret Committee of Correspondence.......and historians mark this committee as the foundation stone of the U. S. State Department.

A whole branch of scholarship has grown up over whether Jefferson can rightly claim on his tombstone to be the 'Author of the Declaration of Independence." Franklin made several alterations, including substituting for 'WE hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable' the more direct 'to be self-evident....'"

later..eg

Ella I would place Franklin's character as it was displayed in Paris somewhere between Jefferson and John Adams. Obviously BF would never have gone into greater debt to buy a jeweled sword as McCullough tells us TJ did in Paris. Yet debt was not unknown to BF as during the French Indian war when BF found himself personally guaranteeing payment for Government military purchases. So far as their social proclivities were concern, I think TJ and BF were quite close. Both I'm sure loved a good party and were not shy when the opportunity came for social contact with the opposite sex. John Adams and wife, Abigail were far behind on this count. I don’t think though that TJ would have shown up at a formal court function in a simple brown suit sin the required sword and wig. BF because of his reputation as "Dr Franklin" was probable one of the very few people in the world who could have got away with such informality and Tj would not have been one of those select few. .

I don’t have trouble giving Jefferson credit as author of the Declaration of Independence. Certainly Ben Franklin and others contributed, but their role was as editors, a role that is quite different from that of author. Jefferson authored the draft and his original words were subject to changes by editors who in this case were first the other members of the committee (BF was one) and secondly even possibly by individual members of the Congress. I agree that in the example Ella quoted, the word "undeniable" in the context used, is the stronger word. It seems like a typical change that an editor should suggest. It strengthened the document without changing its overall style. Today in congress a bill after approval often ends up named for the originators in the House and Senate, ie, Taft-Hartley, even though it has went through many re-writings and may be quite different from the original drafts. Also I am told that the manuscripts of even well-know authors when submitted to the publisher, are subject to the red pencil edits of an English major editor.

Tiger Tom would the average State Department Foreign Service officer today recognize the the "Secret Committee of Correspondence" as the early foundation of the Department in which he/she works?

Harold,

There are number of documents on display in the State Department, many of them relating to the origins of the Department. I suppose that many FSO's have a passing familiarity with the "Secret Committe of Correspondence." A lot of FSO's are History Buffs and are well read.

Tiger Tom

The British seem to have had a rather strong intelligence operation in the 1770 - 1780 period headed by William Eden. Isaacson tells us they were spending 200,000 pounds a year on the operation. Eden recruited Paul Wentworth, a North American Natïve living in England to oversee British Intelligence in France and he in turn enlisted another American, Edward Bancroft in Paris. Franklin had know and worked with Bancroft in London and hired him as secretary to the American legation in France. Bancroft kept London current on the status of the aid treaty negotiations. Isaacson says his communication with London was through the dispatch of fake love letters on which he wrote his spy report between the lines in invisible ink.

Among the intelligence communicated was information on the sailing of Lafayette with French troops for the United States and there was another report of a French operation passing Gibraltar. It is amazing that serious consequence did not result from these leaks but apparently the British were not able to act quickly enough to take effective action. Apparently Bancroft was never caught and Franklin never new the extent of his aids duplicity.

Perhaps the strangest report by a British Spy (not Wentworth or Bancroft) had Dr Franklin pictured as a Dr Strangelove character (remember the movie). The report had him preparing a great number of reflecting mirrors on the French coast to focus heat from the sun to destroy the British Navy. This was to be followed by a great electric jolt sent across the channel to destroy English cities. Apparently these reports were not too upsetting to the English. and in fact they were not as upsetting as other reports in American newspapers having Franklin inventing an electrical apparatus that could shift land masses and a method for using oil to calm the ocean waves in one place and create great storms in others.

Yes, Harold, I agree:

"So far as their social proclivities were concerned I think TJ and BF were quite close. Both I'm sure loved a good party and were not shy when the opportunity came for social contact with the opposite sex."

How was BF's trips abroad different than previous trips? On both trips he came as a supplicant to the government, but on the latter trip America had declared independence and he must have had an altogether different attitude don't you think?

You cannot say he believed the United States was an equal partner in the world's eyes, but Franklin had always thought in a war that America would prevail and I would imagine on his latest trip to both countries that perhaps he was just a bit prouder than before - his head held higher perhaps??

Of course, he was well known in certain levels of government already - Srodes, in the chapter titled "Winning Recognition" puts it this way:

"In the two years of 1777 and 1778 Franklin was at his most versatile-juggling tasks, playing the French and British off against each other, and evading the annoyances of his colleagues."

What you said about British spying is also written in great detail in the Srodes book, Harold. "Vergennes (the foreign minister) repeatedly warned the Americans that their most private conversastions were being read in detail in London within 72 hours."

And the book goes further - "Much has been made of Franklin's laxity about security. Lee wrote volumes about it back to Philadelphia. And there remains a tantalizing quesion of just how much Franklin knew......Lee and later John Adams, believed that Franklin had gone dotty and was criminally careless. At least two books have suggested that Franklin himself was a British agent." (notice my emphasis in that the sentence above - my memory from the JOHN ADAMS book is not quite as bad as I thought!)

Without going into a great many details about this, it is well to remember that Franklin knew many top government figures in Britain from previous years (Pownalls, Pitt, Shelburne, Burke and many others in Parliament) and it is assumed he would have known of such spies and espionage.

All of us have heard of Lafayette who came to America and was of tremendous help to Washington, but I have never heard of a German by the name of Baron Frederick von Steuben who was out of work at the time and begged Franklin for a job in America. He ultimately went into winter quarters with Washington at Valley Forge, and by the time the army went on the march in June 1777 he had drilled them into a formidable fighting force.

Trust the Germans to have the knowledge and ability to organize and drill an army into one of the most skilled - I hope that is not a racist remark but I think of WWI and WWII and because of the German armies how many men lost their lives.

All of these chapters about Franklin in Paris make wonderful reading, but there are too many details to relate here.

Ella,

Franklin had to contend with a number of Personal Enemies while in Paris. Those men had the best interests of America at heart but either did not like Franklin, were envious of him, or both.

Adams disliked Franklin a great deal but worked with him on the peace treaty. Still Adams wrote letters back to Congress about Franklin.

Tiger Tom

Indeed he did, Tom, and this book goes into great detail about them and also the enmity between Adams and Franklin. However, he did have those in Congress that shared his view that France, and only France, could provide the money and arms in time for the Americans to win the war. Among his supporters were Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, and merchant bankers such as Robert Morris and, of course, France's ambassadors who proved highly skillful in behalf of the alliance.

In Paris, Franklin was feeling his 74 years of age and he avoided the vigorous exercise that he once had loved; periodically he had health problems; however, his passion for women remained strong and he developed a long relationship with a Madame Brillon who was very talented musically and had an eclectic group of friends who gathered around her.

Another love was for Anne-Catherine Helvetius, and it was amusing to read of the outrage that Abigail Adams wrote when John and Benjamin took her to dinner at this lady's home.

His living arrangements while in Paris were quite lovely as a very wealthy tax collector and merchant trader opened one wing of his mansion, rent free, to Franklin - that is, until John Adams also took rooms in this huge mansion and insisted on paying rent, forcing Franklin to do the same.

Ella,

Franklin was a wily old Duck. He played the role the French assigned him (Colonial innocent) for all it was worth. He also played the French and British off against one another. He knew, although Adams didn't and wouldn't learn, that the French controlled the purse strings and that meant keeping them happy and not offending them.

Tiger Tom

The BF/JA work relationship seems quite complex. There seems to have been true mutual respect for each other's abilities. Yet there was always the tension resulting from their different character and conflicting views over how their mission should be accomplished. In negotiating with the French BF's approach was indirect through diplomatic charm and the recognition some compromise would usually be expected; in contrast Adams' approach was direct, abrupt and unyielding. He had somehow acquired the conclusion that the U.S. had more to offer France, than France had to offer the U.S.

I noted that in the recent McCullough biography of JA the author in writing of the Franklin/ Adams work relationship took on the position of JA's defense attorney. In this capacity he presented the JA in the most favorable light possible and explained away his shortcomings. Yet I reading the McCullough's argument as a juror concluded that BF was far more effective in U.S dealing with the French while JA was ineffectual. Fortunately for the U.S. the Initial French Aid Treaty was already concluded when JA arrived on the scene. This was the most important document.

Fortunately also the Congress to seemed to favor Franklin and in fact JA was scarcely ever involved in dealings with the French. JA's most important contribution was his negotiating the Dutch loan and later in 1782 the negotiation of the separate US English peace treaty.

I got a kick out of reading about the balloon experiments in Paris in 1783. How quickly after the first flight there were follow-up experiments involving both hot air and hydrogen technologies. And there were even manned flights. Isaacson does not tell us the name of the two Champaign-drinking aristocrats who made the first flight that came close to disaster when the balloon caught in tree limbs, but they must certainly be recognized as the first flight pioneers.

Franklin was one of those financing some of these experiments. He witnessed some and reported the results to the Royal Society. When an observer noted the apparent absence of any actual value from these experiments, Franklin replied. "What value has a new born baby?

Christ Church “ The nations Church”, Some of the 1,400 Burials, include five signers of the Declaration of Independence, founders of the U S Navy, early medical pioneers. To note:

Benjamin Franklin__ Scientist, philosopher and signer of the Declaration and Constitution... Dr Benjamin Rush_ Signer of the Declaration and “Father of American Psychiatry” Julia Stockton Rush__ Daughter and wife of signers of the Declaration. Commodore William Bainbridge__ naval hero of War of 1812, captain of “ Old Ironsides”.. Dr. Thomas Bond__ Physician and founder of America’s first hospital... Sara Franklin Bache__ leading fund-raiser of the Revolution... Dr Philip Syng Physick__ ‘Father of American Surgery”... Philip Sung,Jr.__ the most prominent silversmith of the 1700s1 ...Also, John Taylor__ grave digger who buried Benjamin Franklin

(1) Philip Syng was a close friend of BF and a fellow “leather Apron.” Syng was instrumental with Franklin in establishing the first library and the University of Pennsylvania. Syng crafted the silver inkstand in which signers of the Declaration of Independence dipped their pens.

That's interesting, POTSHERD! Philip Syng Physick? Strange name and particularly the "physick" part, appropriate for a doctor? hahaha

Benjamin Rush was a very good friend of JA and Franklin - he was mentioned often in McCullough's book. Rush is mentioned briefly in the Srodes book; he founded the first antislavery society in Philadelphia. As early as 1772 Franklin had become a committed abolitionist and I think we all know the debate about slavery in the writing of the Declaration.

Harold, those balloon experiments are not in my book - sound interesting though and I love Franklin's reply to the question of what use are they? That's why the ladies loved the man - his wit, his charm.

Years ago I read of college kids setting off little hot air balloons from their dorm windows, so we had to try them with plastic dry cleaner's bags, making a little holder below with cotton dipped in kerosene, lighting it and they soared off!! We were very lucky nothing caught on fire - it delighted the children!!

Potsherd, Benjamin Rush is without doubt one om my favorite Revolution era supporting actors. His name seems to comm up so very often in history related writings in the period. I have already mentione him here in a previous post noting his connection to John Adams and Lewis and Clark. Click Here for a biographical Sketch of Benjamin Rush. Thank you for mentioningh him.

Yes Ella, I too thought BF's reply to the person questioning the value of the balloon experiments was very appropriate, and it was a Franklin quotable I had never heard before.

It appeared somewhere in the last couple of days that BF was the first to suggest Daylight Savings Time - had never heard that before either, Harold, had you?

TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT TO FALL BACK ON OUR TIME, FOLKS!

29. In your opinion which of the three principal American diplomats in Europe in the 1778–1782 period, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin, contributed the most to the successful outcome of the Revolution?

For me I don't have to hesitate long in choosing Franklin over Adams as the most effective of the American diplomatic mission in France during the period. I think BF's French Aid Treaty in 1778 before Adams arrived was the single most significant diplomatic event leading to the American Victory. I would almost be inclined to leave off the qualifying word "diplomatic," meaning it was the single most significant event (diplomatic or military) leading to American victory.

As for John Adams he simply misunderstood the French and was not a force in the French negotiations. His principle contribution to the victory was his Dutch Loan negotiations and I judge his presence as a member of the peace treaty negotiating as being positive.

As to Thomas Jefferson, he did not arrive in Paris until 1784 after the war was over. I should not have included him in the question but somehow I had the impression the had arrived earlier during the peace negotiations. TJ had been asked several times earlier to take a diplomatic assignment in Paris, but had refused for personal reasons. I suppose his reason was the ill health of his wife who died in 1782. TJ arrived in Paris with an entourage that included Sally Henning, and several other slaves including Sally's brother. Abigail sensed hanky-panky.

Ella, I think BF's suggestion of DST is mentioned in Isaacson, but I don't think I had known that before either. I for one would favor keeping DST the year around. The fall change over always seems more difficult than in the spring. I am sure I will again find it easier to adjust my several mechanical and electric clocks, than my body clock. Of course the several computer clocks will reset themselves.

Harold, your post above answers the last question in the heading very well and I agree with all the portions of it.

I'm listening to a tape on America from a book written by Chris Matthews - does anyone watch him on TV? Today he mentioned Benjamin Franklin who wrote the following:

"The Rattlesnake as a Symbol of America I observed on one of the drums belonging to the marines now raising, there was painted a Rattle-Snake, with this modest motto under it, "Don't tread on me." As I know it is the custom to have some device on the arms of every country, I supposed this may have been intended for the arms of America; and as I have nothing to do with public affairs, and as my time is perfectly my own, in order to divert an idle hour, I sat down to guess what could have been intended by this uncommon device — I took care, however, to consult on this occasion a person who is acquainted with heraldry, from whom I learned, that it is a rule among the learned of that science "That the worthy properties of the animal, in the crest-born, shall be considered," and, "That the base ones cannot have been intended;" he likewise informed me that the ancients considered the serpent as an emblem of wisdom, and in a certain attitude of endless duration — both which circumstances I suppose may have been had in view. Having gained this intelligence, and recollecting that countries are sometimes represented by animals peculiar to them, it occurred to me that the Rattle-Snake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America, and may therefore have been chosen, on that account, to represent her.

But then "the worldly properties" of a Snake I judged would be hard to point out. This rather raised than suppressed my curiosity, and having frequently seen the Rattle-Snake, I ran over in my mind every property by which she was distinguished, not only from other animals, but from those of the same genus or class of animals, endeavoring to fix some meaning to each, not wholly inconsistent with common sense.

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids. She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance. She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shown and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal. Conscious of this, she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.

Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America? The poison of her teeth is the necessary means of digesting her food, and at the same time is certain destruction to her enemies. This may be understood to intimate that those things which are destructive to our enemies, may be to us not only harmless, but absolutely necessary to our existence. I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles, 'till I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the Colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the Snake which increased in numbers. Perhaps it might be only fancy, but, I conceited the painter had shown a half formed additional rattle, which, I suppose, may have been intended to represent the province of Canada.

'Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly, is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together, is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living.

The Rattle-Snake is solitary, and associates with her kind only when it is necessary for their preservation. In winter, the warmth of a number together will preserve their lives, while singly, they would probably perish. The power of fascination attributed to her, by a generous construction, may be understood to mean, that those who consider the liberty and blessings which America affords, and once come over to her, never afterwards leave her, but spend their lives with her. She strongly resembles America in this, that she is beautiful in youth and her beauty increaseth with her age, "her tongue also is blue and forked as the lightning, and her abode is among impenetrable rocks."

While I do like these sentiments, I have always thought a couple of our symbols of liberty are somewhat gruesome. Example: the fierce eagle with talons ready to pounce on some unsuspecting prey. For a peace-loving nation, its symbols are anything but!

later, eg

That was an interesting analogy on the symbolism of the rattlesnake and America. Could not help but notice the gender given as the pronoun ...it... was NOT used. So many things of strength are also referred to as she, ever notice? And yes, doves and such as symbols of peace are hard to find aren't they?

Marge

Click Here for more information on the rattlesnake symbolism. Benjamin Franklin is mentioned.

I always thought of the meaning of the snake and the "Don't Tread On Me" warning in simpler terms. The rattlesnake's bite is deadly. The Revolutionary Militia wanted a symbol showing them too as deadly. So they put it on their flag.

I really don't see the rattlesnake as worthy of being a national icon. There are simply too many obvious negatives. "A Snake in the Grass" for example. Also when the warning comes it is usually too late to do anything about it.

I've had several encounters with rattlesnakes. A Friends mother lost her leg after being bitten. The venom kills by killing the victim's body cells first in the vicinity of the bite and further as the poison spreads. This can result in an open and growing wound that is hard to heal. That’s what happened here and sometimes amputation is necessary. One of the French settlers in the La Salle colony on the Texas coast in 1685 was bitten on the leg. He lingered several weeks and his inexperienced surgeon amputated the leg when gangrene set in. He died a painful death. One of my dogs had a bad bite in 1985. He survived because he has a better veterinarian than the French Settler, but it took a full four months to heal.

A few years later while opening my garage door I heard the rattle warning as I was in the process of opening the Door. Fortunately the door swung between the snake and me so he hit the other side of the door. He didn't surrender but he was not above running away. Then just three years ago I was in the yard coming from the garden pond to the house. When I reached the boardwalk in front of the house as I stepped up to the walk, I heard the ominous rattle. I froze and did nothing. My dog jazz was not so wise- she charged taking a bite on her front. I was safe and this time I killed the snake. Jazz was lucky I took her at once to the vet for treatment, but all rattlesnake bites are not equal. Sometimes the venom supply is low and that was the situation this time. The dog made a quick and easy full recovery.

Somehow with this experience in mind I just don't see the rattlesnake as a suitable symbol for liberty and freedom. I am glad they choose the Eagle

Ella, the rattlesnake to the best of my knowledge is indigenousness to America. The rattlesnake if provoked will warn ( the Boston Tea Party) and if further agitated will strike the aggressor ( Bunker Hill). So, the rattlesnake symbol expressed the resolve of the American colonies with the clear message " don't tread on me." The rattlesnake was also seen on a New England colony flag ( don't recall which one , maybe Vermont?). The thinking and significance of the rattlesnake symbol is really quite interesting and the "barnstorming session" or was it the result of the fertile imagination of a single person is interesting to speculate. I suspect that some where in existing documents / literature the questions asked maybe answered.

OH! If I had those kind of experiences, Harold, I would have moved so fast in the opposite direction all you would see of me is dust and I would never come back.

Hi MARGE! When I first met my husband, who had been in the Navy in WWII, he always referred to his aircraft carrier as a "she." When I asked why he said everyone loved her, "she" brought us through many tough times. Still strange to me. At the moment I can't think of others but it is true and is it just men that give the feminine pronoun to big things or women, too? How about our country? Isn't it sometimes referred to as "she?"

POTSHERD you ask an interesting question about the origin of the rattlesnake; if we were researchers we would have to dig that up.

Poor Franklin was treated badly when he arrived home by his fellow revolutionaries - Washington ignored him and was put off by the way foreigners fawned over him. Congress never honored Franklin for his nine years of service to the Revolution, even though they owed him money (or maybe because of it) and never paid their debt either in coin or rewards.

For the first time in his life, he was no longer needed or wanted in foreign affairs. Why? Was it his age? That's very sad.

Again, I apologize for an aside from BF, but how did Washington become President - did he have opponents? Was it by a written vote and who did the voting? Chris Matthews alleges that Americans love warriors for their presidents and he gives a brief summary of each one, starting with Washington. At one time I might have known this, but I have forgotten it.

but how did Washington become President - did he have opponents? Was it by a written vote and who did the voting?

These are good questions and I can only provide a partial answer. Click Here for the electorial vote in the first Presidential election in 1789. As you can see from this link there was no shortage of candiates. In all some 12 candidates received at least 1 electorial votes including a guy named Lincoln (1 Electorial votes) and another named Clinton (3 electorial votes, I suppose this was the NY governor) Washington won with a majority and John Adams won the VP position by virtue of his second place finish. You recall the original constitution awarded the Vice Presidency to the candidate who received the second largest number of electorial votes for President. This provision was put in the Constitution to reduce the power of political parties.

What about the popular vote? Last year when we did John Adams I could not find a record of a popular vote. I suspect the state legislatures chose the electors.

Thanks, Harold, that proves the point that Americans at that time in our history loved a warrior!

Isn't it interesting to read about the various disagreements and compromises made during the Constitutional Convention. You can see here the two political parties emerging - at first, Franklin's ideas were all voted down but he did compromise. The Srodes book says that Franklin's compromise was a great contribution to our country - he proposed the present day Senate with all states having equal representation plus a House of Representatives apportioned by population.

He also argued successfully to give Congress the power to override the president's veo and to provide a mechanism for presidential impeachment through trial.

It took 18 months of violent demonstrations and intense pamphleteering before the Consitution was formally ratified by the required nine states. What is most sad is that BF was not asked to take a seat in either the new House or the new Senate; younger men were taking over and, no doubt, they thought him much too old and his health was not good at all.

He did still managed to write letters and the last paragraph of one to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, states as follows:

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being (one God, Creator of the universe) in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it....I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope go out of the world in peac with them all."

RATHER GOOD, EH??

Ella I pretty well agree with your assessment of BF's role at the Constitutional convention. Using chemistry terms, he was more of a catalyst than and contributor to the final document. I think his advanced age and physical condition had finally reduced the effect his voice previously carried. In any case his plan for a single house Congress was quickly rejected. Yet as Ella has pointed out BF presence at the convention certainly influenced many of the sections of the final document. And his presence was probably essential in instilling in the delegates the willingness to compromise and later in obtaining ratification by the individual states.

I note that the form of government that emerged from the Constitution was very much in the form of the English Government as it then existed with a two house Congress and a relatively strong executive. Replacing the King with the temporary President democratized the arrangement, and there were other essential differences including the independent Judiciary and a system of checks and balances well calculated to control the excesses of any branch and even the Federal government itself. Some of these innovations had been suggested in earlier writings by BF and others including John Adams.

I suppose we should not be surprised that BF was not involved in the Congress or other Public Office after the Convention. He was well over 80 years and in failing health. That was considered very old, and I would point out today despite the recent Strom Thurman example, a person at that age is most unlikely to win election to the Congress particularly for the first time against young opponents.

Harold (and anyone looking in) a question of who said this:

"Newly elected to the Senate, it took me 6 months to decide how I got here, and then it took several years to decide how the others got here."

HAHAHAHAAAAAAA

Harold, in your opinion, what was BF's greatest contribution and his best quality?

later.....

Ella,

Harry Truman said that.

BF biggest contribution and his best quality are the same His Mind.

Tiger Tom

Ella I was unable to answer your question. I'm glad Tiger Tom was able to. I thought of several who might have said it, but Harry Truman was not one of them. Way back in the 40's the story circulated that the late KC political Boss (what was his name, something like Pendergas comes to mind) boasted to some cronies that he could send his office boy to the U.S. Senate. The next election the Trumans moved to Washington.

FDR choose Truman as his VP running mate in 1944 after the previous VP Henry Wallace veered further left than Joe Stalin. Actually Roosevelt had three Vice Presidents over his four administrations. During the first two terms it was John, "Cactus Jack," Garner" an old Texas populist Democrat politician who came from Uvalde Texas a lovely little hill country town about 75 miles west of San Antonio.

Harry Truman made a good president. Though he was the last U.S. President who did not graduate from college, he exhibited a great deal of common sense at a time when that was most necessary. He had a knack for choosing good cabinet officers including Dean Acheson for secretary of State.

To answer Ella's opinion question about what BF achievement I consider most outstanding, I would have to choose the French Aid Treaty. I think that without that treaty the Revolution would have been lost and Franklin negotiated this treaty essentially on his own

Oh, you got an "A" today in the quiz, TOM! Pat yourself on the back, am so sorry I have no prize to confer! (That question derived again from listening to the audio tape of the book that Chris Matthews wrote.) Do you ever listen to his program on TV? He's a brash young blond fellow that can talk faster than anybody I've ever known! I sometimes watch and marvel at him.

Srodes gives many definitions to BF's life and contributions; saying he could be called a "first" because of his scientific achievements, his literary genius, his key role in uniting the colonies, etc. But also most important he feels is that Franklin was a "catalyst in setting ideas in motion - he was the essential ingredient that made change happen."

As you stipulated, TOM, I believe one of his most important qualities was his intelligence, but also his charming personality and his persistence, without which he may not had been able to get the French to aid us in so many ways during our Revolutionary War. He was a great diplomat.