What Are The Similarities Between The Speeches Of Ben Franklins And Patrick Henry

Which similarities are you referring to? Historically, until he received a head injury, Henry the VIII was loved and a benevolent king. It wasn’t until he suffered what today would be considered a bad head trauma that his personality changed and he became someone totally different. Doctors today that read on it think brain trauma is what changed his personality. Trump to my knowledge has no excuse for what he does other than he was “born” this way,

Mutual respect, mutual irritation. They worked together rather well in Philadelphia. Though Franklin rarely spoke in debate, his reputation, already well established long before the Congress cast its lot for independence, preceded him. Franklin's wisdom was sought by the members of the Congress and his ultimate support of independence earned Adam's admiration. The both were men of intellect with a taste for books with much to discuss early in their collaborations. After they served together as envoy's to the Court of Louis XVI Adams came to see Franklin as a bit of a contrived act, superficial and rather disinclined to do more than he must.Franklin was self involved and had little patience for Adams' hectoring in Paris. Adams would later write of their conflict and differences in personality and his ultimate disillusionment with Franklin.

This feels like I may be helping with a High School research paper. But I do not care: if I can pass on the slightest reverence for these two men, I'll take that chance. We need young people to have a good idea of what Real Leadership looks like and you will not get that from our inside the Beltway posers.Washington and Franklin’s relationship was quite warm and durable. If they ever were in conflict, I have never read of it. They had active correspondence up until the time Franklin died.There is so much that could be said, but I would urge you too seek out some of their correspondence as it is widely available. It will not take you long to discern for yourself the mutual respect between these two giants of World History.Franklin was one of the few people who Washington sought out for guidance regularly. If you know anything of Washington, you know what a special relationship this must have been. Had Franklin not been ill, it was the plan for him to nominate Washington as the chair of the Constitutional Convention.These two simple examples are profound insight into the key players in our early national history. Though separated by both distance and a 26 year age gap, they united in a unique relationship that lit the torch of liberty and resulted in the downfall of tyrants everywhere.You and I should be jealous of mentorship and friendship of this quality.

Nope.At least not in any verifiable fashion. Franklin donated money to build the first synagogue in Philadelphia and that is verifiable.What you are referencing is the anachronistic Franklin Prophecy that was printed in a pro Nazi newspaper in the 1930’s with a claim that it was a transcribed speech from a dinner party Franklin attended during the Constitutional Convention.It is attributed to Mr. Pinckney s friend of Franklin’s who has never before referenced it or had another copy contemporaneously tied to him.Its anachronistic in that it directly referenced a return to Palestine, Zionism, which didn’t begin for a full century after Franklin’s death and uses the rather archaic term “Vampires” as a descriptor for how Jews interact in society. The term vampire didn’t gain widespread use until Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” was published, well after Franklin’s death and the allusion of vampires as parasites actually came even later than that.These are why the hoax is referred to as a “Prophecy”, since Franklin was essentially voicing things in a way that wouldn’t be common placefor more than a century after his time.There are similar hoaxes for George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers but for some reason the Franklin Prophecy has real legs and tends to stay around.The really telling oddity is that if you read it, it is not in any way similar to Franklin’s “voice” evident among his other speeches. It is very contemporary, even given that the hoax is now nearly a century old.

There is a famous letter ascribed to Franklin, which was written by him to an atheist who had written to him. It's from 1757, long before his Revolutionary War activities. In the letter, Franklin is, as always, a pragmatist. He does not try to dissuade the atheist from his beliefs, but argues that the correspondent should not write publicly about his atheism in hopes of persuading others to his belief. He points out that, among other things, that "He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own Face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any Good would be done by it?" His last argument is perhaps the most interesting, because it's so rarely presented today. He notes "If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?" It's a point to ponder.It's this pragmatism that causes us to pause before calling Franklin an all-out atheist, because he was careful to leave only droplets of clues behind. He was very likely an atheist in the same mold as Einstein, using "Providence" or something similar as a euphemism for the natural universe. Franklin was a master at blending in and appearing non-threatening, so atheism would not be in his best interest to speak about in public. This is why any attempt to call him an atheist must be made with some doubt, because Franklin certainly wanted it that way.