5 ms·

The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III Revisiting a major historical figure, whose reputation may be completely un warranted. Was he a

by rkk3 5y ago

The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III Revisiting a major historical figure, whose reputation may be completely un warranted. Was he a Tyrant or a Patriot King? Did he suffer from a genetic in-breed disease or was he Bi-polar? Hadn't spent much time learning about this part of history as an adult. Was somewhat surprised to learn that aside from the Pre-Amble, The Declaration of Independence was just a bunch of baseless ad=hominem attacks on the king and that "Common Sense" was a rabble rousing populist piece that blamed monarchy on the jews...

warmfuzzykitten 5y ago
To be sure, the Declaration of Independence has a litany of wrongs committed by the English king, but that is hardly what it is remembered for, and "blamed monarchy on the Jews" seems an unfair summary of Common Sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
- rkk3 5y ago
  > "blamed monarchy on the Jews" seems an unfair summary of Common Sense. "for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty" [1] "Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry." [1] Those are just the first I found, take a look yourself. Common Sense was "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era."[2]. This is a nice way of saying he was a propagandist. The work is reminiscent of "Yellow Journalism" or modern day political conspiracy theories. Another theory of his, that really got the crowd going, was that the King was a secret catholic. > the Declaration of Independence has a litany of wrongs committed by the English king, but that is hardly what it is remembered for It is remembered for the PreAmble, which is why I thought it was worth mentioning. The historian makes the claim that most of the charges/grievances in the body of the document were knowingly false/without merit in order to 'pad the brief'. [1] https://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense3.htm https://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense3.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
  - warmfuzzykitten 5y ago
    Well, read on a little. The text quoted clearly blames monarchy on the Heathens. Paine then recounts the history of monarchy in the Old Testament, with an example of god Himself speaking against it as a form of idolatry, his point being not that the Jews are the source of monarchy but that scripture is plainly opposed to it. Concluding that section, Paine writes "And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government." As a good 18th-century Protestant, Paine was of course against "popery", yet the historian doesn't claim Paine blamed monarchy on the Catholics. The book itself was well-reviewed, but the takeaways are a bit disturbing.
    - rkk3 5y ago
      > The text quoted clearly blames monarchy on the Heathens. Paine then recounts the history of monarchy in the Old Testament "Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to." I've now linked several flagrantly anti-semitic passages of Common Sense. If those quotes didn't convince you, nothing will and I really don't really want to discuss further. > Paine blamed monarchy on the Catholics It's more that he claims the King of England is a secret catholic/papist.
jgalt212 5y ago
According to the 1619 Project, one can easily conclude King George was an abolitionist. But I cannot find evidence of that anywhere.
- regularperson25 5y ago
  the english were the first big abolitionists at that time (after Adam S.) and even considered bad influence in other colonies like in the caribbean. They knew they dont needed slavery to have slaves, so to speak..
  - cafard 5y ago
    At which time? Through the middle of the 18th Century they were active and aggressive slave traders.
- rkk3 5y ago
  In his private writings & views, especially before he was King, he was very anti-slavery. His ultimate record is a bit more mixed because he prioritized other issues and never exercised much political power to stop it.
sbmthakur 5y ago
Read somewhere that he was portrayed as a villain to move the fence-sitters. Otherwise he was a liberal figure for most of his time.
- rkk3 5y ago
  There is some irony, in that him not being a tyrant ham-strung efforts both to placate the colonies before the war (He couldn't act unilaterally and over rule parliament) and in fighting the colonies because scorched earth tactics were off the table. And yeah privately he had pretty liberal views but he didn't always prioritize them politically.

by rkk3 5y ago

warmfuzzykitten 5y ago

To be sure, the Declaration of Independence has a litany of wrongs committed by the English king, but that is hardly what it is remembered for, and "blamed monarchy on the Jews" seems an unfair summary of Common Sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense

rkk3 5y ago
> "blamed monarchy on the Jews" seems an unfair summary of Common Sense. "for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty" [1] "Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry." [1] Those are just the first I found, take a look yourself. Common Sense was "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era."[2]. This is a nice way of saying he was a propagandist. The work is reminiscent of "Yellow Journalism" or modern day political conspiracy theories. Another theory of his, that really got the crowd going, was that the King was a secret catholic. > the Declaration of Independence has a litany of wrongs committed by the English king, but that is hardly what it is remembered for It is remembered for the PreAmble, which is why I thought it was worth mentioning. The historian makes the claim that most of the charges/grievances in the body of the document were knowingly false/without merit in order to 'pad the brief'. [1] https://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense3.htm https://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense3.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
- warmfuzzykitten 5y ago
  Well, read on a little. The text quoted clearly blames monarchy on the Heathens. Paine then recounts the history of monarchy in the Old Testament, with an example of god Himself speaking against it as a form of idolatry, his point being not that the Jews are the source of monarchy but that scripture is plainly opposed to it. Concluding that section, Paine writes "And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government." As a good 18th-century Protestant, Paine was of course against "popery", yet the historian doesn't claim Paine blamed monarchy on the Catholics. The book itself was well-reviewed, but the takeaways are a bit disturbing.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > The text quoted clearly blames monarchy on the Heathens. Paine then recounts the history of monarchy in the Old Testament "Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to." I've now linked several flagrantly anti-semitic passages of Common Sense. If those quotes didn't convince you, nothing will and I really don't really want to discuss further. > Paine blamed monarchy on the Catholics It's more that he claims the King of England is a secret catholic/papist.

jgalt212 5y ago

According to the 1619 Project, one can easily conclude King George was an abolitionist. But I cannot find evidence of that anywhere.

regularperson25 5y ago
the english were the first big abolitionists at that time (after Adam S.) and even considered bad influence in other colonies like in the caribbean. They knew they dont needed slavery to have slaves, so to speak..
- cafard 5y ago
  At which time? Through the middle of the 18th Century they were active and aggressive slave traders.
rkk3 5y ago
In his private writings & views, especially before he was King, he was very anti-slavery. His ultimate record is a bit more mixed because he prioritized other issues and never exercised much political power to stop it.

sbmthakur 5y ago

Read somewhere that he was portrayed as a villain to move the fence-sitters. Otherwise he was a liberal figure for most of his time.

rkk3 5y ago
There is some irony, in that him not being a tyrant ham-strung efforts both to placate the colonies before the war (He couldn't act unilaterally and over rule parliament) and in fighting the colonies because scorched earth tactics were off the table. And yeah privately he had pretty liberal views but he didn't always prioritize them politically.