American History

[z_k_g]

We found out just how much Americans liked the word king is 1776……………………………….

Maritime,

The colonists NEVER had a problem with King George, the word "king" or the monarchy in general, they were quite happy to be part of the crown and very loyal English subjects. 

The motivation of 1776 was taxes imposed on tea, without being able to vote on the increase.  The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Taxation Without Representation started the whole shabang, because as colonists, even tho British citizens, their interests were not represented in the British Parliament and they couldn't vote.

In fact, its fair to say the NONE of the British subjects who occupied the 13 colonies had any issue whatsoever with the monarchy or with King George in any of the history books.

Our issue was with Parliament, not the big K.

This is a myth fed by the necessary wartime propaganda.

Every man is entitled to run his own family how he chooses, with his own best judgment.

Agreed 

 Zulu

[maritime04]

If you’re suggesting that the colonies were royalists, I think your confusing your history. The colonies were all but abandoned by the British government, and left to self-government, which allowed them to developed republican ideas about governing themselves. IT’S WHAT LED THEM OPENLY ARGUE TAXATION WITHOUT REPERSENTATION. It’s why they protested, instead of falling in line like good citizens of the king………………..
I may be wrong but I think the declaration of independent goes something like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” Not exactly words a royalist who believed in the divine right of kings to rule? Jefferson also listed what he called crimes or charges against the king. Even though we are already in a state of conflict with Britain,  Jefferson embraces allot of the ideas going around that colonies about the British crown’s right to rule over the colonies.
Also in that same year” common sense” hit the press although not radical, he goes into promoting against the idea of divine right of kings, and all men being equal………………….he continues with an attack on a constitutional monarchy , calling it a false government subject to the abuse of a monarch or king.
I think your simplifying American history by ignoring the political ideas that were changing in not only the colonies but in Britain during the 1700’s.It’s safe to say constitutional monarchy was becoming unpopular.
 
Thanks for the history lesson though.....

[z_k_g]

If you’re suggesting that the colonies were royalists, I think your confusing your history. The colonies were all but abandoned by the British government, and left to self-government, which allowed them to developed republican ideas about governing themselves. IT’S WHAT LED THEM OPENLY ARGUE TAXATION WITHOUT REPERSENTATION. It’s why they protested, instead of falling in line like good citizens of the king………………..
I may be wrong but I think the declaration of independent goes something like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” Not exactly words a royalist who believed in the divine right of kings to rule? Jefferson also listed what he called crimes or charges against the king. Even though we are already in a state of conflict with Britain,  Jefferson embraces allot of the ideas going around that colonies about the British crown’s right to rule over the colonies.
Also in that same year” common sense” hit the press although not radical, he goes into promoting against the idea of divine right of kings, and all men being equal………………….he continues with an attack on a constitutional monarchy , calling it a false government subject to the abuse of a monarch or king.
I think your simplifying American history by ignoring the political ideas that were changing in not only the colonies but in Britain during the 1700’s.It’s safe to say constitutional monarchy was becoming unpopular.
 
Thanks for the history lesson though.....

Maritime,

The only reason there was a revolt in 1776 by the colonists was because of TAXES on rich, this is not a simplification, this is the root cause.

The fact is, Common Sense was written (anonymously) in 1776 and had very little effect on the debate of taxes (which started some 10 years earlier) and very little to do with the REASONS for ensuing Revolution that was to come. 

It was a purely rhetorical document decrying the monarchy and providing a clear philosophical and political basis for a popular Revolution and justification for separation and taking up arms. 

The extremely rich land owners and merchants had all the reason they needed already- Taxes! 

"Common Sense" was for the poor common folk (most of the colonists) to give them a reason to revolt, because they had none. 

But the motivation for revolution started with TAXES (on the rich), was all about money, not the kingship or monarchy.

The colonies were an extremely important source of tax revenue for the British Crown, and with the added benefit of not say so in Parliament, the King could tax at will. 

Also, the American colonies  were not some abandoned outpost as you describe, they were just as valuable as trading in India and Hong Kong (East India Company Holdings) and were was seen as an essential part of the Empire and a western stalwart against the Crown's most hated enemy at the time- France (and sometimes Spain and Portugal).

England regarded the colonies as vital strategic hedge against the French and Spanish expansion in the new world and an excellent place to grow the weed (tabacco) and provide cotton to the new textile mills in northern England.

The American Revolution was about money not the principles you embrace. 

If you choose to believe otherwise then that's your prerogative.

Zulu

[maritime04]

Z_K_G
Everyone has the right to disagree, but base your arguments on facts rather than personal opinions especially when you are arguing history.
You are trying to make the argument that the only reason for the American Revolution was simply economical, that the “wealthy” or rich peoples of the colonies did not want to pay taxes laid on them by parliament.
I could not disagree more, I will give you the Causality of the event is taxation not just on the wealthy class of the colonies but on the colonies as a whole, for starters lets go over the taxes placed on the colonies after the Indian French war
Sugar Act 1764 taxing all imported sugar NOT FROM ENGLAND;
Stamp Act 1765, all legal documents, newspapers, wills, pamphlets, playing cards
Townshend Revenue Act 1767 tax on all imported goods
Tea Act 1773, placing a tax on imported tea, NOT from east India Company
How can you say that these taxes only affected the wealth or rich peoples of the colonies? Looks to me more like these taxes effected the WHOLE of the colonies and pissed off allot of people.
“What an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse” or NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
The colonies protested these acts, and took up grievance with the king, who IGNORED THEM, and Britain’s response to the colonies was
Close the port of Boston
Take over local government
Pass the quartering act
And basically allowing English men to escape colonial courts
All of this DID VIOLATE THE KINGS CHARTERS FOR THE COLONIES, and gave reason for the colonies to declare their independence from the British crown.
You also seem to pay literally no attention to the ideals of Republicanism in the American Revolution, to simply call it a matter of money pays little tribute to the idealistic men who ran and lead the revolution.
John Adams writing on the thoughts of government 1776, Alexander Hamilton’s a vindication of the measures of congress, Thomas Jefferson’s summary view of the rights of British America. These men believed in Republicanism and the universal rights of men……………….
"Republicanism was the distinctive political consciousness of the entire Revolutionary generation."

"A crisis had arrived which was to decide whether the American experiment was to be a blessing to the world, or to blast forever the hopes which the republican cause had inspired."
The founding fathers looked up to the example set by men like Cincinnatus……..
The American Revolution was simply about money and NOT PRINCIPLES is a distortion of American history!!!
The American Revolution was about money not the principles you embrace. 

If you choose to believe otherwise then that's your prerogative.

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT MY PRINCIPLES ARE??? Since you already seem to know?
What I believe is my opinion I try to base it on interpretation of historical facts, collected by writings, events and quotes. I think I made a good argument.
 

[dennislevy]

I m just going to make some comments about the history debate between zulu and maritime04....

Maybe a good way to resove the arguments about the origins of the American Revolution (as in the case of MOST revoltions) is to say that there was more then ONE REASON.

England had fnancially depleted itiself in the Seven Years War- Recall that it was a war that was waged in Euope, in India and in Canada, in the the northeastern colonies  and on the frontier as the French and Indian War.  It was an expensive war and Britain expected her colonies to be grateful.

And THEY WEREN T SUFFICIENTLY GRATEFUL.....

the tax revenues were  used to bolster the treasury  of England , BUT it was the ENTIRE mercnatilist system that was enforced for the benefit of the home country that made colonists unhappy and that included some of the wealthiest men in the colonies WELL before the revolution, men like Washington of Virigina and Hancock of Massachussets, looked for alternatives, Washington was ALWAYS land hungry.   and planted crops other then tobacco, so he oculd sell WITHIN the colonies and Hancock smuggled goods to avoid taxes and generate greater profits  And their example in different ways was repeated by many others.

Boston was seen by Crown ministers as the trouble spot....British trrops were forcibly quartered in Boston...the port was closed.....the BritSih increased anti smugglng patrols....

The colonies had some genius propAgandists..Samuel (who was a cousin of John) Adams of Masachussets turned the Boston massacres of 1770 and the Boston Tea party into heroic acts of resistance against Britain and he represented the most radical faction of colonial political thought. But the Sons of Liberty were more street hooligans then they were patriots. 

Revolution in trhe colonies was something that began with peaceful protest and attempst at dipoloamtic remonstrances,  progressed tp ignoring and evading taxes, then  boycotts against British goods , smuggling and and the acts of vandalism against Crown property and crown officals and then armed resistance.

The argument aginst an intolerant and tyrannical king was nothing new. Thomas Jefferson (who made George III the cental villian in the Declaration Indepndence) didnt have to look too far back into history to find examples for attracking a king to make the argument for what should happen when that king has forfetied the right to obedience form his subjects.....

Charles II had been desposed and executed in 1649 and James II had been desposed and forced into exile duirng the Glorious Revlution of 1688. They were English kings, deposed by Englishmen....

THROUGOUT THE entire war phase of the revoltion, (1775 to 1781) the popultion of the colonies was divided, there was NEVER a majority of colonists who felt that revoltuon and fighting for political independence was the correct action.

That the ideals advanced by Jefferson and Thomas Paine were uniquely American doesn t wash. Paine was born an an Englishman and he emigrated to the colonies...Jefferson had read John Locke (another Englishman) and other EUROPEAN philosophers Whatever his other strengths and weaknesses were,  Jefferson wrote with SUCH clarity of thought that today his words are STILL CONSIDERED to be THE AMERICAN GOSPEL...his written words BECAME REALITY for many colonists and for succeding generations of American citizens.  THAT was the genius of Jefferson,

Poliitcal revoltion that results in armed resistance and war..is always complicated. The American Revolution whih isspired other revolutions is no ececption.

[z_k_g]

Z_K_G
Everyone has the right to disagree, but base your arguments on facts rather than personal opinions especially when you are arguing history.

Maritime,

I appreciate your facts and I don't disagree with them.

In fact  , I think they support my thesis, which, I might add, is also based on historical facts, and not as you incorrectly state, on my opinion.

Fact: ALL of the members of the founding fathers (the men who signed the Declaration of Independence) were millionaires (in constant dollars), merchants, landowners (plantations), lawyers, judges and men of means i.e, very very rich people most of which had slaves.

Fact: There was not one commoner or regular working man citizen (poor guys) that participated in the framing of the Declaration of Independence, this so called "democratic" proceeding. 

Taxes on goods and services affected these rich people more because they cut into their profits and took away their low price advantage over exports when selling (smuggling) local goods, that's simple economics 101.

The working man never has any direct control over or direct influence concerning such matters.  He simply bought his goods and services and dealt with the higher prices because whether its the king or the local city, he will pay taxes.

Also, I never stated that the Kings taxes were fair, they weren't. 

But the Revolution was started because of TAXES and not aspirations for democracy by the common man or lofty principals of a new republic.  This was not a popular revolt started by the grass roots, it was a rich man's war, fought by poor people, like every war ever fought in history.

The Revolutionary War can be summed up in one sentence:

The rich guys (very few) created rhetoric (good propaganda) to convince the common man (a few million) that he should be pissed off at the King and Parliament because of Taxes, so that the rich guys could make all the money themselves. (Funny, this still works today!)

Our founding fathers (rich guys) also made sure that the common man (poor guys) would NEVER elect the president (king) of the United States of America and they never have. The president (king) is elected by the electoral college (the rich, wealthy and politically connected and their friends).

Our first President was elected by 69 electors, rich men who appointed other rich men to vote for the president.

Further, our nation was actually founded in secret.  Yes, not in any way democratic.  The the formation of the actual Constitution was a secret, behind the doors, cloaked process and purposely not recorded in sessions called "Committees of the Whole".  (work your google button)

Oh Yeah...that group was comprised of pretty much the same millionaires (rich guys) that signed the Declaration of Independence.

Zulu

[maritime04]

I enjoyed your version of the American Revolution, rather simplistic, and pessimistic It’s STILL YOUR POINT OF VIEW. YOU ALSO HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BELIVE THAT.
But where are the facts??
You state all the founding fathers (signers of the declaration of independence) were elites or “rich” I don’t disagree on their wealth, although I think poor john Adams never a very wealthy man….I said they believed in Republicanism, they were more idealistic then you give them credit for, Have you read the declaration of independence? Or what Jefferson originally wrote for the declaration? Looked at anything Adams wrote? Or that nut job Hamilton wrote? John jay? You should because it’s all we have left of the founding fathers what they wrote and what they did is their legacy to us
Your make it sound like 50 rich guys got together pissed off about losing money and voted to start a revolution, it was more like the other way around the Boston massacre, was made of local mass holes looking for trouble with red coats, Lexington and concord were minuteman from the country side, I doubt a millionaire among them……………………
Those rich guys, didn’t even meet together till shots were fired, and a state of conflict already existed, and if my memory serves me the first congress failed to agree on allot of issues. They had to be pushed a prodded by the likes of Adams, Benjamin and Jefferson
Taxation affected the entire colonies, look at them!!! And when the colonies protested, they were smacked down, and that’s what led to the revolution. Angry, pissed off people attacking red coats!
Who said America was a democracy? I never even brought up the word; that brought up a democratic process, I cry REPUBLIC!!!! You want democracy go to Greece. I have no real issue with democracy, but were are not a democratic state, republic in a democracy is what they say, but more like a republic anyway
Listen man this isn’t glen becks show, you want to argue bring up some facts, SHOW ME SOMETHING that comes outside of your personal opinion
The constitution, how about the articles of the confederation, remembers the first law of the land? You can blame the constitution on Madison, and the failure’s of the articles of the confederation. 
The below cannot truly be your argument??

Our founding fathers (rich guys) also made sure that the common man (poor guys) would NEVER elect the president (king) of the United States of America and they never have. The president (king) is elected by the electoral college (the rich, wealthy and politically connected and their friends).

[z_k_g]

I enjoyed your version of the American Revolution, rather simplistic, and pessimistic It’s STILL YOUR POINT OF VIEW. YOU ALSO HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BELIVE THAT.
But where are the facts??

Maritime,

All of my arguments are based on facts. You haven't disputed or challenged any of them, not one.

In summary:

Fact 1: The American Revolution was about Taxes and very Rich People not wanting to pay any additional taxes to the Crown (the King) and sell their goods and services at maximum profit.

Fact 2: Only the Rich and Powerful constituted the Fathers of the country

Fact 3: The final Constitution and subsequent formation of the United States was done in complete secrecy by the very Rich People.  Why?  Because the very Rich People knew that such a formation would be opposed by the populous and rejected and never ratified.

Observed Fact 4: The common man (poor people and the majority) had no stake in the Revolution was apathetic and only got involved through the oratory and rhetoric of Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine and the like using terse propaganda.  Before the Revolution they were poor after the Revolution they were poor not a good reason to go and get yourself killed.

Fact 5:   Very Rich people came here for free land with cheap (indentured servants) or free labor (slaves).  Poor people came here to work and to escape the famines, filth, disease and overcrowding of Europe.  Very few came to the colonies for religious freedom or to escape political persecution.

The power to control and manipulate is not simplistic and the truth is not pessimistic, it's just the truth.

And by the way the Boston "Massacre" was not a massacre, only 5 people died. 

Fact 6: It was an accidental shooting, many many witnesses distinctly heard the command "not to shoot" but in the noise and confusion, the redcoats fired on the crowd.  All of the soldiers who participated were acquitted by a jury of colonists.

The Massacre tag was added to get the public (poor people) riled up and give the common man (who had no reason to get themselves killed) a reason to join the very very Rich guys and challenge the Crown.

Propaganda works.

Your view of history is quoted directly from the history books (written by the winner), you need to dig a bit deeper and read between the lines.

Also, expand your reading list, pick up machiavelli, sun tzu, gore vidals lincoln, and take a shot at nietzsche and dostoyevsky or my personal favorite satirists swift and orwell.  I could suggest many others in my library.  Brush up on your political science, strategy and philosopy your mind will be more open and maybe you will be able to peel back the layers and look at the facts and see the truth.

Until then, this will be a futile venture to discuss further.

Zulu

[z_k_g]

Zulu:  I appreciate the clarification but I did read your entire post including the one quoted here.  I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It does sound very much like you want to control your woman like a king to his subject. No matter how benevolent you say you are, it is a very controlling and domineering attitude.

Deseo,

Thanks for the diligence and your keen interest in my essays.

Once again you got it wrong....but what would the world be if we all agreed on everything?

Well, I've tried to make myself as clear as mud, apparently I've done an excellent job.   But I will say, in my short years I've always found it easier to be the critic, takes less effort, but I digress on that point.

I would suggest you read another essay, not by the benevolent Zulu pray tell, but by Johnathan Swift, entitled, "A Modest Proposal" its quite along the same lines as my posts on this thread, and hopefully you will then appreciate my tone and my delicate and sensitive choice of words.

And then again, maybe not....

Zulu

[maritime04]

i will argue so called fact#1 for reasons i already stated, i also argue so called fact # 4
 
I never argued so called # fact #2, but like i said before Adams may have come from a good background but he wasnt wealthy.
 
The rest just comes out of the blue, i love a good argument, but ? thats the problem with having arguments with unstable people, you said the revolutuion was about Money, that is not wrong, it not totally correct either.
 
your version is how i would explain it to a three year old child, or an angry retarded person. its very black and white, and as everyone knows nothing in life is that simple.............................
 
You attacking me for reading books written by the people who lead and fought in the American revolution?? geez? You bring up issues that are not even in debate? Never once did we talk about the founding of the colonies, never a word uttered about democracy? never did i say how many people died in boston?but thats what they called it.
 
you seem to know your history, we also seem to disagree, thats fine i made my arguments clear. You made yours, thats about the end of it. It looks like you have other posts to respond too............and another issue to defend good luck

[dennislevy]

I wrote a post upthread and I dont know if zulu or maritime04 read it.
 
The 56 men who sigend the Declaration of Independence were successful and wealthy men, but not ALL of them.  Samuel Adams had a string of failures as a merchant, his second cousin John Adams had a farm in Braintree, but most of his income came as a lawyer. and it was John Adams who DEFENDED the British soldiers who had fired into the crowd that was pelting them with rocks and snowball.
 
The armed conflict started in 1775, not 1776, recall that Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill happened well before the Declaration of Indepence was signed in July, 1776 in Philadelphia.
 

[robert angel]

George Washington was somewhat paradoxical. His mother didn't allow him to be signed up with the British Navy at age 15, but he proved himself in battles fighting with the British in the colonies, notably against the French. Part of his later effectiveness in battle against the British was his firsthand knowledge of their military techniques.

By and large, he was anti taxation, notably  in regard to the Stamp Act and Townshend acts, but he favored taxing imported goods in order to promote the domestic economy. Yet he indirectly supported the taxation on liquor, by calling out the troops to suppress the whiskey riots and in doing so, proved for the first time that as a nation, our govt. could protect itself from itself.

He repeatedly spoke out against foreign meddling in domestic affairs and for keeping this nation out of other country's military and economic affairs.

He was a successful planter, who after experiencing some downturns, learned to diversify his interests in that and other business realms.

Washington was not a member of ANY political party--in fact he hoped that none would ever be formed, as he feared that if there were, that conflicts would undermine republicanism. He reluctantly agreed to serve a second term as president and refused a third, setting the precedent for term limits.

He was sometimes at odds with Alexander Hamilton, but for the most part, recognized Hamilton's economic ideas as being wise. As said, while basically anti taxation, he supported Hamilton's programs to pay off all state and national debt, to implement an effective, yet fair tax system and efforts towards the creation of a national bank, despite vehement opposition from that rascal Jefferson.

It seems like he wasn't particularly fond of Thomas Jefferson, who at times he was at odds with, (he almost dismissed Jefferson from his cabinet) but from what I gather, Washington, who had no children, didn't pick favorites among people and never kissed anyone's ass either.
 
While he was by and large beloved by the 'common man' he was a leader in the social elite in Virginia, born to a family with land and money as well as with ties to both the new and old world. From 1768 to 1775, he invited some 2000 guests to his Mount Vernon estate, mostly those he considered "people of rank". Yet for people not of  his own high social status, his advice was to "treat them civilly" but "keep them at a proper distance, for they will grow upon familiarity, in proportion as you sink in authority".

When he died, in his will he listed himself as owning over 52,000 acres. I just returned from Disney World and with all their theme parks, their own city (Celebration) with their own govt., police, fire dept. and vast areas of undeveloped acreage--they still have only 28,000 acres, according to their own records--So George owned a LOT of land!

Last but not least, he used slaves on his land, but as part of his will, upon his death in 1799, he granted freedom to every one of them, providing moneys for job training for the younger ones and old age pensions for the elders.
 
I think the old saying:  First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen" sounds about right...

[dennislevy]

Robert
Washinton DID have favorites among his young aides. Of course, he was straight, he did enjoy the father figure veneration that he received from some. Foremost was the Marquis de Lafayette who was 19 when they first met in 1777 (Washington was 45)....Henry laurens was another favorite as was Tench Tilghman.
 
 

[maritime04]

 rascal Jefferson.................................... explain your self? robert? Alexander Hamilton seems to me to be a bit unstable, and he had ALLOT of conflicts with ALLOT of people, kinda reminds me of Zulu
 
Dennis i saw your post and agree you are correct, Zulu just has a diffrence of a opinion from the populas belief.

[Bob_S]

Zulu just has a diffrence of a opinion from the populas belief.

That he does.  But you have to to do what we do.  If I followed the opinion of the general populus, I'd be married to a woman who weighs more than me, and that's sayin' somethin'!  Also a lot crankier and far more unhealthy.

[maritime04]

I dissagree sir..............................

[dennislevy]

Zulu
56 men signed the Declaration of Indpendence, 39 signed the Constitution, but only 5 men signed both documents....Franklin, Clymer, Read, Morris and Sherman

[Bob_S]

I dissagree sir..............................

Oh?  You should have seen some of the heifers I was encouraged to court before I said screw this and started looking overseas.

[z_k_g]

Zulu
56 men signed the Declaration of Indpendence, 39 signed the Constitution, but only 5 men signed both documents....Franklin, Clymer, Read, Morris and Sherman

Dennis,

Rich people signed both documents, that was my point.

Z

[maritime04]

General opinion doesnt state that you have to marry a "fat cow"......................................................even if you a of larger size, look at "king of queens", the "simpsons", "flinstons", "sopranos" all heavy set guys with thin women! media and pop culture show all women to be attractive? heifers where art tho?? i have been watching MTV and couldnt find any? looked through maxium magaizne no fat cows to be seen? not even playboy?
 
 

[dennislevy]

zulu
I simply can t agree with your thesis that the start of the American Revolution was ONLY all about wealthy men wanting to avoid paying taxes.
 
If you want, I ll discuss the other reasons, just let me know.
 
The wealthy men you mentioned. let s call it a group of 90 men who collectively signed the Declaration of Indpendence in 1776 and the Constitution of 1788 were in amost all cases selected or voted by assemblies to represent the states from which they came. That those assemblies were made up of other white men who owned property...that I admit.
 
But many of these men WORKED to attain and build wealth..and they were hands on plantation owners and merchants.
 
And many of those men brought other attributes then wealth to those conventions. They were well educated (by the standards of the day) , many were well read, and some were geniuses above and apart from their wealth. Among the geniuses Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin and Madison...Those are the obvious examples.
 
They didn t all come from wealth, Franklin MADE himself a wealthy man and Hamilton was a bastard son born in the West Indies who revealed his  precocious genius at a young age and then earned a reputation for himself as a SOLDIER during the war, then MARRIED into the wealthy Schuyler family of New York

What they were was a MERITOCRACY....
 
There are many men whose names DON T appear on either document, many lent their voices to the debate in the 1760 s and 1770s and all fought.  Some came from wealth, some MADE themselves wealthy men, some were NOT wealthy but ther motivations were much more varied then the desire NOT to pay more taxes.
 
Nathaniel Greene of Rhode Island, Eathan Allen of the Vermont Republic, Esek Hopkins of Connecticut (whose brother DID sign the Declaration); John Stark of New Hamshire, John Glover of Massachussets , Daniel Morgan of Virgina, Benedict Arnold of Connecticut, Nathan Hale of Connecticut, Marion, Pickens, Sumter and Sevier  of the Carolinas.....John Paul Jones, John Barry
 
etc.     

[maritime04]

precocious genius....................................I like that denise he was a very intelligent man, unstable but very smart

[dennislevy]

M04
 
Thank you, but my name is Dennis! jejeje
 

[Bob_S]

General opinion doesnt state that you have to marry a "fat cow"...........

Let's say it was the general opinion of my social circle at the time, which was far far outside of Hollywood or the Playboy Mansion.

[Researcher]

Zulu
56 men signed the Declaration of Indpendence, 39 signed the Constitution, but only 5 men signed both documents....Franklin, Clymer, Read, Morris and Sherman

The way I remember history class was that 6 men signed both: Only six people signed the Declaration of Independence and The U. S. Constitution. George Read of Delaware, George Clymer, Ben Franklin, Robert Morris, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut.

     Researcher