Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved was written by James Otis in response to the Sugar Act and the rumored Stamp Act.
The colonists
believed firmly that rulers could only make laws and tax
their subjects with the consent of those being governed through their
elected
representatives. Since the colonists had no elected
representatives in Parliament, the taxes they imposed through these acts were unconstitutional
and violated their rights as British citizens and indeed, as human beings. This pamphlet helped establish James Otis as a leader in the rising
protests against tyrannical British rule in the colonies that eventually led to the American Revolutionary War. You can read Rights of the British
Colonies Asserted and Proved below.
You can also read more about the Sugar Act here.
Let no Man think I am about to commence advocate for despotism, because I
affirm that government is founded on the necessity of our natures; and
that
an original supreme Sovereign, absolute, and uncontroulable, earthly
power must exist in and preside over every society; from whose final
decisions
there can be no appeal but directly to Heaven. It is therefore
originally and ultimately in the people. I say supreme absolute power is
originally
and ultimately in the people; and they never did in fact freely, nor can
they rightfully make an absolute, unlimited renunciation of this divine
right.
It is ever in the nature of the thing given in trust, and on a
condition, the performance of which no mortal can dispence with; namely,
that the person
or persons on whom the sovereignty is confer'd by the people, shall
incessantly consult their good. Tyranny of all kinds is to be abhor'd,
whether it be
in the hands of one, or of the few, or of the many. -- And tho' "in the
last age a generation of men sprung up that would flatter Princes with
an opinion
that they have a divine right to absolute power;" yet "slavery is so
vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the
generous temper
and courage of our nation, that 'tis hard to be conceived that an
englishman, much less a gentleman, should plead for it." Especially at a
time when the
finest writers of the most polite nations on the continent of Europe,
are enraptured with the beauties of the civil constitution of
Great-Britain; and
envy her, no less for the freedom of her sons, than for her immense
wealth and military glory.
But let the origin of government be placed where it may, the end of it
is manifestly the good of the whole. Salus populi supreme lex esto, is
of the law of
nature, and part of that grand charter given the human race, (tho' too
many of them are afraid to assert it,) by the only monarch in the
universe, who has
a clear and indisputable right to absolute power; because he is the only
One who is omniscient as well as omnipotent.
It is evidently contrary to the first principles of reason, that supreme
unlimited power should be in the hands of one man. It is the greatest
"idolatry,
begotten by flattery, on the body of pride," that could induce one to
think that a single mortal should be able to hold so great a power, if
ever so well
inclined. Hence the origin of deifying princes: It was from the trick of
gulling the vulgar into a belief that their tyrants were omniscient,
and that it
was therefore right, that they should be considered as omnipotent. Hence
the Dii majorum et minorum gentium; the great, the monarchical, the
little Provincial
subordinate and subaltern gods, demigods, and semidemi-gods, ancient and
modern. Thus deities of all kinds were multiplied and increased in
abundance; for
every devil incarnate, who could enslave a people, acquired a title to
divinity; and thus the "rabble of the skies" was made up of locusts and
caterpillars;
lions, tygers and harpies; and other devourers translated from plaguing
the earth!
The end of government being the good of mankind, points out its great
duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet,
and happy enjoyment
of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government
can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the
security, tranquility
and prosperity of the people. If life, liberty and property could be
enjoyed in as great perfection in solitude, as in society, there would
be no need of government.
But the experience of ages has proved that such is the nature of man, a
weak, imperfect being; that the valuable ends of life cannot be obtained
without the
union and assistance of many. Hence 'tis clear that men cannot live
apart or independent of each other: In solitude men would perish; and
yet they cannot live
together without contests. These contests require some arbitrator to
determine them. The necessity of a common, indifferent and impartial
judge, makes all men
seek one; tho' few find him in the sovereign power, of their respective
states or any where else in subordination to it.
Government is founded immediately on the necessities of human nature,
and ultimately on the will of God, the author of nature; who has not
left it to men in
general to choose, whether they will be members of society or not, but
at the hazard of their senses if not of their lives. Yet it is left to
every man as he
comes of age to chuse what society he will continue to belong to. Nay if
one has a mind to turn Hermit, and after he has been born, nursed, and
brought up in
the arms of society, and acquired the habits and passions of social
life, is willing to run the risque of starving alone, which is generally
most unavoidable
in a state of hermitage, who shall hinder him? I know of no human law,
founded on the law of nature, to restrain him from separating himself
from the species,
if he can find it in his heart to leave them; unless it should be said,
it is against the great law of self-preservation: But of this every man
will think
himself his own judge.
The few Hermits and Misanthropes that have ever existed, show that those
states are unnatural. If we were to take out from them, those who have
made great
worldly gain of their godly hermitage, and those who have been under the
madness of enthusiasm, or disappointed hopes in their ambitious
projects, for the
detriment of mankind; perhaps there might not be left ten from Adam to
this day.
The form of government is by nature and by right so far left to the
individuals of each society, that they may alter it from a simple
democracy or government
of all over all, to any other form they please. Such alteration may and
ought to be made by express compact: But how seldom this right has been
asserted,
history will abundantly show. For once that it has been fairly settled
by compact; fraud force or accident have determined it an hundred times.
As the people
have gained upon tyrants, these have been obliged to relax, only till a
fairer opportunity has put it in their power to encroach again.
But if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not prove a
right to tyranize. There can be no prescription old enough to supersede
the law of
nature, and the grant of God almighty; who has given to all men a
natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to
make themselves so,
if they please.
Government having been proved to be necessary by the law of nature, it
makes no difference in the thing to call it from a certain period,
civil. This term
can only relate to form, to additions to, or deviations from, the
substance of government: This being founded in nature, the
super-structures and the whole
administration should be conformed to the law of universal reason. A
supreme legislative and supreme executive power, must be placed
somewhere in every
common-wealth: Where there is no other positive provision or compact to
the contract, those powers remain in the whole body of the people. It is
also evident
there can be but one best way of depositing those powers; but what that
way is, mankind have been disputing in peace and in war more than five
thousand years.
If we could suppose the individuals of a community met to deliberate,
whether it were best to keep those powers in their own hands, or dispose
of them in trust,
the following questions would occur -- Whether those two great powers of
Legislation and Execution should remain united? If so, whether in the
hands of the
many, or jointly or severally in the hands of a few, or jointly in some
one individual? If both those powers are retained in the hands of the
many, where
nature seems to have placed them originally, the government is a simple
democracy, or a government of all over all. This can be administered,
only by
establishing it as a first principle, that the votes of the majority
shall be taken as the voice of the whole. If those powers are lodged in
the hands
of a few, the government is an Aristocracy or Oligarchy. Here too the
first principles of a practicable administration is that the majority
rules the
whole. If those great powers are both lodged in the hands of one man,
the government is a simple Monarchy, commonly, though falsly called
absolute, if
by that term is meant a right to do as one pleases. -- Sic volo, sic
jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas, belongs not of right to any mortal
man.
The same law of nature and of reason is equally obligatory on a
democracy, an aristocracy, and a monarchy: Whenever the administrators,
in any of those
forms, deviate from truth, justice and equity, they verge towards
tyranny, and are to be opposed; and if they prove incorrigible, they
will be deposed by
the people, if the people are not rendered too abject. Deposing the
administrators of a simple democracy may sound oddly, but it is done
every day, and in
almost every vote. A.B. & C. for example, make a democracy. Today A
& B are for so vile a measure as a standing army. Tomorrow B & C
vote it out. This is
as really deposing the former administrators, as setting up and making a
new king is deposing the old one. Democracy in the one case, and
monarchy in the
other, still remain; all that is done is to change the administration.
The first principle and great end of government being to provide for the
best good of all the people, this can be done only by a supreme
legislative and
executive ultimately in the people, or whole community, where God has
placed it; but the inconveniencies, not to say impossibility, attending
the consultations
and operations of a large body of people have made it necessary to
transfer the power of the whole to a few: This necessity gave rise to
deputation, proxy or
a right of representation.
© 2008 - 2022 Revolutionary-War-and-Beyond.com Dan & Jax Bubis
Facebook Comments