Common Sense was a timely work delineating the reasons for the American colonies to declare independence from Great Britain. Many colonists were not convinced that independence was the best route. They believed they could still get the king and parliament to reason with them. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was so clear and powerful that it persuaded many colonists that it was time to break the yoke of the King's oppression. It was first published on January 10, 1776, only six months before the Declaration of Independence. Common Sense is a fairly long work, but if you will invest the time to read it you will have a very thorough understanding of the reasons for the Revolutionary War.
You can read some other Thomas Paine Quotes here.
Thomas Paine
Common Sense
Introduction
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following
pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general
favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a
superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable
outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more
converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally
the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too
which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been
aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath
undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls
theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed
by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into
the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of
either.
In the following sheets, the author hath
studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves.
Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The
wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose
sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly, will cease of themselves,
unless too much pains is bestowed upon their conversion.
The cause of America is, in a great measure, the
cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which
are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all
lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their
affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and
sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and
extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the
concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of
which class, regardless of party censure, is
The author.
Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.
Of the Origin and Design of Government in
General. With concise Remarks on the English Constitution
Some writers have so confounded society with
government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas
they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is
produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former
promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter
negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,
the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a
punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but
government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst
state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the
same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country
without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we
furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the
badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of
the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear,
uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but
that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part
of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and
this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case
advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security
being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows
that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with
the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the
design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons
settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the
rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of
the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their
first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the
strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so
unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek
assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same.
Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the
midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of
life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he
could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the
mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call
him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for
though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from
living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to
perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would
soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal
blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law
and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each
other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will
unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first
difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common
cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each
other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of
establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral
virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a
State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble
to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their
first laws will have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by
no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every
man, by natural right will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the public concerns
will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be
separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on
every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their
habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will
point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative
part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who
are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who
appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body
would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will
become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that
the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be
found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending
its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves
an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the
propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by
that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors
in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the
prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this
frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part
of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other,
and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of
government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here then is the origin and rise of government;
namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to
govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz.,
freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or
our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or
interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of
reason will say, it is right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a
principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more
simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the
easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a
few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was
noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is
granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least therefrom
was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to
convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is
easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human
nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the
people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs,
know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes
and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex,
that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to
discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in
another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long
standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the
component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be
the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new
republican materials.
First. — The remains of monarchical tyranny in the
person of the king.
Secondly. — The remains of aristocratical tyranny
in the persons of the peers.
Thirdly. — The new republican materials, in the
persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first, by being hereditary, are
independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they
contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of England is a union
of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either
the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
To say that the commons is a check upon the king,
presupposes two things.
First. — That the king is not to be trusted
without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for
absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly. — That the commons, by being appointed
for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than
the crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the
commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives
afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to
reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than
those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere
absurdity!
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the
composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of
information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest
judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet
the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore
the different parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying each other,
prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the English
constitution thus; the king, say they, is one, the people another; the
peers are an house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the
people; but this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against
itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when
examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen,
that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to
the description of something which either cannot exist, or is too
incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words
of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform
the mind, for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. How
came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and
always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise
people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet
the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to
exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the
means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole
affair is a felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up
the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one,
it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most
weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them,
may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet
so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual;
the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in
speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part in the
English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its
whole consequence merely from being the giver of places pensions is
self evident, wherefore, though we have and wise enough to shut and
lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been
foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen, in favor of their own
government by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from
national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in
England than in some other countries, but the will of the king is as
much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference,
that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the
people under the most formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the
fate of Charles the First, hath only made kings more subtle — not more
just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and
prejudice in favor of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is
wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the
constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in
England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the
English form of government is at this time highly necessary; for as we
are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we
continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are
we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any
obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is
unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favor of
a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a
good one.
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession
Mankind being originally equals in the order of
creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent
circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great
measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the
harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is
often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and
though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it
generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and greater distinction for
which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that
is, the distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female are
the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven;
but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest,
and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and
whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the
scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was
there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into
confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last
century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity
favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first
patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we
come to the history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the
world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the
custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot
for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their
deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan by
doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred
majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is
crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest
cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be
defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty,
as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of
government by kings. All anti-monarchial parts of scripture have been
very smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments, but they
undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their
governments yet to form. Render unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of
monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were without a king,
and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away from the
Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion
requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in
extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of
republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings
they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under
that title but the Lords of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on
the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings he need not
wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove
of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of
heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins
of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them.
The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the
Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory,
through the divine interposition, decided in his favor. The Jews elate
with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed
making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy
son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom
only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul
replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you,
the Lord shall rule over you. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon
doth not decline the honor but denieth their right to give it; neither
doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but
in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection to
their proper sovereign, the King of Heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this,
they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had
for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly
unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of
Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they
came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou
art old and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge
us like all the other nations. And here we cannot but observe that
their motives were bad, viz., that they might be like unto other
nations, i.e., the Heathen, whereas their true glory laid in being as
much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they
said, give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and
the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all
that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have
rejected me, then I should not reign over them. According to all the
works which have done since the day; wherewith they brought them up out
of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and
served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken
unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and show them the
manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e., not of any
particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom
Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great
distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in
fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people,
that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the
king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them
for himself for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall
run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode
of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and
captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to read
his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his
chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries and to
be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as
well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your
olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and
he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give
them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery,
corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will
take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your
goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work; and he
will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye
shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have
chosen, and the Lord will not hear you in that day. This accounts for
the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good
kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out
the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no
notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own
heart. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and
they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like
all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us
and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no
purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail;
and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call
unto the Lord, and he shall sent thunder and rain (which then was a
punishment, being the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and
see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of
the Lord, in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the
Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared
the Lord and Samuel And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy
servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for we have added unto
our sins this evil, to ask a king. These portions of scripture are
direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the
Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchial government is
true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe
that there is as much of kingcraft, as priestcraft in withholding the
scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every
instance is the Popery of government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of
hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening
of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult
and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no
one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual
preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve
some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants
might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural
proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature
disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into
ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any
other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those
honors could have no power to give away the right of posterity, and
though they might say, "We choose you for our head," they could not,
without manifest injustice to their children, say, "that your children
and your children's children shall reign over ours for ever." Because
such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next
succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most
wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary
right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once
established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from
superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the
plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the
world to have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than
probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and
trace them to their first rise, that we should find the first of them
nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose
savage manners of preeminence in subtlety obtained him the title of
chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending
his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless to purchase their
safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea
of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a perpetual
exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained
principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary succession
in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of
claim, but as something casual or complemental; but as few or no
records were extant in those days, and traditionary history stuffed
with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to
trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to
cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the
disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten on the decease of a
leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could
not be very orderly) induced many at first to favor hereditary
pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since,
that what at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards
claimed as a right.
England, since the conquest, hath known some few
good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones,
yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the
Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an
armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the
consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally
original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless
to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there
are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the
ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor
disturb their devotion.
Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings
came at first? The question admits but of three answers, viz., either
by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by
lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary
succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary,
neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it
ever should. If the first king of any country was by election, that
likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the
right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first
electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings
for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of
original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and
from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary
succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in
the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were
subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence
was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both
disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it
unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are
parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most
subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to
defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not
to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English
monarchy will not bear looking into.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of
hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of
good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it
opens a door to the foolish, the wicked; and the improper, it hath in
it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to
reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest
of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world
they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they
have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when
they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and
unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession
is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age;
all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have
every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same
national misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and
infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases
the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper
successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.
The most plausible plea, which hath ever been
offered in favor of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a
nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty;
whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind.
The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two
minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in
which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than
eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making
for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it
seems to stand on.
The contest for monarchy and succession, between
the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for
many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were
fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward,
who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of
war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are
the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison
to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land;
yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his
turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him.
The parliament always following the strongest side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the
Sixth, and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in
whom the families were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz.,
from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not
this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a
form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and
blood will attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king, we
shall find that (in some countries they have none) and after sauntering
away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the
nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread
the same idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of
business civil and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel
in their request for a king, urged this plea "that he may judge us, and
go out before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is
neither a judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to
know what is his business.
The nearer any government approaches to a
republic, the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat
difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir
William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is
unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence 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 it is the republican and not the
monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory
in, viz., the liberty of choosing a house of commons from out of their
own body — and it is easy to see that when the republican virtue fails,
slavery ensues. My is the constitution of England sickly, but because
monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the
commons?
In England a king hath little more to do than to
make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish
the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed
for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and
worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to
society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that
ever lived.
Thoughts of the present state of American
Affairs
In the following pages I offer nothing more than
simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other
preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest
himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his
feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather
that he will not put off the true character of a man, and generously
enlarge his views beyond the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the
struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in
the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but
all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as
the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice of the
king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who
tho' an able minister was not without his faults) that on his being
attacked in the house of commons, on the score, that his measures were
only of a temporary kind, replied, "they will fast my time." Should a
thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present
contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations
with detestation.
The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth.
'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but
of a continent — of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe.
'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are
virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected,
even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time
of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be
like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a
young oak; The wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it
in full grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a
new area for politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen.
All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April,
i.e., to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacs of the
last year; which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now.
Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question
then, terminated in one and the same point, viz., a union with Great
Britain; the only difference between the parties was the method of
effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it
hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath
withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of
reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and
left us as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the
contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of the many
material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will
sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on Great Britain. To
examine that connection and dependance, on the principles of nature and
common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what
we are to expect, if dependant.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America
hath flourished under her former connection with Great Britain, that
the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will
always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this
kind of argument. We may as well assert, that because a child has
thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat; or that the first
twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty.
But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly,
that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had
no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce by which
she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always
have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she hath
engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well
as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the
same motive, viz., the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas! we have been long led away by ancient
prejudices and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted
the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive
was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our
enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from
those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will
always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her
pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the
dependance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they
at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war, ought to warn us
against connections.
It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that
the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent
country, i.e., that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the
rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a
very round-about way of proving relation ship, but it is the nearest
and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and
Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans,
but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then
the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young;
nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if
true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only
partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been
jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low
papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness
of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of
America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers
off civil and religious liberty from every Part of Europe. Hither have
they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the
cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same
tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home pursues their
descendants still.
In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget
the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of
England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim
brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the
generosity of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular
gradations we surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our
acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England divided
into parishes, will naturally associate most with his fellow
parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be common) and
distinguish him by the name of neighbor; if he meet him but a few miles
from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the
name of townsman; if he travels out of the county, and meet him in any
other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him
countryman; i.e., countyman; but if in their foreign excursions they
should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local
remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just
parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other
quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or
Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the
larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the
smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one
third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English
descent. Wherefore, I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country
applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.
But admitting that we were all of English descent,
what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy,
extinguishes every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation
is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the
present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the
peers of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore by
the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of
Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance
to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is
uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent
would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants to support the
British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Besides, what have we to do with setting the world
at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to,will
secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because it is the
interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will
always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure
her from invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate for
reconciliation, to show, a single advantage that this continent can
reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge,
not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any
market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for buy them
where we will.
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by
that connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind I at
large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance:
Because, any submission to, or dependance on Great Britain, tends
directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and
sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our
friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As
Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection
with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear
of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her
dependance on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of
British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be
long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any
foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her
connection with Britain. The next war may not turn out like the Past,
and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing
for separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer
convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads
for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature
cries, 'tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath
placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the
authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven.
The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to
the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the
force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America,
as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the
persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship
nor safety.
The authority of Great Britain over this
continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have an
end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward,
under the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls "the
present constitution" is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no
joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure
any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of
argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to
do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order
to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children
in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther into life; that
eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and
prejudices conceal from our sight.
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary
offence, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the
doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following
descriptions:
Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak
men who cannot see; prejudiced men who will not see; and a certain set
of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it
deserves; and this last class by an ill-judged deliberation, will be
the cause of more calamities to this continent than all the other three.
It is the good fortune of many to live distant
from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to their
doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American
property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for a few
moments to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and
instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no trust.
The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were
in ease and affluence, have now no other alternative than to stay and
starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of their friends if
they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they
leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the
hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they
would be exposed to the fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over
the offenses of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to
call out, Come we shall be friends again for all this. But examine the
passions and feelings of mankind. Bring the doctrine of reconciliation
to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can
hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried
fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you
only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon
posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither
love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on
the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a
relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still
pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath
you property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and
children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you
lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and
wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those
who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the
murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend,
or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the
heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but
trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies,
and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social
duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit
horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from
fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed
object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer
America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The
present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or
neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and
there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or
what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season
so precious and useful.
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order
of things, to all examples from the former ages, to suppose, that this
continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most
sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human
wisdom cannot, at this time compass a plan short of separation, which
can promise the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is was
a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection, and Art cannot
supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never can true
reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep."
Every quiet method for peace hath been
ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only
tended to convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms
obstinacy in kings more than repeated petitioning — and nothing hath
contributed more than that very measure to make the kings of Europe
absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore since nothing but blows
will do, for God's sake, let us come to a final separation, and not
leave the next generation to be cutting throats, under the violated
unmeaning names of parent and child.
To say, they will never attempt it again is idle
and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp act, yet a year
or two undeceived us; as well me we may suppose that nations, which
have been once defeated, will never renew the quarrel.
As to government matters, it is not in the powers
of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon
be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree
of convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of
us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always
running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting
four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or
six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly
and 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 the North, or the
whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have
expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which
would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the acts complained
of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must
take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our
while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do
we pay for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in
a just estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker Hill price
for law, as for land. As I have always considered the independency of
this continent, as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from
the late rapid progress of the continent to maturity, the event could
not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was
not worth the while to have disputed a matter, which time would have
finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is
like wasting an estate of a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of
a tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for
reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775
(Massacre at Lexington), but the moment the event of that day was made
known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for
ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of Father
of his people, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly
sleep with their blood upon his soul.
But admitting that matters were now made up, what
would be the event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for
several reasons:
First. The powers of governing still remaining in
the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole
legislation of this continent. And as he hath shown himself such an
inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary
power, is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, "You
shall make no laws but what I please?" And is there any inhabitants in
America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called
the present constitution, that this continent can make no laws but what
the king gives leave to? and is there any man so unwise, as not to see,
that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no Law to be made
here, but such as suit his purpose? We may be as effectually enslaved
by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in
England. After matters are make up (as it is called) can there be any
doubt but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this
continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we
shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously
petitioning. We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and
will he not hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring the matter to
one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper
power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an independent,
for independency means no more, than, whether we shall make our own
laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or
can have, shall tell us, "there shall be now laws but such as I like."
But the king you will say has a negative in
England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In
point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that
a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several
millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that
act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply,
though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only
answer, that England being the king's residence, and America not so,
make quite another case. The king's negative here is ten times more
dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he will
scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as
strong a state of defence as possible, and in America he would never
suffer such a bill to be passed.
America is only a secondary object in the system
of British politics — England consults the good of this country, no
farther than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore, her own interest
leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which doth not
promote her advantage, or in the least interfere with it. A pretty
state we should soon be in under such a second-hand government,
considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to
friends by the alteration of a name; and in order to show that
reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be
policy in the kingdom at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of
reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in order, that
he may accomplish by craft and subtlety, in the long run, what he
cannot do by force 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 be followed by a revolt somewhere or
other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the
malice of Britain.
Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity;
(thousands more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those men have
other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess
is liberty, what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and
having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the
general temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will be
like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time, they will care
very little about her. And a government which cannot preserve the
peace, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money for
nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will be
wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after
reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke
without thinking, that they dreaded independence, fearing that it would
produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to
dread from a patched up connection than from independence. I make the
sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and
home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man,
sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of
reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby.
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good
order and obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to make
every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign
the least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, that such as
are truly childish and ridiculous, viz., that one colony will be
striving for superiority over another.
Where there are no distinctions there can be no
superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The republics of
Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and
Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic; monarchical
governments, it is true, are never long at rest: the crown itself is a
temptation to enterprising ruffians at home; and that degree of pride
and insolence ever attendant on regal authority swells into a rupture
with foreign powers, in instances where a republican government, by
being formed on more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.
If there is any true cause of fear respecting
independence it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see
their way out; wherefore, as an opening into that business I offer the
following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no
other opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving
rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals
be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able
men to improve to useful matter.
Let the assemblies be annual, with a President
only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic,
and subject to the authority of a continental congress.
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or
ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of
delegates to congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The
whole number in congress will be at least three hundred ninety. Each
congress to sit..... and to choose a president by the following method.
When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole
thirteen colonies by lot, after which let the whole congress choose (by
ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province. 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 join Lucifer in his revolt.
But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or
in what manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most
agreeable and consistent, that it should come from some intermediate
body between the governed and the governors, that is between the
Congress and the people, let a Continental Conference be held, in the
following manner, and for the following purpose:
A committee of twenty-six members of Congress,
viz., two for each colony. Two members for each house of assembly, or
provincial convention; and five representatives of the people at large,
to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province, for, and in
behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified voters as shall
think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose;
or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or
three of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus
assembled, will be united, the two grand principles of business,
knowledge and power. The members of Congress, Assemblies, or
Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will be
able and useful counsellors, and the whole, being empowered by the
people will have a truly legal authority.
The conferring members being met, let their
business be to frame a Continental Charter, or Charter of the United
Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England)
fixing the number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members
of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of
business and jurisdiction between them: always remembering, that our
strength is continental, not provincial: Securing freedom and property
to all men, and above all things the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is
necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which, the said
conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen
conformable to the said charter, to be the legislators and governors of
this continent for the time being: Whose peace and happiness, may God
preserve, Amen.
Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for
this or some similar purpose, I offer them the following extracts from
that wise observer on governments Dragonetti. "The science" says he,
"of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and
freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should
discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of
individual happiness, with the least national expense." — Dragonetti on
Virtue and Rewards.
But where says some is the king of America? I'll
tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind
like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective
even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming
the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word
of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know,
that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.
For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries
the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any
ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the
ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it
is.
A government of our own is our natural right: And
when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs,
he will become convinced, that it is in finitely wiser and safer, to
form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we
have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time
and chance. If we omit it now, some Massenello(1) may hereafter arise,
who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the
desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the
powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent
like a deluge. Should the government of America return again into the
hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a
temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in
such a case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news
the fatal business might be done, and ourselves suffering like the
wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose
independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to
eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government.
(1) Thomas Anello, otherwise Massenello, a
fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting up his countrymen in the
public market place, against the oppression of the Spaniards, to whom
the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and in the space
of a day became king.
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 inextinguishable
feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his
image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common
animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated
the earth, of have only a casual existence were we callous to the
touches of affection. The robber and the murderer, would often escape
unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us
into justice.
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not
only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old
world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the
globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her
like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O!
receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.
Of the Present Ability of America, with
some miscellaneous Reflections
I have never met with a man, either in England or
America, who hath not confessed his opinion, that a separation between
the countries, would take place one time or other. And there is no
instance in which we have shown less judgment, than in endeavoring to
describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for
independence.
As all men allow the measure, and vary only in
their opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a
general survey of things and endeavor if possible, to find out the very
time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for the time
hath found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all
things prove the fact.
It is not in numbers but in unity, that our great
strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the
force of all the world. The Continent hath, at this time, the largest
body of armed and disciplined men of any power under Heaven; and is
just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which no single colony is
able to support itself, and the whole, who united can accomplish the
matter, and either more, or, less than this, might be fatal in its
effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs,
we cannot be insensible, that Britain would never suffer an American
man of war to be built while the continent remained in her hands.
Wherefore we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in that
branch, than we are now; but the truth is, we should be less so,
because the timber of the country is every day diminishing, and that
which will remain at last, will be far off and difficult to procure.
Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her
sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The
more sea port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and
to loose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants,
that no man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and
the necessities of an army create a new trade. Debts we have none; and
whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious
memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled form
of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at
any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting
a few we acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is
unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty;
because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their
backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy
a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a
peddling politician.
The debt we may contract doth not deserve our
regard if the work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a
debt. A national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no
interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a debt
of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she
pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a compensation for her
debt, she has a large navy; America is without a debt, and without a
navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English national debt, could
have a navy as large again. The navy of England is not worth, at this
time, more than three millions and a half sterling.
The first and second editions of this pamphlet
were published without the following calculations, which are now given
as a proof that the above estimation of the navy is a just one. (See
Entick's naval history, intro. page 56.)
The charge of building a ship of each rate, and
furnishing her with masts, yards, sails and rigging, together with a
proportion of eight months boatswain's and carpenter's sea-stores, as
calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the navy, is as follows:
For a ship of 100 guns £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 from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or
cost rather, of the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it
was as its greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns:
Ships Guns Cost of one Cost of all6 100 £35,533
£213,31812 90 29,886 358,63212 80 23,638 283,65643 70 17,785 746,75535
60 14,197 496,89540 50 10,606 424,24045 40 7,758 344,11058 20 3,710
215,18085 Sloops, bombs, and fireships, one another 2,000 170,000 Cost
3,266,786 Remains for guns 229,214 Total 3,500,000
No country on the globe is so happily situated, so
internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron,
and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing.
Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of
war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the
materials they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an article
of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this country. It is
the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than
it cost. And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce
and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can
sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and
silver.
In point of manning a fleet, people in general run
into great errors; it is not necessary that one-fourth part should be
sailors. The privateer Terrible, Captain Death, stood the hottest
engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board,
though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and
social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active
landsmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more
capable to begin on maritime matters than now, while our timber is
standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out
of employ. Men of war of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years
ago in New England, and why not the same now? Ship building is
America's greatest pride, and in which, she will in time excel the
whole world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and
consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is
in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe, hath either such an
extent or coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature
hath given the one, she has withheld the other; to America only hath
she been liberal of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out
from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and
cordage are only articles of commerce.
In point of safety, ought we to be without a
fleet? We are not the little people now, which we were sixty years ago;
at that time we might have trusted our property in the streets, or
fields rather; and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors
or windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defence ought
to improve with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve
months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of
Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased; and
the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow,
in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the whole
Continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are
circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the necessity
of naval protection.
Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made
it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to
mean, that she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose?
Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to
subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest
may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after
a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And if
her ships are not to be admitted into our harbors, I would ask, how is
she to protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles off can be of
little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all. Wherefore, if we
must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do
it for another?
The English list of ships of war is long and
formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for
service, numbers of them not in being; yet their names are pompously
continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a
fifth part, of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one
station at one time. The East, and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa,
and other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large
demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we
have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have
talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and
for that reason, supposed that we must have one as large; which not
being instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of
disguised tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be
farther from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part
of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an over match for
her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our
whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the
long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four
thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same
distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain
by her fleet, hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a
one over her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the
neighborhood of the Continent, is entirely at its mercy.
Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval
force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support
a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build
and employ in their service, ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty,
or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to
the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guard ships on
constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without
burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England,
of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks.
To unite the sinews of commerce and defence is sound policy; for when
our strength and our riches, play into each other's hand, we need fear
no external enemy.
In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp
flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron
is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in
the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we
are every day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution
is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us.
Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From
Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the
government of America again, this Continent will not be worth living
in. Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be constantly
happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his
life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The
difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some
unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a British government, and
fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate
Continental matters.
Another reason why the present time is preferable
to all others, is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there
is yet unoccupied, which instead of being lavished by the king on his
worthless dependents, may be hereafter applied, not only to the
discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of
government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as this.
The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called,
so far from being against, is an argument in favor of independence. We
are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less
united. It is a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country
is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the
ancients far exceeded the moderns: and the reason is evident, for trade
being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed
thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit,
both of patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently
informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in
the non-age of a nation. With the increase of commerce England hath
lost its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers,
submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward. The more
men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in
general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling
duplicity of a spaniel.
Youth is the seed-time of good habits, as well in
nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to
form the Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast
variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and
population, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony.
Each being able might scorn each other's assistance: and while the
proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would
lament that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the
present time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which
is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in
misfortune, are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our
present union is marked with both these characters: we are young, and
we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our troubles,
and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in.
The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time,
which never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming
itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity,
and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their
conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a
king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter
of government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute
them afterwards: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn
wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity — to begin government
at the right end.
When William the Conqueror subdued England he gave
them law at the point of the sword; and until we consent that the seat
of government in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we
shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who
may treat us in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom?
where our property?
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable
duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors
thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do
therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that
selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so
unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears
on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of
all good society. For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that
it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of
religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our
Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious
dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal
principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like
children of the same family, differing only, in what is called their
Christian names.
Earlier in this work, I threw out a few thoughts
on the propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer
hints, not plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of rementioning
the subject, by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond
of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right
of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or
property, A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends. In a
former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal
representation; and there is no political matter which more deserves
our attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of
representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the
representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is
increased. As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the
Associators petition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania;
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 the Delegates were put together, which in point of
sense and business would have dishonored a school-boy, and after being
approved by a few, a very few without doors, were carried into the
house, and there passed in behalf of the whole colony; whereas, did the
whole colony know, with what ill-will that House hath entered on some
necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think
them unworthy of such a trust.
Immediate necessity makes many things convenient,
which if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right
are different things. When the calamities of America required a
consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper,
as to appoint persons from the several Houses of Assembly for that
purpose and the wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved
this continent from ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall
never be without a Congress, every 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.(2)
(2) Those who would fully understand of what great
consequence a large and equal representation is to a state, should read
Burgh's political Disquisitions.
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 eye of foreign nations, be considered as
rebels. The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to
be in arms under the name of subjects; we on the spot, can solve the
paradox: but to unite resistance and subjection, requires an idea much
too refined for common understanding.
Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and
despatched to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have
endured, and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for
redress; declaring, at the same time, that not being able, any longer
to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British
court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all
connection with her; at the same time assuring all such courts of our
peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into
trade with them. Such a memorial would produce more good effects to
this Continent, than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.
Under our present denomination of British subjects
we can neither be received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts
is against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank
with other nations.
These proceedings may at first appear strange and
difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already passed over,
will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an
independence is declared, the continent will feel itself like a man who
continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet
knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is
continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.
Appendix
Since the publication of the first edition of this
pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the king's
speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy
directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it
forth, at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The
bloody-mindedness of the one, show the necessity of pursuing the
doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the speech
instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of
independence.
Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive
they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least
degree of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if
this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king's speech,
as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a
general execration both by the congress and the people. Yet as the
domestic tranquility of a nation, depends greatly on the chastity of
what may properly be called national manners, it is often better, to
pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new
methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on that
guardian of our peace and safety. And perhaps, it is chiefly owing to
this prudent delicacy, that the king's speech, hath not before now,
suffered a public execution. The speech if it may be called one, is
nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the
common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous
method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But
this general massacre of mankind, is one of the privileges, and the
certain consequences of kings; for as nature knows them not, they know
not her, and although they are beings of our own creating, they know
not us, and are become the gods of their creators. The speech hath one
good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive, neither
can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny
appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line
convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He, who hunts the woods
for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a savage than the
king of Britain.
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a
whining jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, The address of the
people of England to the inhabitants of America, hath, perhaps from a
vain supposition, that the people here were to be frightened at the
pomp and description of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his
part) the real character of the present one: "But," says this writer,
"if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we
do not complain of," (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the repeal
of the Stamp Act) "it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that
prince, by whose nod alone they were permitted to do anything." This is
toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he
who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim
to rationality an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be
considered — as one, who hath, not only given up the proper dignity of
a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly
crawl through the world like a worm.
However, it matters very little now, what the king
of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every
moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his
feet; and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and
cruelty, procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the
interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already a large
and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be
granting away her property, to support a power who is become a reproach
to the names of men and Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch
over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are
of, as well as ye, who are more immediately the guardians of the public
liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by
European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation. But leaving
the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my
farther remarks to the following heads:
First. That it is the interest of America to be
separated from Britain.
Secondly. Which is the easiest and most
practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? with some occasional
remarks.
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it
proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced
men on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet
publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation
in a state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped
and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material
eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the
progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of
other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be
capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the legislative
powers in her own hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting
what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent
hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected. It
is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by which England is to
be benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the
countries as independent of each other as France and Spain; because in
many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the
independence of this country on Britain or any other which is now the
main and only object worthy of contention, and which, like all other
truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every
day.
First. Because it will come to that one time or
other.
Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the
harder it will be to accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself both in public and
private companies, with silently remarking the spacious errors of those
who speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard,
the following seems the most general, viz., that had this rupture
happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the Continent
would have been more able to have shaken off the dependance. To which I
reply, that our military ability at this time, arises from the
experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years
time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by
that time, have had a General, or even a military officer left; and we,
or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial
matters as the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely
attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is
preferable to all others: The argument turns thus — at the conclusion
of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and forty or
fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience;
wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point
between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains,
and a proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time
is the present time.
The reader will pardon this digression, as it does
not properly come under the head I first set out with, and to which I
again return by the following position, viz.:
Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she
to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, (which as
matters are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely) we
shall deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have
or may contract. The value of the back lands which some of the
provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extension of the
limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds sterling per hundred
acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania
currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two
millions yearly.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may
be sunk, without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon,
will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expense
of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that
the lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the
execution of which, the Congress for the time being, will be the
continental trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is
the earliest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence?
with some occasional remarks.
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily
beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally —
That independence being a single simple line, contained within
ourselves; and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and
complicated, and in which, a treacherous capricious court is to
interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to
every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without
government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on,
and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of
sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which every
secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is,
legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without
a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence
contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the
case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The
property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things.
The mind of the multitude is left at random, and feeling no fixed
object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts.
Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore,
every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The tories
dared not to have assembled offensively, had they known that their
lives, by that act were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of
distinction should be drawn, between English soldiers taken in battle,
and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but
the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible
feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to
dissensions. The Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if
something is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and
we shall fall into a state, in which, neither reconciliation nor
independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents
are got at their old game of dividing the continent, and there are not
wanting among us printers, who will be busy spreading specious
falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few
months ago in two of the New York papers, and likewise in two others,
is an evidence that there are men who want either judgment or honesty.
It is easy getting into holes and corners and
talking of reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how
difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the
Continent divide thereon. Do they take within their view, all the
various orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as
their own, are to be considered therein. Do they put themselves in the
place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier,
who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill
judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only,
regardless of others, the event will convince them, that "they are
reckoning without their Host."
Put us, says some, on the footing we were in the
year 1763: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of
Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were,
and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what
means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its
engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter
repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being violently obtained,
or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress? No going
to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of crowns; and the
sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the
footing of 1763, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on the
same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same
state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private
losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged;
otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable
period. Such a request had it been complied with a year ago, would have
won the heart and soul of the continent — but now it is too late, "the
Rubicon is passed."
Besides the taking up arms, merely to enforce the
repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law,
and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce
obedience thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the
ways and means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away
on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to our
persons; the destruction of our property by an armed force; the
invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously
qualifies the use of arms: And the instant, in which such a mode of
defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have
ceased; and the independency of America should have been considered, as
dating its area from, and published by, the first musket that was fired
against her. This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn by
caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of events,
of which the colonies were not the authors.
I shall conclude these remarks, with the following
timely and well intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are
three different ways by which an independency may hereafter be
effected; and that one of those three, will one day or other, be the
fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in congress; by
a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our
soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men;
virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it
perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first of
those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before
us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth.
We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation,
similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until
now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men perhaps
as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of
freedom from the event of a few months. The reflection is awful — and
in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little,
paltry cavillings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed
against the business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and
inviting period, and an independence be hereafter effected by any other
means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather,
whose narrow and prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure,
without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be given
in support of Independence, which men should rather privately think of,
than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we
shall be independent or not, but, anxious to accomplish it on a firm,
secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it is not yet began
upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even the tories (if such
beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous
to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first,
protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and well established form
of government, will be the only certain means of continuing it securely
to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they
ought to have prudence enough to wish for independence.
In short, independence is the only bond that can
tie and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears
will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a
cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with
Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court,
will be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of
peace, than with those, whom she denominates, "rebellious subjects,"
for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her
to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the
war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade
to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative,
by independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open
the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part of England will be still
with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it.
And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to.
On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no
offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former
editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the
doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favor of it are too
numerous to be opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with
suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his
neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line,
which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every
former dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let
none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and
resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights of mankind and
of the free and independent states of America.
Epistle to Quakers
To the Representatives of the Religious Society of
the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in
publishing a late piece, entitled "The Ancient Testimony and Principles
of the people called Quakers renewed with respect to the King and
Government, and Touching the Commotions now prevailing in these and
other parts of America, addressed to the people in general."
The writer of this is one of those few, who never
dishonors religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any
denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men
accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle is not so
properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body,
dabbling in matters, which the professed quietude of your Principles
instruct you not to meddle with.
As you have, without a proper authority for so
doing, put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers,
so, the writer of this, in order to be on an equal rank with
yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting himself in the place of
all those who approve the very writings and principles, against which
your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen their singular
situation, in order that you might discover in him, that presumption of
character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you
have any claim or title to Political Representation.
When men have departed from the right way, it is
no wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner
in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious
body of men) is not your proper walk; for however well adapted it might
appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put
unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural
and unjust.
The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make
four) we give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you,
because the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it
is the natural, as well as the religious wish of all denominations of
men. And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an Independent
Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and
aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with
Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We
act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and
uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of the present
day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to
separate and dissolve a connection which hath already filled our land
with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal
cause of future mischiefs to both countries.
We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither
from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets
and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of
our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands,
is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the
characters of highwaymen and housebreakers, and having no defence for
ourselves in the civil law; are obliged to punish them by the military
one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now,
applied the halter. Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted
sufferers in all and every part of the continent, and with a degree of
tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your bosoms.
But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your
Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put the bigot in
the place of the Christian.
O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged
principles! If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must
be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable
defence.
Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience,
and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince
the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for
they likewise bear arms. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing
it at St. James's, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the
admirals and captains who are practically ravaging our coasts, and to
all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under HIM whom
ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay(3) ye would
preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the royal tyrant of his
sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial
invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but like faithful
ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are
persecuted, neither endeavor to make us the authors of that reproach,
which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men,
that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because
ye pretend to be and are not Quakers.
(3) "Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity;
thou knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to be
overruled as well as to rule, and set upon the throne; and being
oppressed thou hast reason to know now hateful the oppressor is both to
God and man. If after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost
not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who
remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and
vanity, surely great will be thy condemnation. Against which snare, as
well as the temptation of those who may or do feed thee, and prompt
thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will be, to apply
thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience and
which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease
in thy sins." — Barclay's Address to Charles II.
Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some
part of your Testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin
was reduced to, and comprehended in the act of bearing arms, and that
by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for
conscience, because the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity:
And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your
pretended scruples; because we see them made by the same men, who, in
the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this
world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as
Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.
The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in
the third page of your testimony, that, "when a man's ways please the
Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him;" is very
unwisely chosen on your part; because it amounts to a proof, that the
king's ways (whom ye are so desirous of supporting) do not please the
Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.
I now proceed to the latter part of your
testimony, and that, for which all the foregoing seems only an
introduction, viz:
"It hath ever been our judgment and principle,
since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested
in our consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down
kings and governments, is God's peculiar prerogative; for causes best
known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or
contrivance therein; nor to be busy-bodies above our station, much less
to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn any of them, but to pray for
the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men: that we may
live a peaceable and quiet life, in all goodliness and honesty; under
the government which God is pleased to set over us." If these are
really your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave
that, which ye call God's work, to be managed by himself? These very
principles instruct you to wait with patience and humility, for the
event of all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine
will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political
Testimony if you fully believe what it contains? And the very
publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess,
or have not virtue enough to practice what ye believe.
The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency
to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every
government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting
down of kings and governments is God's peculiar prerogative, he most
certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle
itself leads you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may
happen to kings as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles,
then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present proud
imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and
publishers of the Testimony, are bound by the doctrine it contains, to
applaud the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are
changes in governments brought about by any other means than such as
are common and human; and such as we are now using. Even the dispersing
of the Jews, though foretold by our Savior, was effected by arms.
Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one side, ye ought not to be
meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in silence; and unless you
can produce divine authority, to prove, that the Almighty who hath
created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance it could
possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth,
nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and
abandoned court of Britain; unless I say, ye can show this, how can ye,
on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up
of the people "firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings,
and measures, as evidence a desire and design to break off the happy
connection we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom of Great Britain,
and our just and necessary subordination to the king, and those who are
lawfully placed in authority under him." What a slap in the face is
here! the men, who, in the very paragraph before, have quietly and
passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and
governments, into the hands of God, are now recalling their principles,
and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the
conclusion, which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the
doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen;
the absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could only
have been made by those, whose understandings were darkened by the
narrow and crabby spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are
not to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a
factional and fractional part thereof.
Here ends the examination of your testimony;
(which I call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read
and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; "That
the setting up and putting down of kings," most certainly mean, the
making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is
already one. And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We
neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake,
but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore your testimony in
whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgment, and
for many other reasons had better have been let alone than published.
First. Because it tends to the decrease and
reproach of religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society,
to make it a party in political disputes.
Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men,
numbers of whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being
concerned therein and approvers thereof.
Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that
continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late
liberal and charitable donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the
preservation of which, is of the utmost consequence to us all.
And here, without anger or resentment I bid you
farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and Christians, ye may always
fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and
be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the
example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics,
may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.
-THE END-
© 2008 - 2022 Revolutionary-War-and-Beyond.com Dan & Jax Bubis
Facebook Comments