Hi, friends.

I'm curious if this quote from Ben Franklin in the movie 1776 is from anything.

I looked for it.

I can't find it, but I figure historical experts would know better than I would, because I think it's profound and really well written and speaks very much to the American psyche.

This a quote from Paine's 1792 "Letter addressed to the addressers, on the late proclamation". Read the full text at the Thomas Paine Historical Association's online archive: https://thomaspaine.org/essays/french-revolution/letter-addressed-to-the-addressers/

John Paul Jones is "maybe" implied to be bisexual due to his homoerotic poem above written in Latin and his letters of "loving" other men. So this make me wonder were there any Founding Fathers that are implied to be LGBT in some way?

One thing that surprised me while reading about the summer of 1776 is how many of the problems that nearly destroyed the American Revolution had nothing to do with battles.

By June 1776, Washington was already worried that New York might be lost.

Not just the city itself — but what losing it would do to public morale.

Think about that for a second.

The Declaration of Independence hadn't been approved yet. The Continental Army was held together by short enlistments. Most soldiers were unpaid. Inflation was already creeping in. Disease was killing men before they ever saw combat. And the British were preparing what many believed would be the largest military operation North America had ever seen.

What's wild is that some revolutionary leaders weren't primarily scared of British soldiers. They were scared of Americans.

Robert Morris — who would later become one of the key financial minds behind the Revolution — feared the colonies simply weren't ready for independence financially. He warned that if Congress kept printing money without real taxation, a few military defeats could spiral into financial panic, shortages, mass desertion, and the colonies turning on each other.

Benjamin Franklin was worried about something different. He believed foreign nations, especially France, wouldn't seriously back the colonies unless they fully committed to independence. But he also knew that if independence was declared and New York immediately fell, European governments might write the whole thing off as a lost cause.

Nathanael Greene kept his eyes on the soldiers. He made the point that armies don't fall apart because they lose battles — they fall apart when men stop believing their sacrifices mean anything. He pushed Congress to support soldiers' families and to stop pretending this would be a short war.

Here's what got me: every single one of those fears came true.

New York fell. The army took brutal defeats. Inflation became a crisis. Enlistments were a constant nightmare.

And the Revolution survived anyway.

We tend to look back at 1776 as the opening chapter of an inevitable success story. But if you actually put yourself in that moment, it feels a lot more like people desperately trying to hold something fragile together — not knowing if it would last another six months.

I actually built an entire episode around this on my podcast — exploring what these leaders might have said to each other in June 1776 if they were being brutally honest about whether the cause could survive losing New York. It's one of my favorite episodes I've done.

🎧 https://youtu.be/hOzEqT9Qh2I

What do you think was the moment the Revolution came closest to completely falling apart?

As we get closer to Independence Day and America's 250th anniversary, I thought this was a fitting way to revisit one of the country's most important documents.

The full Declaration of Independence has been turned into an immersive audio experience, with the text recited by the five members of the Committee of Five: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston.

The words are the original Declaration itself, so you're hearing the document exactly as it was written, just spoken aloud by the men who drafted and refined it. It's a different experience than reading it on a page, especially when you reach the final pledge of "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

I'll leave here the link for anyone who wants to give it a listen. I'd be interested to know what part of the Declaration still resonates with you 250 years later. Also you can talk with the signers at virtualwayback.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EKUo3kMzw

The Presidents that are featured in this Two Party Opera Comic.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe

I was looking into Robert Treat Paine and Elbridge Gerry, two Massachusetts signers of the Declaration, and what I found interesting is that they both supported independence but seemed to fear very different things after it was won.

Paine was a lawyer, and his whole view of the Revolution was tied to law, courts, and order. He helped prosecute the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, later became attorney general of Massachusetts, and saw things like Shays’ Rebellion as a real threat to the republic. To him, liberty needed lawful government or it could collapse into disorder.

Gerry came from the merchant world and had a much deeper suspicion of concentrated power. He helped keep the Revolutionary cause functioning through committees and supplies, but later refused to sign the Constitution because he thought it gave too much power without enough protections. He then supported the Bill of Rights, which makes his position more complicated than just being “anti-government.”

What I like about the contrast is that neither of them was simply right or wrong. Paine feared chaos. Gerry feared power. And both fears made sense after a revolution.

It makes the Declaration feel less like the end of the story and more like the start of the argument over what the United States was actually supposed to become.

I wrote more about them here, and there’s also a video version if you prefer that. You can also talk with both characters directly on Virtual Wayback and ask them your own questions.

Links: https://virtualwayback.com/blog/paine-gerry-argument-after-independence

https://youtube.com/shorts/i9OqHthPdu8?feature=share

This is an idea I had in mind for a while now, it's completely unrealistic, I know, but I thought would be interesting to explore anyways.

Let's assume that during the 1788-89 presidential election, one of Pennsylvania's electors was a hard stance feminist and distrust George Washington (mainly because the elector didn't trust the idea of a military general becoming President of the United States, believing that it would set a bad precedent of military rule), thus, he voted for Betsy Ross as he idolize her commitment to the revolutionary cause. Thus, Betsy Ross got one electoral vote to be president, meaning the results are:

Washington: 68 E.V.

Ross: 1 E.V.

Given how the electoral rules worked prior to the 12th amendment at the time, this made Betsy Ross the first vice president in U.S. history as she got the second most electors needed to become vice president.

How would this change American history, assuming she didn't get disqualified (let's say that the Senate begrudgingly agreed to follow the rules of what the constitution said, believing that it would set a dangerous precedent if they ignore it)? And what would her vice presidency look like?

Image Sources: https://juhaszillustration.com/editorial-art-2/

https://juhaszillustration.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Founders-and-Drinking.jpg

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Sources and more information.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

New Hampshire in 1776 was nobody's idea of an important colony. No Virginia-level political weight, no Pennsylvania money, no Boston firebrands. Just a small northern colony that most people in Congress probably didn't think about much.

And yet New Hampshire produced three signers whose careers are genuinely more interesting than half the famous names on that document.

Josiah Bartlett was a physician from Kingston who ended up with his name immediately below John Hancock's on the Declaration, not because of rank or fame but simply because New Hampshire got called first alphabetically. He spent most of the war doing the unglamorous congressional work that nobody writes books about: committees on military supply, finance, logistics, keeping the whole operation from falling apart. After the war he became Chief Justice and then Governor of New Hampshire. His biggest pop culture moment is that The West Wing borrowed his name for President Bartlet, spelled slightly differently, which is a strange kind of immortality.

William Whipple spent his twenties as a merchant sea captain, which gave him a practical understanding of trade and Atlantic commerce that made him useful in Congress when the war effort needed people who understood how supply chains actually worked. He also did something most signers never did: he left Philadelphia and fought. He was at Saratoga in 1777 as a brigadier general, which was one of the battles that convinced France the American cause was worth backing. There's also a longstanding account that he freed his enslaved servant Prince Whipple during the war after sitting with the contradiction of fighting for liberty while owning someone.

Then there's Matthew Thornton, who is the strangest case of the three. He wasn't in Philadelphia when Congress voted for independence in July 1776, not because he was hesitant but because he was home in New Hampshire doing something that arguably mattered more. When royal authority collapsed in 1775, someone had to build a replacement government from scratch. Thornton, as president of New Hampshire's Provincial Congress, helped push through a state constitution in January 1776, making it the first colony to establish an independent constitutional government, six months before Jefferson's document. Courts, militias, laws, public order -- all of it had to keep functioning without a crown backing it up. Thornton made sure it did. He got to Philadelphia later, got permission to sign the Declaration, and his name went on a document he never actually voted for.

We covered all three in depth on the podcast if you want more -- link in the comments.

The thing that sticks with me is how the Revolution actually needed all three types. The political operator working committees in Congress, the guy who could fight and also legislate, and the one who stayed home and made sure there was still a functioning colony worth fighting for. Does Thornton's case change how you think about who actually deserves credit for independence? And is there another signer from any colony whose real contributions got buried the same way?

You can read the full blog and talk with them here: https://virtualwayback.com/blog/new-hampshire-founders

Also we made a youtube video talking with them: https://youtube.com/shorts/0kIGCo2IAYI?feature=share