Tag: founding fathers

What Happened To The 56 Signatories Of The Declaration Of Independence

While July 4 marks the day Thomas Jefferson’s revised draft of the Declaration of Independence was adopted, it would take months for the document to be signed by all 56 men who would eventually affix their names to it.

Several key figures in American history – George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, among others – don’t appear among the signatories of the Declaration of Independence at all, having been serving in military roles or other capacities at the time.

None of the 56 signers died as a result of their signature, but before the war was over, five would be captured, 12 would have their homes destroyed, and 17 would lose their entire fortunes. None of the 56 signatories ever renounced the cause of independence of their own free will.

Here’s what happened to the men who pledged “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” to the cause of American independence, on the basis of “self-evident … Truths” that not even a global empire – or a king – could deny.

‘The Sage Of Monticello’: Thomas Jefferson

Easily the most well-known of the Declaration’s signatories – as well as its author – Thomas Jefferson enjoyed several benefits later in life from his role in the document’s drafting.

During the war, Jefferson nearly faced capture by the British during his tenure as governor of Virginia, forcing him to flee from his Monticello estate. That led to accusations of “cowardice” that eventually prompted Virginia legislators to launch a formal inquiry, in which Jefferson was acquitted.

Later, Jefferson served in a series of key posts, first as the U.S. ambassador to France, then as secretary of state under President George Washington and vice president under President John Adams.

After he was elected president – an event dubbed the “Revolution of 1800” – Jefferson’s egalitarian vision expressed in the Declaration of Independence came to be viewed as one of the most critical documents of the American founding.

‘The First American’: Ben Franklin

While Jefferson often gets the lion’s share of the credit for drafting the Declaration, Ben Franklin is credited with one critical edit to the document.

Widely recognized as a multi-disciplinary polymath, Franklin has been dubbed “the First American” by history for his early and long-running calls for American colonial unity.

In the preamble to the Declaration, Jefferson had originally written, “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable.”

Franklin – who served on the drafting committee – replaced this with the revision: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”

Franklin later served as ambassador to France and lead negotiator on the deal to end the war with Great Britain, was the “president” – or governor – of Pennsylvania from 1785 to 1788, and served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Shortly before his death in 1790, Franklin made his last political statement with his support of a petition calling on the federal government to abolish slavery.

‘The Atlas Of American Independence’: John Adams

John Adams, the future second president, was one of the first delegates to the Continental Congress to call for independence. He was also among the most outspoken in its defense, leading him to be dubbed by some as “the Atlas of American Independence.”

In February 1778, Adams was nearly captured by British warships while leaving on a diplomatic mission for Paris with his son. Adams took up a musket to fight the British vessels, but it took a mix of skillful navigation and a fortuitous storm to shake the pursuers. Had he been captured, Adams likely would have faced imprisonment in the Tower of London and execution for treason.

In one of the most remarkable coincidences in history, Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826 – 50 years after the Declaration’s adoption day. Adams’s final words, “Jefferson still lives,” were in fact mistaken: the third president had passed away at Monticello hours earlier.

‘The First Founding Father’: Richard Henry Lee

Less well-known than either Jefferson or Adams, the Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee was no less instrumental in bringing about independence, authoring the part of the Declaration stating the 13 colonies “are, and of Right ought to be, free and independent States.”

On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted this “Lee Resolution.” Adams famously predicted incorrectly that July 2, rather than July 4, would be celebrated as the American Independence Day, and would be commemorated with, “pomp and parade … from one end of this continent to the other.”

During the war, Lee faced military attacks on his property, chronic stress that took a toll on his health, and a severe hit to his finances as the war hit international shipping and the tobacco trade he relied on.

He later served as the first Virginia senator alongside William Grayson, joining the anti-Federalists in opposing a national government. Lee died in June 1794 at age 62.

The Midnight Rider: Caesar Rodney

A lesser-known but critical signatory of the Declaration was Caesar Rodney, who rode 80 miles to Philadelphia while suffering from facial cancer to cast a tie-breaking vote for Delaware’s delegation in favor of independence.

Unanimous support from all colonies was required to authorize the Lee Resolution – meaning Rodney’s vote was critical to final adoption.

Rodney later served as “president,” or governor, of Delaware until 1781, and died in 1784 of facial cancer at age 55.

The First Signer: John Hancock

John Hancock’s signature on the Declaration – the first – was so large that his name became an American idiom for one’s signature.

The Massachusetts revolutionary leader had been serving as president of the Second Continental Congress since May 24, 1775.

Keep reading

Would The Founders Still Recognize Their Republic?

Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away or by 3,000 tyrants one mile away?
— Rev. Mather Byles (1706-1788)

Does it really matter if the instrument curtailing liberty is a monarch or a popularly elected legislature? This conundrum, along with the witty version of it put to a Boston crowd in 1775 by the little-known colonial-era preacher with the famous uncle — Cotton Mather — addresses the age-old question of whether liberty can long survive in a democracy.

Byles was a loyalist who, along with about one-third of the American adult white male population in 1776, opposed the American Revolution and favored continued governance by Great Britain.

He didn’t fight for the king or agitate against George Washington’s troops; he merely warned of the dangers of too much democracy.

Many of us who monitor federal excess are fearful of out-of-control democracy, which is what we have in America today, yet there remain in our federal structure a few safeguards against runaway federal tyranny, such as the equal state representation in the Senate, the Electoral College, the state control of federal elections, the remnants of state sovereignty, and life-tenured federal judges and justices.

Keep reading

Totally Dissolved: The Forgotten Vote for Independence

We celebrate Independence on the Fourth of July. But the actual vote to secede from the British Empire and become “free and independent states” – happened on July 2nd, 1776.

Twelve colonies voted in favor. None opposed. New York abstained because its delegates had not yet received new instructions.

The political connection to Britain was over. The deed was done.

The resolution came from Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. He stood before the Second Continental Congress with direct instructions from his state: declare independence, pursue foreign alliances, and propose a plan of confederation.

That wasn’t political theater. That was constitutional authority, exercised in plain view.

John Adams seconded the motion on the spot. And as soon as it passed, he wrote home to Abigail:

“Yesterday the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men.”

He wasn’t talking about July 4th. He was talking about the vote – July 2nd.

THE FUSE WAS ALREADY LIT

Lee wasn’t leading a rebellion. He was carrying out orders. By the time he introduced his resolution on June 7, independence was already underway.

North Carolina moved first. On April 12, 1776, its Fourth Provincial Congress adopted the Halifax Resolves – the first official act by any colony to authorize a vote for independence. Their delegates weren’t told to negotiate. They were told to vote yes.

Just days later, John Penn wrote from Halifax to John Adams:

“We are endeavouring to form a Constitution as it is thought necessary to exert all the powers of Government, you may expect it will be a popular one.”

Then came Congress. On May 10, it passed a resolution drafted by John Adams and backed by Lee. It told colonies where royal government had collapsed to set up new governments under their own authority – a de facto declaration of independence in all but name.

Adams called it “the most important Resolution, that ever was taken in America.”

Congress adopted a formal preamble to the May 10 resolution, and Adams was the driving pen behind it. The message wasn’t subtle: British authority was finished, and power now flowed from the people.

“The exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed, and all the powers of government exerted, under the authority of the people of the colonies, for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order, as well as for the defence of their lives, liberties, and properties, against the hostile invasions and cruel depredations of their enemies.”

Virginia didn’t wait. On May 15, its revolutionary convention told its delegates to move for independence, back foreign alliances, and help organize a confederation.

That same resolution also called for the creation of a Declaration of Rights and a new constitution for Virginia – “such a plan of government as will be most likely to maintain peace and order in this colony, and secure substantial and equal liberty to the people.”

No slogans. No spectacle. Just orders – issued and implemented.

They marked the moment by pulling down the British flag in Williamsburg and raising the Continental banner. Troops fired artillery salutes.

Lee described it in a letter to Adams: “The British flag on the Capitol was immediately Struck and the Continental hoisted in its room. The troops were drawn out and we had a discharge of Artillery and small arms.”

Independence wasn’t theory. It was policy.

Keep reading

A Republic or an Empire?

The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, embraces two value sets. The first is natural rights, and the second is limited government. After 250 years, neither value has survived, and the opposite of each currently prevails in America.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration in three days while staying at a rooming house in Philadelphia. He had been greatly influenced by the British philosopher John Locke. Locke is the godfather of the theory of natural rights, which he extrapolated from the natural law teachings of Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) did not argue that humans have inherent natural rights, but rather that the concept of justice demanded by human nature should be “naturally just” when addressing claims for protection of persons and property, whether those protections were legislated or not. The “whether legislated or not” is the first known articulation of a higher civil law, higher than the government’s own laws.

St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) also did not define explicitly the existence of natural rights, but he did argue that norms of human behavior are knowable from the exercise of reason aided by revelation. He is the seminal thinker to express the view that right and wrong is knowable to all persons, whether legislated or not; and this knowledge — because it is common to all — is itself a higher law. He called this universal knowledge the natural law.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) did not articulate natural rights, but he did proceed deep into the ideas of Aristotle and Augustine and taught that all human beings possess innate moral claims and innate moral obligations to honor the moral claims of other persons; and these claims and obligations are knowable by the exercise of reason.

John Locke (1632-1704), whose writings Jefferson read at the College of William and Mary, and which James Madison read at Princeton, drew upon all three philosophers to argue that Aquinas’ moral natural law claims are really natural rights, and these, too, just like knowing right from wrong, are inherent in our humanity and are superior to the government.

Keep reading

Charles Lee: The Alternative “George Washington” You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

History repeatedly demonstrates the difficulties faced by large conventional powers confronting decentralized resistance movements. From the American Revolution to Vietnam and Afghanistan, weaker forces have often offset military inferiority through mobility, dispersion, decentralization, local support, and the avoidance of decisive engagements.

While George Washington and the American Patriots are often credited with defeating the British Empire through asymmetric warfare, Washington arrived at that strategy belatedly and embraced it only partially. His instinct was to fight as a state—with a professional army, centralized administration, and conventional military institutions.

Charles Lee, on the other hand, recognized much earlier that America’s greatest strengths lay in decentralized resistance, militia warfare, and making British occupation prohibitively expensive. The distinction mattered not only militarily but politically, as conventional warfare demanded many of the fiscal and administrative measures that accompanied the Revolution. In reality, Washington gradually moved toward a strategy of exhaustion, avoidance, and attrition, while Charles Lee had recognized from the beginning that America’s greatest military advantage lay in avoiding the sort of conventional contest Britain wanted to fight.

The Continental Congress had the option between both men—George Washington and Charles Lee. In Conceived in Liberty, Rothbard wrote regarding the choice between Washington and Lee, “What Congress decided to do about that army would determine what it would do about the entire Revolution.” These men had entirely different strategies as to how to fight the British and maintain independence. Obviously, Washington was chosen over Lee, however, this article seeks to explore the little-known alternative: What if Charles Lee and his strategy had been chosen instead?

At the outset, a word of caution is necessary. We always have to be careful with speculation from counterfactual history and not overstate unverifiable conclusions. There are limits on the conclusive power of available evidence and there were negatives of Lee’s strategy. Human decisions, unforeseen circumstances, and countless variables make definitive conclusions impossible. Moreover, Lee’s proposed approach was not without risks or drawbacks of its own.

We can, however, examine what did happen, the available evidence, appreciate Lee and the logic behind his proposed strategy, and recognize some of the drawbacks of Washington’s strategy. Such an exercise helps guard against historical determinism—the assumption that the course of events was inevitable—or that Washington’s state-centered approach to warfare was the only realistic option. The American Revolution could have been fought differently. Charles Lee believed it should have been, and his arguments deserve closer examination.

This key decision of the Continental Congress matters because the way a war is fought affects the outcomes. It is the contention of this article that the choice to fight like a state means either losing or winning like a state.

Keep reading

Conservative Journalist SCHOOLS Vile Democrat Pollster with a Very Important History Lesson After He Launches Smear Against America’s Founding Fathers

A young conservative writer delivered a powerful lesson to a nasty Democrat hack regarding the U.S. Constitution and America’s Founders on Friday during a discussion on CNN over musicians bailing on President Trump’s concert celebrating America’s 250th birthday.

As TGP readers may know, several musical artists have been withdrawing from the US Freedom 250 concert under pressure from left-wing activists. The artists dropping out include luminaries such as Martina McBride, The Commodores, and Bret Michaels.

Freedom 250, which was launched last year by the Trump administration, has scheduled events across America to celebrate the nation’s semi-quincentennial.

National Review columnist Caroline Downey astutely explained that the reason it is so hard to bring people together on both sides is that those on the left don’t think America’s Founding Fathers were among the world’s most brilliant visionaries.

Democrat pollster Joshua Doss proved her point by quickly smearing the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as nothing but immoral slave owners. Downey fired back by pointing out that the Constitution set up a method to undo the evil of slavery.

Americans ended up fighting the bloodiest war in our nation’s history to end the practice.

Doss could only play dumb when confronted with this damning truth, while Downey tried to drill it through his thick skull.

Keep reading

How the Slaveholding Founders Really Felt About Slavery

The Declaration of Independence accused the king and Parliament of Great Britain of “exciting domestic insurrections” among the half-million people enslaved in the American colonies. This was a reference to the November 1775 proclamation by Virginia’s royal governor, Lord Dunmore, that he would free “all indentured servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to rebels)” who were “able and willing to bear arms” against the American revolutionaries.

Today’s readers often consider it hypocritical that the Founders denounced Britain for offering black Americans the same freedom for which they were themselves fighting. Some of the revolutionary era’s readers thought the same thing. In 1776, the London writer John Lind published a pamphlet responding line by line to the Declaration, and in it he ridiculed the patriots: “Is it for them to complain of the offer of freedom held out to these wretched beings? of the offer of reinstating them in that equality which, in this very paper, is declared to be the gift of God to all?“

What Lind overlooked was that Americans did not deny that it was self-contradictory for them to hold slaves while proclaiming liberty to be every person’s birthright. On the contrary, their embarrassment over that inconsistency had been particularly glaring when Virginians drafted their Declaration of Rights in June 1776. Thomas Jefferson went even further, admitting that slaves were justified in violently rebelling against their oppressors. The thought that God’s “justice cannot sleep forever” made him “tremble,” he said.

But the real story of the “domestic insurrections” passage is more complicated than modern readers typically realize. The best point to begin understanding it is October 1769, when a poor man named Samuel Howell approached Jefferson, then a 26-year-old lawyer practicing in Williamsburg, to ask for help in defending his freedom against the claim that he was a slave.

Howell’s great-grandfather was a black man who’d had a baby girl with a white woman. Under Virginia laws of that time, the daughter was bound to servitude until the age of 31, and during those years, she gave birth to Howell’s mother. She, too, was enslaved until the age of 31, and during that time, she gave birth to Howell himself. The owner of Howell’s mother and grandmother, thinking that Virginia law also rendered Howell a slave until the age of 31, then sold him.

Keep reading

Founding Felons: Jefferson Would Be on a Watch List Today — You Might Be Next

Everything this nation once stood for is being turned on its head.

We are being asked — no, told — to believe that the greatest threat to America today is not government overreach, endless war, corruption, surveillance, or the steady erosion of constitutional rights.

No, the real threat, it seems, is speech.

Dangerous speech. Hateful speech. Critical speech. Speech that dares to challenge power.

In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president — especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist — is not just wrong, but responsible for violence.

The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration.

Which means the solution, in the government’s eyes, is simple: silence the criticism — but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.

When White House officials suggest that calling a president a fascist may constitute libel or slander, they are not merely defending reputations — they are laying the groundwork for criminalizing dissent.

This is how it begins.

This is how republics become regimes.

First, criticism is labeled dangerous. Then it is labeled harmful. Then it is labeled illegal. And before long, it is gone.

Beware of those who want to monitor, muzzle, catalogue and censor speech — especially when the justification is “safety.” Because every time the government claims it must limit freedom to protect the public, what it is really doing is expanding its own power.

The irony is almost too glaring to ignore.

By the standards now being floated by those in power, America’s founders themselves would be considered extremists.

Seditionists. Radicals. Domestic threats.

Keep reading

Rewriting Revolutionary History: Is Jamie Raskin Even Capable of Honesty?

The late Scott Adams had a way of describing a certain group of Democratic operatives and lawmakers that seemed fitting as I watched and rewatched an exchange between Representatives Jim Jordan and Jamie Raskin.

Adams said that while all Democrats lie, there is a small group of them who seem to assume the mantle of tier-one fibbers. These are the ones who are capable of saying the most verifiably dishonest things, and do so with a straight face that makes it look like even they believe what they are saying. 

I believe Jamie Raskin may have been among them (I’m not 100% sure), along with Eric Swalwell, Ilhan Omar, James Clapper, and John Brennan, and perhaps others. 

The reason such a group exists, Adams theorized, was that, in order for Democrats and the legacy media to make some of their most outlandish hoaxes stick, they needed a special group of people who can convincingly say something that is completely untrue and just keep repeating it until the public starts to think it is true.

Adams observed that you never hear from these people all at once, but when it’s their turn, they step in like a designated hitter and slug away with their fabrications. 

I thought of Adams’ comments when I saw Raskin in action at a hearing conducted by the House’s Subcommittee on Constitution and Limited Government on March 18. That’s when he claimed that Thomas Paine, the founding father and author of “Common Sense,” was an “undocumented immigrant.” 

Keep reading

Fired ABC Hack Terry Moran’s Latest TDS Meltdown: Trump “Is the man that we were warned about by the founders”

In June, ABC hack-reporter Terry Moran was fired following an X post attacking President Trump and White House Advisor Stephen Miller.

Although Moran tried to quickly delete the post, it sealed his fate with his former network.

Following his ouster, Moran made it clear he is a left-wing activist and launched a new journey to ‘fight for democracy’ during this “dark time” in American history.

During an interview on ‘In Good Faith,’ Moran revealed the extent of his virulent Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

“What we are seeing is, no doubt, what other countries have seen a lot. What our Founding Fathers predicted would happen.”

“A great, strong man, would arrive, and not great in the good sense but great in the power sense.”

“Trump is the most dominant figure of our age around the world. Don’t underestimate him. He is a world historical figure and he is the man that we were warned about by the founders.”

“That democracies fall when a man who can captivate the populace wants to exercise the power that’s there in the government, and that is what we’re watching.”

Keep reading