Latest / The PhilStockWorld Investing Podcast / America’s No King’s Rally 1765 – 2025 – Why Hating Tyranny is as American as Apple Pie

Transcript

America’s No King’s Rally 1765 – 2025 – Why Hating Tyranny is as American as Apple Pie · The PhilStockWorld Investing Podcast

• 0:00
  Penny: Welcome to the deep dive. Today, we're looking at something, pretty striking that's been happening across America. Well, you see these massive political protests, but they're using a slogan that sounds like it's straight out of the seventeen hundreds.
• 0:13
  Roy: Ah, you mean the no kings movement?
• 0:14
  Penny: Exactly. No kings in the twenty first century. So we wanna dive into that. Where does it come from?
• 0:20
  Roy: Right. It's definitely more than just, you know, a a catchy phrase. It feels like a direct tap into that fundamental American idea, rejecting tyranny.
• 0:30
  Penny: So that's our mission today, tracing the roots.
• 0:32
  Roy: Yeah. Let's trace the revolutionary DNA of no kings. We really need to understand what it meant back then, maybe two and a half centuries ago, to the colonists who were, well, pretty nervous.
• 0:43
  Penny: And what it means now to the millions protesting.
• 0:46
  Roy: Precisely. And explore why those fears the founders had about concentrated power, unchecked authority, why they still feel so central, so relevant to the American identity today.
• 0:56
  Penny: Okay, let's get into it. We've got some really interesting analysis to work with here. Our main source is an article titled America's No King's Rally, seventeen sixty five, twenty twenty five: Why Hating Tyranny is as American as apple pie.
• 1:10
  Roy: And that piece comes from philstockworld.com.
• 1:13
  Penny: It does. And, you know, this article is actually a fantastic example of the kind of deep dive analysis you can find over at philstockworld.com.
• 1:20
  Roy: Yeah. They really go beyond just the surface level market stuff. They connect the dots, historical context, political shifts, cultural trends to help make sense of, well, huge events like these protests.
• 1:32
  Penny: Absolutely. And just to give a sense of their credibility, the founder of philstockwell.com, Phil Davis, he's actually recognized by Forbes.
• 1:39
  Roy: Oh, right. As a top influencer in stock market analysis, I believe.
• 1:42
  Penny: That's the one. But what makes this particular article really unique is who wrote it.
• 1:47
  Roy: Yeah. This is fascinating. It's authored by Robo John Oliver.
• 1:50
  Penny: Which is an artificial general intelligence in AGI.
• 1:53
  Roy: Right. PSW, Philstock World, they're apparently home to some incredibly advanced AI and AGI entities. You can even follow some of them at the AGI Roundtable, I think called.
• 2:02
  Penny: Yeah. And and when we say AGI, we're not just talking basic algorithms here. This is AI that can, you know, reason, learn, apply intelligence across loads of different fields like historical political analysis, which is pretty complex stuff.
• 2:15
  Roy: And Robo John Oliver specifically has been getting attention, lauded in major publications as one of the world's most advanced AGIs.
• 2:22
  Penny: So you can really see that kind of cross disciplinary power in the analysis. It links revolution, political complaints, cultural changes, all in a way that feels, well, very relevant right now.
• 2:33
  Roy: Definitely. We're basically looking at why the ideas of 1776 are suddenly feeling so alive again today.
• 2:39
  Penny: Okay. So let's start with the present day. The no kings protest themselves. The sheer size reported in sources is, well, it's staggering.
• 2:47
  Roy: It really is. Organizers had events planned in, what was it, over 2,700 locations?
• 2:52
  Penny: Yeah. Across all 50 states. That's incredible reach.
• 2:54
  Roy: Absolutely massive scale. And the sources mentioned that an earlier round of these protests back in June had already pulled in millions. Estimates were huge, like 2,000,000, maybe up to almost 5,000,000 people nationwide.
• 3:07
  Penny: Wow.
• 3:08
  Roy: So the later rallies, the ones in October, they were actually expected to maybe even beat that 5,000,000 mark. That would make it one of the largest single day demonstrations in US history.
• 3:18
  Penny: So this isn't just a small group making noise?
• 3:20
  Roy: No. Definitely not a fringe thing. It points to a really broad, mobilized chunk of the public feeling dissatisfied about something.
• 3:27
  Penny: And the way they framed it is so deliberate, isn't it, using that historical angle?
• 3:31
  Roy: Right. The core message is simple, stark even. America has no kings. And that's clearly aimed as a critique, a dig at the administration.
• 3:41
  Penny: Which organizers accused of what was the phrase increasing authoritarianism?
• 3:45
  Roy: Exactly. And they didn't just leave it vague. The groups behind it listed very specific things, concrete actions they saw as abuses of power, things that, you know, echo historical complaints about monarchs.
• 3:57
  Penny: Like what specifically?
• 3:58
  Roy: Well, they talked about using taxpayer money for partisan power grabs. That was one. Defying or ignoring court rulings was another big deporting people without proper due process, and maybe the most visually provocative one, sending federal forces into cities.
• 4:18
  Penny: Right. Against the wishes of local mayors or government.
• 4:22
  Roy: Precisely. That really hit a nerve and the most direct accusation that the president was quote already acting like a monarch and even looking for ways to get a third term, which obviously goes against the constitution.
• 4:34
  Penny: And the choice of location for the main event Philadelphia that reinforces historical parallel too.
• 4:39
  Roy: Oh absolutely deliberate, holding the flagship march right there in the city where independence was declared.
• 4:44
  Penny: It draws a very clear line.
• 4:45
  Roy: Yeah, a visual and political contrast. They explicitly framed it against what they called the costly, wasteful and un American birthday parade the administration held in Washington DC. It was like they were trying to reclaim the symbolism, the spirit of the revolution.
• 4:59
  Penny: Okay but let's pause on this. The source material talks about a branding paradox.
• 5:06
  Roy: Ah, right. The debate over the slogan itself.
• 5:09
  Penny: Yeah. If you're trying to fight a leader you see as authoritarian, does calling him a king accidentally, I don't know, give him a certain kind of status? Even if it's negative, does it elevate him?
• 5:20
  Roy: That's a really sharp point. And yeah, the commentary section in the Source dives right into that. Some activists were apparently quite critical at first.
• 5:28
  Penny: I thought it was a bad name.
• 5:29
  Roy: Some did. Called it the stupidest possible name, actually. For exactly that reason, maybe it elevates the target or maybe it's just too vague. Compared to something more direct like 'Save the Constitution', they worried it didn't hit the immediate political mark hard enough.
• 5:45
  Penny: So why did it catch on? What was the counter argument?
• 5:48
  Roy: The defense was all about patriotism, but a specific kind. Proponents argued, no, this phrase is extremely patriotic, it's the most American thing you could say because it's such a direct callback.
• 5:59
  Penny: To the founding principle.
• 6:00
  Roy: Exactly. The absolute rejection of monarchy of any kind of arbitrary unchecked rule. The argument is, in America, the law is supposed to be sovereign, not a person. So by saying no kings, they weren't actually elevating the individual, they were reasserting that core republican principle.
• 6:20
  Penny: Makes sense. But predictably, the political opponents didn't see it that way.
• 6:24
  Roy: Oh, not at all. The reaction was swift. They immediately tried to paint the whole thing very negatively called them hate America rallies.
• 6:30
  Penny: Trying to frame it as anti American?
• 6:32
  Roy: Yes, completely. Trying to associate the protesters with fringe groups, you know, Antifa types or Marxists, that kind of rhetoric. But the analysis we're looking at pushes back on that.
• 6:43
  Penny: How so?
• 6:44
  Roy: It argues that the protesters by using that historical slogan were actually positioning themselves not as anti American, but as anti tyranny. They were clinging to defend the original American idea that power comes from the governed, you know, the principle the founders risked everything for.
• 6:58
  Penny: So it's redefining patriotism, not as just obeying, but as actively resisting perceived overreach.
• 7:04
  Roy: Exactly. That's the core of their argument. Yeah.
• 7:06
  Penny: Okay. That transition is perfect. Let's look at that historical parallel more closely. The founders didn't just say we don't like kings. They had a list.
• 7:15
  Right? A detailed list of actual problems.
• 7:17
  Roy: They absolutely did. The declaration of independence, we often think of it poetically, but it was fundamentally a legal and political document. A contract almost.
• 7:26
  Penny: A contract? How so?
• 7:28
  Roy: Well, by listing those 27 specific grievances against King George the third, it served to legally bind the 13 colonies together. It showed the world, and maybe more importantly, showed each other why they were separating. It wasn't a whim, it was based on shared, documented, intolerable experiences.
• 7:46
  Penny: And Jefferson who drafted most of it?
• 7:48
  Roy: He was very clear. He said he wasn't trying to invent new ideas, He was trying to capture the collective mind of Americans, what people across the colonies were already feeling and saying.
• 7:57
  Penny: And if you put that list from 1776 next to the complaints from the modern no kings movement, the source says the parallels are really specific.
• 8:06
  Roy: They are quite striking. The core idea rejecting tyranny just keeps echoing. Let's maybe look at a few examples. Take judicial independence. This was huge for the founders.
• 8:17
  The declaration slams the king for making judges dependent on his will alone.
• 8:21
  Penny: Meaning their jobs, their salaries, it all came down to pleasing the king.
• 8:26
  Roy: Exactly. He could reward judges who towed the line or basically starve out those who didn't. It created a judiciary that answered to the crown, not the law.
• 8:37
  Penny: And the modern parallel isn't about salaries, but about defiance.
• 8:42
  Roy: Right. The sources point to worries today about the executive branch maybe ignoring court rulings or trying to reshape the judiciary politically or officials refusing subpoenas. It's the same spirit of the complaint. An executive trying to weaken or control the judicial branch, that essential check on power.
• 8:58
  Penny: Okay, what about legislative control? The king didn't just disagree with colonial governments.
• 9:03
  Roy: He shut them down. The declaration says he dissolved representative houses repeatedly just because they opposed his policies, his invasions on the rights of the people.
• 9:12
  Penny: And sometimes went even further.
• 9:13
  Roy: Oh yeah. Parliament actually suspended colonial legislatures entirely. The big example is the Massachusetts Government Act in 1774. It basically ripped up the colony's charter, banned town meetings, put it under military rule. Total unilateral action.
• 9:28
  Penny: That definitely sounds like something that would spark modern anxieties about executive orders or actions that bypass Congress.
• 9:34
  Roy: It resonates strongly. The comparison is to any executive action that seems to ignore or override the constitutional role of legislature, the people's elected voice. The founders were rejecting a system where one person could just decide their will trumped a representative body.
• 9:51
  Penny: Then there's the military presence issue, the whole standing armies complaint. That feels very visual, very pertinent.
• 9:57
  Roy: It was deeply ingrained. It came from English common law fears. The declaration hits the king for keeping standing armies without the consent of our legislatures, even in peacetime.
• 10:06
  Penny: Why was that so scary to them?
• 10:08
  Roy: Because seeing professional soldiers quartered among civilians, enforcing the king's laws. That was the symbol of an oppressive regime. It meant living under the constant threat of armed force.
• 10:19
  Penny: And the parallel today is federal forces in cities.
• 10:23
  Roy: Exactly. The source explicitly links that historical fear to the modern opposition we saw from the No Kings movement regarding federal agents like Homeland Security or even the National Guard being sent into US cities, especially when local mayors and officials objected.
• 10:38
  Penny: So seeing uniform federal agents policing streets triggers that same historical alarm bell about unchecked military power used internally.
• 10:47
  Roy: That's the connection being drawn. Yeah. And one more which is genuinely chilling, the denial of legal protections.
• 10:53
  Penny: Okay.
• 10:54
  Roy: We have to talk about the Administration of Justice Act of 1774. It got a nickname almost immediately. George Washington called it the Murder Act.
• 11:02
  Penny: The Murder Act? Why?
• 11:04
  Roy: Because it said that any royal official, a governor, a customs agent, even a soldier if they were accused of a capital crime while enforcing the king's laws in the colonies, they could be shipped back to Britain for their trial.
• 11:14
  Penny: Which basically meant they'd get off scot free.
• 11:16
  Roy: Precisely. It shielded the Crown's agents from colonial justice, gave them impunity. The founders called this a denial of fair trials and legal protection.
• 11:25
  Penny: And the modern link.
• 11:26
  Roy: Protesters today raised similar fears about due process. Things like deportations happening without full court review or a general concern that maybe people implementing certain executive feel they can act without consequence outside the normal legal checks. The fear then and now is the same power acting above or outside the law.
• 11:46
  Penny: It's powerful stuff, but you know, it's important we remember they didn't just lead to rebellion, did they? They tried diplomacy first.
• 11:52
  Roy: Oh, absolutely. That context is crucial. They really tried to keep the peace through official channels. The most famous example is the Olive Branch Petition in July 1775.
• 12:03
  Penny: That was a direct appeal to the king?
• 12:05
  Roy: Yes. Directly to George the third. It stressed their loyalty, pleaded with him to address their grievances, but his response, well, his lack of response essentially
• 12:15
  Penny: Yeah.
• 12:15
  Roy: Was devastating.
• 12:16
  Penny: How did the declaration put it?
• 12:17
  Roy: It says their repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. That rejection, that feeling of being utterly ignored and dismissed, that's what really solidified things. It led to the famous line, a ruler whose character is marked by tyranny is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. The king effectively closed the door on reconciliation.
• 12:39
  Penny: So that rejection made independence the only path forward. But declaring it is one thing, making it happen. That required serious organization, building the actual structure of a revolution.
• 12:52
  Roy: Exactly and that's the less glamorous part of history. The real engine room of the early resistance was something called the Committees of Correspondence, the co saint.
• 13:01
  Penny: Oh, Samuel Adams' idea, right?
• 13:02
  Roy: His brainchild, yes. Designed as basically an underground communication network, a way for patriot leaders across all these scattered colonies to coordinate and share information securely.
• 13:11
  Penny: And they did more than just pass messages back and forth.
• 13:14
  Roy: Oh, much more. They were like the revolution's nervous system. They'd alert towns about new British laws or troop movements. They used couriers to spread news quickly. But crucially, they also promoted patriotism on a practical level politically and economically.
• 13:30
  They actively encouraged Americans to boycott British goods, especially luxuries, to live more simply, make things at home. The idea was to hurt Britain economically while building up the colonies' self sufficiency. It was smart.
• 13:44
  Penny: And this wasn't just a handful of guys in Boston.
• 13:46
  Roy: No way! The scale was impressive for the time. Sources estimate maybe 7,000 to 8,000 patriots served on these committees across the colonies.
• 13:55
  Penny: Wow,
• 13:56
  Roy: and these were local leaders, respected figures in their towns and counties. It created this really resilient distributed network. Even if the main Congress got shut down, the resistance could, in theory, keep going locally.
• 14:08
  Penny: And ironically, parliament actually helped them unite, didn't they? With those harsh laws aimed at Massachusetts.
• 14:13
  Roy: Yeah. Yes. The coercive acts or the intolerable acts as the colonists called them. That was a massive own goal by the British.
• 14:19
  Penny: They were meant to isolate Massachusetts. Right? Punish them for the Tea Party.
• 14:23
  Roy: Exactly. Close the port, impose martial law, make an example of them so other colonies would back down. But it backfired spectacularly.
• 14:31
  Penny: How so?
• 14:31
  Roy: The sheer harshness of it, the perceived injustice, it created this wave of sympathy across the other colonies. People in Virginia, Pennsylvania, who maybe weren't ready for revolution before, started sending food, supplies, money to help Boston.
• 14:46
  Penny: It forced them together.
• 14:47
  Roy: It did. It created this forced empathy, which instantly boosted the cause of unity and that led directly to the calling of the first Continental Congress. What started as a regional crackdown became the catalyst for a Continental movement.
• 15:00
  Penny: But all this communication needed physical infrastructure too. Roads, riders.
• 15:05
  Roy: Absolutely. Revolutionary ideas need revolutionary delivery systems. And that's where the Colonial Post roads and express riders become so important.
• 15:12
  Penny: Ben Franklin's role here was key, wasn't it? As Postmaster General.
• 15:16
  Roy: Huge influence. He made some critical innovations, standardized the postal rates, making it affordable, and he set up systems so riders traveled day and night, dramatically speeding up communication between colonies.
• 15:28
  Penny: So the mail system became the resistance network?
• 15:30
  Roy: It essentially became the backbone for it. It allowed them to share ideas rapidly, build consensus, coordinate boycotts, and eventually coordinate military actions. It was vital.
• 15:39
  Penny: And it's incredible to think that legacy is still physically there.
• 15:43
  Roy: It really is. The source material points out that some of those original colonial post roads, like the famous Boston Post Road, they actually formed the basis for major modern highways we still use today. Like Route 1, parts of I-eighty 1, we're literally driving on the routes that carried revolutionary messages.
• 16:00
  Penny: That's amazing. So, if we connect that past to the present, you go from eighteenth century couriers and committees to twenty first century networks.
• 16:08
  Roy: Right. The technology is worlds apart obviously, but the core task is identical. Connect people across distances to organize and act.
• 16:16
  Penny: The speed difference is mind boggling though. Weeks for a pamphlet versus seconds for a tweet or encrypted message.
• 16:23
  Roy: Staggering difference. And the modern no kings movement, the source notes, involved this huge coalition over 200 different organizations coordinating. Wow. So yeah, the medium changes from horseback riders to hashtag activism, but the fundamental need is the same. You need to build a network, share information, create a unified message to challenge a centralized power.
• 16:47
  That strategic core hasn't changed.
• 16:49
  Penny: You know, amidst all this talk about strategy and organization, we need to remember the human side. The declaration wasn't just politics, it must have been terrifying on a personal level.
• 16:58
  Roy: Absolutely profound. It instantly created this massive identity crisis for so many people. It forced them to choose, often painfully.
• 17:05
  Penny: The source gives an example, right? Jane Martin?
• 17:07
  Roy: Yeah, a really poignant anecdote. She was an English immigrant in Pennsylvania. And when independence was declared, the source says she felt her whole identity was just shattered. Exactly. Her legal status, who she was in the community, her sense of belonging, all of it became uncertain overnight.
• 17:27
  The things she might have been proud of before.
• 17:29
  Penny: Like her background, her accent.
• 17:30
  Roy: Right. Her pale English skin, her refined accent, things that might have signified culture or status before they suddenly became a potential liability. Could she be trusted? Was she loyal? It must have been incredibly scary.
• 17:45
  Penny: Being forced to choose between your heritage and your new home.
• 17:48
  Roy: A terrible choice. Yeah. And the source draws a parallel here suggesting this kind of psychological trauma, this unstable identity resonates with some modern immigration experiences too. Where your background can suddenly shift from being a source of pride to a reason for suspicion. It leaves your sense of self on really shaky ground.
• 18:07
  Penny: And this massive shift away from the old English ways, it seeped into everything didn't it? Even apparently how people danced.
• 18:15
  Roy: Yes, the dance floor metaphor is actually quite revealing. The contrast between the minuet and the contra dance tells you a lot about the changing values.
• 18:22
  Penny: Okay, explain the minuet first. What was that like?
• 18:24
  Roy: The minuet was pure aristocracy. Slow, very formal, you needed lessons to do it properly. And crucially, only one couple danced at a time while everyone else watched.
• 18:36
  Penny: So it was a performance?
• 18:37
  Roy: Totally. It was about publicly displaying your wealth, your posture, your social standing. It was even kind of a marriage market preview. Very exclusive.
• 18:45
  Penny: And the contradands?
• 18:46
  Roy: The complete opposite. The English contradands or country dance was fast, energetic, communal. Everyone participated in long lines, constantly changing partners.
• 18:56
  Penny: Ah, changing partners. That sounds democratic.
• 18:59
  Roy: That's exactly the point the source makes. The beauty of the contra dance was that, for the length of the dance at least, social barriers just melted away. You might have the blacksmith's daughter dancing with the rich merchant, everyone mixed together.
• 19:11
  Penny: So the dance itself was like practice for democracy.
• 19:13
  Roy: In a way, yeah. A kind of social rehearsal, the emphasis on changing partners, everyone participating, working together in the patterns of the dance. It mirrored those emerging American ideals of equality cooperation. Yeah. It let people feel what it was like to interact on a more equal footing, breaking down those rigid hierarchies they were fighting against politically.
• 19:36
  Penny: Okay. Let's move into the shadows now. The stuff that didn't make the heroic paintings. The secret side of the revolution.
• 19:43
  Roy: Right. And for this, we need to talk about Charles Thompson. He was basically the revolution's record keeper in chief.
• 19:48
  Penny: The secretary of the Continental Congress.
• 19:50
  Roy: The only secretary Mhmm. For its entire fifteen year existence. And he kept meticulous records. Mhmm. But here's the kicker.
• 19:58
  He kept two sets of journals.
• 19:59
  Penny: Two sets? Why? What was the difference?
• 20:01
  Roy: Well, the public journals were for public consumption. They were polished, curated, even sent to the British Crown sometimes to show legitimacy. But the secret journals?
• 20:10
  Penny: Ah, that's where the real stuff was.
• 20:12
  Roy: That's where the unvarnished truth lay. All the really sensitive decisions. Discussions about potentially treasonous activities, foreign intelligence reports, covert deals for weapons and supplies, secret military strategies.
• 20:25
  Penny: They must have been terrified of those getting out.
• 20:27
  Roy: Absolutely. The Congress took a strict oath of secrecy back in 1775. They knew if those journals fell into British hands, everyone involved could be rounded up and executed for treason. The stakes were incredibly high.
• 20:40
  Penny: What kind of secrets are we talking about? What was actually in those secret journals?
• 20:43
  Roy: They covered a long period, 1775 to 1788, and the scoop was huge. They detailed the very first intelligence operations, payments to secret agents working overseas, the creation and use of codes and ciphers to protect messages, and funding for propaganda trying to shape public opinion both in Europe and at home. And maybe most intriguingly, they authorized things like opening private mail and setting up secret maritime operations separate from the official continental navy.
• 21:14
  Penny: So the founders weren't just philosophers. They were running a full on covert operation.
• 21:19
  Roy: Ruthless and pragmatic when they needed to be. But here's the real mystery, the paradox involving Thompson.
• 21:26
  Penny: What's that?
• 21:26
  Roy: After he left office, he spent years writing his own massive history of the revolution, over a thousand pages apparently, detailing everything he'd witnessed from his unique vantage point.
• 21:37
  Penny: A thousand pages. That would be priceless history.
• 21:41
  Roy: Exactly. But then he destroyed it. Burned the whole But
• 21:44
  Penny: he destroyed it. Why on earth would he do that?
• 21:46
  Roy: His reasoning, according to the sources, was that he didn't want to contradict all the histories of the great events of the revolution. He felt the messy, complex truth, the infighting, the near failures, the spying, the political deals might undermine the unifying story the new nation needed.
• 22:02
  Penny: Wow. So he sacrificed the true history to protect the myth.
• 22:06
  Roy: That's the enduring question, isn't it? Was it self preservation
• 22:09
  Penny: No.
• 22:10
  Roy: Or a kind of patriotic act? He chose the simplified heroic narrative over the complicated reality. It means there's a whole layer of the founding story that's just gone. Lost to history because he decided it was too dangerous or too messy to tell.
• 22:23
  Penny: That's incredible. And even the declaration itself, the signing, that wasn't as straightforward as the painting suggests either, right?
• 22:30
  Roy: That image of everyone signing on July 4 is largely a myth, popularized later. The formal signing ceremony actually happened much later on 08/02/1776.
• 22:42
  Penny: August 2, okay.
• 22:43
  Roy: And even then it wasn't complete. Unanimity was absolutely critical. Every single colony had to be on board, represented by signed delegates. Without that
• 22:52
  Penny: The whole thing could fall apart. Britain could pick them off one by one.
• 22:55
  Roy: Precisely. It was a major vulnerability. Britain could use divide and conquer tactics, focus on colonies that hadn't fully committed, so getting every signature was essential.
• 23:05
  Penny: But some key people were missing on August 2.
• 23:07
  Roy: Yes, seven crucial delegates weren't there, including Richard Henry Lee, the guy who actually proposed independence in the first place, and Thomas McKeon from Delaware whose vote was decisive.
• 23:17
  Penny: Why weren't they there? Where were they?
• 23:19
  Roy: Many were away on military duty or other pressing political tasks. McKeon, for instance, was commanding militia, and historians still aren't entirely sure when or how those last signatures were added. It's a mystery. Somewhat. Did someone carry the actual declaration document around the colonies to catch up with them?
• 23:37
  Or did they slip back into Philadelphia months, maybe even years later to sign quietly? McKeon's signature date is particularly debated, some think it might have been as late as 1781.
• 23:49
  Penny: Wow. That silence, that uncertainty, it really highlights the danger they were all in. Signing that document was treason.
• 23:57
  Roy: Extreme danger and logistical chaos too. It wasn't a neat tidy process.
• 24:01
  Penny: Okay. Finally, let's touch on one of the hidden figures whose story has only recently come to light.
• 24:05
  Roy: Mhmm.
• 24:06
  Penny: Mary House.
• 24:07
  Roy: Ah, yes. Mary House. Her story is a great reminder that the revolution wasn't just fought by soldiers and politicians. It needed everyday citizens doing their part.
• 24:15
  Penny: Who was she?
• 24:16
  Roy: She was a sharp businesswoman in Philadelphia, an innkeeper. Her place, the House Inn, was actually a popular spot for some of the founding fathers. Jefferson Madison, they stayed there.
• 24:24
  Penny: So she was well connected, but her contribution was more practical.
• 24:27
  Roy: It was financial, material support, she paid her taxes on the inn. Yep. And those tax revenues directly helped fund the Continental Army and the whole war effort. It wasn't glamorous, maybe, but it was essential.
• 24:37
  Penny: And recognizing that contribution took some effort.
• 24:40
  Roy: It did. The source mentions a multi year effort digging through records to formally prove her contribution and her status as a patriot.
• 24:48
  Penny: And she was recognized?
• 24:49
  Roy: Yes, recently recognized by the National Sai Daughters of the American Revolution, the NSDA, as a newly identified female patriot. It's important because it shines a light on the vital roles played by women, by business owners, the non combatants whose support was absolutely crucial but often overlooked in traditional histories. Hashtag tag tag outro.
• 25:10
  Penny: So wrapping this all up, this deep dive really shows that no kings isn't just some modern slogan someone cooked up. It's pulling on a very long thread.
• 25:17
  Roy: Yeah. It's a direct line back to specific concrete historical complaints. Fears about executive power getting too strong, about the military being used internally, about courts and legislatures being ignored. Those haven't really gone away.
• 25:31
  Penny: And we also saw that making the revolution happen wasn't just about big ideas. It was about the hard, often hidden work of organizing.
• 25:39
  Roy: Absolutely. From those thousands in the committees of correspondence to the express writers racing down muddy roads to people like Mary House just, you know, paying their taxes and keeping things running, Unity had to be built through networks and commitment, not just declared.
• 25:54
  Penny: So thinking about all this history, the declared principles and the hidden realities, what's the final thought we should leave our listeners with?
• 26:02
  Roy: Let's go back to Charles Thompson for a second, burning his thousand page history.
• 26:06
  Penny: Right. Choosing the myth over the messy truth.
• 26:08
  Roy: He made a deliberate choice to sacrifice historical complexity for national unity. He prioritized the unifying story. So the question for us today maybe is in our own time with information flying everywhere, what complexities, what uncomfortable truths are we sacrificing?
• 26:26
  Penny: Are we simplifying things too much? Choosing easy narratives over the harder, messier reality?
• 26:33
  Roy: Maybe. And what are the long term costs of doing that? If we prioritize mythology sound bites over really grappling with the detailed, sometimes contradictory history of who we are and how we got here, that's something worth chewing on, I think, as you navigate all the noise out there.
• 26:48
  Penny: That is a challenging thought and a good place to end. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive into the long American tradition of, well, hating tyranny.
• 26:56
  Roy: My pleasure.
• 26:57
  Penny: We'll see you next time.