|
Common Sense
By Thomas Paine
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 be 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 If 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
roundabout 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, wha he cannot do by
force ans 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 inhabitant 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. I 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* 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.
(*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 |
?5,553 |
|
90 |
?9,886 |
|
80 |
?3,638 |
|
70 |
?7,785 |
|
60 |
?4,197 |
|
50 |
?0,606 |
|
40 |
?,558 |
|
30 |
?,846 |
|
20 |
?,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 all |
|
6 |
100 |
?5,533 |
?13,318 |
|
12 |
90 |
?9,886 |
?58,632 |
|
12 |
80 |
?3,638 |
?83,656 |
|
43 |
70 |
?7,785 |
?46,755 |
|
35 |
60 |
?4,197 |
?96,895 |
|
40 |
50 |
?0,606 |
?24,240 |
|
45 |
40 |
?,758 |
?44,110 |
|
58 |
20 |
?,710 |
?15,180 |
|
85 Sloops, bombs,
and fireships, one another |
?,000 |
?70,000 |
|
|
|
|
Cost |
?,266,786 |
|
Remains for guns |
?29,214 |
|
Total |
?,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.*
*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* 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.
*"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-
Source: Common
Sense, by Thomas Paine, printed by W. and T.
Bradford, Philadelphia, 1791. |
