Benjamin Franklin’s Brilliant Satire: Exposing British Hypocrisy Through a Fake Prussian Edict

By: Mike Maharrey

 

 

As frustrations with usurpations and arbitrary power from the British government grew, American colonial leaders fired up the presses, producing hundreds of newspaper articles, pamphlets, and resolutions outlining their case and urging resistance.

Benjamin Franklin took a unique approach, deploying biting satire to highlight colonial grievances.

Instead of directly criticizing Parliament’s policies, Franklin flipped the script. He illustrated the unreasonableness of its actions toward the colonies by creating the impression that similar mandates were being imposed on England by another nation.

On September 22, 1773, the Philadelphia Public Advertiser published “An Edict by the King of Prussia” penned by Franklin. This totally fictional decree attributed to King Frederick II of Prussia announced a series of trade policies for Great Britain that mirrored those imposed by Parliament on the colonies.

His effective use of satire exposed the hypocrisy of British colonial rule and rallied support for the American cause.

The satire by Franklin was so on point that many people believed the edict was real.

Franklin made the perfect choice with Frederick the Great as an antagonist. The Prussian king had a well-known penchant for power grabs. He’d recently seized parts of Poland and Silesia, claiming they were historically within his domain dating back to the Teutonic Knights.

Frederick had also been left out of negotiations ending the Seven Years’ War. He had been Britain’s ally in the war with France but was forced to negotiate peace terms on his own.

The King’s reputation and anger with England’s post-war maneuvering gave Franklin’s edict plausibility.

The edict established Frederick’s authority to impose taxes and regulations on Britain based on “claims, ancient and modern” beginning with the fifth-century Germanic invasion and “colonization” in England:

“Whereas it is well known to all the World, that the first German Settlements made in the Island of Britain, were by Colonies of People, Subjects to our renowned Ducal Ancestors, and drawn from their Dominions under the Conduct of Hengist, Horsa, Hella, Uffa, Cerdicus, Ida, and others…”

This referred to leaders of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who invaded the British Isles in the fifth century and controlled England into the sixth century. Cerdicus was the first of the Kings of Saxon Wessex who reigned from 519 to 534 AD.

The edict went on to assert that “the said Colonies have flourished under the Protection of our august House, for Ages past, have never been emancipated therefrom.”

Since Prussia had “hitherto yielded little Profit to the same,” Frederick claimed he was justified in levying taxes and regulating commerce.

That the King of Prussia claiming sovereignty over Great Britain based on events that occurred hundreds of years ago was clearly absurd. And that was the point.

While Franklin exaggerated the situation, the Prussian assertion of sovereignty over England in the edict was fundamentally the same as British claims over North America.

Franklin went a step further, with the Prussian king pointing out, “We Ourself have in the last War fought for and defended the said Colonies against the Power of France, and thereby enabled them to make Conquests from the said Power in America, for which we have not yet received adequate Compensation.”

This parallel British claims that their aid in fighting the French during the French and Indian War justified higher taxes as compensation. This was the rationale behind the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act the following year, along with the Townshend and other subsequent Acts throughout the Revolutionary period.

The edict went on to list specific policies and taxes that Prussia planned to impose on Great Britain based on these “ancient and modern claims.”

For instance, it ordered a ban on steel production in Britain by decreeing, “No Mill or other Engine for Slitting or Rolling of Iron, or any Plating Forge to work with a Tilt-Hammer, or any Furnace for making Steel, shall be erected or continued in the said Island of Great Britain”

This policy mirrored the Iron Act of 1750 restricting the establishment of new iron mills and steel furnaces in the American colonies. This policy forced the colonies to export raw iron to Britain where it was forged into finished goods.

By prohibiting the development of ironworks in the colonies, the British government inhibited the colonies’ ability to produce finished iron products. This relegated the colonies to serving as the suppliers of raw materials and consumers of British-manufactured goods.

The edict also prohibited the transport of wool from Great Britain. This mirrored the Wool Act of 1699, prohibiting the export of woolen products to any destination outside the colony in which they were produced, including other British colonies. It was intended to prevent the colonies from competing with British wool production.

In Franklin’s satirical edict, the Prussian king also levied taxes and tariffs on Great Britain, just as Britain was taxing the colonies.

“We do therefore hereby ordain and command, That from and after the Date of these Presents, there shall be levied and paid to our Officers of the Customs, on all Goods, Wares and Merchandizes, and on all Grain and other Produce of the Earth exported from the said Island of Britain, and on all Goods of whatever Kind imported into the same, a Duty of Four and an Half per Cent. ad Valorem, for the Use of us and our Successors.”

Franklin also took aim at the British policy of sending criminals to the colonies. The edict decreed, “Thieves, Highway and Street-Robbers, House-breakers, Forgerers, Murderers, So[domi]tes, and Villains of every Denomination, shall be emptied out of our Gaols into the said Island of Great Britain for the better peopling of that Country.”

This mirrored the Transportation Act of 1717, formalizing the practice of transporting criminals to the American colonies. The act authorized British courts to sentence convicts to exile in America for terms of seven years, 14 years, or life, depending on the severity of their crimes.

Franklin closed the edict with dripping sarcasm.

“We flatter Ourselves that these Our Royal Regulations and Commands will be thought just and reasonable by Our much-favoured Colonists in England”

Why?

Because, as the edict notes, they were based on “equitable laws” passed by Parliament on British colonies in Ireland and America.

And the edict made it clear that resisting the Prussian demands would result in harsh consequences.

“All Persons in the said Island are hereby cautioned not to oppose in any wise the Execution of this Our Edict, or any Part thereof, such Opposition being High Treason, of which all who are suspected shall be transported in Fetters from Britain to Prussia, there to be tried and executed according to the Prussian Law.”

This was the second major satire piece penned by Franklin that highlighted colonial frustrations with British policies. The first, published 11 days earlier, provided a recipe for losing an empire. The “ingredients” were all policies the British had imposed on the colonists.

Franklin described the essay in a letter to his son.

“I have written two pieces here lately for the Public Advertiser, on American affairs, designed to expose the conduct of this country toward the colonies in a short, comprehensive, and striking view, and stated, therefore, in out-of-the-way forms, as most likely to take the general attention.”

Franklin’s satire was an extremely effective way to highlight the colonists’ frustrations with British policies.

An Edict by the King of Prussia specifically highlighted British acts that stifled colonial industry and commerce. Through the use of subtle humor and irony, the edict reached a broad audience and influenced public opinion in both America and Britain. It helped to build support for the colonial cause by illustrating the economic injustices imposed by British mercantilist policies.