Introduction to the Third Edition
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages,
are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general
favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it
a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first
a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult
soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. As a
long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of
calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too
which might never have been thought of, had not the
Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the King
of England hath undertaken in his OWN RIGHT, to support the
Parliament in what he calls THEIRS, and as the good people
of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination,
they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the
pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of
either. In the following sheets, the author hath studiously
avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves.
Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part
thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a
pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or
unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains
are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America is
in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many
circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but
universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of
Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their
Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate
with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural
rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof
from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to
whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class,
regardless of Party Censure, is the AUTHOR.
P. S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been
delayed, with a View of taking notice (had it been
necessary) of any Attempt to refute the Doctrine of
Independence: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now
presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a
Performance ready for the Public being considerably past.
Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary
to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the DOCTRINE
ITSELF, not the MAN. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say,
That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of
Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and
principle.
Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with
Concise Remarks on the English Constitution
SOME writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas
they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our
wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by
uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining
our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates
distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government,
even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its
worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are
exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might
expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is
heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which
we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost
innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of
the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience
clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no
other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it
necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish
means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced
to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises
him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore,
security being the true design and end of government, it
unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most
likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and
greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and
end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons
settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected
with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling
of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural
liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand
motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is
so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for
perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek
assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires
the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a
tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man
might labour out the common period of life without
accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he
could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed;
hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and
every different want would call him a different way.
Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though
neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from
living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather
be said to perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form
our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal
blessings of which would supersede, and render the
obligations of law and government unnecessary while they
remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but
Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen
that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties
of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause,
they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to
each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity
of establishing some form of government to supply the defect
of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State House,
under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to
deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that
their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and
be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In
this first parliament every man by natural right will have a
seat.
But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will
encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may
be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of
them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their
number was small, their habitations near, and the public
concerns few and trifling. This will point out the
convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative
part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole
body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake
which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the
same manner as the whole body would act were they present.
If the colony continue encreasing, it will become necessary
to augment the number of representatives, and that the
interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it
will be found best to divide the whole into convenient
parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the
ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate
from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of
having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that
means return and mix again with the general body of the
ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will
be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for
themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish
a common interest with every part of the community, they
will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this,
(not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF
GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a
mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to
govern the world; here too is the design and end of
government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes
may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound;
however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our
understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will
say, 'tis right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle
in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more
simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered,
and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim
in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted
constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and
slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the
world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom
was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to
convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to
promise is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature)
have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the
people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering
springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by
a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of
England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may
suffer for years together without being able to discover in
which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in
another, and every political physician will advise a
different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing
prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the
component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find
them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies,
compounded with some new Republican materials.
First. — The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person
of the King.
Secondly. — The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the
persons of the Peers.
Thirdly. — The new Republican materials, in the persons
of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of
England.
The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of
the People; wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they
contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.
To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of
three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical;
either the words have no meaning, or they are flat
contradictions.
First. — That the King it not to be trusted without being
looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute
power is the natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly. — That the Commons, by being appointed for that
purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than
the Crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a
power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives
afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by
empowering him to reject their other bills; it again
supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has
already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the
composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the
means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where
the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts
him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him
to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by
unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the
whole character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution
thus: the King, say they, is one, the people another; the
Peers are a house in behalf of the King, the commons in
behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of
a house divided against itself; and though the expressions
be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle
and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest
construction that words are capable of, when applied to the
description of something which either cannot exist, or is
too incomprehensible to be within the compass of
description, will be words of sound only, and though they
may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind: for this
explanation includes a previous question, viz. HOW CAME THE
KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND
ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift
of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS
CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the
constitution makes supposes such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means
either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole
affair is a Felo de se: for as the greater weight will
always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine
are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which
power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will
govern: and tho' the others, or a part of them, may clog,
or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet
so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be
ineffectual: The first moving power will at last have its
way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English
constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its
whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and
pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been
wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute
Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to
put the Crown in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own
government, by King, Lords and Commons, arises as much or
more from national pride than reason. Individuals are
undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries:
but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in
Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of
proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the
people under the formidable shape of an act of parliament.
For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more
subtle — not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice
in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that IT IS
WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as
oppressive in England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English
form of government, is at this time highly necessary; for as
we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to
others, while we continue under the influence of some
leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to
ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate
prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is
unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession
in favour of a rotten constitution of government will
disable us from discerning a good one.
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession
MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation,
the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent
circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a
great measure be accounted for, and that without having
recourse to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and
avarice. Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or
never the MEANS of riches; and tho' avarice will preserve a
man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him
too timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and great distinction for which no
truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that
is the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and
female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the
distinctions of Heaven; but how a race of men came into the
world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some
new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are
the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the
scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of
which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings
which throws mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king
hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of
the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the
same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first
Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes
when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world
by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the
custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever
set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid
divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian
World hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their
living ones. How impious is the title of sacred Majesty
applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is
crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot
be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can
it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will
of the Almighty as declared by Gideon, and the prophet
Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by Kings.
All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very
smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they
undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have
their governments yet to form. "Render unto Cesar the things
which are Cesar's" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet
it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at
that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage
to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic
account of the creation, till the Jews under a national
delusion requested a king. Till then their form of
government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty
interposed) was a kind of Republic, administered by a judge
and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it
was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title
but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on
the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings,
he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his
honour, should disapprove a form of government which so
impiously invades the prerogative of Heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the
Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against
them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites,
Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory
thro' the divine interposition decided in his favour. The
Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the
generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying,
"Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son's son."
Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom
only, but an hereditary one; but Gideon in the piety of his
soul replied, "I will not rule over you, neither shall my
son rule over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU." Words need
not be more explicit: Gideon doth not decline the honour,
but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he
compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks,
but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with
disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of Heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell
again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had
for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something
exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold
of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were intrusted
with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and
clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, "Behold thou art old,
and they sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to
judge us like all the other nations." And here we cannot
observe but that their motives were bad, viz. that they
might be LIKE unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens,
whereas their true glory lay in being as much UNLIKE them as
possible. "But the thing displeased Samuel when they said,
give us a King to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord,
and the Lord said unto Samuel, hearken unto the voice of the
people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not
rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT
REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they have
done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even
unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served
other Gods: so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken
unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and
show them the manner of the King that shall reign over
them," i.e. not of any particular King, but the general
manner of the Kings of the earth whom Israel was so eagerly
copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of
time and difference of manners, the character is still in
fashion. "And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the
people, that asked of him a King. And he said, This shall be
the manner of the King that shall reign over you. He will
take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots
and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his
chariots" (this description agrees with the present mode of
impressing men) "and he will appoint him captains over
thousands and captains over fifties, will set them to clear
his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his
instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots, And he
will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be
cooks, and to be bakers" (this describes the expense and
luxury as well as the oppression of Kings) "and he will take
your fields and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even
the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will
take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give
them to his officers and to his servants" (by which we see
that bribery, corruption, and favouritism, are the standing
vices of Kings) "and he will take the tenth of your men
servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young
men, and your asses, and put them to his work: and he will
take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants,
and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which
ye shell have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT
DAY." This accounts for the continuation of Monarchy;
neither do the characters of the few good kings which have
lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the
sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium of David takes
no notice of him OFFICIALLY AS A KING, but only as a MAN
after God's own heart. "Nevertheless the people refused to
obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will
have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations,
and that our king may judge us, and go out before us and
fight our battles." Samuel continued to reason with them but
to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all
would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly,
he cried out, "I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send
thunder and rain" (which was then a punishment, being in the
time of wheat harvest) "that ye may perceive and see that
your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of
the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the
Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all
the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the
people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord
thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS
THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING." These portions of scripture are
direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal
construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his
protest against monarchical government is true, or the
scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe
that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in
withholding the scripture from the public in popish
countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of
government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary
succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening
of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right,
is an insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being
originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set
up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for
ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of
honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be
far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest
natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is
that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so
frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS
FOR A LION.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other
public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of
those honors could have no power to give away the right of
posterity, and though they might say "We choose you for our
head," they could not without manifest injustice to their
children say "that your children and your children's
children shall reign over ours forever." Because such an
unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the
next succession put them under the government of a rogue or
a fool. Most wise men in their private sentiments have ever
treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of
those evils which when once established is not easily
removed: many submit from fear, others from superstition,
and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder
of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world
to have had an honorable origin: whereas it is more than
probable, that, could we take off the dark covering of
antiquity and trace them to their first rise, we should find
the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian
of some restless gang, whose savage manners of pre-eminence
in subtilty obtained him the title of chief among
plunderers; and who by increasing in power and extending his
depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless to purchase
their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors
could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his
descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of
themselves was incompatible with the free and restrained
principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary
succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take
place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or
complemental; but as few or no records were extant in those
days, the traditionary history stuff'd with fables, it was
very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up
some superstitious tale conveniently timed, Mahomet-like, to
cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar.
Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to
threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new
one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly)
induced many at first to favour hereditary pretensions; by
which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that
what at first was submitted to as a convenience was
afterwards claimed as a right.
England since the conquest hath known some few good
monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad
ones: yet no man in his senses can say that their claim
under William the Conqueror is a very honourable one. A
French bastard landing with an armed Banditti and
establishing himself king of England against the consent of
the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally
original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However it is
needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of
hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to believe it,
let them promiscuously worship the Ass and the Lion, and
welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb
their devotion.
Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came
at first? The question admits but of three answers, viz.
either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first
king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the
next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot,
yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it
appear from that transaction that there was any intention it
ever should. If the first king of any country was by
election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the
next; for to say, that the right of all future generations
is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their
choice not only of a king but of a family of kings for ever,
hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of
original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost
in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no
other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. for as in
Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men
obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan,
and in the other to sovereignty; as our innocence was lost
in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both
disable us from re-assuming some former state and privilege,
it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary
succession are parallels. Dishonourable rank! inglorious
connection! yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a
juster simile.
As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend
it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact
not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the
antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of
hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure
a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine
authority, but as it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the
WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of
oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and
others to obey, soon grow insolent. Selected from the rest
of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance;
and the world they act in differs so materially from the
world at large, that they have but little opportunity of
knowing its true interests, and when they succeed in the
government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any
throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that
the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age;
all which time the regency acting under the cover of a king
have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust.
The same national misfortune happens when a king worn out
with age and infirmity enters the last stage of human
weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to
every miscreant who can tamper successfully with the follies
either of age or infancy.
The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in
favor of hereditary succession is, that it preserves a
nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be
weighty; whereas it is the most bare-faced falsity ever
imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns
the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that
distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there
has been (including the revolution) no less than eight civil
wars and nineteen Rebellions. Wherefore instead of making
for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very
foundation it seems to stand upon.
The contest for monarchy and succession, between the
houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of
blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles besides
skirmishes and sieges were fought between Henry and Edward.
Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was
prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and
the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters
are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph
from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a
palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of
temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from
the throne, and Edward re-called to succeed him. The
parliament always following the strongest side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and
was not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in
whom the families were united. Including a period of 67
years, viz. from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or
that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a
form of government which the word of God bears testimony
against, and blood will attend it.
If we enquire into the business of a King, we shall find
that in some countries they may have none; and after
sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves
or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and
leave their successors to tread the same idle round. In
absolute monarchies the whole weight of business civil and
military lies on the King; the children of Israel in their
request for a king urged this plea, "that he may judge us,
and go out before us and fight our battles." But in
countries where he is neither a Judge nor a General, as in
England, a man would be puzzled to know what IS his
business.
The nearer any government approaches to a Republic, the
less business there is for a King. It is somewhat difficult
to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir
William Meredith calls it a Republic; but in its present
state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt
influence of the Crown, by having all the places in its
disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and
eaten out the virtue of the House of Commons (the Republican
part in the constitution) that the government of England is
nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall
out with names without understanding them. For 'tis the
Republican and not the Monarchical part of the Constitution
of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of
choosing an House of Commons from out of their own body —
and it is easy to see that when Republican virtues fail,
slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly,
but because monarchy hath poisoned the Republic; the Crown
hath engrossed the Commons.
In England a King hath little more to do than to make war
and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to
empoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A
pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred
thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the
bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in
the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever
lived.
Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs
IN the following pages I offer nothing more than simple
facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other
preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will
divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer
his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that
he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true
character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond
the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle
between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked
in the controversy, from different motives, and with various
designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of
debate is closed. Arms as the last resource decide the
contest; the appeal was the choice of the King, and the
Continent has accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho' an
able minister was not without his faults) that on his being
attacked in the House of Commons on the score that his
measures were only of a temporary kind, replied, "THEY WILL
LAST MY TIME." Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess
the Colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors
will be remembered by future generations with detestation.
The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis
not the affair of a City, a County, a Province, or a
Kingdom; but of a Continent — of at least one-eighth part of
the habitable Globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year,
or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest,
and will be more or less affected even to the end of time,
by the proceedings now. Now is the seed-time of Continental
union, faith and honour. The least fracture now will be like
a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind
of a young oak; the wound would enlarge with the tree, and
posterity read in it full grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era
for politics is struck — a new method of thinking hath
arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of
April, i.e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the
almanacks of the last year; which tho' proper then, are
superseded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the
advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in
one and the same point, viz. a union with Great Britain; the
only difference between the parties was the method of
effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship;
but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and
the second hath withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of
reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed
away and left us as we were, it is but right that we should
examine the contrary side of the argument, and enquire into
some of the many material injuries which these Colonies
sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with
and dependent on Great Britain. To examine that connection
and dependence, on the principles of nature and common
sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and
what we are to expect, if dependent.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has
flourished under her former connection with Great Britain,
the same connection is necessary towards her future
happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can
be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as
well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that
it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of
our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But
even this is admitting more than is true; for I answer
roundly that America would have flourished as much, and
probably much more, had no European power taken any notice
of her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are
the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while
eating is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she hath
engrossed us is true, and defended the Continent at our
expense as well as her own, is admitted; and she would have
defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. — for the sake of
trade and dominion.
Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices
and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted
the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that
her motive was INTEREST not ATTACHMENT; and that she did not
protect us from OUR ENEMIES on OUR ACCOUNT; but from HER
ENEMIES on HER OWN ACCOUNT, from those who had no quarrel
with us on any OTHER ACCOUNT, and who will always be our
enemies on the SAME ACCOUNT. Let Britain waive her
pretensions to the Continent, or the Continent throw off the
dependence, and we should be at peace with France and Spain,
were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last
war ought to warn us against connections.
It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the
Colonies have no relation to each other but through the
Parent Country, i.e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys and
so on for the rest, are sister Colonies by the way of
England; this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving
relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of
proving enmity (or enemyship, if I may so call it.) France
and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies
as AMERICANS, but as our being the SUBJECTS OF GREAT
BRITAIN.
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the
more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their
young, nor savages make war upon their families. Wherefore,
the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it
happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase
PARENT OR MOTHER COUNTRY hath been jesuitically adopted by
the King and his parasites, with a low papistical design of
gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our
minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of
America. This new World hath been the asylum for the
persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from EVERY
PART of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender
embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster;
and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny
which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their
descendants still.
In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the
narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent
of England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we
claim brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph
in the generosity of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we
surmount the force of local prejudices, as we enlarge our
acquaintance with the World. A man born in any town in
England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most
with his fellow parishioners (because their interests in
many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name
of NEIGHBOR; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he
drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the
name of TOWNSMAN; if he travel out of the county and meet
him in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street
and town, and calls him COUNTRYMAN, i.e. COUNTYMAN; but if
in their foreign excursions they should associate in France,
or any other part of EUROPE, their local remembrance would
be enlarged into that of ENGLISHMEN. And by a just parity of
reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other
quarter of the globe, are COUNTRYMEN; for England, Holland,
Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in
the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of
street, town, and county do on the smaller ones;
Distinctions too limited for Continental minds. Not one
third of the inhabitants, even of this province,
[Pennsylvania], are of English descent. Wherefore, I
reprobate the phrase of Parent or Mother Country applied to
England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and
ungenerous.
But, admitting that we were all of English descent, what
does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open
enemy, extinguishes every other name and title: and to say
that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The
first king of England, of the present line (William the
Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the peers of England
are descendants from the same country; wherefore, by the
same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by
France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and
the Colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to
the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is
uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for
this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of
inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia,
Africa, or Europe.
Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at
defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to,
will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe;
because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a
free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her
barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to
show a single advantage that this continent can reap by
being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge;
not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its
price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must
be paid for buy them where we will.
But the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by
that connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind
at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce
the alliance: because, any submission to, or dependence on,
Great Britain, tends directly to involve this Continent in
European wars and quarrels, and set us at variance with
nations who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against
whom we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our
market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection
with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to
steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do,
while, by her dependence on Britain, she is made the
makeweight in the scale of British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with Kingdoms to be long at
peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any
foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, BECAUSE OF
HER CONNECTION WITH BRITAIN. The next war may not turn out
like the last, and should it not, the advocates for
reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then,
because neutrality in that case would be a safer convoy than
a man of war. Every thing that is right or reasonable pleads
for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of
nature cries, 'TIS TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which
the Almighty hath placed England and America is a strong and
natural proof that the authority of the one over the other,
was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which
the Continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument,
and the manner in which it was peopled, encreases the force
of it. The Reformation was preceded by the discovery of
America: As if the Almighty graciously meant to open a
sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home
should afford neither friendship nor safety.
The authority of Great Britain over this continent, is a
form of government, which sooner or later must have an end:
And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking
forward, under the painful and positive conviction that what
he calls "the present constitution" is merely temporary. As
parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is
not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may
bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as
we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do
the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully.
In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should
take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few
years farther into life; that eminence will present a
prospect which a few present fears and prejudices conceal
from our sight.
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary
offence, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who
espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included
within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are
not to be trusted, weak men who CANNOT see, prejudiced men
who will not see, and a certain set of moderate men who
think better of the European world than it deserves; and
this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the
cause of more calamities to this Continent than all the
other three.
It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the
scene of present sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently
brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness
with which all American property is possessed. But let our
imaginations transport us a few moments to Boston; that seat
of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for
ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The
inhabitants of that unfortunate city who but a few months
ago were in ease and affluence, have now no other
alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg.
Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue
within the city and plundered by the soldiery if they leave
it, in their present situation they are prisoners without
the hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their
relief they would be exposed to the fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the
offences of Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best,
are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again
for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of
mankind: bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the
touchstone of nature, and then tell me whether you can
hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that
hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do
all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by
your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future
connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor
honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only
on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time
fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you
say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask,
hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been
destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children
destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you
lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the
ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you
not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can
still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy
the name of husband, father, friend or lover, and whatever
may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a
coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying
them by those feelings and affections which nature
justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of
discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the
felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the
purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal
and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some
fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe
to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by
delay and timidity. The present winter is worth
an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the
whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is
no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or
what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing
a season so precious and useful.
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of
things to all examples from former ages, to suppose, that
this continent can longer remain subject to any external
power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The
utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass
a plan short of separation, which can promise the continent
even a year's security. Reconciliation is now a
falacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion, and Art
cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses,
"never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly
hate have pierced so deep."
Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our
prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to
convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms
obstinacy in Kings more than repeated petitioning — and
nothing hath contributed more than that very measure to make
the Kings of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden.
Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God's sake,
let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next
generation to be cutting throats, under the violated
unmeaning names of parent and child.
To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and
visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp act, yet
a year or two undeceived us; as well may we suppose that
nations, which have been once defeated, will never renew the
quarrel.
As to government matters, it is not in the power of
Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it
will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with
any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant
from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot
conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running
three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition,
waiting four or five months for an answer, which when
obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in
a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness — There
was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time
for it to cease.
Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are
the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care;
but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent
to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath
nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet,
and as England and America, with respect to each other,
reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they
belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to
itself.
I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or
resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and
independence; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously
persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to
be so; that every thing short of that is mere
patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity, — that it
is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at
a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have
rendered this continent the glory of the earth.
As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination
towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be
obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways
equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have been
already put to.
The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just
proportion to the expense. The removal of North, or the
whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we
have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an
inconvenience, which would have sufficiently balanced the
repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been
obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if
every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while
to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly,
dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if that is all
we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a
folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I
have always considered the independency of this continent,
as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from the
late rapid progress of the continent to maturity, the event
could not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of
hostilities, it was not worth the while to have disputed a
matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we
meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an
estate on a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a
tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer
wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal
nineteenth of April 1775, but the moment the event of that
day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered
Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that
with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE, can
unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep
with their blood upon his soul.
But admitting that matters were now made up, what would
be the event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that
for several reasons.
First. The powers of governing still remaining in
the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the
whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shewn
himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered
such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a
proper man to say to these colonies, "You shall make no
laws but what I please." And is there any inhabitant in
America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what
is called the present constitution, that this
continent can make no laws but what the king gives it leave
to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that
(considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be
made here, but such as suit his purpose. We may be as
effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by
submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are
made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the
whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this
continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going
forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling
or ridiculously petitioning. — We are already greater than
the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter
endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point.
Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper
power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question
is an independent, for independency means no more,
than, whether we shall make our own laws, or, whether the
king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have,
shall tell us, "there shall be no laws but such as I
like."
But the king you will say has a negative in England; the
people there can make no laws without his consent. In point
of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous,
that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall
say to several millions of people, older and wiser than
himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But
in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will
never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer,
that England being the King's residence, and America not so,
make quite another case. The king's negative here is
ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in
England, for there he will scarcely refuse his
consent to a bill for putting England into as strong a state
of defence as possible, and in America he would never suffer
such a bill to be passed.
America is only a secondary object in the system of
British politics, England consults the good of this
country, no farther than it answers her own purpose.
Wherefore, her own interest leads her to suppress the growth
of ours in every case which doth not promote her
advantage, or in the least interferes with it. A pretty
state we should soon be in under such a second-hand
government, considering what has happened! Men do not change
from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name: And in
order to shew that reconciliation now is a dangerous
doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the king
at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of reinstating
himself in the government of the provinces; in order
that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTILITY, IN THE LONG
RUN, WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT
ONE. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
Secondly. That as even the best terms, which we
can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary
expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship, which
can last no longer than till the colonies come of age, so
the general face and state of things, in the interim, will
be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants of property will not
choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs
but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on the brink
of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the present
inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispose of
their effects, and quit the continent.
But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing
but independence, i. e. a continental form of government,
can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it
inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a
reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than
probable, that it will followed by a revolt somewhere or
other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than
all the malice of Britain.
Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity;
(thousands more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those
men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered.
All they now possess is liberty, what they before
enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing
more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general
temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will
be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they
will care very little about her. And a government which
cannot preserve the peace, is no government at all, and in
that case we pay our money for nothing; and pray what is it
that Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on paper,
should a civil tumult break out the very day after
reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I
believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded an
independence, fearing that it would produce civil wars. It
is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and
that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread
from a patched up connexion than from independence. I make
the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven
from house and home, my property destroyed, and my
circumstances ruined, that as a man, sensible of injuries, I
could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or
consider myself bound thereby.
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order
and obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to
make every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No
man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any
other grounds, that such as are truly childish and
ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for
superiority over another.
Where there are no distinctions there can be no
superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The
republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in
peace. Holland and Swisserland are without wars, foreign or
domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never
long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to
enterprizing ruffians at home; and that degree of
pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority,
swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances,
where a republican government, by being formed on more
natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.
If there is any true cause of fear respecting
independence, it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do
not see their way out — Wherefore, as an opening into that
business, I offer the following hints; at the same time
modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them
myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise to
something better. Could the straggling thoughts of
individuals be collected, they would frequently form
materials for wise and able men to improve into useful
matter.
Let the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The
representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic,
and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress.
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten,
convenient districts, each district to send a proper number
of delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least
thirty. The whole number in Congress will be least 390. Each
Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following
method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken
from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which, let
the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out
of the delegates of that province. In the next
Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only,
omitting that colony from which the president was taken in
the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole
thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order
that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily
just, not less than three fifths of the Congress to be
called a majority. — He that will promote discord, under a
government so equally formed as this, would have joined
Lucifer in his revolt.
But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in
what manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems
most agreeable and consistent that it should come from some
intermediate body between the governed and the governors,
that is, between the Congress and the people, let a
CONTINENTAL CONFERENCE be held, in the following manner, and
for the following purpose.
A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two
for each colony. Two members for each House of Assembly, or
Provincial Convention; and five representatives of the
people at large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of
each province, for, and in behalf of the whole province, by
as many qualified voters as shall think proper to attend
from all parts of the province for that purpose; or, if more
convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or
three of the most populous parts thereof. In this
conference, thus assembled, will be united, the two grand
principles of business, knowledge and power.
The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by
having had experience in national concerns, will be able and
useful counsellors, and the whole, being impowered by the
people, will have a truly legal authority.
The conferring members being met, let their business be
to frame a CONTINENTAL CHARTER, or Charter of the United
Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of
England) fixing the number and manner of choosing members of
Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting,
and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between
them: (Always remembering, that our strength is continental,
not provincial:) Securing freedom and property to all men,
and above all things, the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience; with such other
matter as is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately
after which, the said Conference to dissolve, and the bodies
which shall be chosen comformable to the said charter, to be
the legislators and governors of this continent for the time
being: Whose peace and happiness, may God preserve, Amen.
Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or
some similar purpose, I offer them the following extracts
from that wise observer on governments Dragonetti.
"The science" says he "of the politician consists in fixing
the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would
deserve the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of
government that contained the greatest sum of individual
happiness, with the least national expense."
"Dragonetti on virtue and rewards."
But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you
Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind
like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear
to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be
solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be
brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let
a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that
so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS
KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in
free countries the law ought to be King; and there
ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards
arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be
demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it
is.
A government of our own is our natural right: And when a
man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human
affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely
wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool
deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to
trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we
omit it now, some, Massanello may hereafter arise, who
laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together
the desperate and discontented, and by assuming to
themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the
liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the
government of America return again into the hands of
Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a
temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune;
and in such a case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she
could hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and
ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the
oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence
now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to
eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government.
There are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think
it glorious to expel from the continent, that barbarous and
hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes
to destroy us, the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is
dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.
To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason
forbids us to have faith, and our affections wounded through
a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and
folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred
between us and them, and can there be any reason to hope,
that as the relationship expires, the affection will
increase, or that we shall agree better, when we have ten
times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever?
Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye
restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to
prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile
Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people
of England are presenting addresses against us. There are
injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be
nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the
ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the
murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these
unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They
are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They
distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social
compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated from the
earth, or have only a casual existence were we callous to
the touches of affection. The robber, and the murderer,
would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which
our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice.
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the
tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old
world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted
round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. —
Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given
her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare
in time an asylum for mankind.
Of the Present Ability of America: with some
Miscellaneous Reflections
I HAVE never met with a man, either in England or
America, who hath not confessed his opinion, that a
separation between the countries would take place one time
or other: And there is no instance in which we have shown
less judgment, than in endeavoring to describe, what we
call, the ripeness or fitness of the continent for
independence.
As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their
opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes,
take a general survey of things, and endeavor if possible to
find out the VERY time. But I need not go far, the inquiry
ceases at once, for the TIME HATH FOUND US. The general
concurrence, the glorious union of all things, proves the
fact.
'Tis not in numbers but in unity that our great strength
lies: yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the
force of all the world. The Continent hath at this time the
largest body of armed and disciplined men of any power under
Heaven: and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in
which no single colony is able to support itself, and the
whole, when united, is able to do any thing. Our land force
is more than sufficient, and as to Naval affairs, we cannot
be insensible that Britain would never suffer an American
man of war to be built, while the Continent remained in her
hands. Wherefore, we should be no forwarder an hundred years
hence in that branch than we are now; but the truth is, we
should be less so, because the timber of the Country is
every day diminishing, and that which will remain at last,
will be far off or difficult to procure.
Were the Continent crowded with inhabitants, her
sufferings under the present circumstances would be
intolerable. The more seaport-towns we had, the more should
we have both to defend and to lose. Our present numbers are
so happily proportioned to our wants, that no man need be
idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and the
necessities of an army create a new trade.
Debts we have none: and whatever we may contract on this
account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can
we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an
independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any
price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of
getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present
ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using
posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving
them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs from
which they derive no advantage. Such a thought's unworthy a
man of honour, and is the true characteristic of a narrow
heart and a piddling politician.
The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if
the work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without
a debt. A national debt is a national bond; and when it
bears no interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is
oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty
millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of four
millions interest. And as a compensation for her debt, she
has a large navy; America is without a debt, and without a
navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English national
debt, could have a navy as large again. The navy of England
is not worth at this time more than three millions and a
half sterling.
The first and second editions of this pamphlet were
published without the following calculations, which are now
given as a proof that the above estimation of the navy is a
just one. See Entic's "Naval History," Intro., p. 56.
The charge of building a ship of each rate, and
furnishing her with masts, yards, sails, and rigging,
together with a proportion of eight months boatswain's and
carpenter's sea-stores, as calculated by Mr. Burchett,
Secretary to the navy.
For a ship of 100 guns, ...... 35,553 £
90 " .......... 29,886
80 " .......... 23,638
70 " .......... 17,785
60 " .......... 14,197
50 " .......... 10,606
40 " .......... 7,558
30 " .......... 5,846
20 " .......... 3,710
And hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost,
rather, of the whole British navy, which, in the year 1757,
when it was at its greatest glory, consisted of the
following ships and guns.
Ships Guns Cost of One Cost of All
6 ... 100 .... 35,553 £ .... 213,318 £
12 ... 90 ..... 29,886 ...... 358,632
12 ... 80 ..... 23,638 ...... 283,656
43 ... 70 ..... 17,785 ...... 764,755
35 ... 60 ..... 14,197 ...... 496,895
40 ... 50 ..... 10,605 ...... 424,240
45 ... 40 ...... 7,558 ...... 340,110
58 ... 20 ...... 3,710 ...... 215,180
85 sloops, bombs, and fireships,
one with another at 2,000 ... 170,000
Cost, ..... 3,266,786 £
Remains for guns, ....... 233,214
Total, ..... 3,500,000 £
No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so
internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar,
timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need
go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large
profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards
and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the materials
they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an
article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of
this country. 'Tis the best money we can lay out. A navy
when finished is worth more than it cost: And is that nice
point in national policy, in which commerce and protection
are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell;
and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold
and silver.
In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into
great errors; it is not necessary that one-fourth part
should be sailors. The Terrible privateer, captain Death,
stood the hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had
not twenty sailors on board, though her complement of men
was upwards of two hundred. A few able and social sailors
will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landsmen in
the common work of a ship. Wherefore we never can be more
capable of beginning on maritime matters than now, while our
timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our
sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war, of
seventy and eighty guns, were built forty years ago in New
England, and why not the same now? Ship building is
America's greatest pride, and in which she will, in time,
excel the whole world. The great empires of the east are
mainly inland, and consequently excluded from the
possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of
barbarism; and no power in Europe hath either such an extent
of coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where
nature hath given the one, she hath withheld the other; to
America only hath she been liberal to both. The vast empire
of Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore her
boundless forests, her tar, iron and cordage are only
articles of commerce.
In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We
are not the little people now which we were sixty years ago;
at that time we might have trusted our property in the
streets, or fields rather, and slept securely without locks
or bolts to our doors and windows. The case is now altered,
and our methods of defence ought to improve with our
increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago,
might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of
Philadelphia under contribution for what sum he pleased; and
the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any
daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns, might
have robbed the whole Continent, and carried off half a
million of money. These are circumstances which demand our
attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.
Some perhaps will say, that after we have made it up with
Britain, she will protect us. Can they be so unwise as to
mean that she will keep a navy in our harbors for that
purpose? Common sense will tell us that the power which hath
endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others the most improper
to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave
resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And if her
ships are not to be admitted into our harbours, I would ask,
how is she going to protect us? A navy three or four
thousand miles off can be of little use, and on sudden
emergencies, none at all. Wherefore if we must hereafter
protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it
for another?
The English list of ships of war is long and formidable,
but not a tenth part of them are at any time fit for
service, numbers of them are not in being; yet their names
are pompously continued in the list; if only a plank be left
of the ship; and not a fifth part of such as are fit for
service can be spared on any one station at one time. The
East and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other
parts, over which Britain extends her claim, make large
demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and
inattention we have contracted a false notion respecting the
navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the
whole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason
supposed that we must have one as large; which not being
instantly practicable, has been made use of by a set of
disguised Tories to discourage our beginning thereon.
Nothing can be further from truth than this; for if America
had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she
would be by far an over-match for her; because, as we
neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole
force would be employed on our own coast, where we should,
in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who
had three or four thousand miles to sail over before they
could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to
refit and recruit. And although Britain, by her fleet, hath
a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one
over her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the
neighborhood of the Continent, lies entirely at its mercy.
Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force
in time of peace, if we should judge it necessary to support
a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants
to build and employ in their service ships mounted with
twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns (the premiums to be in
proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchant), fifty or
sixty of those ships, with a few guardships on constant
duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without
burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in
England, of suffering their fleet in time of peace to lie
rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and
defence is sound policy; for when our strength and our
riches play into each other's hand, we need fear no external
enemy.
In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp
flourishes even to rankness so that we need not want
cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries.
Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannon we can cast
at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every day
producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is
our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken
us. Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is it that we
hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If
she is once admitted to the government of America again,
this Continent will not be worth living in. Jealousies will
be always arising; insurrections will be constantly
happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who will
venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign
obedience? The difference between Pennsylvania and
Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shows the
insignificance of a British government, and fully proves
that nothing but Continental authority can regulate
Continental matters.
Another reason why the present time is preferable to all
others is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land
there is yet unoccupied, which, instead of being lavished by
the king on his worthless dependents, may be hereafter
applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but
to the constant support of government. No nation under
Heaven hath such an advantage as this.
The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far
from being against, is an argument in favour of
independence. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more
so we might be less united. 'Tis a matter worthy of
observation that the more a country is peopled, the smaller
their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far
exceeded the moderns; and the reason is evident, for trade
being the consequence of population, men became too much
absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce
diminishes the spirit both of patriotism and military
defence. And history sufficiently informs us that the
bravest achievements were always accomplished in the non-age
of a nation. With the increase of commerce England hath lost
its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers,
submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward.
The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to
venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit
to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.
Youth is the seed-time of good habits as well in nations
as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible,
to form the Continent into one government half a century
hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an
increase of trade and population, would create confusion.
Colony would be against colony. Each being able would scorn
each other's assistance; and while the proud and foolish
gloried in their little distinctions the wise would lament
that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore the
present time is the true time for establishing it. The
intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship
which is formed in misfortune, are of all others the most
lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with
both these characters; we are young, and we have been
distressed; but our concord hath withstood our troubles, and
fixes a memorable era for posterity to glory in.
The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time which
never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of
forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip
the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to
receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws
for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of
government; whereas the articles or charter of government
should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them
afterwards; but from the errors of other nations let us
learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity — TO
BEGIN GOVERNMENT AT THE RIGHT END.
When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them
law at the point of the sword; and, until we consent that
the seat of government in America be legally and
authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of having it
filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the
same manner, and then, where will be our freedom? Where our
property?
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of
government to protect all conscientious professors thereof,
and I know of no other business which government hath to do
therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul,
that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all
professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at
once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the
companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society.
For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe that it is
the will of the Almighty that there should be a diversity of
religious opinions among us. It affords a larger field for
our Christian kindness; were we all of one way of thinking,
our religious dispositions would want matter for probation;
and on this liberal principle I look on the various
denominations among us to be like children of the same
family, differing only in what is called their Christian
names.
In page [97] I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety
of a Continental Charter (for I only presume to offer hints,
not plans) and in this place I take the liberty of
re-mentioning the subject, by observing that a charter is to
be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the
whole enters into, to support the right of every separate
part, whether of religion, professional freedom, or
property. A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long
friends.
I have heretofore likewise mentioned the necessity of a
large and equal representation; and there is no political
matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of
electors, or a small number of representatives, are equally
dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not
only small, but unequal, the danger is increased. As an
instance of this, I mention the following: when the petition
of the associators was before the House of Assembly of
Pennsylvania, twenty-eight members only were present; all
the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against it, and
had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole
province had been governed by two counties only; and this
danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch
likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to
gain an undue authority over the delegates of that province,
ought to warn the people at large how they trust power out
of their own hands. A set of instructions for their
delegates were put together, which in point of sense and
business would have dishonoured a school-boy, and after
being approved by a few, a very few, without doors, were
carried into the house, and there passed IN BEHALF OF THE
WHOLE COLONY; whereas, did the whole colony know with what
ill will that house had entered on some necessary public
measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them
unworthy of such a trust.
Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which
if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and
right are different things. When the calamities of America
required a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at
that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the several
houses of assembly for that purpose; and the wisdom with
which they have proceeded hath preserved this Continent from
ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall never be
without a CONGRESS, every well wisher to good order must own
that the mode for choosing members of that body deserves
consideration. And I put it as a question to those who make
a study of mankind, whether representation and election is
not too great a power for one and the same body of men to
possess? When we are planning for posterity, we ought to
remember that virtue is not hereditary.
It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent
maxims, and are frequently surprised into reason by their
mistakes. Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury)
treated the petition of the New York Assembly with contempt,
because THAT house, he said, consisted but of twenty-six
members, which trifling number, he argued, could not with
decency be put for the whole. We thank him for his
involuntary honesty.
To CONCLUDE, however strange it may appear to some, or
however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but
many strong and striking reasons may be given to show that
nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open
and determined declaration for independence. Some of which
are,
First. — It is the custom of Nations, when any two are at
war, for some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to
step in as mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a
peace; But while America calls herself the subject of Great
Britain, no power, however well disposed she may be, can
offer her mediation. Wherefore, in our present state we may
quarrel on for ever.
Secondly. — It is unreasonable to suppose that France or
Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only
to make use of that assistance for the purpose of repairing
the breach, and strengthening the connection between Britain
and America; because, those powers would be sufferers by the
consequences.
Thirdly. — While we profess ourselves the subjects of
Britain, we must, in the eyes of foreign nations, be
considered as Rebels. The precedent is somewhat dangerous to
their peace, for men to be in arms under the name of
subjects; we, on the spot, can solve the paradox; but to
unite resistance and subjection requires an idea much too
refined for common understanding.
Fourthly. — Were a manifesto to be published, and
despatched to foreign Courts, setting forth the miseries we
have endured, and the peaceful methods which we have
ineffectually used for redress; declaring at the same time
that not being able longer to live happily or safely under
the cruel disposition of the British Court, we had been
driven to the necessity of breaking off all connections with
her; at the same time, assuring all such Courts of our
peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of
entering into trade with them; such a memorial would produce
more good effects to this Continent than if a ship were
freighted with petitions to Britain.
Under our present denomination of British subjects, we
can neither be received nor heard abroad; the custom of all
Courts is against us, and will be so, until by an
independence we take rank with other nations.
These proceedings may at first seem strange and
difficult, but like all other steps which we have already
passed over, will in a little time become familiar and
agreeable; and until an independence is declared, the
Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting
off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it
must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is
continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.
Appendix to the Third Edition
SINCE the publication of the first edition of this
pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out,
the king's speech made its appearance in this city. Had the
spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production, it
could not have brought it forth at a more seasonable
juncture, or at a more necessary time. The bloody-mindedness
of the one, shows the necessity of pursuing the doctrine of
the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the speech,
instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly
principles of independence.
Ceremony, and even silence, from whatever motives they
may arise, have a hurtful tendency when they give the least
degree of countenance to base and wicked performances,
wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows,
that the king's speech, IS being a piece of finished villany,
deserved and still deserves, a general execration, both by
the Congress and the people.
Yet, as the domestic tranquillity of a nation, depends
greatly on the chastity of what might properly be called
NATIONAL MANNERS, it is often better to pass some things
over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods
of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation on that
guardian of our peace and safety. And, perhaps, it is
chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the king's
speech hath not before now suffered a public execution. The
speech, if it may be called one, is nothing better than a
wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good,
and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous
method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of
tyrants.
But this general massacre of mankind, is one of the
privileges and the certain consequences of kings, for as
nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they
are beings of our own creating, they know not us, and are
become the gods of their creators. The speech hath one good
quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive,
neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it.
Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us
at no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of
reading, that he who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and
untutored Indian, is less savage than the king of Britain.
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining
jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, "The address of the
people of England to the inhabitants of America," hath
perhaps from a vain supposition that the people here were to
be frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given
(though very unwisely on his part) the real character of the
present one: "But," says this writer, "if you are inclined
to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not
complain of (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the
repeal of the Stamp Act) it is very unfair in you to
withhold them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were
permitted to do any thing." This is toryism with a witness!
Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly
hear and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to
rationality an apostate from the order of manhood and ought
to be considered as one who hath not only given up the
proper dignity of man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of
animals, and contemptibly crawls through the world like a
worm.
However, it matters very little now what the king of
England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through
every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and
conscience beneath his feet, and by a steady and
constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty procured for
himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of
America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and
young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than
to be granting away her property to support a power who is
become a reproach to the names of men and christians, whose
office it is to watch the morals of a nation, of whatsoever
sect or denomination ye are of, as well as ye who are more
immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish
to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European
corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation. But leaving
the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly
confine my further remarks to the following heads:
First, That it is the interest of America to be separated
from Britain.
Secondly, Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,
RECONCILIATION or INDEPENDENCE? with some occasional
remarks.
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper,
produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most
experienced men on this continent: and whose sentiments on
that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a
self-evident position: for no nation in a state of foreign
dependence, limited in its commerce, and cramped and
fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any
material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence
is; and although the progress which she hath made stands
unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but
childhood compared with what she would be capable of
arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the legislative
powers in her own hands. England is at this time proudly
coveting what would do her no good were she to accomplish
it; and the continent hesitating on a matter which will be
her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the
conquest of America by which England is to be benefited, and
that would in a great measure continue, were the countries
as independent of each other as France and Spain; because
the specious errors of those who speak without reflecting.
And among the many which I have heard, the following seems
the most general, viz. that had this rupture happened forty
or fifty years hence, instead of now, the continent would
have been more able to have shaken off the dependence. To
which I reply, that our military ability, at this time,
arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which
in forty or fifty years' time, would be totally extinct. The
continent would not, by that time, have a quitrent reserved
thereon will always lessen, and in time will wholly support,
the yearly expense of government. It matters not how long
the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be
applied to the discharge of it, and for the execution of
which the Congress for the time being will be the
continental trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the
easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or
independence; with some occasional remarks.
He who takes nature for his guide, is not easily beaten
out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally
that independence being a single simple line, contained
within ourselves; and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly
perplexed and complicated, and in which a treacherous
capricious court is to interfere, gives the answer without a
doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every
man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without
government, without any other mode of power than what is
founded on, and granted by, courtesy. Held together by an
unexampled occurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless
subject to change, and which every secret enemy is
endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition is,
Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a
constitution without a name; and, what is strangely
astonishing, perfect independence contending for dependence.
The instance is without a precedent, the case never existed
before, and who can tell what may be the event? The property
of no man is secure in the present un-braced system of
things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and
seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as
fancy or opinion presents. Nothing is criminal; there is no
such thing as treason, wherefore, every one thinks himself
at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories would not have
dared to assemble offensively, had they known that their
lives, by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state.
A line of distinction should be drawn between English
soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken
in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors.
The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness
in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to
dissensions. The continental belt is too loosely buckled:
And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to
do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which
neither reconciliation nor independence will be practicable.
The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old
game of dividing the continent, and there are not wanting
among us printers who will be busy in spreading specious
falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letter which
appeared a few months ago in two of the New York papers, and
likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men
who want both judgment and honesty.
It is easy getting into holes and corners, and talking of
reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider how
difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove,
should the continent divide thereon? Do they take within
their view all the various orders of men whose situation and
circumstances, as well as their own, are to be considered
therein? Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer
whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who hath
quitted all for the defence of his country? If their
ill-judged moderation be suited to their own private
situations only, regardless of others, the event will
convince them that "they are reckoning without their host."
Put us, say some, on the footing we were in the year
1763: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power
of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but
if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a
reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and
faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another
parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the
obligation, on the pretence of its being violently obtained,
or not wisely granted; and, in that case, Where is our
redress? No going to law with nations; cannon are the
barristers of crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of
war, decides the suit. To be on the footing of 1763, it is
not sufficient, that the laws only be put in the same state,
but, that our circumstances likewise be put in the same
state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up,
our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted
for defence) discharged; otherwise we shall be millions
worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a request,
had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the
heart and soul of the continent, but now it is too late.
"The Rubicon is passed." Besides, the taking up arms, merely
to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as
unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to human
feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience
thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the
means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away
on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and
threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property
by an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire and
sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: and
the instant in which such mode of defence became necessary,
all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the
independence of America should have been considered as
dating its era from, and published by, the first musket that
was fired against her. This line is a line of consistency;
neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but
produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were
not the authors.
I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely
and well-intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are
three different ways by which an independency may hereafter
be effected, and that one of those three, will, one day or
other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of
the people in Congress; by a military power, or by a mob: It
may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and
the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have
already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it
perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the
first of those means, we have every opportunity and every
encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest
constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our
power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to
the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until
now.
The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of
men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to
receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few
months. The reflection is awful, and in this point of view,
how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavilings
of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against
the business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting
period, and independence be hereafter effected by any other
means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to
those rather whose narrow and prejudiced souls are
habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or
reflecting. There are reasons to be given in support of
independence which men should rather privately think of,
than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating
whether we shall be independent or not, but anxious to
accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and
uneasy rather that it is not yet began upon. Every day
convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories (if such
beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most
solicitous to promote it; for as the appointment of
committees at first protected them from popular rage, so, a
wise and well established form of government will be the
only certain means of continuing it securely to them.
Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be WHIGS, they
ought to have prudence enough to wish for independence.
In short, independence is the only bond that tie and keep
us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will
be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as
well as cruel, enemy. We shall then, too, be on a proper
footing to treat with Britain; for there is reason to
conclude, that the pride of that court will be less hurt by
treating with the American States for terms of peace, than
with those, whom she denominates "rebellious subjects," for
terms of accommodation. It is our delaying in that,
encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness
tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good
effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of
our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by
independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering
to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part of
England, will be still with us; because, peace, with trade,
is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not
accepted, other courts may be applied to.
On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath
yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former
editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that
either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in
favor of it are too numerous to be opposed. WHEREFORE,
instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful
curiosity, let each of us hold out to his neighbor the
hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line,
which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness
every former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be
extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of
a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous
supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND, and of the FREE AND
INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.
