JazzboCR wrote:
... Oh, and one more thing--The Founding Fathers didn't sacrifice anything because they were on the winning side--it is correct to say they risked everything but that is the American way--big risk, big reward (until the modern era when risk was socialized and reward was privatized). Those who sacrificed everything were on the Loyalist side, for example, one of Franklin's sons, William (the last Loyalist Governor of New Jersey--and yes, he was a bastard):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_FranklinYou could say that the Founding Fathers "risked" everything rather than "sacrificing" anything if you wanted to parse words, but even that would not be strictly accurate. The "risk" on their part was a virtual certainty, which was that they would suffer, at least in the short term, for taking on what was then the greatest military power on earth. And the ultimate "reward" - namely liberty - was far less certain, first that the rebels would even win and secondly that the old men signing that document would even live to enjoy the fruits of that victory even if the rebels did win. It would have been far easier and safer (and some would say wiser) for them to take the easy path of going with the status quo (like Ben Franklin's son did) because a) the odds and the power were certainly in the Brit's favor b) those select few who signed the declaration for the most part lived lives of comparative wealth and luxury under British rule and so had less personally to gain and c) being for the most part much older, they could easily have lived out the rest of their lives enjoying that luxury. The real reward was not so much for them but for their fellow countrymen and for future generations (namely us). So I think that all EASILY qualifies as a great PERSONAL sacrifice on their part.
But what about William Franklin? How is what happened to him any more a sacrifice or less a risk? He chose the side of the existing power, so the odds were hugely in his favor, and he was really choosing the path of LESS risk. Since it turned out his side lost, he wound up paying a PENALTY. But that is not the same as sacrifice, which is to give up for something for the sake of something else. In the case of the founding fathers that sacrifice was putting their personal fortune and very own lives at great risk for the sake of liberty for all the rest of us. William Franklin gave up a couple of years in a POW camp (because his side lost) and the inheritance he might have gotten from his father (because according to your article "had Britain won the war, the elder Franklin would have had no wealth to leave to his son anyway"), plus he got exiled to England to live out the rest of his years with all his pals. But even if you'd consider that a huge sacrifice what was the something else he gave those things up for? What was the noble principle he was defending beyond simply trying to maintain his own position of wealth and power within the Loyalist establishment? Unlike what the founding fathers chose to do, what he gave up wasn't really a sacrifice at all. It was a consequence.
I wouldn't call losing a bet, particularly one that seemed fairly safe as William Franklin's must have, and paying the consequence to be a sacrifice. However, I WOULD call making a bet where winning seems so unlikely, the personal losses so certain and the ultimate reward if the bet was won really mainly accruing to someone else as perhaps the noblest of personal sacrifices one could make.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
Pura Vida 
