Actually, far from being simplistic, it is simply a matter of the historical record (accepting a true, perceptible difference in the 3 southernmost colonies).

But thanks for bringing up Franklin… he brings us back to the subject at hand. While I concur that he would have laughed at the notion of being called a Puritan, even still, he would not have supported the outcome of this matter! See for example the sentiments in his famous letter to Paine regarding the publication of the “Age of Reason,” wherein he considers it folly and a pointless affront to the ideals/religious sensibilities of the general populace.

Sorry to belabor the point but it was too specious to let go and I had to state it for the record. Truly, I hope I’m not coming off as crass. Done.

In reality, it’s pretty much a protest song.

His Constitutional rights were not infringed. He still and always maintained his Constitutional rights of redress. Those of voting, of assembling and petitioning, of running for office, etc. These are the safeguards for a minority.

In fact, the Constitution was created in order to empower the will of the majority so that it would not be subject to that of the minority or “faction” as the founders would call it.

Men of this class… have in too many instances abused the confidence they possesed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage or personal gratification!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~ HAMILTON, Federalist no. 6 (New Yorks finest – thanks Al, ya just can’t make this stuff up!)

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote… it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the CONSTITUTION. ~ MADISON, Federalist no. 10

ps dont like this new “tradition”either and really hate the kate smith version, i mute it every night.