Some of the members were wealthy, but not all were born into wealth. Many built their own businesses and made their wealth.

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.

Some of the members were wealthy, but not all were born into wealth. Many built their own businesses and made their wealth.

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.

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.

Some of the members were wealthy, but not all were born into wealth. Many built their own businesses and made their wealth.

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 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.

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.

Some of the members were wealthy, but not all were born into wealth. Many built their own businesses and made their wealth.

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 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 real humble people 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.

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.