#how are thes people getting SO MANY VOTES??? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

earlyandoftenpodcast · 6 years ago

Link

(The oldest surviving courthouse in America, in Chester County, Pennsylvania)

The Quakers continue their struggle for self-rule against William Penn, now aging and ailing. Also, a promising young man by the name of Franklin makes his debut in Philadelphia.

>>>Direct audio link<<<

(iTunes) (Spotify) (Podbean) (Libsyn) (YouTube) (WordPress) (Twitter)

Transcript and Sources:

Hello, and welcome to Early and Often: The History of Elections in America. Episode 38: The Long Death of William Penn.

Last time, we discussed the history of Pennsylvania from the 1680s to the early 1700s. During this time, William Penn, the proprietor of Pennsylvania, was stuck in England thanks to various legal troubles. It didn’t take long for a local political elite to form, composed of men who were actually in the colony and able to wield direct influence. This group, which I’ve been calling the elite Quakers, very quickly claimed a lot of power for themselves at the expense of William Penn, who wasn’t in a position to do anything about it.

The elite Quakers were so successful, in fact, that an opposition faction emerged within just a few years, composed primarily of middle class Quakers who feared that they were about to be shut out of politics. This group I’ve been calling the middling Quakers. From the 1690s onward, they were led by a Welsh lawyer named David Lloyd, one of the few men in the colony who was both popular enough to win support and talented enough to use that support effectively.

Pennsylvania had become a hotbed of factionalism in record time, despite the supposed pacifism of the Quakers.

William Penn finally managed to get back to Pennsylvania for a few years around 1700, but he found a colony which was already outgrowing him. His influence was greatly reduced, and he mostly had to do what the Assembly wanted him to do. They forced him to agree to a constitution which made them, the Assembly, supreme. The Council lost its position as upper house of the legislature, making Pennsylvania unicameral. Thoroughly disheartened by his ungrateful colonists and by his constant legal and financial troubles, Penn soon returned to England. The government was once again trying to take Pennsylvania away from him.

So that’s where we left off. Today, I want to do two things. Firstly, I want to take us through the next two and a half decades of Pennsylvania history, during which time the conflict between the elite and middling Quakers will reach a crescendo. And secondly, I want to introduce a young man who will be of great importance to our story going forward, Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps you've heard of him.

Let's get going.

So Penn was back in England to defend his claim to Pennsylvania. Once again he was successful in doing do, but all of these struggles were taking their toll. He’d labored for decades on behalf of his colony, and all he had to show for it was a mountain of debt and endless legal headaches. Plus he was getting old. So he began to consider whether or not he should sell Pennsylvania to the Queen. That way at least he might get something for all his troubles. Better that than having the colony taken outright, which was still a risk.

So he began negotiations with the Crown. However, the talks never went anywhere, since some of the conditions Penn set were unacceptable to the Board of Trade. So things just sort of stumbled along for the rest of the decade without ever reaching a conclusion. In fact, it may have been more of a delaying tactic. Penn may not have ever seriously considered selling Pennsylvania, he may have just wanted to discourage Parliament taking it over by force. Pretend you’re interested and then just string them along for as long as possible.

But although the negotiations never went anywhere, people at the time didn’t know that that’s how it would work out. For all they knew, word might come at anytime that Pennsylvania had been sold. Within Pennsylvania itself, most people kind of assumed that it would become a royal colony sooner or later. That further undermined William Penn’s control. People didn’t think he’d be in charge much longer, and so they didn’t pay him much heed.

And that was on top of all the other reasons Penn had already lost control. He still supported unpopular policies. Not only that, the men he sent to Pennsylvania to represent his interests were all incompetent at best, actively hostile to him at worst, with one notable exception.

Let me give you one amusing example of incompetence. In 1706 the governor was a man named John Evans, who was hotheaded and young, only 28 at the time. Evans had grown frustrated with the colony’s continuing unwillingness to create a militia, and so he decided to teach them all a lesson, to show them how defenseless their pacifism had left them. He decided to fake an invasion.

He had some men ride up to Philadelphia one morning, warning that a French fleet had begun sailing up the Delaware, laying waste to the towns on the coast. And soon, they’d be in Philadelphia itself. The governor then rode around town, raising the alarm and rallying the colonists to defend themselves. I’ll quote the historian Gary B. Nash to describe what happened next. “The wildest disorder followed: powder was dealt out, two apprentices blew themselves up in their eagerness to initiate action, women miscarried, shopkeepers threw their goods into wells or hastily buried them in the ground, younger Quakers inexplicably found themselves shouldering arms and digging in for the fight, while other Friends, fleeing town, trembled at the shouts of Anglicans, who flung out warnings that under the circumstances Quakers and Frenchmen would make equally attractive targets.”

And then, when night fell, they discovered it was all some big prank. But the lesson they learned was not that Pennsylvania was defenseless, it was that the governor was a reckless idiot.

That’s the most dramatic example of incompetence from Penn's representatives, but I assure you there’s more where that came from.

Since the proprietary faction was busy embarrassing itself, the anti-proprietary faction, under the leadership of David Lloyd, remained dominant. As I already mentioned, the anti-proprietary faction was primarily composed of middling Quakers, while the elite Quakers had shifted over to the proprietary faction. Or at least, they were less anti-proprietary than the middling Quakers were, since no one in Pennsylvania was entirely for the proprietorship.

Those were the two main factions, but there were other, smaller groups as well, non-Quaker immigrants who were coming to the colony now that the initial wave of Quaker migration had dried up. In particular, many immigrants were Anglicans, who naturally opposed the Quakers and tried to undermine Quaker control of Pennsylvania. They actively tried to make the government less effective, in order to discredit the Quakers and increase the odds of another royal takeover, which would likely put them in charge.

For example, I've already discussed how Quaker pacifism caused problems during times of war, so you might naturally assume that it was the Quakers who did the most to keep the government from contributing to the war effort, but that wasn't the case. The Quakers had come up with a compromise position in which they would give a sum of money to the Crown without specifying what for. They knew that much of it would go to fighting the war, but they still felt that their hands were clean. In fact, it was often the Anglicans who did the most to keep Pennsylvania from supporting the war effort. That way, the colony would look bad to officials in London. And presumably the Quakers would take the blame, not them.

So to some extent, this aligned the Anglicans with the anti-proprietary faction, at least some of the time, since they shared an interest in embarrassing William Penn, but otherwise their aims were quite divergent.

In any case, it was the anti-proprietary, middling Quaker faction which remained in power. Over a decade they won control of the Assembly in all but two elections, and David Lloyd served as speaker for most of the first decade of the 1700s. The speaker being the top guy in the Assembly.

Under Lloyd, the Assembly became more powerful and more professionalized. I won’t get into all the details, since I’ve covered similar transformations in the other colonial legislatures. But procedures were regularized, delegates gained experience over time, the Assembly developed an institutional history of its own, and so on. In fact, Pennsylvania’s Assembly fast became one of the most powerful legislatures in the colonies. The proprietor was absent, the governors were weak, and there was no upper house to contend with.

And Lloyd didn't just try to strengthen the Assembly, he also tried to increase local autonomy wherever he could, although he only had mixed success, since William Penn was still able to veto legislation. So whenever Lloyd proposed some big bill to take control of the courts away from Penn, or to make the city of Philadelphia much more autonomous, that failed.

What did work was the gradual shifting of more and more offices from being appointed to being elected. For example, some positions, such as sheriff, were supposed to be chosen by a mixture of election and appointment. The freeholders in each county would vote, and then Penn or his governor would chose the winner from among the top two vote-getters. But in practice the offices became purely elective: whoever got the most votes always won.

And from the 1690s onwards the Assembly created more and more positions which were elected. In particular jobs such as assessor and county commissioner, which had to do with collecting taxes. As always, taxes were a super important issue for Americans. If you had the money, you had the power.

These local elections also enhanced local power in a more roundabout way, by increasing the number of men in local government, who could then make the leap to joining the Assembly. More men had experience as politicians, and that helped them win higher office. And thus, the Assembly's membership became more capable as time went on, thanks to the training provided by local elections.

So that, in a nutshell, is how Pennsylvania spent the first decade of the 1700s. The anti-proprietary faction was slowly increasing local authority, but David Lloyd's attempts to make bigger power grabs had failed. By the end of the decade, Lloyd was feeling stymied. He apparently thought that his political program hadn't been sufficiently successful, that he should have been able to get more done.

And so he turned his wrath on those he felt were responsible, in particular an official named James Logan. Logan wasn’t the governor, but he was one of Penn’s top men in the colony. In fact, from everything I’ve read, it sounds like Logan was virtually the only person in the colony effectively defending proprietary interests. He stayed loyal and he knew what he was doing, even if he did have an arrogant, off-putting demeanor. That made him Lloyd’s biggest enemy and by the end of the decade they were openly attacking each other.

In 1709, Logan announced that he was sailing back to England. Lloyd and the anti-proprietary faction were fearful that he would give a one-sided account of what was going on to William Penn. So they demanded that Logan provide evidence for the accusations he was making against them. When Logan refused, they tried to have him impeached. When the impeachment failed, they tried to have him arrested, but that failed as well, thanks to an intervention by the governor. Eventually, Logan sailed away undaunted.

But apparently Lloyd had gone too far in his attacks on proprietary authority. It wasn't just that he had gone after Logan so aggressively. It was that his war against William Penn had led to the neglect of routine government business. He had been so focused on increasing self-government that he hadn’t actually governed. Thanks to his frequent standoffs with the proprietorship he often failed to pass routine legislation necessary for the government to function properly. The people were fine with his attacks on the proprietorship, but only when it was actually benefiting them. Otherwise what was the point?

So the people were getting fed up with Lloyd. And the elite Quaker faction was finally regaining its footing, after a decade of ineffectiveness. And so in the elections that next year, 1710, there was a complete turnover in government. The elite Quakers took total control of the Assembly. Even Lloyd lost his seat.

And because the elite Quakers were much more willing to work with Penn instead of being confrontational all the time, they managed to pass a lot of important new bills, breaking the logjam. Thanks to this success, the elite Quakers wound up dominating politics in the 1710s much as the middling Quakers had in the previous decade.

You might think that this would be good news for William Penn, and I suppose it was, but sadly for him, it was too little too late. He had bigger problems now. He had spent most of 1708 in a debtor’s prison. In 1711 and 1712 he had two strokes which left him incapacitated, eventually unable to speak. His second wife, Hannah took control of his estate. Penn had had a son by his first wife, but he was a disappointing lout who wasn’t fit to inherit. He had had other children with Hannah, but they weren’t yet adults. And so the estate fell into Hannah’s hands.

William Penn wasn't dead yet, but as far as Pennsylvania was concerned, he might as well have been. Most everyone assumed that a royal takeover was finally at hand. As a result of this false certainty, the men who were serving as governors at this time were in a weird position. They thought that their employer was about to die and be replaced.

If that happened, then there was a very good chance that they would lose their positions to some royal appointee. In an attempt to head this off, the governors began distancing themselves from Penn and the Quakers. Instead they tried to ingratiate themselves with the leading Anglicans in the colony, in the hopes that if the king took over, they would keep their jobs.

One governor, a man named Charles Gookin, had a complete falling out with the Quakers in government. He ignored the advice of the Council and even shut down the Assembly on his own authority. After a few years in power, he was virtually ruling on his own. But it didn't work, and he was soon removed from office, after word reached England of his behavior.

In 1718 Penn finally died, still in debt. He was, without a doubt one of the most important men in the history of colonial America. He'd created a whole new colony almost out of thin air. That gives him a unique place in history. Most of the other colonies were joint ventures. Almost no one had such an influence on an individual level, other than maybe some of the monarchs. But that being said, once Pennsylvania had been created and once the Quakers started moving in, his influence had dropped precipitously. It's hard to think of a less effective ruler. Much of that was thanks to events beyond his control, but it's still undeniable. Pennsylvania slipped from his grasp within a few years.

Even its status as a Quaker refuge faded away over time, as we'll see. By the end of the colonial period, the Quakers were a tiny, almost powerless minority. What Pennsylvania became – mercantile, diverse both ethnically and religiously – was not at all what Penn had intended. Pennsylvania become American, not Quaker.

Penn's legacy is a curious one. He's super important, even though in the end nothing went his way. All his (genuine) good intentions came to nothing. His colony didn't turn out like he intended, and he ended his life as a sad debtor, forgotten by the colonists he'd done so much for. Every grand scheme for American colonization failed in the end, but his more rapidly than most.

So rest in peace William Penn. Your heart was in the right place and you got nothing but grief for it.

Back to the narrative.

The year before Penn’s death, in 1717, Hannah appointed as governor a man named William Keith, no relation to George Keith the religious agitator I discussed last time. Her hope was that he would just keep things going for the time being. At first, he seemed like a good choice. He fixed the problems which had been left by his predecessor, he reformed the judicial system, and he was generally respected within Pennsylvania.

However, in 1721 there was an economic crisis, prompted by the bursting of the South Sea Bubble in England. This created a divide within the colony over whether or not to print more paper money. The middling Quakers said yes, while the elite Quakers said no. A very similar divide to the one in New England. The Penn family also said no, since printing money would lower the value of the revenue they were taking in from the colony.

Governor Keith, however, came out in favor of printing more money, against the interests of the Penn family. There are a few possible reasons for this. Firstly, maybe he just thought it was a good idea. Or perhaps he was trying to curry favor with England. English officials weren't exactly in favor of paper money either, but at least he was breaking with the Penn family. Thirdly, maybe he was trying to win favor with Pennsylvanians themselves, in hopes of carving out an independent political career in the colony should he get removed from office. Maybe it was all three at once, I'm not really sure. Either way he was definitely freelancing.

In support of the idea that he was trying to win favor in London, we can look at the faction he created to support his efforts. This was not exactly Lloyd's old coalition of middling Quakers. Instead, Keith tried to appeal to more recent immigrants. In particular, Germans and Anglicans. And by appealing to the Anglicans, Keith was of course also appealing to London.

Keith pushed to have German immigrants naturalized immediately upon arrival, so that they could vote for him. He removed his opponents from office and replaced them with his own men, who were often Anglicans.

And beyond these specific ethno-religious appeals, he also did all of the electioneering things which were standard for the time. He formed caucuses to nominate candidates. He handed out preprinted ballots. He engaged in pamphleteering. After the 1726 election he led a big parade of 80 men on horseback and plenty more on foot. He created two political clubs in which his supporters could meet, one for his high class supporters, and one for everyone else. He came up with a political program beyond just issuing paper money, with policies designed in particular to appeal to the debtors in the colony who'd been hurt by the economic crash. All very similar to the techniques we've heard about elsewhere.

However, this by itself was insufficient. The number of non-Quakers was growing, but there were still plenty of Quakers in the colony. So, Keith needed the support of the middling Quakers as well. That would give him enough religious and geographic diversity to win for sure.

Now, David Lloyd had been semi-retired from politics after his losses in the previous decade, but to cut a long story short he came back and formed an alliance with Governor Keith. By joining their two factions together, they could absolutely dominate Pennsylvania. And indeed in the 1721 election they managed to take control of the Assembly back from the elite Quakers.

However, this was an uneasy alliance. Both men were against the proprietorship, but they were also rivals to each other. Each had their own base of support, and each one wanted to be the leading figure within this broader coalition. But for a few years things held together and the Keith-Lloyd alliance prevailed.

As a result, politics once again became more chaotic, after the relative calm of the last decade. The proprietary faction feared that they were opening the door to mob rule, and not entirely without reason. There were a few riots. After the 1726 election a mob in Philadelphia burned the pillory and stocks – you know, where they'd lock up criminals in the middle of the town square for public humiliation. Unsurprisingly the pillory and stocks were seen as symbols of authority. So there was a bit of disorder, but that was the worst of it. It wasn't like there was bloodshed.

And in any case, the Keith-Lloyd alliance was already breaking down. James Logan, the one reliable friend the Penn family had, had returned to England to inform them of what the governor was up to. Therefore, Hannah Penn removed Keith from office.

However, Keith had been building a base of support within the colony, and he intended to use it. So he decided to run for a seat in the Assembly and challenge David Lloyd for leadership of the anti-proprietary faction. Keith won the election, but he failed to displace Lloyd as leader. Keith may have had some support, but it was nothing compared to Lloyd's. Lloyd had been a leader in the colony for decades, and he had the backing of the Quaker masses, while Keith's support was far more limited. It was probably always a hopeless attempt.

Keith remained in the Assembly, but he was now mostly powerless. After two years he decided to cut his losses and return to England. And so the Keith-Lloyd alliance had become just Lloyd again. Keith’s political clubs were closed, his supporters lost their seats in the Assembly, and things went back to the way they were before. If anything, things became calmer. The new governor sent to replace Keith proved to be friendly to David Lloyd and his faction, perhaps just out of necessity, since he was going to have to defer to them if he wanted to get anything done.

And so, in the end, Lloyd had won. His quest for local autonomy had been mostly successful, and now it was the Assembly who called the shots, not the proprietor or the governor.

Lloyd retired from the Assembly just a few years later, in 1729, and he died two years after that, at the age of about 75. He had become the most important person in Pennsylvania, outshining even William Penn himself. But although Lloyd had more power, in the long run I think that Penn was more important. Without Penn, Pennsylvania wouldn’t have existed at all, at least not in any recognizable form. That part of America would’ve been colonized sooner or later, but not necessarily by Quakers. Penn really was an individual who made a difference.

On the other hand, even without Lloyd, sooner or later Pennsylvania’s Assembly would’ve become more powerful, just like in all the other colonies. Perhaps he accelerated the process, but with or without him Pennsylvania would’ve wound up in about the same place. After all, the Quakers were proving to be a quite unruly people.

However, Lloyd's death did mark the end of the rivalry between the middling and elite Quakers. As non-Quaker immigrants continued to pour into the colony, the Quakers became a smaller and smaller minority, and so the divisions within the Quakers came to be less important compared to the divisions between the Quakers and everyone else.

It also may have helped that Quaker society was becoming more inegalitarian. Up until now, Pennsylvania had been very, very equal, even by American standards. Almost all the Quaker settlers came from the same social class. Everyone was similar to everyone else, and so it didn’t take much for a relatively rich guy to become relatively poor. Economic mobility was high, just because the distribution of wealth was so compressed.

And that in turn made politics less stable in some ways. In Europe, and in most of the colonies, political power was concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy families. But the “elite” Quakers I've been talking about were only a few steps above their neighbors, hardly an aristocracy. And so their attempts to make themselves into a political elite met with considerable pushback from their only slightly poorer neighbors. And for a while the elite failed to entrench itself.

But as time went on, and Pennsylvania grew in size and complexity, the social elite became… actually elite, actually different. Pennsylvania was still relatively egalitarian, but less so than in the earliest decades. Which has been another consistent theme throughout the podcast – inequality increases as colonies develop. And so now, the Quakers actually had ruling families to rule them. Naturally, the middling Quakers diminished as a political force. The leadership within the Assembly came more from these elite families. Perhaps in later generations, inequality would’ve led to political divisions based on class, but that sort of thing didn’t really happen yet, for whatever reason. The legacy of deferential politics, maybe.

These two forces, the Quakers becoming a minority, and the Quakers becoming more inegalitarian, together led to the creation of what was more or less a single Quaker faction. There was still dissent within Quakerism, as we'll see, but the old rivalry between elite and middling Quakers was no more.

But now it’s time to move on. Now it’s time to introduce Benjamin Franklin. Writer, printer, scientist, politician, revolutionary. I'm sure you're familiar with him. But he is pretty important, both in Pennsylvania and to America as a whole, so I do want to talk about him a bit, both because of his importance and because he's a early example of a new character type in America: the Enlightenment man. The secularism, the pragmatism, the frugality, the focus on upward mobility. By the end of the century, these values would be common, but Franklin was one of the first men to fully embody them. It’s no wonder that Ben Franklin fit in so well with revolutionaries who were a generation or two younger than him. He was living their ideals before they had been born.

You can think of Franklin’s story as a counterpoint to the life of Thomas Hutchinson, the Massachusetts politician who became governor just before the Revolution. The guy whose house got ransacked by a mob. Both men were born in Boston around the same time, both became wealthy, both became prominent politicians, and both lived to see the American Revolution in their old age.

But there the similarities end. Hutchinson was born into a respected family; Franklin was a self-made man. When the Revolution came, Hutchinson remained a Loyalist, while Franklin became one of the most prominent rebels. Although Franklin was five years older than Hutchinson, in terms of mindset he came from a younger generation. Hutchinson was the last of the Puritans, while Franklin was the first of the Americans. That's probably unfair to Hutchinson, who was in fact fairly liberal and broad-minded in a lot of ways, but still the difference in outlook between them is palpable.

Anyway, a lot of the details here will be taken from Franklin’s own Autobiography, which I highly recommend if you haven’t read it. I hadn’t read it before this podcast and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It gives you a very strong sense of Franklin’s mindset as he goes through life, and the worldview of everyone else he encounters. I wind up reading a lot of dry history books for research, and it was a breath of fresh air to see things from a more personal perspective.

Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston in 1706. He was the youngest son of a youngest son of a youngest son of a youngest son of a youngest son. That’s five generations of youngest sons. His father was a minor tradesman who had seventeen children in all, seven by his first wife, ten by his second. Young Benjamin went to school for two years, from ages eight to ten, but after that he was put to work. First, he worked for his father, making candles, but when that proved unsuitable, he was apprenticed to his half-brother, a printer. That fit him much better, and it gave him a chance to read every book he could get his hands on. Importantly, he also taught himself how to write well. He even anonymously submitted items to his brother’s newspaper as a teenager. However, the two fought a lot and his half-brother beat him. Therefore, at age 17, he slipped away and fled Boston, hoping for better prospects elsewhere.

He first went to New York, but the printer there didn’t have work for him and advised him to press on to Pennsylvania. And so, on a Sunday morning in 1723, Franklin arrived in Philadelphia, with no friends or connections, and almost no money. He was able to find employment with some of the local printers, but he hoped to soon set up a shop of his own.

Philadelphia was a much more congenial town than Boston to a man like Franklin. Not because of the Quakers. Franklin liked the Quakers well enough, but the one time he attended one of their meetings he fell asleep. No, it was the other non-Quakers in the colony that he connected with, men with a similar entrepreneurial, free thinking spirit. Franklin preferred to spend his Sundays reading, not at church, and the diversity of Philadelphia allowed for that.

As it happens, soon after his arrival, William Keith, who was still governor at the time, heard about Franklin, who sounded like a promising young man. Keith went to visit him, encouraging him to set up his own shop.

Emboldened, Franklin first returned to Boston, hoping to borrow money from his father, though his father declined, since he thought he was too young. But on the way back, he stopped in New York again, and this time the governor there, William Burnet, asked to meet with him, hearing that he was a young man of some learning. So that’s two governors Ben Franklin had befriended, and he wasn’t even legally an adult yet. Franklin was just that kind of guy. He must’ve simply radiated vibes of “I'm going places” to everyone he met.

But before he could accomplish any great deeds, he still needed to set up his own business. Governor Keith now encouraged Franklin to go to London to buy equipment, promising to provide Franklin with the capital he needed.

However, Keith reneged on his promises, which left Franklin stranded in London, still with almost no money. Apparently the governor was prone to make promises he couldn't keep and back out at the last second. Franklin was too young and too naïve to realize this until it was too late and he was already on his way to England. But once in London he was able to find work, and eventually he made his way back to Philadelphia, probably wiser for the experience. After a few more years he raised the money needed to set himself up, and by age 24 he was running his own business.

And that was just the beginning of his rise. As one of the few printers in Philadelphia, he had a fair amount of influence. He published a weekly newspaper, and he was also able to put his own writing out there, most famously Poor Richard's Almanack. But he also dipped his toe in politics, always with an eye on advancing his business. For instance in 1729 he published a pamphlet about paper money. Unlike Thomas Hutchinson, he favored paper money. But to be fair, Franklin did have a personal stake in the issue. He had already helped design New Jersey's paper money, and he hoped to be hired to print Pennsylvania's currency as well. Which he was, partly thanks to the fact that he'd come out in support of the idea.

In 1736, he took a job as clerk to the Assembly, that is, he became the person who wrote down what actually happened during their meetings. The guy taking notes, basically. Again, this was to benefit his business. The job meant more work for his print shop, publishing records of votes in the Assembly and so on. The year after that he became Philadelphia’s postmaster, which helped him sell his newspaper.

But now that he was involved in government, Franklin began to turn his attention to public affairs in general.

In addition to running his print shop, Franklin was also very fond of founding institutions. He had already founded a subscription library which people could join. And now he began using that energy for the public good.

He began with the city watch of Philadelphia, which he thought was being poorly run. The constable often spent his nights drinking instead of patrolling the city, and the taxes which paid for the city watch were unfairly burdensome to the poor. Franklin came up with a proposal to reform the watch, in which taxes would be apportioned equitably, and where the watchmen would become fully professionalized. He presented his proposal a debating club he had founded, and its members spread the idea.

Around the same time he formed a volunteer fire brigade, which was so successful that numerous other brigades were formed across the city. In 1743 he founded a philosophical society and a little later he created an academy which would eventually become the University of Pennsylvania. And those are just some of his accomplishments. I could go on, but you get the point.

He even tried to become literally perfect, although that was a bit too much to ask even for him. “It was about this time I conceived the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wish’d to live without committing any fault at any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into. As I knew, or thought I knew, what was right and wrong, I did not see why I might not always do the one and avoid the other. But I soon found I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had imagined.”

With such energy, it’s no wonder that Franklin became so prominent. And he hadn't even become an inventor or a scientist yet. That only happened in the 1740s, after he had made enough money to retire as a printer and fully pursue his own interests.

And as we'll see next time, he also joined the political fray in earnest, beginning a career that would end with him enshrined as one of the most famous Founding Fathers. So join me next time on Early and Often: The History of Elections in America.

The podcast is on twitter, @earlyoftenpod, or go to the blog at earlyandoftenpodcast.wordpress.com for transcripts of every single episode. And if you like the podcast, give it a good review on iTunes. That helps. Thanks for listening.

Sources:

The Colonial Period of American History Volume III by Charles M. Andrews

The Philadelphia Election Riot of 1742 by Norman S. Cohen

Voting in Provincial America: A Study of Elections in the Thirteen Colonies, 1689-1776 by Robert J. Dinkin

The World of William Penn by Richard S. Dunn and Mary Maples Dunn

Colonial Pennsylvania: A History by Joseph E. Illick

Quakers and Politics: Pennsylvania, 1681-1726 by Gary B. Nash

The American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century, Volume II by Herbert L. Osgood

Pennsylvania Politics and the Growth of Democracy, 1740 - 1776 by Theodore Thayer

The Keith-Lloyd Alliance: Factional and Coalition Politics in Colonial Pennsylvania by Thomas Wendel

The Evolution of the Pennsylvania Assembly, 1682-1748 by Chester Raymond Young

16 notes · View notes

lawrencedienerthings · 4 years ago

Text

For me, going for a run is a simple thing. But racism didn’t take a break during the pandemic.

Colorado News

In the time of COVID-19, statewide stay-at-home orders across the country, and CDC recommendations to wear face masks in public, we’ve seen a proliferation of people spending time in outdoor spaces to escape the daily confinement of staying at home.

Bikers, walkers, runners, Rollerbladers, and canine companions swarm the Denver parks daily to enjoy some fresh air in the spring weather. And yet, something as seemingly simple as going for a run is embedded in systems of power, privilege, and oppression. The safety of your neighborhood, the access to green spaces, the maintenance (or even existence) of sidewalks, and the body you live in all factor into the way someone is able to participate in this activity.

I am a runner. As a woman, there are precautions I consider, I sometimes take, or decide to ignore, when I step out into the public space on my own. I encounter catcalls on my runs regularly, or witness other female-bodied walkers or runners on the receiving end of public harassment by men. There are days when I fear for my safety, and other days when it only quietly crosses my mind before I push it away and absorb myself in my run.

Despite the sexism I experience, I hold an immense amount of privilege in my position as a runner. I live in a well-maintained urban neighborhood within a block of a city park. As a white person, my appearance in a public space does not raise unfounded suspicion or fear in others.

MORE: See all of our Write On, Colorado entries and learn how to submit your own here.

In the time of a global pandemic, my wearing a mask while running is a normal and innocuous occurrence. And likely, in an event where I am harmed or assaulted, there would be no question of what I was doing in that space in the first place. And very likely no delay in justice.

Racism did not take a break in the midst of the pandemic. On the contrary, racial inequities are protruding from every angle of this crisis—from anti-Asian racism to the disproportionate number of black Americans dying from the virus to the complexity of asking people of color to wear masks in public spaces where they already experience racial profiling threats to their personal safety.

The murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old man shot and killed in Georgia while he was out for a run in February, is devastating and indisputably racist. His death is a grim and sadly unsurprising reminder of the inequities and disproportionate violence people of color experience daily in this country.

Already registered? Log in here to hide these messages.

Stay on top of it all.

Let us bring Colorado’s best journalism to you. Get our free newsletters.

UNDERWRITTEN BY TOBACCO-FREE KIDS ACTION FUND

OUR UNDERWRITERS SUPPORT JOURNALISM. BECOME ONE.

In a time of crisis where people are staying home and feeling more disconnected from one another, it is more important than ever to engage with our communities and challenge systems of inequity. In a time where people are spending more time outside, it is imperative that we demonstrate kindness and empathy, keep our biases in check, and hold one another accountable.

If Ahmaud Arbery’s death, and the deaths of countless black and brown folks at the hands of police and civilians before him, doesn’t leave you shook, outraged, and devastated, quite frankly you are part of the problem.

White folks, it is our responsibility to unlearn the socialization that comes from a lifetime and centuries of systemic racism and violence. It is our responsibility to speak up, speak out, and hold one another accountable, including our local, state, and national representatives. It is our responsibility to use our votes to elect officials who will prioritize policies to improve our health, education, and justice systems.

So many of us take for granted our ability to step out in the world for a run without fearing for our lives. As Kamala Harris so simply and poignantly stated, “Exercising while black should not be a death sentence.”

And yet, these words still need to be said.

Pilar Ingle is a health care researcher and PhD student who lives in Denver.

Already registered? Log in here to hide these messages.

Stay on top of it all.

Let us bring Colorado’s best journalism to you. Get our free newsletters.

The latest from The Sun

Nicolais: Any health care “public option” second wave must make some changes

Opinion: Prepare to face the economic calamity still ahead of us

Colorado legislature delays its reconvening date until late May

Why Colorado school districts are serving fewer meals during coronavirus closures

Colorado author Jennifer Wortman compiled her short story collection around themes of love

from https://ift.tt/3fCjQgF https://ift.tt/3dAQ9Lm

#Straight News

0 notes

republicstandard · 6 years ago

Text

Populism is the Future for the Alt-Right

The infamous Charlottesville ‘Unite the Right’ rally, which took place last August, was intended to help unify the various political factions of the dissident right. But as we all know things did not go to plan. The authorities not only revoked the permit for the rally at the last minute, but they also funnelled attendees into the path of Antifa and other violent left wing protesters which caused conflict on the streets which was shown on news bulletins all around the world.

Various members of the pro-white community suffered numerous problems both on the day and in the weeks and months afterwards. Some had their homes broken into; others were de-platformed on social media, whilst others are still currently battling in the courts. And in a historic first several websites had their domains seized and were forced into the dark web for months. To put it simply, the Charlottesville rally was an unmitigated disaster for the pro-white movement; but I also think it was the reckoning that the movement badly needed.

The following months after the rally were a mixture of infighting, self-reflection and change. It was clear that the momentum that had built up during 2015, 2016, and the first 8 months of 2017, was gone. Looking back it is clear that prominent members of the pro-white movement should have been more active in reorganizing and leading during this crucial period. However at the same time I recognise the very difficult situation many of these people were in and how little spare time they had.

More controversy later followed. Pro-white political candidates like Paul Nehlen and Patrick Little descending into meltdowns the likes of which have not been seen this side of Britney Spears shaving her head and beating a car with an umbrella. There are so many twists and turns in their stories that it would require an entire article just to write about them; and who has time for that?

Britain is in the process of leaving the EU, Trump has become the President of the United States of America, and anti-immigration Governments have been elected in Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland and Czechia.

My conclusion from everything mentioned above is that the pro-white movement has energy, online presence and some potential, yet it is floundering due to its own faults and is simply not going to change anything anytime soon.

My sympathies with the populist movement grow by the day, not just because of their ability to get elected into power, but also because they have a large number of coherent and well thought-out policies that can actually be implemented in the near future. Not to mention the fact that they actually have political parties and a long list of financial backers with deep pockets.

It is easy to forget but in the last two years the populist wave has achieved many things. Britain is in the process of leaving the EU, Trump has become the President of the United States of America, and anti-immigration Governments have been elected in Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland and Czechia.

I think that a pro-white movement of some kind is always necessary; simply because all other races have their advocacy groups and so logically whites will need their own as a counter and to represent their interests. It is the tragedy of identity politics that this is so, as we move from high-trust societies to ones which are weighted towards groups who can leverage moral authority through state infrastructure, such as diversity quotas and the risible affirmative action program. I also think that such a community is necessary because it helps shift the Overton Window to the right. Whether you agree with the Alt-Right or not, nobody can deny the influence it has had in moving certain topics into the public sphere over the past two years.

My main issue is that I still have no idea why people in the Alt-Right and other pro-white groups have not done more to support the populist movements. I read a lot of white nationalists on social media continuously claim that: ‘Elections don’t matter, if you vote your just feeding the system. We need to let everything collapse and rebuild from scratch.’ This way of thinking is patently absurd for a number of reasons; I think it stems from a mindset of wanting to be as edgy as possible and maintaining a ‘distance’ from the so called ‘normies’.

Obviously these same people would rather see Matteo Salvini, the new interior minister of Italy, continue to turn back migrant boats then allow them to dock at Italian ports. Yet at the same time they claim voting doesn’t change anything, even though Salvini’s policies are reversing Italy’s pro-immigration agenda. This mentality of rejecting the democratic process and working only in overtly pro-white activism needs to end. Even if you don’t agree with democracy, this is the system you have to work in and you must act accordingly. Rejecting the process and simply not voting will only bring victory to your enemies, because I can guarantee that the left will turn out in droves, and they certainly don’t play fair either.

Throughout the 2015-2016 election campaign of Donald Trump identitarians and civic nationalists worked together online to help him get elected. There is no reason why this should not continue, and it was silly from a tactical perspective when these two groups diverged so much after November 2016. In Poland, Hungary and now Italy, what could be described as ‘pro-white’ factions work in harmony with civic nationalist entities on a daily basis – and this partnership achieves results.

No matter how much propaganda you spread or how many immigrants arrive, the likelihood of a pro-white candidate let alone a party being elected in our lifetimes is very slim. Even in South Africa, where whites face rape, torture and murder on their own farms, the majority of whites still vote for mainstream parties. Indeed many liberal whites in Cape Town still deny that the farm murders phenomenon even exists.

The majority of white people by their very nature seem to be instinctively repulsed by ethnic nationalism to some degree, and in any given white country only a small minority of people seem aligned with pro-white causes. This is why I think populism is the way forward, because it provides a form of nationalism which not only solves most of the West’s problems, but is also amenable to the mentality of the average person in the street.

Brexit and Trump’s election were implicitly white events; framed as such more by the actions of the nay-sayers than the advocates. Despite all the media programming, these countries are the product of European peoples, and they still are the majority populations in thes lands, for now. Yet, not one of the major figures in either of these causes made it an explicitly white event- a very wise tactical choice. Populism allows you to save the white man and his family without actually saying that you are saving the white man and his family. Yes; sometimes the populists cuck and you identitarians may cringe with resentment, but if that cuck lowers immigration by 50% then there is no reason not to get behind him.

In the modern world, where an Englishman can be locked up for saying something controversial or a parent can have their child taken by social services simply because they have a bruise on their arm, a certain flexibility is needed. You need to achieve your goals without ever stating what your true goals are. The left have always done this; their centre-left candidates are quite often secretly communist, yet they will never admit that. You need to enter movements and help push through legislation that is similar to your beliefs or which will help lead to the implementation of your goals. Populism is the ‘big tent’ that allows you to do this.

Purity spiralling will get you nowhere, and cutting yourself off from the political process or people who even slightly disagree with you is stupid.

In other words, it is time for the Alt-Right to be pragmatic, as well as idealistic.

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech. Make a donation towards our running costs by clicking here.

The Republic Standard Web Shop is now open! Every piece of merchandise you buy is a victory against the nerds.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2t7u1T8 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes

type2diabetestreatments-blog · 8 years ago

Text

MannKind Sponsors New Diabetes Reality TV Show, 'Reversed'

New Post has been published on http://type2diabetestreatment.net/diabetes-mellitus/mannkind-sponsors-new-diabetes-reality-tv-show-reversed/

MannKind Sponsors New Diabetes Reality TV Show, 'Reversed'

In what appears to be the first-of-its-kind, a new reality TV show focused specifically on diabetes will be airing this summer on the Discovery Life Channel.

Created by celebrity chef Charles Mattocks, a type 2 himself since 2009 who happens to be a nephew of the late great reggae music legend Bob Marley, this new "docu-series" features five PWDs (people with diabetes) with both type 1 and type 2 aiming to change the way they think about their health.

What makes this even more unique and intriguing for our D-Community is that it's also a first in bringing on a diabetes industry player as the sole sponsor. Yep, California-based MannKind Corp. that makes inhaled insulin Afrezza, is the sponsor of this reality show, which will include featuring the company's late founder Al Mann on the TV show's website. We'll get into those details in a moment, but first let's have a look at this upcoming show itself.

The kicker is the show's name, Reversed.

(insert PWD sighs and eye rolls here)

OK... We totally get it what a controversial concept that is in our Diabetes Community -- invoking all kinds of baggage related to "reversing" and "curing" diabetes, the T1-T2 distinction conflict, and all the medical science debates over what we know and don't know about diabetes overall. But before you tune this out based on the name alone, we urge you to take a step back and keep an open mind.

As D-peep and show creator Mattocks says himself:

"This show is about people with diabetes who will change their lives -- emotionally, physically, and spiritually. It's not so much about reversing diabetes, as it is about changing one's lifestyle and attitude, changing who we are as people, and bringing out the best in all of us."

Meeting Charles Mattocks

First off, it's important to know about the man behind this show. Here's a quick intro:

Aside from his family connection to Marley, Mattocks is known as 'The Poor Chef' for his love for cooking affordable, healthy meals. Through the years, he's been featured in films (like the 90s movie Summer of Ben Tyler with James Woods where he played the title character) and on TV ranging from CNN to the Dr. Oz Show and The Today Show. After his T2 diagnosis in 2011, Mattocks began touring the world to meet and interview people with diabetes globally, taking on a range of D-advocacy roles from becoming an International Diabetes Federation Blue Circle Champion, to helping write an ADA cookbook, to producing The Diabetic You documentary film, and even developing a gluten-free chocolate snack dubbed the "Charles Bar."

He's certainly done quite a lot, and while his brand of advocacy may not be everyone's style, you can't argue that he's really made some waves in the diabetes world over the past six years, leading into to this new show.

Really, Diabetes Reality TV?

Yup, Mattocks describes it as a docu-series reality show that is "part of his journey." Take a look at this video promo just released in late April.

To be clearn, this is not the first time a reality TV show has dabbled in life with diabetes -- from the MTV TruLife episode back in 2012 that featured three T1 PWDs, to a T1 teen mom, and the American Idol competition in 2015 featuring Adam Lasher, a T1 nephew of Carlos Santana. Apparently, even rap legend Dr. Dre (who lives with T2D himself) has been talking about creating his own D-related reality show, given his complication-ridden T2 that's led to him losing his vision.

But Reversed does appear to be the first national reality show 100% dedicated to diabetes and its management.

What you'll be watching is five PWDs in a house surrounded by beaches and palm trees at the Milbrooks Resort island retreat in exotic Montego Bay, Jamaica.

The idea for Reversed started taking shape three or four years ago, with some early teasers and promos aired back in 2014 with a completely different set of PWDs featured. As his own D-advocacy and personal diabetes story evolved, Mattocks continued looking for partners, and late last year got what he needed to bring this dream of his to life.

He's now teamed up with MannKind Corp. as the sole sponsor, began production early this year and just wrap up this past month, to start final editing before the show airs in July. The introductory season will feature 10 episodes.

We're urged not to think of this as a competition-style reality show, like Survivor or American Idol where someone's voted off at the end of each episode. Mattocks remains a bit coy on exactly how it will play out to avoid spoilers, but he says pretty much everyone will finish the way they're supposed to -- by achieving some health milestones, or just learning more about about how they can best care for themselves.

Mattocks says he thinks of it like recipe-sharing -- you see a dish that looks good and add that to your repertoire, and maybe by sharing it more widely you can inspire others to adopt some of the ingredients into their own lives -- whether it's better BG testing, healthier eating or exercise habits, or just changing how we think about life.

The show will feature a host of experts: cooking and diet professionals, a diabetes educator who lives with type 1 herself, and a yoga instructor and other health professionals to handle the more "offiical" medical issues covered.

What About the Term "Reversed"?

“When you look at the definition of ‘reversed’ in the dictionary, it’s about slowing down the physical progress of something. That’s what this is," Mattocks says. "When we talk about where (the show participants) were when I first met them to where they are now, they have reversed the direction they were going – not necessarily diabetes, but they've turned around how they think about themselves. To see them do a 360-degree reversal of where they were, that inspires me.”

Hmmm. So it's a philosophical reversal they're after?

“Yes, we’re seeing a reversal in mindset, that’s what it's about. We get caught up on that word, and it’s really holding us back and hindering us from where we could be. Because it’s not about reversing diabetes at all,” he says.

Certainly an interesting train of thought...

In a recent podcast, Mattocks talked with three of the PWDs who participated in thes show -- two type 2s, and a T1 who just started on Afrezza after being on the show. Interestingly, during the 15-minute podcast, the trio talked about how they didn't expect the show to be as life-changing as it was, helping them acheive better D-management and health habits. One of the T2s named Jerome said it's "exactly what he needed" to change his mindset and since the show's production wrapped up, he has not only lost weight and felt better, but with help from his doctor he's managed to dramatically cut down his insulin intake and other medications.

They all agreed the show wasn't keyed in on or overbearing on messages of weight loss, low-carb or plant-based eating, but rather about finding what works best for each of them in making healthier choices. The T1, a woman named Felice, spoke on the podcast about her 43 years with T1D and how she was "heading into the deep hole of D-burnout" before going on Reversed, and since then she's been able to change her attitude and perspective. She started Afrezza in mid-April, which she says has translated to only one basal injection per day instead of seven multiple daily injections, fewer hypos and much more stable BGs.

These personal PWD accounts were certainly very convincing that the show has merit.

Beyond this introductory season, Charles is pondering future options -- a live-recorded version, celebrity cast, and even going beyond diabetes into other health conditions.

"We think we have something special here, and we do think we're going to be changing lives," he said.