The following was written by Michael W. Smith:
https://michaelwsmith.com/the-sacrifices-made-by-the-declaration-signers/
"What happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence?
This is the Price They Paid
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed 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 would be 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 gristmill 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.”
What kind of men were the signers of the DoI? They were the 1%. Every single one of them. They were all educated land owners, descended from educated land owners, descended from the European Aristocracy.
We think of things like education or land ownership in terms of today, but back then, less than 1% of the population had the education they did. We think of people back then as "farmers," and compare that to farmers today. At the time "farmer" meant land owner. The TENENT farmers were the people who worked for the wealthy farmer that owned the land, who ran that "food corporation." It is the tenent farmer that is more akin to what we think of as a "farmer" today. It was those wealthy food corp. owners that were the "not super rich" members of the Founding Fathers, but they were still plenty wealthy (1%). They were also all Freemasons.
They signed the DoI because the Freemasons (the Illuminati) decided it was time to overthrow the system of Monarchs. Read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It lays out everything perfectly clearly. it is no coincidence that all the Monarchies of Europe were all overthrown at around the same time (over the next few decades), with all of the stragglers finally succumbing about a hundred and thirty years later in WWI.
The system that these One Percenters built out of the ashes of the DoI was not designed to be "free," on the contrary, it was designed specifically to create an overt slavery. If we weren't taught in school a selective history of the Constitution, if we weren't so brainwashed to believe that a Government has the Right to claim Sovereignty over it's citizenry on a whim, we would understand our slavery.
We believe that a Government is a real thing. It's not, rather, it is the people who have control of the Government that claim Sovereignty over our Jurisdiction. These people, our "government" are a Monarchy, or at least an Oligarchy, in all but name. Who had control of the Government at that time? Who were the Oligarchs? The same signers of the DoI that are suggested as "great sacrificers."
But we don't understand how our Government was really designed. We don't understand the Corporate nature (legal shield) of that system. We don't think that way. The reason we don't think that way is because the same Government that makes such false claims on our Jurisdiction is the same Government that runs our compulsory education system, which is specifically designed to indoctrinate the plebeians to "Trust the Present Government" if you live in a liberal town and "Trust the Past Government" if you live in a conservative one.
Was the design that we got the original intent of all of the signers of the DoI? I don't know, but the DoI didn't actually do anything except start a war. The Constitution is the actual (legal) foundation of the society we got. The DoI serves as a carrot that can be presented in place of the stick that is our Government. That is all that it does from an effective perspective.
While only a few of the DoI signers were also Constitution signers (this source says six), lauding these One Percenters who started the ball rolling with the intent to create a more hidden form of Rule from the previous Monarchical Rule, is exactly the type of brainwashing bullshit that got us here.
We overthrew the British government.
The one monarchy still in place to this day.
Modern Freemasonry is a cesspool; that doesn’t mean the founding of America was just another power grab conspiracy.
Perhaps you should revisit the Declaration of Independence. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These are not things the enemy wants for us. They want us to eat the bugs and live in the pod and own nothing.
I don’t know what education you received, but I graduated high school not that long ago. My history classes required us to read The Federalist Papers and debate them in depth. Yes, most of compulsory education is a shit show. But the shit show classes don’t even let you read these historical documents.
To claim the founding of America was just a power play is as bad as the 1692 project or whatever the hell that “muh founding with slavery” movement is.
"We overthrew the British government."
No, we didn't. We overthrew British colonial control of America. The British government itself is sadly still there
And it infiltrated our politics probably very soon after that.
If you want to be pedantic about wording, sure.
"We" didn't do anything. "We" were guided by the bankers to establish an "anti-Monarchy" to aid in ushering the One World Government system they had planned a few hundred years ago.
Until you understand what Controlled Opposition is, you can't appreciate how insidious and ubiquitous it is, nor how much it has been used to manipulate the world to the exact point we are at today.
You are correct. It doesn't mean that. It is all the evidence you find when you start digging in that suggests that it was.
The DoI is a lie. Not only was it a lie, it was an intentional lie (fraud). It has nothing to do with the government we got at the time. It has nothing to do with the government we currently have. It has no input whatsoever (read that link). My position does not come from a lack of study, but from the opposite.
The Federalist papers were created by people who were themselves controlled opposition. The people that wrote them were Cabal. The "argument" was a controlled opposition operation, or at least overall controlled by it.
Your view of the real enemy is too small. It is not so clear cut. What they want is to bring us into their ideal Utopia. This means guiding us through a Hegelian Dialectic. But not just any Hegelian Dialectic, but one that is running in reverse. In other words, they have the end goal, and they designed the Controlled Oppositions required for each step to bring us to that end.
Here is a brief description, with a nice picture, that helps explain the Hegelian Dialectic. Here is a long description.
On the contrary, it is essential for everyone to understand it if We The People are to have any chance of escaping The Matrix. I don't make the claim on it's own however, on the contrary, I can and will bring evidence to support the claim for days. To begin, start with my report here. At this point it only shows the creation of the singular Corporation that rules the world, and the singular body that runs it. The next section (which I am working on finalizing now) will explain what school, medicine and science are, who created them and how, and how they are used to control the world through controlled opposition.
But you cannot make an argument that people need to wake up and create a government “for the people,” and then claim that creating a document to create a government “for the people” is simply a ruse.
That’s just chasing your own argumentative tail, so to speak. The Articles of Confederation made some sense in that they were a response to the abuse of absolute power. The world was monarchical in nature until the Founding Fathers decided to try to form a new nation.
I’m not saying that they couldn’t have had bad eggs in the group that signed the Declaration, or even in the Constitutional Convention. I’m of the opinion that Alexander Hamilton was Washington’s Judas after the Revolutionary War. I am, however, never going to believe the whole thing was a deception from the very beginning.
I am quite literally related to one of the DoI signers. My family has never strayed from duty, nor patriotism. We have not sold anyone out, nor tried to pull a fast one on society. Perhaps other members have that we don’t know of, but our connection to the founding of this country has always created a sense of duty.
But to claim the DoI was a falsehood is reaching. To claim that it was all a lie because the AOC didn’t work, and we had to revamp with the Constitution is reaching.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
I am making the argument that the specific document we got in the DoI was a ruse, designed to be the carrot, the illusion of a statement of "freedom for all," to the stick, the reality of slavery for all, that was the actual government we got. Anything else you may be adding to that argument is not a part of what I am saying.
FTFY.
I am saying that my research suggests that the revolutions that were occurring all over the world at the time, that were moving their respective countries away from the Monarchies into "Democracies" (which is an identical word to Socialism) were planned events by the Cabal. This plan goes back really far, and the government we got was a part of it.
I'm not suggesting you "believe" it. I haven't really shown you any evidence yet. It is easier to do with specific questions, or as comes up in debate. Laying it all out at once is quite difficult to do. I suggest you read my report to get started. Again, that doesn't touch on this yet, but I suggest what is there will be quite enlightening as to the scope of the situation.
I am descended from many of America's Elite families, including the Roosevelts, the Lee's (Robert E. Lee), several of the first Governors of New England, and indeed, several people who created the U.S. Government, though I am several generations removed. Most multigenerational American's have similar ancestry. My Grandfather had one of "the names" that would be recognized as "Elite," though while successful, he was never that successful.
But my ancestry is irrelevant. Your ancestry is irrelevant. I am not my family. You are not your family. I am me, and you are you. You never know who a person really is or what they have done, period. Attempting to turn this into a "personal attack" does nothing but attempt to shove aside the argument in favor of your feelings. That has nothing to do with any investigation into the truth, and is only an attempt to distract from that endeavor.
This is exactly one of the numerous ways in which the populace is controlled by the Cabal.
Actually, there is substantial evidence to support the claim, and you have yet to address any of the points I have made that support it. In truth I haven't said much, but you haven't addressed even what I have said.
I never said anything about the AOC, thus, connecting it to "why" the Constitution had fuckery contained within it has nothing to do with my argument. As to the "reason" the AOC didn't work, it didn't work because it didn't lead to slavery of the people. THAT was why it was changed.
Just read the fifth amendment. It makes explicit in several ways that the US Govt. has the Authority to claim the Life, Liberty and Property of every Individual in the nation at the whim of the people who control the Govt, which is NOT, nor has it ever been, We The People.
Again, that is only ONE EXAMPLE of the fuckery, there are several others, but they all are in direct opposition to the flowery words of the DoI.
Some of the members were wealthy, but not all were born into wealth. Many built their own businesses and made their wealth. The very system of British rule insured their standing and their position. These men signed a document declaring Independence (revolt) from the British. This was an act of high treason. They placed their lives and future of their families at risk for what? To make more money? Own more land? Continue to be the evil 1% that live a life of luxury and enslave their fellow man? No to all of these. They believed in self determination and wanted the new world to be completely different from the old world. They wanted the leaders of this new country to be voted into office by the will of the people. They wanted justice, human rights and freedom to determine their own fate. The chances of success were horrible, the British empire ruled over a third of the known world, they had actual professional armies and the most powerful Naval force in the world. We had none of that and a substantial portion of our own people that were loyalists to the British crown. We didn't have enough weapons, very few formally trained military people and very little gold and silver. Most Americans were uneducated and lived meager lives, but they joined the fight and were led by many of the men that signed the DoI. Your bias against wealthy people is a surefire sign of socialist/communist brainwashing. You have assumed that these men gained wealth through exploiting others. That is as ignorant as it gets. Samuel Huntington started out as an apprentice to a cooper, Ben Franklin started out as an apprentice as well, Josiah Bartlett was a physician (His father was a shoemaker), Matthew Thornton was also a physician (his parents immigrated to America when he was 4 from Ireland), William Whipple was a seaman on a vessel before he made Captain, he and his brother later started their own company, John Adams was born to a farmer/shoemaker, Sam Adams inherited a brewery, which ended up failing, Elbridge Gerry was the 3rd of 12 children. His father owned a ship and was involved in trade, John Hancock was orphaned as a young boy and adopted by his uncle that was wealthy and had a shipping company, Robert Paine was a clergyman (Preacher)that changed careers, William Ellery was the son of a merchant, he graduated Harvard at the age of 15, Stephen Hopkins grew up on a small farm with no formal education, he was taught by his parents and grandfather, Samuel Huntington was raised in a small farm in Connecticut, he had no formal education but taught himself and borrowed books to learn law and became a lawyer, Roger Sherman had little formal education, but became a self made man and through hard work became successful, William Williams was the son of a preacher, he served as a soldier in the French-Indian war and then came back and eatablished a business, Oliver Wolcott was raised in a frontier village with no formal education, he was apprenticed to a weaver, Lewis Morris was a descendent of wealth, as he inherited his father's fortune, he is quoted as saying, "damn the consequences, give me the pen" when he signed, Francis Lewis was the son of a Preacher and orphaned at 5, he was taken in by his aunt who had some means and made sure to have him educated, he was born in Wales and eventually moved to New York and Philadelphia (not wealthy), but he made his fortune as a merchant, Phillip Livingston did come from a wealthy family and made his own fortune as a merchant, William Floyd inherited a prosperous farm and managed it well, he had little formal education, but learned from friends and acquaintances he was a wealthy landowner, Abraham Clark was a self taught lawyer that did not come from a wealthy family he was born on a small farm, he was called "the poor man's lawyer" because he gave free legal advice to small farmers about land disputes, Francis Hopkinson was born to a wealthy Philadelphia family and became a lawyer and a judge, John Witherspoon was a clergyman and the only one to sign the DoI, John Hart lived and worked on his small family farm his entire life, he bought more land and became a succesful farmer, Richard Stockton was a Judge, he was born to a wealthy family and inherited land and wealth, he was also imprisoned, starved and tortured for signing. The list goes on and on, most made their own fortunes, and most were self educated and got there on their own merits. If this is your definition of the 1%, then we have very different ideas about what 1% means. These are not the spoiled aristocrats and evil men that gained success by subjugating their fellow man. You can do a little research on your own to finish the list of the signer's of the DoI, but your gross assumptions and unfounded opinions are shallow and unresearched. Good day to you.
Every time I have investigated someone who "made their own wealth" or were "born of moderate means" it turns out to be a fabrication. The key is to look at education. No one in the general populace at the time had anything but a primary education, and most not even that (home schooled for reading and writing at best), yet all of the movers and shakers throughout history had at minimum a secondary education, most having attended university. As far as I can tell, “humble beginnings” is complete and total bullshit, or at least within perspective, massively skewed toward the top of the totem pole, where the person with "humble beginnings" was really in the top 10% or so of society, and the real humble people, the rest of the 90%, were completely ignored in the comparison.
For a little look at the evidence, look at this link (page 84). It starts in 1870, by which time enrollment had massively increased from 100-150 years earlier (the time period we are talking about). It shows that only 1.3% of the population went to tertiary school (college) in 1870. I can't find the secondary school link atm (what we call "high school"), but it is similar. Education was only for the very wealthy, even High School.
Only rich people had secondary or tertiary education. This is the key to resolving the lies. Once you understand that, everything else makes sense. Sometimes investigating their scholastic career can even help trace a persons real lineage and associations. NO ONE made it to the First Continental Congress without those associations, made through wealth and education, which meant their parents had enough money to send them to school, AKA, the 1%.
As for the rest of your response, if you separate it into paragraphs I will respond to it. It is too hard to read as is. If you don't know, to create a paragraph you have to double "enter," not single "enter." It's a weird quirk, but there it is.
There are quite a large number of home educated and self educated men that have quite the documentation to back it up. Ben Franklin is arguably the most well known. Most of the men on the list did go to and graduate a university, it least all the lawyers did, except for Abraham Clark who was self taught and apparently not accepted into the Bar Assoc. However some did not and made their fortunes on their own without having family money. Most northern farmers had relatively small farms. There are a few large plantation owners, but predominately the large plantations were in the South East.
Let's take a look at Franklin as an example of a "false history" whereby the vast majority of the population is left out of the comparison, and we measure things in terms of todays metrics.
His maternal Grandfather was Peter Folger. Mr. Folger was:
What does this mean? He was the direct personal assistant of Thomas Mayhew, who was the first Governor of the colony. Mr. Mayhew couldn't have been a colonizer without a charter. You can't get a charter without lots of money, thus Mr. Folger was at least directly associated with Money before even setting foot in America. While it doesn't itself point directly to lots of money for Mr. Folger, it points to direct connections to money, which means opportunities not afforded to 99% of the population.
In addition, You can't be a missionary without formal education in the Church. You can't be a school teacher without a formal education. What does that point to? Money.
BF’s father, Josiah Franklin was:
A “businessman” meant owner of a business. Not many people owned businesses in New England, rather it was a position of at least some privilege. I can’t find any specifics on his holdings in the five minutes I spent investigating, but this is far from “humble.”
Even better he was a tithingman. A tithingman was:
A tithing is a “civil parish.” So a township basically. He was the head of the legal and administrative system of the town. This again is a position of privilege and power not many had (presumably one per town).
BF himself did go to school, more than the vast majority of people anyways. Britannica says:
He had a year of formal education. Another year with a private teacher (which is generally very expensive, and something almost no one on the planet had access to except the aristocracy) and became an apprentice to his brother, a printer, which is itself a position requiring substantial education (printer, not necessarily apprentice), and which gives access to books most people would never dream of having access to.
All of these things add up to more than the average person, much more. He had both a lineage of at least reasonable wealth, and opportunities afforded to almost no one. Most people don’t appreciate that the vast majority of people other than those who became the leaders, came over here as indentured servants, or were born here as 10th sons of 10th sons of 10th sons whose parents may have had opportunities, but never made anything of themselves, thus their children had no opportunities available to them. They were too far removed from the lineage and inheritance. Benjamin was similar in that he was from a large family, but he was only one generation removed (his father had sufficient wealth and power), thus he still had plenty of opportunities that most didn’t have. Yes, he was a member of the “working class,” but he started near the top of that heap, and took advantage of opportunities that most never had a chance at.
As for him being Cabal, in 2016 the basement in his home was excavated:
I’m not sure if you are completely aware of the actions of the Cabal, and their tendency to sacrifice children in magic ritual, but this is a telltale sign of that activity.
This by itself is not sufficient, but there is SO MUCH MORE of Franklin’s actions that strongly support his being a member of the Cabal, through his actions. That requires a great deal of dsicussion however, but his actions in France, in America, and Britain all point to “Cabal agent” when measuring the result of those actions, if not the “stated intent” of them. As an example, BF was the inspiration for Thomas Malthus’ work on Population Control, the Cabal agenda that currently rules the world.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I just was searching to see how much Yale, Harvard, William and Mary, etc cost in the 1700's. Apparently the information is somewhat sparse, but what I did find was a paper that some professor wrote that the tuition costs were free. The room and board were not, materials like paper and quills/ink were also not provided, these were required of the students. The paper goes on to say that most people could not afford to spare a farm worker (son) to go to university and the cost to provide materials would be shouldered by the student or the family. It also notes that these universities were theological and had a large portion of their costs provided by donations to the schools via church donations. While it would have been far cheaper to attend college back then, it would require some source of funding for living expenses. This means that you didn't have to be rich to send a son to school, it did require you to have "disposable" income.
The cost for college was high, relative to average income, and there were tuition costs, at least according to other sources, but that was not the real cost of college. The cost was what it took to get in. From that source (sorry, its a terribly anti-"white privilege" piece, but I am more interested in the statements of facts than the agenda of the author).
It doesn't matter how much it costs if you can't get in unless the Rulership of the school (part of the Aristocracy/Cabal) "approves" of you AND your family name. Plus you have to have already attended secondary school, which WAS expensive, or have had a private tutor to teach you all the Greek, Latin, math, science, etc. you needed to get in to school.
NO ONE had disposable income except the wealthy. Not necessarily the 1%, but top 10-20% at least.
Top 10-20% is not "humble" by any measure except when ignoring the other 80-90%.
My research suggests there was never a point in our history (the history that we know about) where the Cabal, or their predecessors, didn't rule us by the creation of belief, through controlled opposition. My research has traced the same group doing the same thing in the same way all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi. The Code itself is a very enlightening read, I highly recommend it.
The Code of Hammurabi shows clearly how "Law" is constructed to fabricate a new reality. It also shows how society is separated into "classes" (a separation and control structure that never changed, it just became more hidden in the structure). The most interesting thing to realize about the Code is what is left out. There are no laws for the Priest class. That is how it always was, for millennia. And there are ties between the Priest class of ancient Sumer, and the Priest class of Jews, the Priest class of Catholics, and even the Priest class of Islam. All of which religions were created by the same group of people, none of which had rules for the upper echelons of that hierarchy. They were above the law, by Divine will. "Divine Right of Kings," e.g., given by the Church, who was the ultimate Authority. The Church could take away or grant the power of a King. The reverse was not true. This is how the world has always worked.