Thomas Paine
(January 29,
1737 (NS February
9, 1737) – June 8, 1809)
was an English-American political
activist, author, political theorist and revolutionary. As the author of two
highly influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution, he inspired the Patriots in 1776 to declare
independence from Britain. His
ideas reflected Enlightenment era rhetoric of transnational human rights. He
has been called "a corsetmaker by trade, a journalist by profession,
and a propagandist by inclination."
Born in Thetford,
England, in the county of Norfolk, Paine emigrated to the British American colonies in
1774 with the help of Benjamin
Franklin and he arrived in time to participate in the American
Revolution. His principal contributions were the powerful, widely read pamphlet Common Sense (1776), the all-time
best-selling American book that advocated colonial America's independence from
the Kingdom of Great Britain, and The American Crisis (1776–83), a
pro-revolutionary pamphlet series. Common Sense was so influential
that John
Adams said, "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense,
the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”
Paine lived in France for most of
the 1790s, becoming deeply involved in the French
Revolution. He wrote the Rights
of Man (1791), in part a defence of the French Revolution against its
critics. His attacks on British writer Edmund
Burke led to a trial and convictionin absentia in
1792 for the crime of seditious
libel. In 1792, despite not speaking French, he was elected to the French National Convention. The Girondists regarded
him as an ally. Consequently, the Montagnards,
especially Robespierre, regarded him as an enemy.
In December 1793, he was arrested
and imprisoned in Paris, then released in 1794. He became notorious because of The
Age of Reason (1793–94), his book that advocatesdeism, promotes
reason and freethinking, and argues against institutionalized
religion in general and Christian doctrine in particular. He also wrote the
pamphlet Agrarian Justice(1795), discussing the origins of property, and
introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income. In 1802, he
returned to America where he died on June 8, 1809. Only six people attended his
funeral as he had been ostracized for his ridicule of Christianity.
Published in 1776, Common
Sense challenged the authority of the British government and the royal
monarchy. The plain language that Paine used spoke to the common people of
America and was the first work to openly ask for independence from Great
Britain.
Introduction
to the Third Edition
Perhaps the sentiments contained
in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them
general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a
superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry
in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts
than reason. As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of
calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might never have
been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as
the King of England hath undertaken in his OWN RIGHT, to support the Parliament
in what he calls THEIRS, and as the good people of this country are grievously
oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into
the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either. In the
following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is
personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no
part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and
those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves
unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America
is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and
will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the
principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which,
their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and
Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating
the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man
to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of
Party Censure, is the AUTHOR.
P. S. The Publication of this new
Edition hath been delayed, with a View of taking notice (had it been necessary)
of any Attempt to refute the Doctrine of Independence: As no Answer hath yet
appeared, it is now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such
a Performance ready for the Public being considerably past. Who the Author of
this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for
Attention is the DOCTRINE ITSELF, not the MAN. Yet it may not be unnecessary to
say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence
public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.
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 andtimidity. 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 hispurpose.
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 thiscountry,
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 andpower. 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.
HERE
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar