fend some noisy leftist politician or some articulate "liberal" group, and thus be "bad for business"?
If your answer or mine is that we did not let our voices be heard or our influence felt on such issues because we were afraid of possible business reprisals-then what do you think our attitude would have been toward signing a document that could have cost us, not just some business, not just the good or bad will of a greater or fewer number of people- but our lives?
What kind of men were the signers? Did they have their pecularities, their foibles, their jealousies, their vanities, their selfish interests? Of course they did-and so do all men. But that is not the point of importance. The thing to remember is that when the chips were down, they were men!
The piece of paper they had signed was not a thing a signer could squirm out of or explain away later. It was not a vague and general statement of political and social principles. It left no doubt as to its meaning. It did not hint or imply or evade or mince words. In bold phrases it recited the political and economic sins of the King of England, and it declared that the Colonies were free from the rule of the British government. In the eyes of that government, such statements were treasonable; and treason was punishable by death.
When a man put his name to that Document, it could have meant, and there was a very good chance that it would mean, not merely the loss of his business and his property, but his life.
Would you have signed it?
