He wasn't the most important person who signed it
2007-04-02 08:42:33 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Shouldn't Thomas Jeffersons be the biggest?
2007-04-02 08:46:25 · update #1
Alan S....thats makes sense! and is funny too!
2007-04-02 08:49:23 · update #2
The story is, he was told that King George III needed glasses to read, so he is said to have written his name so large that he'd have no trouble know that Handcock had signed it.
From a site about him:
'A decree had been delivered from England in early 1776 offering a large reward for the capture of several leading figures. Hancock was one of them. On signing the Declaration he commented, "The British ministry can read that name without spectacles; let them double their reward."'
2007-04-02 08:52:53 · answer #1 · answered by WolverLini 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hancock doesn't figure very large in the mythos of American history, however, at the time, he was the presiding member (referred to as the 'President') of the Continental Congress. He was not the only President of the Continental Congress, he was simply the one in office at the time of the Declaration. He was, for all intents and purposes, the elected leader of the United States at the time of the Declaration. Considering that signing the Declaration was pretty much an admission that these men were committing treason against the crown, and considering it was tantamount to signing their own death sentences had they been captured, it took amazing courage for these men to lay it all on the line.
The myth about signing it so large that King George could read it, is just that. A myth. There's no historical evidence of such a statement.
It's an interesting sidenote that George Washington was not the first US President. He was the first President elected after the ratification of the Constitution, but there were seven men who served one year terms as President of the United States between the signing of the Treaty of Paris, ending America's involvement in the revolution (the war continued between the other countries involved) and the Constitutional Convention.
2007-04-02 08:53:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
they're proper in that he did not say some thing about the King as he signed it. He became the first to signal it, and as President of the Continental Congress, the merely delegate to genuinely signal it on July 4, 1776. The source would not clarify why it really is so huge nonetheless.
2016-12-03 03:55:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The honest, historically-proven truth about Hancock's signature is this:
He just wrote big. That's all. The thing about the King being able to read it is a myth.
Why he wrote is so big is unknown; he just did.
2007-04-02 10:17:12 · answer #4 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
just an in-your-face response to the king from someone with a death sentence on their head.
2007-04-02 09:13:32 · answer #5 · answered by RockHunter 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's said that he signed large enough for the King of England to be able to read his name without his glasses
2007-04-02 08:47:56 · answer #6 · answered by Alan S 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
he was the first to sign it and he wanted to make sure the king (and others) would see his name.
2007-04-02 08:50:42 · answer #7 · answered by dwalkercpa 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He wanted the king to be able to read it easily.
2007-04-02 08:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He probably had a huge ego.
2007-04-02 08:50:16 · answer #9 · answered by Randy Johnson's Mullet 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
he wrote big
2007-04-02 08:47:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋