Jump to content
Semachiah benJacov

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Recommended Posts

13600067_217677495298043_5462124305795140485_n.jpg?oh=a4e97bf8174255bd426a3806b7d6d8d8&oe=57E9A606

Their story…

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 serving 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 looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, 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. He 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.

 

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, who in today's world would actually give up the lives, fortunes and sacred honor nowadays? i think more than i would believe, but would be heavily against most americans today.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only took a willing 3% the first time while most the Colonists stood by & watched or at best gave minimal assistance. I believe it would take more than this today however. In the early moments of this country the militarizes were actually quite equal. Even though England had "AVAILABLE" a far superior force, the Atlantic Ocean served as a great equalizer. Time & distance prevented England from being able to respond in numbers which could have overwhelmed the Colonists. The aid of the French also provided a life vest for the Colonists.In addition most of the officers of the Continental Army & Navy were former British military having been trained in England.

The 3% rule of a "DEDICATED" force may be accurate but it is also likely that at least 30% of a united force may be required today for a successful revolt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 3% rule of a "DEDICATED" force may be accurate but it is also likely that at least 30% of a united force may be required today for a successful revolt.

 

This is why groups such as CSPOA are so important. If we can have the sheriffs and police aligned with state militia members, one can have an influencial force. England had to send out troops to enforce the laws after the colonists refused to comply. A resistive force of citizens and local police (hopefully to include the active guard military members) that will not cower in fear, and thus refuse to comply, is going to cause a significant impression in a federal response commander. The climate will be set for a confrontation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with the assistance of LEO's it will still be necessary to have the cooperation of the military. Access will have to gained to equalizing weapons such as stealth fighters & bombers, tanks, ship (?, to a degree),satellite coverage as well as other forms of communication, medical support, etc., etc., etc.. War today cannot be fought with muskets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. The Revolutionary War was fought over 8 years. The Constitutional Militias won't have the luxury of time due to ocean transportation delays. I also have the feeling that any conflict in the States will also involve the enemies of the USA. They won't sit on their heels and watch from the sidelines.

The Second Amendment was crafted very carefully with great understanding that private citizens should hold the tools of war.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tactics of militias shouldn't be the same tactics of the standing army. Attempting to do so will plant those who do. Instead, focus on the methods that are effective against standing armies in the field.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hit and run methods are the best way. If you remember Vietnam or studied

it any at all; it was the hit and run methods of the vc (Viet Cong) that were

successful. Or the Revolutionary War, the militias there were hit and run successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the hit and run seemed like a poor attack method in Benghazi made the whole movie 13 hrs seem a bubble off who attacks with mortars last

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the hit and run seemed like a poor attack method in Benghazi made the whole movie 13 hrs seem a bubble off who attacks with morters last

 

I still haven't seen that movie, so I can't comment on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like shock and awe kill half of them and the other half will retreat

 

sort of like the 300 spartans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i like shock and awe kill half of them and the other half will retreat

 

sort of like the 300 spartans

I like hitting them with a couple remote control IEDs, and while they are

Running around, then we now down as many as we can without exposing too many of us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the revolutionary war, General Washington and all the other Generals hated the militias initially. They wouldn't stand up and fight in line with the standing armies, they would dessert the army as it traveled away from their home territories, and the militia units would disperse when the lobster backs got closer during the battles. Gen. Washington figured out how best to use the militia, as skirmishers and screeners during/before battles, then during the march of the army, the militia would harrass and slow the british army, giving Gen Washington some breathing room. The militias also acted as guides, runners, and intelligence gatherers in their home territories. It is my understanding that after Gen Washington started using the militias in this manner, his opinion of the militias changed drastically and he began to praise them highly for their skill and bravery.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the Battle of Cowens, in South Carolina. The milita use used as a lure (bait), drawing the Redcoats into a battle with the regular Army. Sadly however, in our future I do not see a "regular" American army aiding us. For the UN will most likely base Russian and Cuban troops on the East side of the Mississippi, and Chinese on the west. Its a theory, but it seems logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the UN will most likely base Russian and Cuban troops on the East side of the Mississippi, and Chinese on the west. Its a theory, but it seems logical.

 

This brings up a whole other can of worms about border state invasions and takeovers by immigrants. Then local gang warfare and mob violence...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This brings up a whole other can of worms about border state invasions and takeovers by immigrants. Then local gang warfare and mob violence...

 

Mob violence is an almost absolute, and maybe some immigrants might try something like that. My question is why would Tennessee or Mississippi want to invade here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy