5 ms·
Just because you dislike the author doesn't make the historic subject at hand wrong. The signers of the declaration knew going into it that they were signing t
by freitzkriesler2 3y ago
Just because you dislike the author doesn't make the historic subject at hand wrong.
The signers of the declaration knew going into it that they were signing their own death warrants should the revolution fail. It's also famously why John Hancock made his signature comically large. Big or small he knew he was going to die if the fight failed.
Don't let your anti americanism get in the way of some American historical trivia.
- morelisp 3y ago> It's also famously why John Hancock made his signature comically large. Big or small he knew he was going to die if the fight failed. Also false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEFowler1980213_158-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock#cite_ref-FOOTNOTE...
- freitzkriesler2 3y agoWhatever, they all knew they were going to die by putting their name on that document big or small. Point still stands.
- toyg 3y agoI'm all for historical trivia, when it comes sourced - or at least from a source reputable in historical matters. This piece is neither.
- keepamovin 3y agoYes, but are you providing any sources for any claims contrary to those made here?
- nickthegreek 3y agoThey are under no obligation to. The person writing the piece is the one who should be providing footnotes to their new claims.
- keepamovin 3y agoSure they are. This seems just a restatement of facts about US history. if you’re going to counter that you have to provide sources. Otherwise it’s not credible. If it’s so obviously wrong, why not just source to where it’s wrong? the repetition of dislike, or whatever at the article without sources is suspicious and ideological. Why would your support that?