Full Text of Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Even if you read it in school, it bares reading again.
INTRODUCTION
PERHAPS the sentiments contained
in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them
general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a
superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry
in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than
reason.
As a long and violent abuse of
power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in
matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been
aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his
own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good
people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an
undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to
reject the usurpations of either. In the following sheets, the author hath
studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments
as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy
need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious
or unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too much pains is bestowed upon
their conversion.
The cause of America is, in a
great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will
arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of
all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections
are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring
war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders
thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature
hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure,
is THE AUTHOR. - Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.
CHAPTER 1
OF
THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL. WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE
ENGLISH CONSTITUTION.
SOME writers have so confounded
society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them;
whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is
produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes
our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by
restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates
distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a
blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its
worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same
miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without
government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the
means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost
innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of
paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly
obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds
it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the
protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which
in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore,
security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows
that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the
least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just
idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of
persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the
rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the
world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A
thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so
unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he
is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn
requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable
dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common
period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber
he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean
time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a
different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither
might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a
state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a
gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society,
the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations
of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each
other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably
happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration,
which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their
duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the
necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of
moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford
them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble
to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws
will have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty
than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right
will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the
public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members
may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on
every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations
near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the
convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by
a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same
concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the
same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony
continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the
representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be
attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts,
each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to
themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the
propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means
return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months,
their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not
making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a
common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and
naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king)
depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here then is the origin and rise
of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral
virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz.,
freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our
ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest
darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it
is right.
I draw my idea of the form of
government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that
the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the
easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few
remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for
the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted.
When the world was overrun with
tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect,
subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is
easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments (though the
disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple;
if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs,
know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and
cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the
nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which
part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every
political physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get
over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to
examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to
be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new
republican materials.
- First.- The remains of
monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.
- Secondly.- The remains of
aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.
- Thirdly.- The new republican
materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom
of England.
The two first, by being
hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense
they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of
England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is
farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
To say that the commons is a
check upon the king, presupposes two things.
- First.- That the king is not to
be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for
absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.
- Secondly.- That the commons, by
being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence
than the crown. But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to
check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power
to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again
supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be
wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
There is something exceedingly
ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the
means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest
judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business
of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts,
unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be
absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the
English constitution thus; the king, say they, is one, the people another; the
peers are an house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people;
but this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against itself; and
though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear
idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction
that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which
either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of
description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear,
they cannot inform the mind, for this explanation includes a previous question,
viz. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and
always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people,
neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision,
which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to
the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole
affair is a felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up the
less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only
remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that
will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the
phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop
it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last
have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this
overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that
it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places pensions
is self evident, wherefore, though we have and wise enough to shut and lock a
door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to
put the crown in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen, in
favor of their own government by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or
more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in
England than in some other countries, but the will of the king is as much the
law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of
proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the most
formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First,
hath only made kings more subtle not- more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all
national pride and prejudice in favor of modes and forms, the plain truth is,
that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the
constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England
as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the
constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly
necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to
others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so
neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any
obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted
to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favor of a rotten
constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.
CHAPTER
2
OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
MANKIND being originally equals
in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some
subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great
measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh,
ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the
consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will
preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too
timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and greater
distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and
that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are
the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a
race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished
like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means
of happiness or of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world,
according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of
which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into
confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century
than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same
remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy
something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish
royalty. Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the
Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most
prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry.
The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian
world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How
impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of
his splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so
greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so
neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the
Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves
of government by kings. All anti-monarchial parts of scripture have been very
smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments, but they undoubtedly merit the
attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. Render unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar’s is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet
it is no support of monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were
without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans. Near three thousand
years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under
a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government
(except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of
republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had
none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the
Lords of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage
which is paid to the persons of kings he need not wonder, that the Almighty,
ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so
impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture
as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced
against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being
oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and
victory, through the divine interposition, decided in his favor. The Jews elate
with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making
him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son’s son. Here
was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary
one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over you,
neither shall my son rule over you, THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need
not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honor but denieth their right
to give it; neither doth be compliment them with invented declarations of his
thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection
to their proper sovereign, the King of Heaven.
About one hundred and thirty
years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the
Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly
unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel’s
two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt
and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old and thy sons walk
not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations. And
here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz., that they might
be like unto other nations, i.e., the Heathen, whereas their true glory laid in
being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when
they said, give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the
Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they
say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THEN
I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which have done since
the day; wherewith they brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith
they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now
therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and
show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e., not of any
particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel
was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time
and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told
all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he
said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will
take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots, and to be his
horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with
the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over
thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to
read his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his
chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries and to be cooks
and to be bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the
oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even
the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of
your seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his
servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the
standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and
your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them
to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his
servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall
have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the
continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which
have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the
origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a
king, but only as a man after God’s own heart. Nevertheless the People refused
to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over
us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go
out before us and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but
to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail;
and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the
Lord, and he shall sent thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being
the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is
great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So
Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and
all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel And all the people said unto
Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE
HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture
are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction.
That the Almighty hath here
entered his protest against monarchial government is true, or the scripture is
false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of
kingcraft, as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in
Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.
To the evil of monarchy we have
added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and
lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an
insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no
one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference
to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of
honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to
inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary
right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so
frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion. Secondly,
as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed
upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away the
right of posterity, and though they might say, “We choose you for our head,”
they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, “that your
children and your children’s children shall reign over ours for ever.” Because
such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next
succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men,
in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt;
yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily
removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful
part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present
race of kings in the world to have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more
than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace
them to their first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better
than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners of
preeminence in subtlety obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and
who by increasing in power, and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet
and defenseless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors
could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such
a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and
unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary
succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of
claim, but as something casual or complemental; but as few or no records were
extant in those days, and traditionary history stuffed with fables, it was very
easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious
tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the
throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to
threaten on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among
ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at first to favor hereditary
pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what
at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.
England, since the conquest, hath
known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad
ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the
Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed
banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the
natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath
no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the
folly of hereditary right, if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them
promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their
humility, nor disturb their devotion. Yet I should be glad to ask how they
suppose kings came at first? The question admits but of three answers, viz.,
either by lot, by election, or by usurpation.
If the first king was taken by
lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary
succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither
does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should. If
the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a
precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is
taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a
king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of
scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all
men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other,
hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in
the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to
Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first,
and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some
former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and
hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connection!
Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
As to usurpation, no man will be
so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a
fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English
monarchy will not bear looking into.
But it is not so much the
absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it
ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority,
but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked; and the improper, it hath in
it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and
others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their
minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so
materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of
knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are
frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends
hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor
at any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have
every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust.
The same national misfortune
happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of
human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every
miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or
infancy.
The most plausible plea, which
hath ever been offered in favor of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves
a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it
is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of
England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that
distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including
the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions.
Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very
foundation it seems to stand on.
The contest for monarchy and
succession, between the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene
of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges,
were fought between Henry and Edward.
Twice was Henry prisoner to
Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of
war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the
ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace,
and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden
transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the
throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the
strongest side.
This contest began in the reign
of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh,
in whom the families were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz., from
1422 to 1489. In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that
kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. ‘Tis a form of government which
the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.
If we inquire into the business
of a king, we shall find that (in some countries they have none) and after
sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the
nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same
idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business civil and
military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request for a king,
urged this plea “that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our
battles.” But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general, as in
England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.
The nearer any government
approaches to a republic, the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat
difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William
Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the
name, because the corrupt influence If the crown, by having all the places in
its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the
virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that
the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain.
Men fall out with names without
understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of
the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz., the liberty of
choosing a house of commons from out of their own body and it is easy to see
that when the republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. My is the constitution
of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown
hath engrossed the commons? In England a king hath little more to do than to
make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the
nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to
be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the
bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God,
than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.
CHAPTER 3 THOUGHTS OF THE PRESENT STATE OF
AMERICAN AFFAIRS
IN the following pages I offer
nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no
other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself
of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to
determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will not put
off the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the
present day.
Volumes have been written on the
subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have
embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs;
but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the
last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and
the continent hath accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late
Mr. Pelham (who tho’ an able minister was not without his faults) that on his
being attacked in the house of commons, on the score, that his measures were
only of a temporary kind, replied, “they will fast my time.” Should a thought
so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present contest, the name of
ancestors will be remembered by future generations with detestation.
The sun never shined on a cause
of greater worth. ‘Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a
kingdom, but of a continent- of at least one eighth part of the habitable
globe. ‘Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are
virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to
the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental
union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved
with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; The wound will
enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters.
By referring the matter from
argument to arms, a new area for politics is struck; a new method of thinking
hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April,
i.e., to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacs of the last
year; which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now.
Whatever was advanced by the
advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in one and the same
point, viz., a union with Great Britain; the only difference between the
parties was the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other
friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the
second hath withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the
advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away
and left us as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the contrary
side of the argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which
these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with, and
dependant on Great Britain. To examine that connection and dependance, on the
principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if
separated, and what we are to expect, if dependant.
I have heard it asserted by some,
that as America hath flourished under her former connection with Great Britain,
that the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will
always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of
argument. We may as well assert, that because a child has thrived upon milk,
that it is never to have meat; or that the first twenty years of our lives is
to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than
is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and
probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The
commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and
will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say
some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our
expense as well as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from
the same motive, viz., the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas! we have been long led away
by ancient prejudices and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have
boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive
was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on
our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no
quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the
same account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the
continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and
Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war, ought to
warn us against connections.
It hath lately been asserted in
parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the
parent country, i.e., that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the
rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very
roundabout way of proving relation ship, but it is the nearest and only true
way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor
perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of
Great Britain.
But Britain is the parent
country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not
devour their young; nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the
assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or
only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically
adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining
an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England,
is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the
persecuted lovers off civil and religious liberty from every Part of Europe.
Hither have they fled, not from
the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it
is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first
emigrants from home pursues their descendants still.
In this extensive quarter of the
globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent
of England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood
with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what
regular gradations we surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance
with the world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will
naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their interests
in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name of neighbor; if
he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street,
and salutes him by the name of townsman; if he travels out of the county, and
meet him in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and
calls him countryman; i.e., countyman; but if in their foreign excursions they
should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local remembrance
would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning,
all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are
countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the
whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of
street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental
minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English
descent. Wherefore, I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied
to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.
But admitting that we were all of
English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open
enemy, extinguishes every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation
is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present line
(William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the peers of England are
descendants from the same country; wherefore by the same method of reasoning,
England ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united
strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid
defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is
uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would
never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants to support the British arms in
either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Besides, what have we to do with
setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended
to,will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because it is the
interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a
protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate
for reconciliation, to show, a single advantage that this continent can reap,
by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single
advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe,
and our imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will. But the
injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are without number;
and our duty to mankind I at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to
renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependance on Great
Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and
quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our
friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is
our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of
it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions,
which she never can do, while by her dependance on Britain, she is made the
makeweight in the scale of British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted
with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between
England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of
her connection with Britain. The next war may not turn out like the Past, and
should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for
separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than
a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The
blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘tis time to part.
Even the distance at which the
Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that
the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The
time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument,
and the manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it. The
reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty
graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when
home should afford neither friendship nor safety.
The authority of Great Britain
over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have
an end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under
the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls “the present
constitution” is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that
this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may
bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the
next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them
meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we
should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther
into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and
prejudices conceal from our sight.
Though I would carefully avoid
giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who
espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following
descriptions: Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men who cannot
see; prejudiced men who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who
think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class by an
ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent
than all the other three.
It is the good fortune of many to
live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to
their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American
property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for a few moments
to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for
ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that
unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now
no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg.
Endangered by the fire of their
friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they
leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the hope of
redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to
the fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look
somewhat lightly over the offenses of Britain, and, still hoping for the best,
are apt to call out, Come we shall be friends again for all this. But examine
the passions and feelings of mankind. Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to
the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love,
honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into
your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves,
and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with
Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and
being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time
fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still
pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath you
property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute
of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by
their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not,
then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still
shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband,
father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you
have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or
exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which
nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the
social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit
horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and
unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object.
It is not in the power of Britain
or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and
timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost
or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is
no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he
will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.
It is repugnant to reason, to the
universal order of things, to all examples from the former ages, to suppose,
that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most
sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom
cannot, at this time compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the
continent even a year’s security. Reconciliation is was a fallacious dream.
Nature hath deserted the connection, and Art cannot supply her place. For, as
Milton wisely expresses, “never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of
deadly hate have pierced so deep.” Every quiet method for peace hath been
ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to
convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in kings more
than repeated petitioning- and nothing hath contributed more than that very
measure to make the kings of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden.
Wherefore since nothing but blows will do, for God’s sake, let us come to a
final separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats,
under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child.
To say, they will never attempt
it again is idle and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp act,
yet a year or two undeceived us; as well me we may suppose that nations, which
have been once defeated, will never renew the quarrel. As to government
matters, it is not in the powers of Britain to do this continent justice: The
business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any
tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so very
ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us.
To be always running three or
four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for
an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will
in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishnessthere was a time when it
was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.
Small islands not capable of
protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their
care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be
perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the
satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with
respect to each Other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they
belong to different systems: England to Europe- America to itself.
I am not induced by motives of
pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and
independence; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it
is the true interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of that
is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,- that it is leaving
the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time, when, a little more, a
little farther, would have rendered this continent the glory of the earth.
As Britain hath not manifested
the least inclination towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can
be obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the
expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to.
The object contended for, ought
always to bear some just proportion to the expense. The removal of the North,
or the whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have
expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have
sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such
repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every
man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a
contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the
acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a
folly to pay a Bunker Hill price for law, as for land. As I have always
considered the independency of this continent, as an event, which sooner or
later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to
maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of
hostilities, it was not worth the while to have disputed a matter, which time
would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it
is like wasting an estate of a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a
tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for
reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775
(Massacre at Lexington), but the moment the event of that day was made known, I
rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain
the wretch, that with the pretended title of Father of his people, can
unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon
his soul.
But admitting that matters were
now made up, what would be the event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And
that for several reasons: First. The powers of governing still remaining in the
hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this
continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty,
and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power, is he, or is he not, a proper
man to say to these colonies, “You shall make no laws but what I please?” And
is there any inhabitants in America so ignorant, as not to know, that according
to what is called the present constitution, that this continent can make no
laws but what the king gives leave to? and is there any man so unwise, as not
to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no Law to be made
here, but such as suit his purpose? We may be as effectually enslaved by the
want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After
matters are make up (as it is called) can there be any doubt but the whole
power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as
possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually
quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. We are already greater than the king
wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring
the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a
proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an independent,
for independency means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or
whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall
tell us, “there shall be now laws but such as I like.” But the king you will
say has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his
consent. in point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous,
that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several
millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of
yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will
never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that England being
the king’s residence, and America not so, make quite another case. The king’s
negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England,
for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England
into as strong a state of defence as possible, and in America he would never
suffer such a bill to be passed.
America is only a secondary
object in the system of British politicsEngland consults the good of this
country, no farther than it answers her own purpose.
Wherefore, her own interest leads
her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which doth not promote her
advantage, or in the least interfere with it. A pretty state we should soon be
in under such a second-hand government, considering what has happened! Men do
not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name; and in order to
show that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would
be policy in the kingdom at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of
reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in order, that he may
accomplish by craft and subtlety, in the long run, what he cannot do by force
ans violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
Secondly. That as even the best
terms, which we can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary
expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer
than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things, in
the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising.
Emigrants of property will not
choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and
who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and
numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispose
of their effects, and quit the continent.
But the most powerful of all
arguments, is, that nothing but independence, i.e., a continental form of
government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from
civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is
more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other,
the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain.
Thousands are already ruined by
British barbarity; (thousands more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those
men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess
is liberty, what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having
nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general temper of
the colonies, towards a British government, will be like that of a youth, who
is nearly out of his time, they will care very little about her. And a
government which cannot preserve the peace, is no government at all, and in
that case we pay our money for nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can
do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the
very day after reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I
believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded independence, fearing that it
would produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread from
a patched up connection than from independence. I make the sufferers case my
own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property
destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of injuries, I
could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound
thereby.
The colonies have manifested such
a spirit of good order and obedience to continental government, as is
sufficient to make every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man
can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, that such as
are truly childish and ridiculous, viz., that one colony will be striving for
superiority over another.
Where there are no distinctions
there can be no superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The
republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and
Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic; monarchical governments, it
is true, are never long at rest: the crown itself is a temptation to
enterprising ruffians at home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever
attendant on regal authority swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances
where a republican government, by being formed on more natural principles,
would negotiate the mistake.
If there is any true cause of
fear respecting independence it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not
see their way out; wherefore, as an opening into that business I offer the
following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other
opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise to
something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected,
they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve to useful
matter.
Let the assemblies be annual,
with a President only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly
domestic, and subject to the authority of a continental congress.
Let each colony be divided into
six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number
of delegates to congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole
number in congress will be at least three hundred ninety.
Each congress to sit..... and to
choose a president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a
colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which let the
whole congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that
province. I the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only,
omitting that colony from which the president was taken in the former congress,
and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation.
And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just,
not less than three fifths of the congress to be called a majority. He that
will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would join
Lucifer in his revolt.
But as there is a peculiar
delicacy, from whom, or in what manner, this business must first arise, and as
it seems most agreeable and consistent, that it should come from some
intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that is between the
Congress and the people, let a Continental Conference be held, in the following
manner, and for the following purpose: A committee of twenty-six members of
Congress, viz., two for each colony.
Two members for each house of
assembly, or provincial convention; and five representatives of the people at
large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province, for, and in
behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified voters as shall think proper
to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose; or, if more
convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or three of the most
populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus assembled, will be united, the
two grand principles of business, knowledge and power. The members of Congress,
Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will
be able and useful counsellors, and the whole, being empowered by the people
will have a truly legal authority.
The conferring members being met,
let their business be to frame a Continental Charter, or Charter of the United
Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England) fixing the
number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with
their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction
between them: always remembering, that our strength is continental, not
provincial: Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things the
free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such
other matter as is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which,
the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen
conformable to the said charter, to be the legislators and governors of this
continent for the time being: Whose peace and happiness, may God preserve,
Amen.
Should any body of men be
hereafter delegated for this or some similar purpose, I offer them the
following extracts from that wise observer on governments Dragonetti. “The
science” says he, “of the politician consists in fixing the true point of
happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who
should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of
individual happiness, with the least national expense.”Dragonetti on Virtue and
Rewards.
But where says some is the king
of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of
mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective
even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the
charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let
a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we
approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments
the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought
to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at
the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people
whose right it is.
A government of our own is our
natural right: And when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human
affairs, he will become convinced, that it is in finitely wiser and safer, to
form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in
our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we
omit it now, some Massenello1 may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular
disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by
assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties
of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of America return again
into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a
temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a
case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news the fatal
business might be done, and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under
the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not
what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the
seat of government.
There are thousands and tens of
thousands; who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that
barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to
destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and
treacherously by them. To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason
forbids us to have faith, and our affections, (wounded through a thousand
pores) instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out 1
Thomas Anello, otherwise Massenello, a fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting
up his countrymen in the public market place, against the oppression of the
Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and in
the space of a day became king.
the little remains of kindred
between us and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the
relationship expires, the affection will increase, or that we shall agree
better, when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than
ever? Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the
time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither
can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people
of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which nature
cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover
forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of
Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these inextinguishable feelings for
good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They
distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would
dissolve, and justice be extirpated the earth, of have only a casual existence
were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber and the murderer, would
often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke
us into justice.
O ye that love mankind! Ye that
dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of
the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the
globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her.
Europe regards her like a
stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart.
O! receive the fugitive, and
prepare in time an asylum for mankind.
CHAPTER
4
OF
THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME
MISCELLANEOUS REFLECTIONS
I HAVE never met with a man,
either in England or America, who hath not confessed his opinion, that a
separation between the countries, would take place one time or other. And there
is no instance in which we have shown less judgment, than in endeavoring to
describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for
independence.
As all men allow the measure, and
vary only in their opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes,
take a general survey of things and endeavor if possible, to find out the very
time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for the time hath
found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things prove the
fact. It is not in numbers but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our
present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. The
Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of armed and disciplined men of
any power under Heaven; and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which
no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, who united can
accomplish the matter, and either more, or, less than this, might be fatal in
its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we
cannot be insensible, that Britain would never suffer an American man of war to
be built while the continent remained in her hands. Wherefore we should be no
forwarder an hundred years hence in that branch, than we are now; but the truth
is, we should be less so, because the timber of the country is every day
diminishing, and that which will remain at last, will be far off and difficult
to procure.
Were the continent crowded with
inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances would be
intolerable. The more sea port towns we had, the more should we have both to
defend and to loose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned to our
wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and
the necessities of an army create a new trade. Debts we have none; and whatever
we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue.
Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independent
constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend
millions for the sake of getting a few we acts repealed, and routing the
present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the
utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt
upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is
unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a
peddling politician. The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if
the work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a debt. A national
debt is a national bond; and when it bears no interest, is in no case a
grievance. Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty
millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as
a compensation for her debt, she has a large navy; America is without a debt,
and without a navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English national debt,
could have a navy as large again. The navy of England is not worth, at this
time, more than three millions and a half sterling.
The first and second editions of
this pamphlet were published without the following calculations, which are now
given as a proof that the above estimation of the navy is a just one. (See
Entick’s naval history, intro. page 56.) The charge of building a ship of each
rate, and furnishing her with masts, yards, sails and rigging, together with a
proportion of eight months boatswain’s and carpenter’s sea-stores, as
calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the navy, is as follows:
For a ship of
100 guns 135,553
90 29,886
80 23,638
70 17,785
60 14,197
50 10,606
40 7,558
30 5,846
20 3,710
And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost
rather, of the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was as its
greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns: Ships Guns Cost of
one Cost of all
6 100 135,533 1,213,318
12 90 29,886
358,632
12 80 23,638
283,656
43 70 17,785
746,755
35 60 14,197
496,895
40 50 10,606
424,240
45 40 7,758 344,110
58 20 3,710 215,180
85 Sloops, bombs, and and fireships,
one another,
2,000 170,000
Cost 3,266,786
Remains
for guns 229,214
Total 3,500,000
No country on the globe is so happily situated, so
internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and
cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the
Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards
and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought
to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural
manufactory of this country. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when
finished is worth more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy,
in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not,
we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and
silver.
In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into
great errors; it is not necessary that one-fourth part should be sailors. The
privateer Terrible, Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of any ship
last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, though her complement of men was
upwards of two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a
sufficient number of active landsmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore,
we never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than now, while our
timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights
out of employ. Men of war of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago
in New England, and why not the same now? Ship building is America’s greatest
pride, and in which, she will in time excel the whole world. The great empires
of the east are mostly inland, and consequently excluded from the possibility
of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe,
hath either such an extent or coast, or such an internal supply of materials.
Where nature hath given the one, she has withheld the other; to America only
hath she been liberal of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out
from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are
only articles of commerce.
In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are
not the little people now, which we were sixty years ago; at that time we might
have trusted our property in the streets, or fields rather; and slept securely
without locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The case now is altered, and
our methods of defence ought to improve with our increase of property. A common
pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city
of Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased; and the
same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of
fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the whole Continent, and carried
off half a million of money. These are circumstances which demand our
attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.
Some, perhaps, will say, that
after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise
as to mean, that she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common
sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of
all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the
pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at
last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted into our
harbors, I would ask, how is she to protect us? A navy three or four thousand
miles off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all.
Wherefore, if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves?
Why do it for another? The English list of ships of war is long and formidable,
but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service, numbers of
them not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the list, if only
a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part, of such as are fit for
service, can be spared on any one station at one time. The East, and West
Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her
claim, make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and
inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England,
and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and
for that reason, supposed that we must have one as large; which not being
instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised tories to
discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth than this;
for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she
would be by far an over match for her; because, as we neither have, nor claim
any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where
we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had
three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the
same distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain by
her fleet, hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over
her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the neighborhood of the Continent, is entirely at its
mercy.
Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in
time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant navy.
If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in their
service, ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns, (the premiums
to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchants) fifty or sixty of
those ships, with a few guard ships on constant duty, would keep up a
sufficient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly
complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie
rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defence is sound
policy; for when our strength and our riches, play into each other’s hand, we
need fear no external enemy.
In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp
flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is superior
to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannon we
can cast at pleasure.
Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our
knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and
courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is
it that we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is
once admitted to the government of America again, this Continent will not be
worth living in. Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be
constantly happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his
life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The difference
between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shows
the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but
Continental authority can regulate Continental matters.
Another reason why the present time is preferable to all
others, is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet
unoccupied, which instead of being lavished by the king on his worthless
dependents, may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the present
debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under heaven hath
such an advantage as this.
The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far
from being against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are
sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is a
matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the smaller
their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far exceeded the moderns:
and the reason is evident, for trade being the consequence of population, men
become too much absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce
diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defence. And history
sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished
in the non-age of a nation. With the increase of commerce England hath lost its
spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued
insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less
willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit
to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.
Youth is the seed-time of good habits, as well in nations
as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the
Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast variety of
interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would create
confusion. Colony would be against colony.
Each being able might scorn each other’s assistance: and
while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise
would lament that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present
time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in
infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune, are, of all others,
the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these
characters: we are young, and we have been distressed; but our concord hath
withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in.
The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which
never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into a
government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have
been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws
for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas,
the articles or charter of government, should be formed first, and men
delegated to execute them afterwards: but from the errors of other nations, let
us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity- to begin government
at the right end.
When William the Conqueror subdued England he gave them law
at the point of the sword; and until we consent that the seat of government in
America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of
having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same
manner, and then, where will be our freedom? where our property? As to
religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect
all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which
government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul,
that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so
unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that
head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good
society. For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of
the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It
affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of
thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on
this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be
like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called their
Christian names.
Earlier in this work, I threw out a few thoughts on the
propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not
plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of rementioning the subject, by
observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation,
which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part,
whether of religion, personal freedom, or property, A firm bargain and a right
reckoning make long friends.
In a former page I likewise
mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation; and there is no
political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors,
or a small number of representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number
of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased.
As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the Associators petition
was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania; twentyeight members only were
present, all the Bucks County members, being eight, voted against it, and had
seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole province had been
governed by two counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The
unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to
gain an undue authority over the delegates of that province, ought to warn the
people at large, how they trust power out of their own hands. A set of
instructions for the Delegates were put together, which in point of sense and
business would have dishonored a school-boy, and after being approved by a few,
a very few without doors, were carried into the house, and there passed in
behalf of the whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know, with what
ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would
not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a trust.
Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if
continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different
things. When the calamities of America required a consultation, there was no
method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the
several Houses of Assembly for that purpose and the wisdom with which they have
proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is more than
probable that we shall never be without a Congress, every wellwisher to good
order, must own, that the mode for choosing members of that body, deserves
consideration. And I put it as a question to those, who make a study of
mankind, whether representation and election is not too great a power for one
and the same body of men to possess? When we are planning for posterity, we
ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims,
and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr. Cornwall (one
of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the petition of the New York Assembly
with contempt, because that House, he said, consisted but of twenty-six
members, which trifling number, he argued, could not with decency be put for
the whole. We thank him for his involuntary honesty.2 To conclude: However
strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be to think so,
matters not, but many strong and striking reasons may be given, to show, that
nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined
declaration for independence. Some of which are: 2 Those who would fully
understand of what great consequence a large and equal representation is to a
state, should read Burgh’s political Disquisitions.
- First. It is the custom of nations, when any two are at
war, for some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as
mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace: but while America
calls herself the subject of Great Britain, no power, however well disposed she
may be, can offer her mediation. Wherefore, in our present state we may quarrel
on for ever.
- Secondly. It is unreasonable to suppose, that France or
Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only to make use of that
assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and strengthening the
connection between Britain and America; because, those powers would be
sufferers by the consequences.
- Thirdly. While we profess ourselves the subjects of
Britain, we must, in the eye of foreign nations, be considered as rebels. The
precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to be in arms under the
name of subjects; we on the spot, can solve the paradox: but to unite
resistance and subjection, requires an idea much too refined for common understanding.
- Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched
to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured, and the
peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress; declaring, at the
same time, that not being able, any longer to live happily or safely under the
cruel disposition of the British court, we had been driven to the necessity of
breaking off all connection with her; at the same time assuring all such courts
of our peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into
trade with them. Such a memorial would produce more good effects to this
Continent, than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.
Under our present denomination of British subjects we can
neither be received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts is against us,
and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations.
These proceedings may at first
appear strange and difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already
passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an
independence is declared, the continent will feel itself like a man who
continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it
must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted
with the thoughts of its necessity.
APPENDIX
SINCE the publication of the first edition of this
pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the king’s speech
made its appearance in this city.
Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this
production, it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture,
or a more necessary time. The bloody-mindedness of the one, show the necessity
of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the
speech instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of
independence.
Ceremony, and even, silence, from
whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the
least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this
maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king’s speech, as being a
piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a general execration
both by the congress and the people. Yet as the domestic tranquility of a
nation, depends greatly on the chastity of what may properly be called national
manners, it is often better, to pass some things over in silent disdain, than
to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least
innovation, on that guardian of our peace and safety. And perhaps, it is
chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the king’s speech, hath not before
now, suffered a public execution. The speech if it may be called one, is
nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common
good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of
offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this general massacre
of mankind, is one of the privileges, and the certain consequences of kings; for
as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of
our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their creators.
The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to
deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and
tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line
convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He, who hunts the woods for
prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a savage than the king of
Britain. Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical piece,
fallaciously called, The address of the people of ENGLAND to the inhabitants of
America, hath, perhaps from a vain supposition, that the people here were to be
frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given, (though very unwisely
on his part) the real character of the present one: “But,” says this writer,
“if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not
complain of,” (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham’s at the repeal of the Stamp Act) “it is very
unfair in you to withhold them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were
permitted to do anything.” This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry
even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath
forfeited his claim to rationality an apostate from the order of manhood; and
ought to be considered- as one, who hath, not only given up the proper dignity
of a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawl
through the world like a worm.
However, it matters very little now, what the king of
England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and
human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by a steady
and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an
universal hatred. It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She
hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care
of, than to be granting away her property, to support a power who is become a
reproach to the names of men and Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch
over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as
well as ye, who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye
wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye
must in secret wish a separation But leaving the moral part to private
reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following heads:
- First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.
- Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,
reconciliation or independence? with some occasional remarks.
In support of the first, I could,
if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most
experienced men on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not
yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in
a state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped and
fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence.
America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the progress which she
hath made stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but
childhood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as
she ought to have, the legislative powers in her own hands.
England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do
her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating on a
matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected.
It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by
which England is to be benefited, and that would in a great measure continue,
were the countries as independent of each other as France and Spain; because in
many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the independence of
this country on Britain or any other which is now the main and only object
worthy of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered by necessity,
will appear clearer and stronger every day.
- First. Because it will come to that one time or other.
- Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it
will be to accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself both in public and private
companies, with silently remarking the spacious errors of those who speak
without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the following seems
the most general, viz., that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years
hence, instead of now, the Continent would have been more able to have shaken
off the dependance. To which I reply, that our military ability at this time,
arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty
years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by that
time, have had a General, or even a military officer left; and we, or those who
may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient
Indians: And this single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove,
that the present time is preferable to all others: The argument turns thus- at
the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and
forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience;
wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point between the
two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper
increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time.
The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not
properly come under the head I first set out with, and to which I again return
by the following position, viz.: Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and
she to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, (which as matters
are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive
ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have or may contract. The
value of the back lands which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived
of, by the unjust extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds
sterling per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twentyfive millions,
Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to
two millions yearly.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk,
without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen,
and in time, will wholly support the yearly expense of government. It matters
not how long the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to
the discharge of it, and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time
being, will be the continental trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the
earliest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? with some
occasional remarks.
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out
of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally- That INDEPENDENCE
being a SINGLE SIMPLE LINE, contained within ourselves; and reconciliation, a
matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which, a treacherous
capricious court is to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man
who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government, without any
other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held
together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless
subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our
present condition, is, legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a
constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect
Independence contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent;
the case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The
property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind
of the multitude is left at random, and feeling no fixed object before them,
they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts.
Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason;
wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The tories
dared not to have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives, by
that act were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should
be drawn, between English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America
taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one
forfeits his liberty the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness
in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The
Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not done in time,
it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither
reconciliation nor independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless
adherents are got at their old game of dividing the continent, and there are
not wanting among us printers, who will be busy spreading specious falsehoods.
The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in two of
the New York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are
men who want either judgment or honesty.
It is easy getting into holes and corners and talking of
reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how difficult the task is,
and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent divide thereon. Do they
take within their view, all the various orders of men whose situation and
circumstances, as well as their own, are to be considered therein. Do they put
themselves in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the
soldier, who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill
judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only, regardless of
others, the event will convince them, that “they are reckoning without their
Host.” Put us, says some, on the footing we were in the year 1763: To which I
answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither
will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a
reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be
kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the present, may
hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being violently
obtained, or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress? No going
to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of crowns; and the sword, not of
justice, but of war, decides the suit.
To be on the footing of 1763, it is not sufficient, that
the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise,
be put on the same state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up,
our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence)
discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable
period. Such a request had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the
heart and soul of the continent- but now it is too late, “the Rubicon is
passed.” Besides the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a
pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to
human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The object,
on either side, doth not justify the ways and means; for the lives of men are
too valuable to be cast away on such trifles. It is the violence which is done
and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed
force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously
qualifies the use of arms: And the instant, in which such a mode of defence
became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the
independency of America should have been considered, as dating its area from,
and published by, the first musket that was fired against her. This line is a
line of consistency; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but
produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the authors.
I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely
and well intended hints, We ought to reflect, that there are three different
ways by which an independency may hereafter be effected; and that one of those
three, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice
of the people in congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always
happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable
men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it
perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means,
we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the
noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power
to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not
happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at
hand, and a race of men perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to
receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The reflection
is awful- and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the
little, paltry cavillings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed
against the business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting
period, and an independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we must
charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow and
prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring
or reflecting. There are reasons to be given in support of Independence, which
men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not
now to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but, anxious to
accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it
is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even the tories
(if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous
to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first, protected them
from popular rage, so, a wise and well established form of government, will be
the only certain means of continuing it securely to them. Wherefore, if they
have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish
for independence.
In short, independence is the only bond that can tie and
keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally
shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy. We shall
then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to
conclude, that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the
American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates,
“rebellious subjects,” for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that
encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong
the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to
obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by
independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade.
The mercantile and reasonable part of England will be still with us; because,
peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not
accepted, other courts may be applied to.
On these grounds I rest the
matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in
the former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the
doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favor of it are too numerous
to be opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or
doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of
friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall
bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory
be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen,
an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND
and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.
EPISTLE TO QUAKERS
To the Representatives of the
Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were
concerned in publishing a late piece, entitled “THE ANCIENT TESTIMONY and PRINCIPLES of the people called QUAKERS renewed with
respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT, and Touching the COMMOTIONS now prevailing
in these and other parts of AMERICA, addressed to the PEOPLE IN GENERAL.” THE
writer of this is one of those few, who never dishonors religion either by
ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to
man, are all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle
is not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body,
dabbling in matters, which the professed quietude of your Principles instruct
you not to meddle with.
As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put
yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of
this, in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity,
of putting himself in the place of all those who approve the very writings and
principles, against which your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen their
singular situation, in order that you might discover in him, that presumption
of character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you have
any claim or title to Political Representation.
When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder
that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have
managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not your
proper walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you, it is,
nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together, and the
conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.
The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we
give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you, because the love
and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well as
the religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this ground, as men
laboring to establish an Independent Constitution of our own, do we exceed all
others in our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of
contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final
separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless
and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of the present day.
We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and
dissolve a connection which hath already filled our land with blood; and which,
while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future mischiefs to
both countries.
We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from
pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies,
nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we
attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed
against us. We view our enemies in the characters of highwaymen and
housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law; are
obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very
case, where you have before now, applied the halter.
Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in
all and every part of the continent, and with a degree of tenderness which hath
not yet made its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye mistake
not the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness of soul,
religion; nor put the bigot in the place of the Christian.
O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles!
If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all
the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence.
Wherefore, if ye really preach
from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion,
convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for
they likewise bear ARMS. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at
St. James’s, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the admirals and captains
who are practically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants
who are acting in authority under HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest
soul of Barclay3 ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the
royal tyrant of his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your
partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but like faithful
ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted,
neither endeavor to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are
bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain
against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT
Quakers.
Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of
your Testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin was reduced to,
and comprehended in the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye
appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience, because the general tenor
of your actions wants uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give
credit to many of your pretended scruples; because we see them made by the same
men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of
this world, are neverthe3 “Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity; thou
knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to be overruled as well
as to rule, and set upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast reason to
know now hateful the oppressor is both to God and man. If after all these
warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord with all thy
heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself
to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy condemnation. Against which
snare, as well as the temptation of those who may or do feed thee, and prompt
thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will be, to apply thyself
to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience and which neither can,
nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins.”- Barclay’s
Address to Charles II.
less, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and
an appetite as keen as Death.
The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the
third page of your testimony, that, “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he
maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him;” is very unwisely chosen on
your part; because it amounts to a proof, that the king’s ways (whom ye are so
desirous of supporting) do not please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be
in peace. I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for
which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz:
“It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we
were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences
unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is
God’s peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is
not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy-bodies
above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn any of
them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men:
that we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all goodliness and honesty;
under the government which God is pleased to set over us.” If these are really
your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye
call God’s work, to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you
to wait with patience and humility, for the event of all public measures, and
to receive that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion
is there for your political Testimony if you fully believe what it contains?
And the very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye
profess, or have not virtue enough to practice what ye believe.
The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make
a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government which is
set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and governments
is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by
us; wherefore, the principle itself leads you to approve of every thing, which
ever happened, or may happen to kings as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks
you. Charles, then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present proud
imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of
the Testimony, are bound by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact.
Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments
brought about by any other means than such as are common and human; and such as
we are now using. Even the dispersing of the Jews, though foretold by our
Savior, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one
side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in
silence; and unless you can produce divine authority, to prove, that the
Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance
it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth,
nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned
court of Britain; unless I say, ye can show this, how can ye, on the ground of
your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up of the people “firmly to
unite in the abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire
and design to break off the happy connection we have hitherto enjoyed, with the
kingdom of Great Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king,
and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him.” What a slap in the
face is here! the men, who, in the very paragraph before, have quietly and
passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and
governments, into the hands of God, are now recalling their principles, and
putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the conclusion,
which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down?
The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great not to
be laughed at; and such as could only have been made by those, whose understandings
were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a despairing political party;
for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a
factional and fractional part thereof.
Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call
upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly;)
to which I subjoin the following remark; “That the setting up and putting down
of kings,” most certainly mean, the making him a king, who is yet not so, and
the making him no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in the
present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to
unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore your testimony in
whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgment, and for many
other reasons had better have been let alone than published.
First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of
religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party
in political disputes.
Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of
whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein
and approvers thereof.
Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that
continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and
charitable donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of
which, is of the utmost consequence to us all.
And here, without anger or resentment I bid you farewell.
Sincerely wishing, that as men and Christians, ye may always fully and
uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn,
the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely
set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by
every inhabitant of America.
THE END
