|
Chapter 1 On the Origin and Design of
Government in General, with Concise
Remarks on the English Constitution
Chapter 2 Of Monarchy and Hereditary
Succession
Chapter 3 Thoughts on the Present State of
American Affairs
Chapter 4 Of the Present Ability of America
with some Miscellaneous Reflections
Chapter 5 Appendix to the Third Edition
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
Independance: 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
|
-1- |
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
Chapter 1 On 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 supercede, 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
|
-2- |
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
|
-3- |
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
|
-4- |
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.
Chapter 2 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
|
-5- |
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
|
-6- |
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 ear 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
|
-7- |
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
|
-8- |
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
|
-9- |
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
|
-10- |
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 giveaway 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.
Chapter 3 Thoughts on the Present State of
American Affairs
ON 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
superceded 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
|
-11- |
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 dependant on Great Britain. To
examine that connection and dependance,
on the principles of nature and common
sense, to see what we have to trust to, if
separated, and what we are to expect, if
dependant.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as
America 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
dependance, and we should be at peace
with France and Spain, were they at war
with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last
war ought to warn us against connections.
It hath lately been asserted in parliament,
that the Colonies have no relation to each
other but through the Parent Country, i.e.
that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys and so
on for the rest, are sister Colonies by the
way of England; this is certainly a very
roundabout way of proving 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;
|
-12- |
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
|
-13- |
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 dependance 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 dependance 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
|
-14- |
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.
| Chapter 4 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
|
-15- |
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
|
-16- |
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
|
-17- |
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
|
-18- |
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
|
-19- |
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
|
-20- |
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.
Chapter 5 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
|
-21- |
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.
|
-22- |
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
|
-23- |
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 unit 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
|
-24- |
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 thenoffering 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
|
-25- |
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. |
-26- |
