Common Sense
Thomas Paine
[1776]
Introduction to the Third Edition / Philadelphia, 14 February,
1776
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET
sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; 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 the 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 usurpation 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 are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America is in a
great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, 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.
P. S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a
View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute
the Doctrine of Independence: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is
now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a
Performance ready for the Public being considerably past. Who the
Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as
the Object for Attention is the DOCTRINE ITSELF, not the MAN. Yet it
may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party,
and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of
reason and principle.
***
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
calamity 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 upon 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 labour 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 to quit his work, and every different want would 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 encreases, the public concerns will encrease
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 encreasing, it
will become necessary to augment the number of 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 show, or our ears
deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest
darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will
say, 'tis 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 remove 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, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this
advantage with them, 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 an UNION of three powers,
reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have
no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
First. - That the King it 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, by 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 a house in behalf
of the King, the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all
the distinctions of a 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 tho' 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 endeavours 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 and pensions is self-evident;
wherefore, though we have been 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 favour 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 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 favour 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 favour of a rotten
constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.
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 tho' avarice will preserve a
man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous
to be wealthy.
But there is another and great 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 inquiring 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 throws mankind into confusion. Holland,
without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any
of the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same
remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a
snappy something in them, which vanishes 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 honours 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-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly
glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit
the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. "Render
unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's" is the scripture
doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical 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 Lord 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 honour, should disapprove 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 thro' the divine
interposition decided in his favour. 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 honour, but denieth their right
to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations
of his thanks, but in the positive style 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 intrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt
and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, "Behold thou art old, and
they sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like
all the other nations." And here we cannot observe but that their
motives were bad, viz. that they might be LIKE unto other nations, i.
e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory lay 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, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all
the works which they have done since the day that I 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, will set them to
clear his ground and to reap 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 vineyards, 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 favouritism, 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 shell 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 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 send thunder and rain" (which was then a punishment,
being in 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 monarchical
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 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 tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of
honours 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 forever." 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, we should find the first of them nothing better than the
principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners of
pre-eminence in subtilty 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
restrained 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, the traditionary history
stuff'd 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 favour
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
honourable 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 the
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 that 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 re-assuming some former state and privilege, it
unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are
parallels. Dishonourable 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 in 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
bare-faced 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 has
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 upon.
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 re-called 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 enquire into the business of a King, we shall find that in some
countries they may 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 of 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 'tis the Republican and not the Monarchical
part of the Constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz.
the liberty of choosing an House of Commons from out of their own body
- and it is easy to see that when Republican virtues fail, slavery
ensues. Why 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 empoverish 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.
Thoughts on 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 has 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 LAST 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 County, 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 honour. 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 would
enlarge with the tree, and posterity read in it full grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era 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 almanacks of the last year;
which tho' 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 enquire into some of the many material injuries which these
Colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with and
dependent on Great Britain. To examine that connection and dependence,
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 dependent.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished
under her former connection with Great Britain, 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
taken any notice of 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. - for 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; and 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 waive her pretensions to the
Continent, or the Continent throw off the dependence, 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 relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way
of proving enmity (or 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 of 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 prejudices, 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 travel 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, [Pennsylvania], 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 which we sustain by that
connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as
well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: because,
any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain, tends directly to
involve this Continent in European wars and quarrels, and set 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 dependence 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 last, 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 reasonable 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, encreases 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
present 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 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 situation 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 offences of
Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come,
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, honour, 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 honour, 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 your 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 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 now a falacious
dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion, 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 may we suppose that nations, which have been
once defeated, will never renew the quarrel.
As to government matters, it is not in the power 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
childishness - There 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 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 on 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,
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 shewn 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 inhabitant 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 it 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 made 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 endeavour 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 no 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 politics,
England 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 interferes 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 shew that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine,
I affirm, that it would be policy in the king 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 SUBTILITY, IN
THE LONG RUN, WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND 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 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 an 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 connexion 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 a 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 Swisserland are without wars,
foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never
long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprizing
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 into 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 least 390. 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. In 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 have joined 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 impowered 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 comformable 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 Brute
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 as 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 infinitely 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, Massanello may hereafter arise, who
laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the
desperate and 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 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 unextinguishable 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 from the earth, or
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.
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 I need
not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for the TIME HATH FOUND US.
The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things, proves the
fact.
'Tis 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, when united, is able to do any thing. Our land
force is more than 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 or difficult to procure.
Were the Continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the
present circumstances would be intolerable. The more seaport-towns we
had, the more should we have both to defend and to lose. 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 vile 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's unworthy a man of honour, and is the true
characteristic of a narrow heart and a piddling 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 Entic's "Naval
History," Intro., p. 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.
For a ship of:
100 guns |
35,553 £ |
090 guns |
29,886 £ |
080 guns |
23,638 £ |
070 guns |
17,785 £ |
060 guns |
14,197 £ |
050 guns |
10,606 £ |
040 guns |
07,558 £ |
030 guns |
05,846 £ |
020 guns |
03,710 £ |
And 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 at its
greatest glory, consisted of the following ships and guns.
Ships |
Guns |
Cost of One |
Cost of All |
|
06 |
100 |
35,553 £ |
213,318 £ |
|
12 |
090 |
29,886 £ |
358,632 £ |
|
12 |
080 |
23,638 £ |
283,656 £ |
|
43 |
070 |
17,785 £ |
764,755 £ |
|
35 |
060 |
14,197 £ |
496,895 £ |
|
40 |
050 |
10,605 £ |
424,240 £ |
|
45 |
040 |
07,558 £ |
340,110 £ |
|
58 |
020 |
03,710 £ |
215,180 £ |
|
85 sloops, bombs, and fireships,
one with another at 2,000 --..170,000
Cost, ................................3,266,786
£
Remains for guns,..................233,214
Total, ................................3,500,000
£
No country on the globe is so happily situated, or 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. 'Tis 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
Terrible privateer, 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 of
beginning 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 mainly 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 of coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature
hath given the one, she hath withheld the other; to America only hath
she been liberal to 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 and windows. The case is
now 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
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 they be so unwise as to mean that she will
keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense will tell us
that the power which hath endeavoured 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 harbours, I would ask, how is she going 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 time fit for service, numbers of them
are 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, has been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to
discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be further 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, lies entirely at its mercy.
Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of
peace, if we should 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 merchant),
fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guardships 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 favour of independence. We are sufficiently
numerous, and were we more so we might be less united. 'Tis 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 became 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
would 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 era
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 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 a 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.
In page [97] 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 re-mentioning 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, professional freedom, or property.
A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends.
I have heretofore 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
petition of the associators was before the House of Assembly of
Pennsylvania, twenty-eight 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 their delegates were put
together, which in point of sense and business would have dishonoured
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 had 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 well wisher 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.
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,
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 eyes 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
peaceful methods which we have ineffectually used for redress;
declaring at the same time that not being able 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 connections 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 seem 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 to the Third Edition
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 at a more necessary time. The
bloody-mindedness of the one, shows 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 motives 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, IS being a piece of
finished villany, deserved and still deserves, a general execration,
both by the Congress and the people.
Yet, as the domestic tranquillity of a nation, depends greatly on the
chastity of what might 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 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 any thing." 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 man, but sunk himself beneath
the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawls 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, whose office it is to watch 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 further 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 dependence, 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
the specious 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 dependence. 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 be totally extinct. The
continent would not, by that time, have a quitrent 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 easiest 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 occurrence 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
dependence. 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 un-braced system of things. The
mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object
before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion presents. Nothing is
criminal; there is no such thing as treason, wherefore, every one
thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories would not
have dared to assemble 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 in 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 both judgment and 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, say 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 not
wisely 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 in the same
state, but, that our circumstances likewise be put in 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 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 mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought
to have ceased; and the independence of America should have been
considered as dating its era 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 events of a few months. The reflection is awful, and
in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little
paltry cavilings 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
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 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 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 in 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 dissension. 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.
|