|
Need to
print this document? Go to "Print Preview" in your
web browser and select "Shrink to Fit."
Common
Sense by Thomas Paine
NOTE:
Written in pamphlet form, this document was
instrumental in persuading the majority of American
colonists to seek independence from Great
Britain. Because many of his writings spurred
the patriots on in their struggles against the
British, some historians include Englishman Paine as
one of the nation's "Founding Fathers." However,
apart from his American Revolution-era writings,
Paine's contributions to the creation of the new
nation were otherwise non-existent. In later
years, enthusiasm for French Enlightenment philosophy
reflected a loss of sound judgment on Paine's
part. The fact that he became an unwitting
supporter of France's Reign of Terror should not
diminish the overall message of this particular
document.
Introduction
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.
Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
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 £
90 " .......... 29,886
80 " .......... 23,638
70 " .......... 17,785
60 " .......... 14,197
50 " .......... 10,606
40 " .......... 7,558
30 " .......... 5,846
20 " .......... 3,710
And 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
6 ... 100 .... 35,553 £ .... 213,318 £
12 ... 90 ..... 29,886 ...... 358,632
12 ... 80 ..... 23,638 ...... 283,656
43 ... 70 ..... 17,785 ...... 764,755
35 ... 60 ..... 14,197 ...... 496,895
40 ... 50 ..... 10,605 ...... 424,240
45 ... 40 ...... 7,558 ...... 340,110
58 ... 20 ...... 3,710 ...... 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.
Epistle to Quakers:
To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the
People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were
concerned in publishing a late piece, entitled "The
Ancient Testimony and Principles of the people called
Quakers renewed with respect to the King and Government,
and Touching the Commotions now prevailing in these and
other parts of America, addressed to the people in
general."
The writer of this is one of those few, who never
dishonors religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at
any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are
all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore,
this epistle is not so properly addressed to you as a
religious, but as a political body, dabbling in matters,
which the professed quietude of your Principles instruct
you not to meddle with.
As you have, without a proper authority for so doing,
put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the
Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on an
equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of
putting himself in the place of all those who approve
the very writings and principles, against which your
testimony is directed: And he hath chosen their singular
situation, in order that you might discover in him, that
presumption of character which you cannot see in
yourselves. For neither he nor you have any claim or
title to Political Representation.
When men have departed from the right way, it is no
wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident
from the manner in which ye have managed your testimony,
that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not your
proper walk; for however well adapted it might appear to
you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put
unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom,
both unnatural and unjust.
The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four)
we give you credit for, and expect the same civility
from you, because the love and desire of peace is not
confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well as the
religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this
ground, as men laboring to establish an Independent
Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our
hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are
tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real
end to it but in a final separation. We act
consistently, because for the sake of introducing an
endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils
and burdens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and
will steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and
dissolve a connection which hath already filled our land
with blood; and which, while the name of it remains,
will be the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both
countries.
We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from
pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with
our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for
plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we
attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is
the violence committed against us. We view our enemies
in the characters of highwaymen and housebreakers, and
having no defence for ourselves in the civil law; are
obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply
the sword, in the very case, where you have before now,
applied the halter. Perhaps we feel for the ruined and
insulted sufferers in all and every part of the
continent, and with a degree of tenderness which hath
not yet made its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye
sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your
Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put
the bigot in the place of the Christian.
O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged
principles! If the bearing arms be sinful, the first
going to war must be more so, by all the difference
between wilful attack and unavoidable defence.
Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean
not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion,
convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine
to our enemies, for they likewise bear arms. Give us
proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James's,
to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the admirals
and captains who are practically ravaging our coasts,
and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in
authority under HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the
honest soul of Barclay3 ye would preach repentance to
your king; Ye would tell the royal tyrant of his sins,
and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your
partial invectives against the injured and the insulted
only, but like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and
spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither
endeavor to make us the authors of that reproach, which,
ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all
men, that we do not complain against you because ye are
Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are not
Quakers.
Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part
of your Testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as
if all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in the act
of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear
to us, to have mistaken party for conscience, because
the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And
it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many
of your pretended scruples; because we see them made by
the same men, who, in the very instant that they are
exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are
nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as
Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.
The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the
third page of your testimony, that, "when a man's ways
please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at
peace with him;" is very unwisely chosen on your part;
because it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways
(whom ye are so desirous of supporting) do not please
the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.
I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and
that, for which all the foregoing seems only an
introduction, viz:
"It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we
were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus,
manifested in our consciences unto this day, that the
setting up and putting down kings and governments, is
God's peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to
himself: And that it is not our business to have any
hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy-bodies above
our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or
overturn any of them, but to pray for the king, and
safety of our nation, and good of all men: that we may
live a peaceable and quiet life, in all goodliness and
honesty; under the government which God is pleased to
set over us." If these are really your principles why do
ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye
call God's work, to be managed by himself? These very
principles instruct you to wait with patience and
humility, for the event of all public measures, and to
receive that event as the divine will towards you.
Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political
Testimony if you fully believe what it contains? And the
very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not
believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to
practice what ye believe.
The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to
make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and
every government which is set over him. And if the
setting up and putting down of kings and governments is
God's peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not
be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself
leads you to approve of every thing, which ever
happened, or may happen to kings as being his work.
Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died not by
the hands of man; and should the present proud imitator
of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and
publishers of the Testimony, are bound by the doctrine
it contains, to applaud the fact. Kings are not taken
away by miracles, neither are changes in governments
brought about by any other means than such as are common
and human; and such as we are now using. Even the
dispersing of the Jews, though foretold by our Savior,
was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the
means on one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the
other; but to wait the issue in silence; and unless you
can produce divine authority, to prove, that the
Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at
the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and
west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless,
disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and
abandoned court of Britain; unless I say, ye can show
this, how can ye, on the ground of your principles,
justify the exciting and stirring up of the people
"firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings,
and measures, as evidence a desire and design to break
off the happy connection we have hitherto enjoyed, with
the kingdom of Great Britain, and our just and necessary
subordination to the king, and those who are lawfully
placed in authority under him." What a slap in the face
is here! the men, who, in the very paragraph before,
have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering,
altering, and disposal of kings and governments, into
the hands of God, are now recalling their principles,
and putting in for a share of the business. Is it
possible, that the conclusion, which is here justly
quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down?
The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the
absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as
could only have been made by those, whose understandings
were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a
despairing political party; for ye are not to be
considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as
a factional and fractional part thereof.
Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I
call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to
read and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin the
following remark; "That the setting up and putting down
of kings," most certainly mean, the making him a king,
who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is
already one. And pray what hath this to do in the
present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down,
neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do
with them. Wherefore your testimony in whatever light it
is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgment, and for
many other reasons had better have been let alone than
published.
First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of
religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to
society, to make it a party in political disputes.
Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of
whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as
being concerned therein and approvers thereof.
Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that
continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by
your late liberal and charitable donations hath lent a
hand to establish; and the preservation of which, is of
the utmost consequence to us all.
|
