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.”
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 read the article about Craven street. Did you read the rest of the article? They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).
"Benjamin Franklin was a lot of things: author, politician, scientist, diplomat, freemason and statesman. But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.
"Further investigation showed some of the bones had been sawn through; others bore scalpel scars; a skull showed drill holes probably made by a trepanning device.
This evidence pointed Franklin's close friend, William Hewson, an early anatomist, who had been working in secret at the Franklin's home at that time".
"Hewson had been studying anatomy under Scottish scientists and surgeons, the Hunter brothers. Hewson famously showed how blood passed through the lymphatic system, by using mercury and a turtle. The discovery attracted the attention of scientist Ben Franklin, and the pair became friends.
Anatomy was still a murky subject at the time: poking around in dead bodies had been outlawed throughout the Middle Ages into the 1600s.
The bones from the basement; William Hewson, born 1739. By the 1700s, it was growing as a subject for study, but it was still only legal to dissect the cadavers of convicted and executed murderers: and the problem was, there weren't enough bodies to go round.
Body snatchers and 'resurrectionists' thrived, stealing dead bodies and selling them to the scientists.
Location, location, location It seems 36 Craven Street was the perfect place for an anatomy school: Hewson was married to the landlady's daughter; the tenant, Ben Franklin, was a trusted friend; and the house lay between two sources of material.
Resurrectionists could smuggle bodies from graveyards via the Thames-side wharf at the end of the street, or snaffle unfortunate cadavers from the gallows at the other.
The Friends of Benjamin Franklin House suggest that Hewson probably used bodies from 'resurrectionists – bodysnatchers who shipped their wares along the Thames under cover of night.'
Not only were uncertified dissections illegal, the means by which Hewson gained his materials were also against the law; disposing of these bones somewhere other than the basement would have risked being prosecuted for illegal dissection and possible grave robbing. Was Benjamin Franklin aware of all the dodgy dealings going on in his basement? Was the Founding Father involved?
There's evidence Franklin stayed elsewhere in the same area of London for a period, possibly while Hewson was living at the property in his place."
As far as Josiah Franklin goes:
Josiah Franklin Sr. (December 23, 1657 – January 16, 1745) was an English businessman and the father of Benjamin Franklin. Born in the village of Ecton, Northamptonshire, England, Josiah was the ninth child of blacksmith Thomas Franklin (b. 1598), and his first wife, Jane White. Thomas was the son of Henry Franckline (b. 1573) and Agnes Joanes. Thomas Franklin remarried and had more children. Josiah Franklin worked as a fabric dyer in Ecton. Franklin immigrated to the American colonies in 1682. He married twice and had 17 children: ten boys and seven girls. In Boston, he was a member of the Congregational Old South Church where he served as a tithingman.
His business was a tallow chandler/soap boiler. He basically was a candle maker. As far as a tithingman. Goes, that was in England and it was similar to a constable, however by the 1600's in America it has a different meaning:
"In early New England, many churches appointed a “tithing man” who carried around a long rod with a knob at the end (the other end had a fox or hare’s tail for gentler use on the women-folk) and whose job was to prevent disorderly conduct during service or to awaken the sleeping."
According to 1913 Webster's dictionary:
tithingman (plural tithingmen)
*(law, historical) The chief of a tithing. quotations ▼ *(obsolete) A ruler or leader of ten men; a decurion. *(UK, law) A peace officer; an underconstable. *(US, Maryland and New England dialect, historical) A parish officer elected annually to preserve good order in the church during divine service, to make complaint of any disorderly conduct, and to enforce the observance of the Sabbath. *A tithe proctor: a collector of tithes.
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%.