« HISTORY LESSON: What became of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? »
Jefferson was fortunate. Many lost their lives as a consequence.
---
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 signators of the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two Lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the revolutionary war.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty wouldbe death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress Without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying.Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution.These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
Source: American Library
Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 10:44AM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (26)
They're all as DEAD as the ideals they promulgated.
Not one in a thousand Americans knows or even suspects these facts. It would make them uncomfortable to think that it might be time to "pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" for a similar cause today, and I'm not talking about gay marriage or school busing.
Whatever you think of Julian Assange and/or Bradley Manning, only acts of courage such as theirs can bring significant change. The rest is only prologue.
Contrast the fate of these men to the fruits of what Americans have enjoyed since and to the disgusting greedy way of today's Americans who agitate for free-to-them welfare medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare), free-to-them retirement money (Social Security), free-to-them welfare (TANF, SNAP, Section 8, farm subsidy, extended unemployment benefits) and it should sicken any sane, right thinking man or woman.
If you worked for a living, you'd understand that 15% of your pay has gone into the SS system (half is paid by the employer), and that the government accumulated a $2.4 Trillion dollar surplus on it. Hardly free.
Now that that money has been squandered, and the tiniest bit needs to be repaid, idiots like you believe that it's welfare because that's what the theives who stole the money told you to believe.
How were the Americans able to defeat the most powerful nation in the world? Historians give several reasons:
The Americans were fighting at home, while the British had to bring troops and supplies from across a wide ocean. British officers made mistakes, especially General William Howe. His slowness to take action at the start of the war made it possible for the Americans to survive during two difficult winters.
Another reason was the help the Americans received from the French. Also, the British public had stopped supporting the long and costly war. Finally, historians say America might not have won without the leadership of George Washington. He was honest, brave.
http://www.manarinonmoney.com/blog/free-markets/the-founding-fathers-smugglers-tax-evaders-and-traitors/
Right On Mark!
I think the Johnson Administration was the first in a long line of thieving politicians to grab the SS Trust-fund surplus and issue worthless non negotiable Treasury Bonds that are obviously never going reimburse the Trust Fund. The crooked b-----ds raped a program that could have kept going for a long time.
The thought millions of dollars that they can't spend on war or their pet pork projects drives corrupt politicians absolutely insane. They will find a way to steal it and they did.
Sometimes I think sea changes come into people's lives, and the lives of entire civilizations, when they find themselves remembering a different set of facts and denigrating or even forgetting other facts.
I think if we went back to the America of 1775 we would recognize everyone as Americans and even the accents would be similar to ours, but many things we think important (and I'm not talking about technology) they would think trivial and vice versa.
We are literally propping up the Wall Street retirement model right now with everything and the kitchen sink. The SS model is better in my opinion, but as we all know, the money was stolen.
Can you guys feel the propaganda pressure to dismiss SS as "welfare" and buy lottery tickets from Wall Street?
I don't DB, you gonna leave us hanging?
Very good post, Gomp.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
----------
And that link was outstanding gompers...i will post it again below...and for the record, i got an email from someone today so pissed off that i publiished this story that he vowed not to read the site again...apparently much of what is published above about the 56 signers is FALSE...turns out the guy who emailed me has a phd in american history and he's been dealing with these types of falsehoods for awhile...he's a nice guy and so i asked him to write a rebuttal piece of sorts that i will publish...
http://www.manarinonmoney.com/blog/free-markets/the-founding-fathers-smugglers-tax-evaders-and-traitors/
Just think about it. If G.W. had succeeded with his SS reform, the collapse would have chewed up the whole fund. the Fed. Govt. could tell everybody old farts and the young folks alike sorry it's all gone you have to go to work and build new accounts.
I wonder, would that have allowed the Federal Reserve to print up a few trillion more in funny money for the big banks?
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
THE FINANCING PROCEDURES
In the Social Security Act of 1935 the income from the payroll tax was to be credited to a Social Security "account." Benefits were to be paid against this account, but there was no formal trust fund as such. Taxes began to be collected in January 1937, and monthly benefits were to be paid starting in January 1942 (later pushed forward to January 1940). So the payroll taxes were just credits in the Social Security account on the Treasury's ledger under the initial law.
The investment rules governing payroll tax income were also established in the 1935, and are essentially the same ones in use today. Specifically, the 1935 Act stated: "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States." (See Title II, Section 201of the 1935 law)
In the 1939 Amendments, a formal trust fund was established and a requirement was put in place for annual reports on the actuarial status of the fund. Specifically, the law provided: "There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 'Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund'. . . . The Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Trust Fund, and, in addition, such amounts as may be appropriated to the Trust Fund as herein under provided." (Title II, Section 201a)
In other words, a formal trust fund was established for the Social Security program and the credits already on the Treasury's books for the Social Security program were to be transferred to this Fund, along with all future revenues raised for the program.
The investment procedures adopted in 1939 were modified only slightly from those in the original Act of 1935. Basically, changes were made in the interest rate rules governing the investments, and the Managing Trustee was designated as the investing official (who happens to be the Secretary of the Treasury in any case), but in most other respects the language was similar to that in the original law. (See the text of the 1939 Amendments for more details.)
Both the 1935 and the 1939 laws specified three types of purchases that might be made: 1) securities on original issue at par; 2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price; and 3) via the issuance of "special obligation bonds" that could be issued only to the Social Security Trust Fund. These special obligation bonds were not to be marketable, although the other two forms of securities could be. The idea of special obligation bonds was not new nor unique to the Social Security program. Similar bonds were used during World War I and World War II, and it was in fact the Second Liberty Bond Act that was the law amended in 1939 to allow the Social Security program to make use of this type of government bond.
Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)
Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.
These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.
here's snopes on the 56 signers...
Also, Maybury's characterization of English feudalism as socialism is ridiculous. From the point of view English feudalism, all business activity was considered near criminal because the Crown tried to control all of it. But totalitarian feudalism is the antipodes of socialism (everyone is supposed to be as equal to everyone else as possible under socialism) and Adam Smith free enterprise is not the definition of criminal behavior unless you are a representative of the British Crown of 1775.
It would be interesting if an expert on the American Revolution would comment on History Lesson, however.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
It shows that History Lesson is more emotional than factual and more in the bodice-breaking historical genre than in the sober just-show-me-the-facts genre.
It doesn't change the fact that the revolutionary war was a civil war, the Americans were viewed as treasonous by the Crown and, as I remember, the Crown placed a price on the head of all the prominent revolutionaries and, if the war had been lost, all would have been hunted down and hanged as traitors.
Individual freedom and its necessary accompaniment, protection from coercive, unrepresentative and arbitrary powers, has a heavy price and most of the sheeple think the price is too high.
MORE likely; hanged, drawn and quartered. A punishment practiced until approx. 1814 and that MOST CERTAINLY have been applied to captyred American 'rebel' leaders..
This deliciously quaint English custom consisted in disembowelment and emasculation, followed by the severed genitalia and entrails being burned in front of the still-living victim on a nearby pyre, before the final fatal beheading, after which the resulting five body parts were put on public display in different places in order to deter future traitors who didn't see the actual execution.
Would you like another crumpett before the next beheading, milord? Indeed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc&feature=avmsc2
If there exist Treasury Securities purchased with 2.4 trillion dollars or more of S.S. surplus funds, Why do Congress and the Administrations keep claiming the S.S. system is broke and needs to be reformed? 2.4 Trillion and the interest it earns should go a long way to keep the system going.