Okay. For openers: John Hancock gained his wealth through his family's relationships with a succession of Massachusetts royal governors; he was an aristocrat of the highest order---at least in colonial terms. When the Stamp Act Crisis first hit Boston, Hancock preached moderation as a loyal British subject . . . until Sam Adams convinced him otherwise. Later, Hancock enjoyed a clandestine, cordial relationship with Thomas Hutchinson; Hutchinson even sought to use their relationship to exploit what he perceived was a split in the Whig party between Adams (Sam) and Hancock.
And let's not forget that Hancock profited handsomely in shipping prior to the Townshend Acts---as a royal aristocrat---and afterwards he probably made even more money as a smuggler. This from a man whose refusal to hand over the Lydia was arguably the first direct act of resistance to British authorities by Massachusetts colonials . . . to say nothing of the Liberty affair.
That's just off the top of my head. Were I at home where I have access to my books, we could discuss in depth the political climate in Boston prior to April 19, 1775 . . . which future revolutionaries were trying to gain favor with the Massachusetts royal government . . . which two Massachusetts political families---one of them who played a key role in fomenting the revolution, of course---had a long-standing political feud over the failure of the revolutionary family to be appointed to a lucrative royal government post . . . which well-known revolutionary was actually supposed to be a royal tea agent for the East India Company.
Even Samuel Adams, arguably the greatest revolutionary of all time, and arguably the most altruistic of the Founding Fathers, could not incite revolution through altruism alone. He had to employ Boston's North End and South End gangs to riot for him during the Stamp Act Crisis, and he sure as hell used their muscle to enforce his boycott of British goods. Plus, he had to wrap some of the rioting around "traditional" riots in Boston like the Guy Fawkes Day riots.
Evidently you consider these people deities, and completely forget they were mortal men. They were great men, but largely, they had the same faults as the rest of us; the same passions and the same weaknesses. Altruism is a crock of sh*t; sorry.
But in case you didn't notice, NONE of which actually spoke to their motives in founding this nation. Your best effort was a feeble shot at character assasination. tsk,tsk You know, you really need to stop working off the top of your head. It's a infertile field that apparently is yielding no fruit. Maybe a little cultivating would help.
Evidently you consider these people deities, and completely forget they were mortal men.
Reminds me of a keeper by Mark Twain: There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. In case you have difficulty making the connection, you made a claim, not based on a trifling bit of fact, but based on no facts whatsoever.
Just a brief refresher, here's what I said: Sounds pretty cynical to me but, what was "in it" for our Founders? Are you cynical enough to believe our Founders for the most part had anything other than honorable motives. That doesn't read like I have any illusions that our Founders were anything but ordinary men that accomplished something extraordinary. Your mileage may vary, however...
Altruism is a crock of sh*t; sorry.
Wow! Very profound... Your truly are a cynical SOB aren't you?