A Benjamin Franklin Reader (27 page)

A trip to Flanders provided fodder for Franklin to continue his wry lampooning of Puritan dogma and rigid religious practices.

T
O
J
ARED
I
NGERSOLL
, D
EC
. 11, 1762

Dear Sir,

…I should be glad to know what it is that distinguishes Connecticut religion from common religion: Communicate, if you please, some of those particulars that you think will amuse me as a virtuoso. When I traveled in Flanders I thought of your excessively strict observation of Sunday; and that a man could hardly travel on that day among you upon his lawful occasions, without hazard of punishment; while where I was, everyone traveled, if he pleased, or diverted himself any other way; and in the afternoon both high and low went to the play or the opera, where there was plenty of singing, fiddling and dancing. I looked round for God’s judgments but saw no signs of them. The cities were well built and full of inhabitants, the markets filled with plenty, the people well favored and well clothed; the fields well tilled; the cattle fat and strong; the fences, houses and windows all in repair; and
no old tenor
anywhere in the country; which would almost make one suspect, that the deity is not so angry at that offence as a New England justice.

During his voyage back to Philadelphia for a brief home leave in 1762, Franklin resumed his longtime study of the calming effect of oil on water, which served as a metaphor for his attempts to still the political waves of the time. The lanterns aboard his ship had a thick layer of oil that floated atop a layer of water. The surface was always calm and flat, so viewed from above it would seem that the oil had stilled the roiling water. But when the lantern was viewed from the side, so that both layers could be seen, it became evident that “the water under the oil was in great commotion.” This underlying turbulence, Franklin realized, was not something that could be easily calmed, even by the most judicious application of oil.

T
O
J
OHN
P
RINGLE
, D
ECEMBER
1, 1762

Sir,

During our passage of Madeira, the weather being warm, and the cabin windows constantly open for the benefit of the air, the candles at night flared and run very much, which was an inconvenience. At Madeira we got oil to burn, and with a common glass tumbler or beaker, slung in wire, and suspended to the ceiling of the cabin, and a little wire hoop for the wick, furnished with corks to float on the oil, I made an Italian lamp, that gave us very good light all over the table. The glass at bottom contained water to about one third of its height; another third was taken up with oil; the rest was left empty that the sides of the glass might protect the flame from the wind. There is nothing remarkable in all this; but what follows is particular. At supper, looking on the lamp, I remarked that though the surface of the oil was perfectly tranquil, and duly preserved its position and distance with regard to the brim of the glass, the water under the oil was in great commotion, rising and falling in irregular waves, which continued during the whole evening. The lamp was kept burning as a watch light all night, till the oil was spent, and the water only remained. In the morning I observed, that though the motion of the ship continued the same; the water was now quiet, and its surface as tranquil as that of the oil had been the evening before. At night again, when oil was put upon it, the water resumed its irregular motions, rising in high waves almost to the surface of the oil, but without disturbing the smooth level of that surface. And this was repeated every day during the voyage.

Since my arrival in America, I have repeated the experiment frequently thus. I have put a pack-thread round a tumbler, with strings of the same, from each side, meeting above it in a knot at about a foot distance from the top of the tumbler. Then putting in as much water as would fill about one third part of the tumbler, I lifted it up by the knot, and swung it to and fro in the air; when the water appeared to keep its place in the tumbler as steadily as if it had been ice. But pouring gently in upon the water about as much oil, and then again swinging it in the air as before, the tranquility before possessed by the water, was transferred to the surface of the oil, and the water under it was agitated with the same commotions as at sea.

I have shown this experiment to a number of ingenious persons. Those who are but slightly acquainted with the principles of hydrostatics, &c. are apt to fancy immediately that they understand it, and readily attempt to explain it; but their explanations have been different, and to me not very intelligible. Others more deeply skilled in those principles, seem to wonder at it, and promise to consider it. And I think it is worth considering: For a new appearance, if it cannot be explained by our old principles, may afford us new ones, of use perhaps in explaining some other obscure parts of natural knowledge.

I am, &c.

B.F.

One great moral issue historians must wrestle with when assessing America’s Founders is slavery, and Franklin was wrestling with it as well. Slaves made up about 6 percent of Philadelphia’s population at the time, and Franklin had facilitated the buying and selling of them through ads in his newspaper. “A likely Negro woman to be sold. Enquire at the Widow Read’s,” read one such ad on behalf of his mother-in-law. Another offered for sale “a likely young Negro fellow” and ended with the phrase “enquire of the printer hereof.” He personally owned a slave couple, but in 1751 he decided to sell them because, as he told his mother, he did not like having “Negro servants” and he found them uneconomical. Yet later he would, at times, have a slave as a personal servant.

In “Observations on the Increase of Mankind,” which he wrote in 1751, he had attacked slavery on economic grounds. But he had mainly focused on the ill effects to the owners rather than the immorality done to the slaves. The tract was, in fact, quite prejudiced in places. “Why increase the sons of Africa by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my country, for such kind of partiality is natural to mankind.”

As the final sentence indicates, he was beginning to reexamine his “partiality” to his own race. In the first edition of “Observations,” he remarked on “almost every slave being by nature a thief.” When he reprinted it eighteen years later, he changed it to say that they became thieves “from the nature of slavery.” He also omitted the entire section about the desirability of keeping America mainly white.

What helped shift his attitude was another of his philanthropic endeavors. He became, in the late 1750s, active in an organization that established schools for black children in Philadelphia and then elsewhere in America. After visiting the Philadelphia school in 1763, he wrote a reflective letter about his previous prejudices. In his later life, he became one of America’s most active abolitionists. He denounced slavery on moral grounds and helped advance the rights of blacks.

T
O
J
OHN
W
ARING
, D
ECEMBER
17, 1763

Reverend and dear Sir,

Being but just returned home from a tour through the northern colonies, that has employed the whole summer, my time at present is so taken up that I cannot now write fully in answer to the letters I have received from you, but purpose to do it shortly. This is chiefly to acquaint you, that I have visited the Negro school here in company with the Rev. Mr. Sturgeon and some others; and had the children thoroughly examined. They appeared all to have made considerable progress in reading for the time they had respectively been in the school, and most of them answered readily and well the questions of the catechism; they behaved very orderly, showed a proper respect and ready obedience to the mistress, and seemed very attentive to, and a good deal affected by, a serious exhortation with which Mr. Sturgeon concluded our visit. I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children. You will wonder perhaps that I should ever doubt it, and I will not undertake to justify all my prejudices, nor to account for them. I immediately advanced the two guineas you mentioned, for the mistress, and Mr. Sturgeon will therefore draw on you for 7 18s. only, which makes up the half year’s salary of ten pounds. Be pleased to present my best respects to the associates, and believe me, with sincere esteem dear sir, Your most obedient servant,

B. Franklin

Franklin left again for London in late 1764 to resume his lobbying on behalf of the colonial cause. But he found himself compromised when he appeared to accept the Stamp Act, a tax on colonial documents that caused an uproar in America. With his reputation as a defender of colonial rights in tatters because of his softness, Franklin faced one of the great challenges in the annals of political damage control.

So he unsheathed his great weapon, the pen. In a three month period in early 1766, he published in various papers 13 attacks, most of them anonymous, on the Stamp Act and Britain’s repressive attitude toward her colonies. Franklin felt the best way to force repeal, one that appealed to his Poor Richard penchant for frugality and self-reliance, was for Americans to boycott British imports.

Writing as “Homespun,” he ridiculed the notion that Americans could not get by without British imports of such things as tea. If need be, they would make tea from corn. Under the pseudonym Pacificus Secundus, he resorted to his old tactic of scathing satire by pretending to support the idea that military rule be imposed in the colonies. It would take only 50,000 British soldiers at a cost of merely £12 million a year. And he composed a satirical song comparing Britain to a peevish old mother.

T
HE
P
UBLIC
A
DVERTISER
, J
AN
. 2, 1766

Sir,

Pacificus in your paper of Friday last, tells us, that the inhabitants of New England are descended from the Stiff-Rumps in Oliver’s time; and he accounts for their being so tenacious of what they call their rights and liberties; from the independent principles handed down to them by their forefathers, and that spirit of contradiction, which, he says, is the distinguishing characteristic of fanaticism. But it seems the inhabitants of Virginia and Maryland, who are descended from the royalists of the church of England, driven hence by those very Oliverian stiff-rumps, and never tinctured with fanaticism, are, in the present case, as stiff-rumped as the others, and even led the way in asserting what they call their rights. So that this hypothesis of fanaticism appears insufficient to account for the opposition universally given to the stamp-act in America; and I fancy the gentleman thought so himself, as he mends it a little after, by lumping all the Americans under the general character of house-breakers and felons.

Supposing them such, his proposal of vacating all their charters, taking away the power of their assemblies, and sending an armed force among them, to reduce them all to a military government, in which the order of the commanding officer is to be their law, will certainly be a very
justifiable
measure. I have only some doubts as to the expediency of it, and the facility of carrying it into execution. For I apprehend ’tis not unlikely they may set their rumps more stiffly against this method of government, than ever they did against that by act of parliament: but, on second thoughts, I conceive it may possibly do very well: for though there should be, as ’tis said there are, at least 250,000 fighting men among them, many of whom have lately seen service; yet, as one Englishman is to be sure as good as five Americans, I suppose it will not require armies of above 50,000 men in the whole, sent over to the different parts of that extensive continent, for reducing them; and that a three or four year’s civil war, at perhaps a less expense than ten or twelve millions a year, transports and carriages included, will be sufficient to complete
Pacificus’s pacification,
notwithstanding any disturbance our restless enemies in Europe might think fit to give us while engaged in this necessary work. I mention three or four years only; for I can never believe the Americans will be able to spin it out to seventy, as the Hollanders did the war for their liberties against Spain, how much soever it may be found the interest of our own numerous commissaries, contractors, and officers afraid of half pay, to continue and protract it.

It may be objected, that by ruining the colonies, killing one half the people, and driving the rest over the mountains, we may deprive ourselves of their custom for our manufactures: but a moment’s consideration will satisfy us, that since we have lost so much of our European trade, it can only be the demand in America that keeps up, and has of late so greatly enhanced the price of those manufactures, and therefore a stop put to that demand will be an advantage to us all, as we may thereafter buy our own goods cheaper for our own use at home. I can think of but one objection more, which is, that multitudes of our poor may starve for want of employment. But our wise laws have provided a remedy for that. The rich are to maintain them. I am, Sir,

Your humble Servant,

Pacificus Secundus

T
HE
G
AZETTEER AND
N
EW
D
AILY
A
DVERTISER
, J
ANUARY
2, 1766

Sir,

Vindex Patriae, a writer in your paper, comforts himself, and the India Company, with the fancy, that the Americans, should they resolve to drink no more tea, can by no means keep that resolution, their Indian corn not affording an agreeable, or easy digestible breakfast. Pray let me, an American, inform the gentleman, who seems quite ignorant of the matter, that Indian corn, take it for
all in all,
is one of the most agreeable and wholesome grains in the world; that its green ears roasted are a delicacy beyond expression; that
samp, hominy, succotash,
and
nokehock,
made of it, are so many pleasing varieties; and that a
johny
or
hoecake,
hot from the fire, is better than a Yorkshire muffin. But if Indian corn were as
disagreeable
and
indigestible
as the Stamp Act, does he imagine we can get nothing else for breakfast? Did he never hear that we have oatmeal in plenty, for water gruel or burgoo; as good wheat, rye, and barley as the world affords, to make frumenty; or toast and ale; that there is every where plenty of milk, butter, and cheese; that rice is one of our staple commodities; that for tea, we have sage and balm in our gardens, the young leaves of the sweet white hickory or walnut, and, above all, the buds of our pine, infinitely preferable to any tea from the Indies; while the islands yield us plenty of coffee and chocolate?

Let the gentleman do us the honor of a visit in America, and I will engage to breakfast him every day in the month with a fresh variety, without offering him either tea or Indian corn. As to the Americans using no more of the former, I am not sure they will take such a resolution; but if they do, I fancy they will not lightly break it. I question whether the army proposed to be sent among them, would oblige them to swallow a drop more of tea than they choose to swallow; for, as the proverb says, though one man may
lead
a horse to the water, one can’t
make him drink.
Their resolutions have hitherto been pretty steadily kept. They resolved to wear no more mourning; and it is now totally out of fashion with near two millions of people; and yet nobody sighs for Norwich crapes, or any other of the expensive, flimsy, rotten, black stuffs and cloths you used to send us for that purpose, with the frippery gauzes, loves, ribbons, gloves, &c. thereunto belonging. They resolved last spring to eat no more lamb; and not a joint of lamb has since been seen on any of their tables, throughout a country of 1500 miles extent, but the sweet little creatures are all alive to this day, with the prettiest fleeces on their backs imaginable. Mr. Index’s very civil letter will, I dare say, be printed in all our provincial news papers, from Nova Scotia to Georgia; and together with the other
kind, polite,
and
humane
epistles of your correspondents Pacific’s, Tom Hint, &c. &c. contribute not a little to strengthen us in every resolution that may be of advantage, to
our
country at least, if not to
yours.

Homespun

T
HE
G
AZETTEER AND
N
EW
D
AILY
A
DVERTISER
, J
ANUARY
15, 1766

To the Printer.

John Bull shows in nothing more his great veneration for good eating, and how much he is always thinking of his belly, than in his making it the constant topic of his contempt for other nations, that
they do not eat so well as himself.
The
roast beef of Old England
he is always exulting in, as if no other country had beef to roast; reproaching, on every occasion, the Welsh with their leeks and toasted cheese, the Irish with their potatoes, and the Scotch with their oatmeal. And now that we are a little out of favor with him, he has begun, by his attorney Index Patria, to examine our eating and drinking, in order, I apprehend, to fix some horrible scandal of the same kind upon us poor Americans.

I did but say a word or two in favor of
Indian corn,
which he had treated as disagreeable and indigestible, and this vindictive gentleman grows angry. Let him tell the world, if he dares (says he) that the Americans prefer it to a place at their own tables. Ah, Sir, I see the dilemma you have prepared for me. If I should not
dare
to say, that we do prefer it to a place at our tables, then you demonstrate, that we must come to England for tea, or go without our breakfasts: and if I do
dare
to say it, you fix upon me and my countrymen for ever, the indelible disgrace of being
Indian corneaters.

I am afraid, Mr. Printer, that you will think this too trifling a dispute to deserve a place in your paper: but pray, good Sir, consider, as you are yourself an Englishman, that we Americans, who are allowed even by Mr. Index to have some English blood in our veins, may think it a very serious thing to have the honor of our eating impeached in any particular whatsoever.

Why doth he not deny the fact (says Index) that it is assigned to the slaves for their food? To proclaim the
wholesomeness
of this corn, without assigning a reason why white men give it to their slaves, when they can get other food, is only satirizing the good sense of their brethren in America. In truth I cannot deny the fact, though it should reflect ever so much on the
good sense
of my countrymen. I own we do give food made of Indian corn to our slaves, as well as eat it ourselves; not, as you suppose, because it is
indigestible
and
unwholesome;
but because it keeps them healthy, strong and hearty, and fit to go through all the labor we require of them. Our slaves, Sir, cost us money, and we buy them to make money by their labor. If they are sick, they are not only unprofitable, but expensive. Where then was your
English good sense,
when you imagined we gave the slaves our Indian corn, because we knew it to be
unwholesome
?

In short, this is only another of Mr. Index’s paradoxes, in which he is a great dealer. The first endeavored to persuade us, that we were represented in the British Parliament
virtually,
and by
fiction
: Then that we were
really
represented there, because the Manor of East Greenwich in Kent is represented there, and all the Americans live in East Greenwich. And now he undertakes to prove to us, that taxes are the most profitable things in the world to those that pay them; for that Scotland is grown rich since the Union, by paying English taxes. I wish he would accommodate himself a little better to our dull capacities. We Americans have a great many heavy taxes of our own, to support our several governments, and pay off the enormous debt contracted by the war; we never conceived ourselves the richer for paying taxes, and are willing to leave all new ones to those that like them. At least, if we must with Scotland, participate in your taxes, let us likewise, with Scotland, participate in the Union, and in all the privileges and advantages of commerce that accompanied it.

Index, however, will never consent to this. He has made us partakers in all the odium with which he thinks fit to load Scotland: They resemble the Scots in sentiments (says he) their religion is Scottish; their customs and
laws
are Scottish; like the Scotch they Judaically observe what
they call
the Sabbath, persecute old women for witches, are intolerant to other sects, &c. But we must not, like the Scots, be admitted into Parliament; for that, he thinks, would increase the Scotch interest in England, which is equally hostile to the cause of liberty, and the cause of our church.

Pray, Sir, who informed you that our
laws
are Scottish? The same, I suppose, that told you our Indian corn is unwholesome. Indeed, Sir, your information is very imperfect. The common law of England, is, I assure you, the common law of the colonies: and if the civil law is what you mean by the Scottish law, we have none of it but what is forced upon us by England, in its courts of Admiralty, depriving us of that inestimable part of the common law, trials by juries. And do you look upon keeping the
Sabbath,
as part of the Scottish law? The Americans, like the Scots, (you say,) observe what
they call
the Sabbath. Pray, Sir, you who are so zealous for your church (in abusing other Christians) what
do you call
it? and where the harm of their
observing
it? If you look into your prayer-book, or over your altars, you will find these words written,
Remember to keep holy the
Sabbath
Day.
This law, though it may be observed in Scotland, and has been
countenanced
by some of your statutes, is, Sir, originally one of
God’s Commandments
: a body of laws still in force in America, though they may have become
obsolete
in
some other
countries.