This is a modern-English version of Common Sense, originally written by Paine, Thomas.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
COMMON SENSE;
addressed to the
addressed to the
INHABITANTS
RESIDENTS
of
of
AMERICA,
USA,
On the following interesting
On the next interesting
-
Of the Origin and Design of Government in general,
with concise Remarks on the English Constitution. - Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession
- Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs
-
Of the present Ability of America, with some
miscellaneous Reflections
A new edition, with several additions in the body of the work. To which is added an appendix; together with an address to the people called Quakers.
A new edition, with several additions in the body of the work. To which is added an appendix; together with an address to the people called Quakers.
Man knows no Master save creating Heaven
Or those whom choice and common good ordain.
Humans acknowledge no master other than the one who created Heaven.
Or those we select for the greater good.
Thomson.
Thomson.
PHILADELPHIA
PHILLY
Printed and sold by W. & T. Bradford, February 14, 1776.
Printed and sold by W. & T. Bradford, February 14, 1776.
MDCCLXXVI
1776
Common Sense
By Thomas Paine
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
Maybe the feelings expressed in the following pages aren't yet trendy enough to gain them widespread approval; a long-standing habit of not considering something wrong gives it a false impression of being right, and initially sparks a strong outcry in defense of tradition. But the noise quickly settles down. Time attracts more followers than rationale.
2 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.
2 As a long and brutal abuse of power, it usually leads to questioning its legitimacy (even in matters that might not have been considered if the victims hadn't been pushed to investigate), and since the King of England has taken it upon himself to support the Parliament in what he claims is his right, and because the good people of this country are suffering greatly from this alliance, they have a clear right to examine the claims of both sides and equally reject the overreach of either.
3 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.
3 In the following pages, the author has carefully steered clear of anything personal among us. Neither praise nor criticism of individuals is included. The wise and worthy don’t need the victory of a pamphlet; and those with poor or hostile opinions will change on their own unless too much effort is put into trying to change them.
4 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
4 The struggle for America is largely the struggle for all humanity. Many situations have arisen, and will continue to arise, that are not just local issues but universal ones, affecting the principles of all those who care for humanity, and in which their feelings are deeply involved. When a country is laid waste by violence, declaring war against the natural rights of all people, and wiping out its defenders from the face of the earth, it matters to everyone with the ability to feel compassion; this includes individuals who, regardless of political criticism, are the
AUTHOR
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.
P.S. The release of this new edition has been delayed to consider any attempts to challenge the doctrine of independence. Since no response has come forward, it is now assumed that there won't be one, as the time needed to prepare such a response for publication has significantly passed.
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.
Who the author of this work is doesn't really matter to the public, as the focus should be on the doctrine itself, not the person. However, it might be worth mentioning that he isn't linked to any party and isn't influenced by any public or private pressures, only by reason and principle.
Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
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 a patron, the last a punisher.
Some writers have mixed up society and government so much that they hardly see any difference between the two; however, they are not only different but have different origins. Society is born from our needs, while government arises from our wrongdoing; the former promotes our happiness positively by bringing our feelings together, while the latter negatively by controlling our vices. One fosters connection, the other draws lines. The first is a supporter, the last is a punisher.
6 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 on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
6 Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even at its best, is just a necessary evil; at its worst, it's unbearable. When we experience the same hardships through a government that we could expect in a country without one, our suffering is made worse by the fact that we provide the means by which we suffer. Government, like clothing, reflects lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of paradise. If the impulses of our conscience were clear, consistent, and adhered to without question, humanity wouldn't need any other lawmaker. But since that's not the case, people find it necessary to give up part of their property to protect the rest. They are encouraged to do this by the same wisdom that advises them to choose the lesser of two evils. Therefore, since security is the true purpose and goal of government, it follows that whatever form of government seems most likely to provide it with the least cost and most benefit is preferable to all others.
7 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 of the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.
7 To understand the purpose and nature of government, let’s imagine a small group of people settled in a remote area of the world, cut off from everyone else; they would represent the first inhabitants of any country or the world itself. In this state of natural freedom, the idea of forming a society would be their primary concern. Many reasons would push them to do this—one person's strength is far less than what they need, and the human mind isn’t made for constant solitude, so they would quickly need to look for help and support from others, who in turn would need the same. A group of four or five could build a decent shelter in the wilderness, but one person would struggle through their entire life without achieving much; once he chopped down a tree, he couldn’t move it or assemble it into something useful. Meanwhile, hunger would drive him away from his task, and each different need would pull him in another direction. Illness or misfortune could lead to death, for although neither might be fatal, either would render him incapable of living, pushing him into a condition where he would be better described as perishing rather than dying.
8 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.
8 So, necessity, like a force of attraction, would quickly bring our new immigrants together into a society, the mutual benefits of which would replace the need for laws and government as long as they remained fair to one another; however, since only heaven is immune to wrongdoing, it will inevitably happen that as they overcome the initial challenges of emigration that united them in a common goal, they will start to let their dedication and responsibility toward each other fade. This negligence will highlight the need to establish some form of government to make up for the lack of moral integrity.
9 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.
9 Some handy tree will provide them with a State House, where the entire colony can gather to discuss public issues. It's likely that their initial laws will be labeled as Rules and will only be upheld by the consequence of public disapproval. In this first parliament, every individual, by their natural right, will have a place.
10 But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflexion 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.
10 As the colony grows, so will the public concerns, and the distance between members will make it too inconvenient for everyone to meet as they used to when their numbers were small, their homes close together, and their issues few and minor. This suggests that it would be practical for them to agree to let a select group handle the legislative responsibilities, chosen from the entire body, who are expected to have the same interests as those who appointed them and will act the same way the whole group would if they were present. If the colony continues to grow, it will be necessary to increase the number of representatives. To ensure that the interests of each part of the colony are represented, it will be most effective to divide the whole into manageable sections, with each section sending its appropriate number; and to prevent the elected representatives from forming a separate interest from the electors, it would be wise to hold elections frequently. This way, the elected representatives can return and reintegrate with the general body of electors in a few months, ensuring their loyalty to the public by the sensible realization that they shouldn't create difficulties for themselves. This regular exchange will foster a shared interest across the community, allowing them to mutually and naturally support one another, and the strength of government and the happiness of the governed will rely on this, not on the meaningless title of king.
11 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 of reason will say, it is right.
11 This is the origin and rise of government: a system made necessary by the inability of moral virtue to manage the world. It also defines the purpose and goal of government: to ensure freedom and security. No matter how much we might be dazzled by appearances or misled by promises, and regardless of how bias might distort our desires or self-interest cloud our judgment, the clear message from nature and reason tells us that what is right is indeed right.
12 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 over run 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.
12 I base my idea of government on a principle found in nature, which no art can change: the simpler something is, the less likely it is to become chaotic; and it’s also easier to fix when it does. Keeping this in mind, I want to share some thoughts on the much-praised constitution of England. It was indeed admirable for the dark and oppressive times in which it was created. When the world was overwhelmed by tyranny, any step away from it was a significant achievement. However, it's clear that it is flawed, prone to turmoil, and unable to deliver on its promises.
13 Absolute governments (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.
13 Absolute governments (though a disgrace to humanity) have the advantage of being straightforward; when the people suffer, they know exactly where the problem originates and also understand the solution, without being confused by multiple causes and remedies. However, the constitution of England is so incredibly complex that the nation can suffer for years without being able to pinpoint where the fault lies. Some will blame one thing, others will blame another, and every political advisor will recommend a different treatment.
14 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.
14 I understand it's tough to move past local or long-held biases, but if we allow ourselves to take a closer look at the elements of the English constitution, we'll discover that they are essentially the remnants of two ancient forms of tyranny mixed with some new democratic ideas.
15 First.—The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.
15 First.—The remnants of royal oppression embodied in the king.
16 Secondly.—The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.
16 Secondly.—The remnants of aristocratic oppression represented by the nobles.
17 Thirdly.—The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
17 Thirdly.—The new republican elements, represented by the common people, whose integrity is crucial for England's freedom.
18 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.
18 The first two, since they are hereditary, are not accountable to the people; therefore, in a constitutional sense, they do not help the freedom of the state.
19 To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
19 Claiming that the constitution of England is a union of three powers that keep each other in check is absurd; either the words mean nothing, or they are outright contradictory.
20 To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things:
20 Saying that the commons is a check on the king assumes two things:
21 First.—That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.
21 First.—That the king cannot be trusted without oversight, or in other words, that an obsession with absolute power is the inherent flaw of monarchy.
22 Secondly.—That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.
22 Secondly.—That the common people, being chosen for that role, are either wiser or more deserving of trust than the monarchy.
23 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!
23 But the same constitution that gives the commons the power to control the king by withholding funds also allows the king to check the commons by giving him the authority to reject their other bills; this again assumes that the king is smarter than those it has already considered to be smarter than him. What a complete absurdity!
24 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.
24 There’s something incredibly ridiculous about monarchy; it first keeps a person from access to information, yet gives them the power to make decisions where the highest judgment is needed. A king is isolated from the world, yet their role demands a complete understanding of it; therefore, these conflicting aspects undermine each other, ultimately showing the whole concept to be absurd and pointless.
25 Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king, say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of 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 some thing 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.
25 Some writers have explained the English constitution like this: the king is one part, the people are another; the peers act as a house representing the king, while the commons represent the people. However, this creates all the issues of a house divided against itself. Although the wording is nicely arranged, when you look closer, it seems pointless and unclear. It often turns out that the best meaning words can convey, when describing something that either doesn’t exist or is too complex to describe clearly, ends up being just sound. While it might sound nice, it doesn’t actually inform the mind, because this explanation raises a prior question: How did the king acquire a power that the people are afraid to trust and always feel the need to limit? Such power couldn’t be granted by a wise people, nor can any power that needs checking come from God; yet the provisions of the constitution assume that such power exists.
26 But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
26 But the solution isn't up to the task; the resources either can't or won't achieve the goal, and the whole situation is self-destructive; because the heavier force will always lift the lighter one, and since all the parts of a machine are set in motion by one, it just comes down to figuring out which power in the system has the most influence, because that will be in control; and although the others, or some of them, may slow it down, or as the saying goes, hinder its progress, as long as they can't stop it, their efforts will be ineffective; the primary driving force will ultimately prevail, and what it lacks in speed will be made up for by time.
27 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.
27 It's clear that the crown is this dominant force in the English constitution, and it's obvious that its power comes solely from its role in distributing positions and pensions. Therefore, while we've been smart enough to close the door on absolute monarchy, we've also been foolish enough to give the crown the key.
28 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 more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle—not more just.
28 The bias of English people toward their own rule by king, lords, and commons comes more from national pride than from reason. While individuals are definitely safer in England than in some other countries, the king's will is just as much the law of the land in Britain as it is in France. The difference is that instead of coming directly from his mouth, it is presented to the people in the more imposing form of an act of parliament. The fate of Charles the First has only made kings more cunning—not more fair.
29 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.
29 So, putting aside all national pride and bias toward different practices and systems, the simple truth is that it is entirely due to the character of the people, and not to the structure of the government that the monarchy is not as oppressive in England as it is in Turkey.
30
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.
30
Examining the constitutional errors in the English government is really important right now. We can never truly do justice to others when we are under the sway of strong biases, and the same goes for ourselves if we are held back by stubborn prejudices. Just as a man involved with a prostitute isn’t in a position to choose or judge a wife, any strong attachment to a flawed government system will prevent us from recognizing a good one.
Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
People were originally equals in the grand scheme of creation, and that equality could only be disrupted by some later event. The differences between the rich and poor can generally be explained without resorting to harsh and unpleasant terms like oppression and greed. Oppression is often the result, but rarely the cause of wealth; and while greed might keep someone from being desperately poor, it usually makes them too fearful to become truly wealthy.
32 But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
32 But there is another and more significant distinction for which no genuine natural or religious reason can be given, and that is the difference between monarchs and topics. Male and female are distinctions of nature, while good and bad are distinctions of morality; however, the question of how a group of people came into existence so elevated above the rest, almost like a new species, is worth exploring, along with whether they bring happiness or misery to humanity.
33 In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
33 In the early days of the world, based on biblical timelines, there were no kings, which meant there were no wars. It's the arrogance of kings that throws humanity into chaos. Holland, without a king, has enjoyed more peace in the last century than any of the monarchies in Europe. History supports this observation, as the peaceful and simple lives of the first patriarchs have a certain happiness that disappears when we look at the time of Jewish kings.
34 Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
34 The concept of ruling by kings was first brought into the world by the pagans, from whom the Israelites adopted the practice. It was the most successful scheme the Devil ever launched to promote idolatry. The pagans honored their dead kings as gods, and the Christian world has taken this further by doing the same for their living rulers. How outrageous is the title of sacred majesty given to a mere human, who, despite all his grandeur, is slowly turning to dust!
35 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 Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’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.
35 Justifying one person being elevated above everyone else can't be based on natural rights, and it also can't rely on scripture; the will of the Almighty, as stated by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, clearly rejects rule by kings. All the anti-monarchical scriptures have been conveniently ignored by monarchies, but they certainly deserve the attention of countries still shaping their governments. “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s” is the scriptural principle of courts, but it doesn’t support monarchical government, since the Jews at that time had no king and were under Roman control.
36 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 administred 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 honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.
36 Nearly three thousand years passed since the Mosaic account of creation until the Jews, under a misguided belief, asked for a king. Until that point, their government—except in rare situations where the Almighty intervened—was a kind of republic run by a judge and the elders of the tribes. They had no kings, and it was considered sinful to acknowledge anyone by that title except the Lord of Hosts. When someone thoughtfully considers the idolatrous reverence given to kings, it’s no surprise that the Almighty, ever protective of His honor, would disapprove of a government form that so impiously encroaches upon divine authority.
37 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.
37 Monarchy is considered in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse has been reserved against them. The history of that event is worth paying attention to.
38 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 honor, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.
38 The people of Israel were being oppressed by the Midianites, so Gideon led a small army against them, and with divine help, he achieved victory. The Israelites, thrilled by their success and crediting it to Gideon's leadership, suggested making him king, saying, Rule over us, you, your son, and your grandson. This was a huge temptation; not just a kingdom, but a hereditary one. However, Gideon, with a pious heart, replied, I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you. The Lord will reign over you. His words couldn't be clearer; Gideon didn't reject the honor, but denied their right to offer it. He also didn't flatter them with false expressions of gratitude, but instead, in a straightforward manner like a prophet, accused them of being unfaithful to their true Sovereign, the King of heaven.
39 About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel’s two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i.e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, 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 shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to 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 expence and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your feed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you in that day. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God’s own heart. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was 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 king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.
39 About one hundred and thirty years later, they fell into the same mistake again. The Jews’ desire for the idol-worshiping customs of the nations around them is truly baffling; but it happened that, influenced by the misconduct of Samuel’s two sons, who were in charge of some secular matters, they came to Samuel abruptly and loudly, saying, Look, you are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us like all the other nations. Here we must note that their motives were not good—they wanted to be like other nations, that is, the idol-worshipers, while their true glory came from being as unlike them as possible. But Samuel was displeased when they said, Give us a king to lead us; so he prayed to the Lord, and the Lord told Samuel, Listen to the people in all that they say to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me, SO THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. This is in line with all the things they have done since the day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day; they have forsaken me and served other gods; and they will do the same to you. Now, listen to them, but solemnly warn them and let them know how this king will rule over them, that is, not about a specific king, but the general way of kings on earth, whom Israel was so keen to imitate. Despite the vast difference in time and customs, the nature of kingship is still relevant. So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. He said, This is how the king who will rule over you will operate: he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots (this description aligns with the current practice of conscription) and he will appoint captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to work his fields, to harvest his crops, and to make his weapons and tools for his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers (this reflects the expenses and luxury, as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your best fields and olive groves and give them to his attendants; and he will take a tenth of your harvests and vineyards and give them to his officials and servants (showing that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are common failings of kings) and he will take a tenth of your male and female servants, your finest young men and your donkeys, and put them to work for him; and he will take a tenth of your sheep, and you will become his servants, and you will cry out in that day because of the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you on that day. This explains why monarchy continues; the merits of the few good kings that have ruled since do not legitimize the title or erase the wrongdoing of its origin; the high praise given to David does not address him officially as a king, but only as a man after God’s own heart. Yet the people refused to listen to Samuel, insisting, No, we want a king over us so we can be like all the other nations, and our king can judge us, lead us, and fight our battles. Samuel tried to reason with them, but it was of no use; he pointed out their ingratitude, but it did not matter; and seeing they were determined in their foolishness, he exclaimed, I will call on the Lord, and he will send thunder and rain (which was seen as punishment during the wheat harvest) so that you may understand and see how great your wickedness is in asking for a king for yourselves. So Samuel called on the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people feared the Lord and Samuel greatly. They said to Samuel, Pray to the Lord your God for us so we won't die, for We have added to our wrongdoings by asking for a king. These parts of scripture are clear and to the point. They leave no room for misinterpretation. It’s true that the Almighty has voiced his protest against monarchy here, or else the scripture is false. One has good reason to believe that there is just as much manipulation from kings as from priests in keeping scripture from the public in Catholic countries. For monarchy, in every instance, is the Popery of governance.
40 To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his cotemporaries, 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.
40 We've added the problem of hereditary succession to the evil of monarchy; while the first is a degradation of our human dignity, the second, claimed as a right, is an insult and burden on future generations. Since all men are originally equal, no one by birth should have the right to establish their family in permanent superiority over all others forever. Although someone may deserve a certain level of respect from their peers, their descendants might be completely unworthy of inheriting that respect. One of the strongest natural indications of the absurdity of hereditary rights for kings is that nature itself seems to reject it; otherwise, it wouldn't so often mock it by giving us an ass for a lion.
41 Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they might say “We choose you for our head,” they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say “that your children and your children’s children shall reign over ours for ever.” Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.
41 Secondly, just as no man could initially hold any public honors beyond those granted to him, the ones who give those honors can’t really give away the rights of future generations. They might say, “We choose you as our leader,” but they couldn’t, without unfairness to their own kids, claim “your children and your grandchildren will rule over ours forever.” Because such a foolish, unjust, and unnatural agreement might lead them to be governed by a scoundrel or an idiot in the next generation. Most wise people have always looked down on hereditary rights in their private thoughts; however, once this issue is established, it’s hard to get rid of. Many accept it out of fear, others out of superstition, and the more powerful ones share in the spoils with the king, taking from the rest.
42 This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditional history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.
42 This assumes that today’s kings come from a noble heritage; however, it's more likely that if we stripped away the myths of history and traced their origins, we would discover that the first king was probably just the main thug of some unruly group. His brutal behavior or cleverness earned him the title of leader among thieves, and as he gained power and expanded his raids, he intimidated the peaceful and defenseless into paying him for protection. Yet the people who chose him wouldn’t have imagined granting hereditary rights to his heirs because that would mean permanently excluding themselves, which contradicted the free-spirited principles they claimed to uphold. Thus, hereditary succession in the early days of monarchy didn’t emerge as a claim but rather as something random or ceremonial. However, since there were few or no records back then and the traditional stories were filled with myths, it was easy, after a few generations, to create some superstitious narrative, conveniently timed, similar to Mahomet’s, to force the common people to accept hereditary claims. Perhaps the chaos that arose—or seemed to arise—when a leader died and a new one was chosen (since elections among criminals couldn’t be very organized) led many to initially support hereditary claims, resulting in what started as a convenience later being asserted as a right.
43 England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original.—It certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.
43 Since the conquest, England has had a few good monarchs, but has suffered under many more bad ones; however, no one in their right mind can argue that their claim from William the Conqueror is particularly respectable. A French illegitimate child arriving with an armed gang and taking over as king of England without the approval of the locals is, frankly, a pretty pathetic and shady beginning. There's definitely nothing divine about it. Still, there's no point in wasting time tearing apart the foolishness of hereditary rights; if there are those naive enough to believe it, they can worship both the donkey and the lion if they want. I won’t mimic their submission or interrupt their faith.
44 Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first? The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parrallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parellels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion! Yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
44 But I’d like to know how they think kings originally came to power? The question really has only three possible answers: either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was chosen by lot, that sets a precedent for the next, which rules out hereditary succession. Saul was chosen by lot, yet the succession wasn’t hereditary, and it doesn’t seem there was any intention for it to be. If the first king of any country was elected, that also sets a precedent for the next; claiming that the rights of all future generations are taken away by the choice of the first electors, not only picking a king but a family of kings forever, has no parallel in or out of scripture except the doctrine of original sin, which suggests that all men lost their free will in Adam. And from such a comparison—there’s no other viable one—hereditary succession can claim no honor. Just as all sinned in Adam, all men were subjected to sovereignty by the first electors; as we lost our innocence with the first, we lost our authority with the last. Since both scenarios prevent us from reclaiming a previous state and privilege, it convincingly follows that original sin and hereditary succession are similar. Dishonorable rank! Uninspiring connection! Yet even the cleverest philosopher can’t come up with a better comparison.
45 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.
45 No one will be bold enough to justify usurpation, and it’s an undeniable fact that William the Conqueror was an usurper. The simple truth is, the long history of the English monarchy doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
46 But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
46 But it's not just the absurdity of hereditary succession that worries humanity; it's the evil of it. If it guaranteed a line of good and wise leaders, it could be seen as divinely sanctioned. However, since it also allows for the rise of the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it has an oppressive nature. People who believe they are born to rule and others to follow quickly become arrogant; chosen from the rest of society, their minds are poisoned early on by a sense of importance. The world they inhabit is so different from the real world that they rarely understand its true interests, and when they take over the government, they often turn out to be the most ignorant and unfit of anyone in the realm.
47 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.
47 Another problem with hereditary succession is that the throne can be taken over by someone very young at any age. During this time, the regents, acting as though they are the king, have all the chances and motives to betray their responsibilities. The same national disaster occurs when an elderly king, weakened by age and illness, reaches the final stage of human decline. In both situations, the public becomes vulnerable to any wrongdoer who can easily manipulate the weaknesses of either age or childhood.
48 The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.
48 The most convincing argument ever made in favor of hereditary succession is that it prevents a nation from civil wars; and if this were true, it would be significant. However, it's the most blatant lie ever told to humanity. The entire history of England contradicts this fact. Since the conquest, there have been thirty kings and two young rulers in that troubled kingdom, during which time (including the Revolution) there have been at least eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Therefore, instead of fostering peace, it undermines it and destroys the very foundation it claims to support.
49 The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest side.
49 The struggle for power and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster plunged England into years of bloodshed. Twelve major battles, along with various skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice, Henry was captured by Edward, who was also captured by Henry at one point. The unpredictable nature of war and the mood of a nation often fueled by personal conflicts meant that Henry was taken in triumph from prison to a palace, while Edward had to flee from a palace to foreign lands. However, as sudden changes in fortune rarely last, Henry was eventually driven from the throne and Edward was brought back to take his place. Parliament always sided with the stronger party.
50 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.
50 This contest started during the reign of Henry the Sixth and didn't fully end until Henry the Seventh, when the families were brought together. It lasted for a total of 67 years, from 1422 to 1489.
51 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.
51 In short, monarchy and succession have left not just this or that kingdom but the entire world in blood and ashes. It’s a form of government that the word of God speaks out against, and blood will follow it.
52 If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in some countries they have none; and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business, civil and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request for a king, urged this plea “that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.” But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.
52 If we look into what a king does, we’ll see that in some countries they don’t really have any responsibilities; they spend their lives wandering aimlessly, gaining nothing for themselves or the country, and then leave the stage, handing over the same pointless routine to their successors. In absolute monarchies, all the responsibilities, both civil and military, fall on the king. The Israelites, in asking for a king, made the argument “so he can judge us, lead us, and fight our battles.” However, in countries where he isn’t a judge or a general, like in England, it’s hard to figure out what his actual role is.
53 The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing a house of commons from out of their own body—and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?
53 The closer any government gets to being a republic, the less need there is for a king. It’s somewhat hard to find the right term for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; however, in its current state, it doesn’t deserve that label because the corrupt influence of the crown, which controls all the positions, has effectively absorbed the power and diminished the virtue of the House of Commons (the republican aspect of the constitution), making the government of England almost as monarchical as that of France or Spain. People argue over names without truly understanding them. It’s the republican part, not the monarchical part, of the English constitution that people take pride in, specifically the freedom to choose a House of Commons from among themselves—and it’s clear that when republican virtue is absent, slavery follows. What makes the constitution of England unhealthy is the fact that monarchy has poisoned the republic; the crown has monopolized the commons.
54
In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away
places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it
together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed
eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the
bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight
of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.
54
In England, a king doesn't have much more to do than wage war and hand out positions; which in simple terms, means draining the nation's wealth and stirring up conflict. It's quite a deal for someone to receive eight hundred thousand pounds a year for that, and to be idolized on top of it! One honest man is worth more to society and in the eyes of God than all the crowned thugs that have ever existed.
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.
In the following pages, I present nothing more than straightforward facts, clear arguments, and common sense. The only request I have of the reader is to let go of any biases and preconceived notions, allowing their reasoning and emotions to guide them. I ask that they embrace, or rather not reject, the true nature of humanity and open their minds to possibilities beyond today.
56 Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.
56 Many books have been written about the conflict between England and America. People from all walks of life have engaged in the debate for different reasons and with various intentions; however, all have been ineffective, and the time for discussion is over. Weapons, as a last resort, will settle the dispute; the king chose this course, and the continent has accepted the challenge.
57 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.
57 It has been reported about the late Mr. Pelham (who, though a capable minister, had his flaws) that when he was criticized in the House of Commons for his policies being only temporary, he replied, “they will last my time.” If such a destructive and cowardly thought takes hold in the colonies during this current struggle, future generations will remember the name of our ancestors with contempt.
58 The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ’Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent—of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. ’Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters.
58 The sun has never shone on a cause more important. This isn’t just about a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom—it's about a continent, at least one-eighth of the livable world. It’s not just a concern for a day, a year, or a generation; future generations are deeply involved in this struggle and will be affected, for better or worse, all the way to the end of time, by what happens now. Now is the time to plant the seeds of continental unity, trust, and honor. Any small break now will be like a name scratched onto the soft bark of a young oak; the scar will grow with the tree, and future generations will read it as clear as day.
59 By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new æra 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, though proper then, are superseded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in one and the same point, viz. a union with Great-Britain; the only difference between the parties was the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence.
59 By turning the issue from debate to conflict, a new era for politics has begun; a new way of thinking has emerged. All plans and proposals made before April 19th, i.e., the start of hostilities, are like last year's calendars; what was relevant then is now outdated and useless. Everything that was put forward by supporters on both sides of the argument at that time ultimately aimed for one goal, which was a union with Great Britain; the only difference between the parties was their approach—one proposing force and the other suggesting friendship. However, it has turned out that the first approach has failed, and the second has pulled back its influence.
60 As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on Great-Britain. To examine that connexion 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.
60 Although a lot has been said about the benefits of reconciliation, which, like a pleasant dream, has faded away and left us unchanged, it's only fair that we look at the other side of the argument and consider some of the significant damages these colonies experience and will always face by being tied to and reliant on Great Britain. We need to examine that connection and dependence based on natural principles and common sense, to understand what we can rely on if we separate, and what we can expect if we remain dependent.
61 I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.
61 Some people have claimed that because America has prospered while connected to Great Britain, this connection is essential for its future happiness and will always have the same effect. Nothing could be more misleading than this argument. It’s like saying that just because a child has thrived on milk, it should never eat meat, or that the first two decades of our lives should set a standard for the next two decades. But even this assumption goes too far because I firmly believe that America would have thrived just as much, if not more, without any involvement from European powers. The trade that has made her prosperous consists of essential goods, and there will always be a market for them as long as eating remains a custom in Europe.
62 But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expence as well as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and dominion.
62 But some say she has protected us. It's true that she has absorbed us, and it's accepted that she defended the continent at our expense as well as her own. She would have defended Turkey for the same reason: for trade and power.
63 Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great-Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connexions.
63 Unfortunately, we've been misled for too long by outdated biases and have made significant sacrifices to superstition. We’ve taken pride in the protection of Great Britain without realizing that her motive was self-interest, not genuine attachment; she didn’t protect us for our sake but for her own, defending herself from her enemies, not ours. If Britain were to let go of her claims on the continent, or if the continent were to shake off its dependence, we would be at peace with France and Spain even if they were at war with Britain. The hardships from the last war in Hanover should serve as a warning against such alliances.
64 It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great-Britain.
64 Recently, it’s been claimed in parliament that the colonies are connected only through the parent country, meaning that Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the others, are sister colonies because of England. This is definitely a convoluted way to establish a relationship, but it’s the closest and only real way to demonstrate hostility, if I can put it that way. France and Spain have never been, and probably will never be, our enemies as Americans, but rather as subjects of Great Britain.
65 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.
65 Some say Britain is the mother country. Then her behavior is even more shameful. Even animals don’t harm their young, and savages don’t go to war against their families; therefore, if this claim is true, it reflects poorly on her. But it’s not true, or only partially true, and the term parent or mother country has been strategically used by the king and his followers with a manipulative agenda to influence the gullible parts of our minds. Europe, not England, is the real mother country of America. This new world has been a refuge for those persecuted for their beliefs in civil and religious freedom from every part of Europe. They have escaped here, not from the loving arms of a mother, but from the cruelty of a monster; and it's true that the same oppression that forced the first emigrants to leave still follows their descendants today.
66 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.
66 In this vast part of the world, we forget the small boundaries of three hundred and sixty miles (the size of England) and expand our friendship; we consider every European Christian as a brother and take pride in this generous feeling.
67 It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name of neighbour; 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. county-man; but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.
67 It’s interesting to see how we gradually overcome local biases as we expand our understanding of the world. A person born in any town in England, which is divided into parishes, will usually connect most with those in his own parish (since they often share similar interests) and refer to them as a neighbor; if he runs into one a few miles from home, he shifts from thinking of them as just someone from the street to calling him a townsman; if he travels outside the county and meets someone in another, he forgets about streets and towns and calls him a countryman, meaning county-man; but if they end up together in France or elsewhere in Europe, their local identity becomes that of Englishmen. Similarly, all Europeans who meet in America or anywhere else in the world are considered countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when viewed from this broader perspective, occupy the same relative positions as street, town, and county do on a smaller scale—divisions too limited for a continental view. Less than a third of the people living here, even in this province, have English roots. Therefore, I reject the term parent or mother country when referring solely to England, as it's misleading, self-centered, narrow-minded, and uncharitable.
68 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; therefore, by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.
68 But even if we all come from English ancestry, what does that really mean? Nothing. Britain, now our open enemy, wipes away every other identity and title. Saying that reconciliation is our duty is downright ridiculous. The first king of England from the current line (William the Conqueror) was French, and half the nobles in England trace their roots back to France; so, by that same logic, England should be ruled by France.
69 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 any thing; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
69 A lot has been said about the combined power of Britain and the colonies, claiming that together they could stand against the world. But that's just arrogance; the outcome of war is unpredictable, and those claims don’t really mean anything. This continent would never allow its people to be depleted just to support British forces in Asia, Africa, or Europe.
70 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.
70 What do we gain by challenging the world? Our goal is trade, and if we focus on that, it will ensure peace and friendship with all of Europe; because it's in everyone's interest to have America as a free port. Her trade will always offer protection, and her lack of gold and silver will keep invaders at bay.
71 I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, 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.
71 I challenge the strongest supporter of reconciliation to show even one benefit that this continent gets from being connected to Great Britain. I repeat the challenge: there isn't a single benefit. Our grain will sell for a good price in any European market, and we have to pay for our imported goods no matter where we buy them.
72 But the injuries and disadvantages 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 sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics.
72 The injuries and disadvantages we face from this connection are countless; our responsibility to humanity as well as to ourselves urges us to break this alliance. Any submission to or dependence on Great Britain directly drags this continent into European wars and disputes, putting us at odds with nations that would otherwise want to be our friends and with whom we have no anger or grievances. Since Europe is our trading market, we shouldn’t form any exclusive ties with any part of it. America’s best interest is to avoid European conflicts, which can never happen as long as she relies on Britain and becomes the pawn in British political games.
73 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 natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ’Tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled 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.
73 Europe has so many kingdoms that it can’t stay peaceful for long, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any other country, America’s trade falls apart, because of its connection to Britain. The next war might not go the same way as the last one, and if it doesn’t, those who are pushing for reconciliation now will end up wanting separation later, as being neutral in that case would be a safer option than relying on a military force. Everything that is right or natural supports separation. The blood of those who have died, the grieving cries of nature call out, It's time to part. Even the distance that the Almighty has set between England and America is a strong and natural indication that the authority of one over the other was never intended by Heaven. The timing of the continent’s discovery also strengthens the argument, and the way it was populated reinforces it. The reformation came right after the discovery of America, as if the Almighty, in His graciousness, intended to create a refuge for the persecuted in the years to come, when home would no longer provide friendship or safety.
74 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.
74 The authority of Great Britain over this continent is a form of government that will eventually come to an end. A serious-minded person can find no real pleasure in looking ahead, knowing with painful certainty that what is called “the present constitution” is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy in knowing that this government isn't stable enough to ensure anything we might leave for future generations. By straightforward reasoning, as we burden the next generation with debt, we should be doing the work for them; otherwise, we treat them poorly and unkindly. To better understand our responsibilities, we should take our children into consideration and imagine our position a few years down the line; that perspective will reveal a view that current fears and prejudices hide from us.
75 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.
75 While I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offense, I can’t help but think that everyone who supports the idea of reconciliation falls into one of the following categories. There are self-interested people you can't trust; weak people who just can't see the truth; biased people who refuse to see it; and a certain group of moderate people who have a misguidedly positive view of the European world that it doesn’t deserve. It's this last group, through their poor judgment, that will cause more problems for this continent than the other three combined.
76 It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficient brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for a few moments to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now, no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to the fury of both armies.
76 Many people are fortunate enough to live far from the scene of tragedy; the suffering isn't enough to hit home and make them feel how fragile American property really is. But let’s take a moment to imagine ourselves in Boston, where the misery will teach us a lesson and remind us to give up any power we can't trust. The residents of that unfortunate city, who were just a few months ago living comfortably, now have no choice but to either stay and starve or go out and beg. They face the threat of their friends' flames if they remain in the city, and they risk being looted by soldiers if they leave. In their current situation, they are prisoners with no hope of rescue, and during a general attempt to save them, they would face the wrath of both armies.
77 Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of 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 still can shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy of 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.
77 People with passive attitudes tend to overlook Britain's offenses and, still hoping for the best, often say, “Come on, we’ll be friends again after all this.” But take a close look at human emotions. Test the idea of reconciliation against human nature, and then tell me if you can genuinely love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that has brought destruction to your land. If you can’t do all these things, then you’re just fooling yourselves and causing harm to future generations. Your future relationship with Britain, whom you can't love or honor, will be forced and unnatural, built only on what’s convenient now, and will soon fall back into a situation even worse than before. But if you claim you can overlook these violations, then I ask: Has your house been burned down? Has your property been destroyed right in front of you? Are your wife and children without a bed to sleep on or food to eat? Have you lost a parent or child at their hands, and are you now the miserable survivor? If not, then you’re not qualified to judge those who have. But if you have been affected and can still shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy of being called a husband, father, friend, or lover, and no matter your status or title, you have the heart of a coward and the spirit of a sycophant.
78 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.
78 This isn’t about stirring up emotions or blowing things out of proportion; it’s about examining our feelings and instincts that nature supports. Without these feelings, we wouldn’t be able to fulfill our social responsibilities or enjoy the happiness in life. I don’t want to show horror just to incite revenge, but to wake us from a dangerous and cowardly sleep so we can decisively pursue a clear goal. Britain or Europe cannot conquer America unless they first defeat their own issues of delay and timidity. This winter is worth more than a whole era if used wisely, but if wasted or ignored, the entire continent will suffer the consequences. Anyone who contributes to squandering such a valuable and useful time deserves any punishment that comes their way, no matter who they are or where they are from.
79 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 fallacious 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.”
79 It's unreasonable and goes against the natural order of things, as well as examples from the past, to think that this continent can continue to be under any external power. Even the most optimistic people in Britain don't believe that. The greatest intellect of humanity can't come up with a plan short of separation that could guarantee the continent even a year of safety. Reconciliation is now just a false hope. Nature has abandoned the connection, and no effort can replace it. As Milton wisely said, “true reconciliation cannot happen where deep wounds of deadly hate have been inflicted.”
80 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.
80 All our peaceful attempts have failed. Our prayers have been dismissed with contempt; they have only shown us that nothing flatters vanity or strengthens stubbornness in kings more than constant begging—and nothing has contributed more to making the kings of Europe powerful than that very approach: Just look at Denmark and Sweden. Therefore, since only force seems to work, for goodness' sake, let’s finally separate and not leave the next generation fighting each other under the meaningless titles of parent and child.
81 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.
81 To claim they will never try it again is pointless and unrealistic. We believed that after the repeal of the stamp act, but a year or two later, we were proven wrong; just as we might think that nations that have been defeated will never start a conflict again.
82 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.
82 When it comes to government issues, Britain simply can't do justice to this continent. The task will soon become too heavy and complex to handle conveniently from such a distance, especially since they know so little about us; if they can't defeat us, they can't govern us. Constantly sending messages or petitions three or four thousand miles away, waiting four or five months for a response, and then taking another five or six months to clarify that response will eventually be seen as foolish and immature—there was a time when it made sense, and there will be a time when it should stop.
83 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.
83 Small islands that can’t defend themselves are the right things for kingdoms to take care of; however, it’s quite ridiculous to think that a continent can be permanently ruled by an island. In no case has nature ever made the moon larger than the planet it orbits, and since England and America, in relation to each other, turn this natural order upside down, it’s clear they belong to different systems: England to Europe, and America to its own.
84 I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and independance; 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.
84 I'm not driven by pride, loyalty, or anger to support the idea of separation and independence; I genuinely believe that it's in the best interest of this continent to pursue it. Anything less than that is just a temporary fix, providing no lasting happiness—it’s like passing on conflict to our children and backing down at a moment when a little more effort could have made this continent a source of great pride in the world.
85 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 expence of blood and treasure we have been already put to.
85 Since Britain has shown no willingness to compromise, we can be sure that there are no terms that would be acceptable to the continent, or that would justify the expense of blood and treasure we've already incurred.
86 The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the expence. 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 ballanced 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 independancy 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.
86 The issue we’re fighting for should always match the costs involved. Getting rid of North, or the entire horrible group surrounding him, isn’t worth the millions we’ve spent. A temporary halt in trade was an inconvenience that would have balanced out the repeal of all the laws we’re upset about, if those repeals had happened; but if the entire continent has to take up arms, and every person has to be a soldier, it’s hardly worth it to fight against such a contemptible government. We’re paying a heavy price for the repeal of these laws if that’s all we’re fighting for; it’s just as foolish to pay a Bunker Hill price for law as for land. I’ve always believed that the independence of this continent was bound to happen eventually, and given how quickly we’ve been progressing towards maturity, that moment can’t be far off. So, when hostilities broke out, it wasn’t worth arguing over something that time would have fixed eventually, unless we were serious about it; otherwise, it’s like wasting money on a lawsuit to settle issues with a tenant whose lease is about to end. No one wanted reconciliation more than I did before the tragic April 19, 1775, but the moment I learned what happened that day, I completely turned my back on the cold-hearted, stubborn Pharaoh of England; I disdain anyone who, with the false title of father of his people, can callously ignore the slaughter of his people and sleep soundly with their blood on his hands.
87 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.
87 But if we accept that everything is settled now, what will happen next? I say it will be the downfall of the continent. And that's for several reasons.
88 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 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 independant, for independancy 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.”
88 First. The power to govern is still in the hands of the king, giving him control over all legislation on this continent. Given his long-standing opposition to liberty and his desire for absolute power, is he really the right person to tell these colonies, “You can only make laws that I approve.”? Is there anyone in America so uninformed that they don't understand that under the so-called current constitution, this continent can’t make any laws without the king's permission? Is there anyone so naive as to think that, after everything that's happened, he won't allow any laws to be made here that don't serve his interests? We can be just as effectively enslaved by the absence of laws in America as by accepting laws imposed on us from England. Once agreements are reached (as they say), is there any doubt that the full power of the crown will be used to keep this continent as submissive as possible? Instead of progressing, we will regress, or be stuck in constant conflict or absurd petitions. We are already more significant than the king wants us to be, and won't he try to diminish us in the future? To put it simply: Is a power that is envious of our success really fit to govern us? Anyone who answers No to this question is an independent, because independence means choosing whether we will make our own laws or let the king—the greatest enemy we have—tell us, “There will be no laws unless I approve.”
89 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, makes 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.
89 But you'll say the king has a veto in England; the people there can’t make any laws without his approval. It’s quite ridiculous that a twenty-one-year-old (which often happens) can tell millions of people, who are older and wiser than he is, that he forbids this or that act from becoming law. However, I won’t get into that kind of argument here, though I will always point out how absurd it is. I will only say that since England is the king’s home and America is not, the situation is very different. The king’s veto here is ten times more dangerous and harmful than it could be in England because there, he will hardly ever refuse to approve a bill to strengthen England’s defenses, while in America, he would never allow such a bill to pass.
90 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 subtilty, in the long run, what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
90 America is just a secondary concern in British politics. England considers the well-being of this country only as far as it serves her own interests. That’s why her own interests drive her to stifle our growth whenever it doesn’t benefit her or even slightly interferes with it. We would soon find ourselves in a pretty bad situation under such a second-hand government, considering what has already happened! People don’t turn from enemies to friends just because their name changes. To show that reconciliation now is a dangerous idea, I argue that it would be wise for the king at this moment to repeal the acts to restore his control over the provinces; so that He can achieve through cleverness and finesse what he can't accomplish with force and violence in the short term. Reconciliation and ruin are closely related.
91 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 dispense of their effects, and quit the continent.
91 Secondly. The best terms we can expect will only be a temporary solution, like a form of government managed by guardians, which won’t last longer than until the colonies mature. This means that the overall situation will remain unstable and uninviting. Wealthy emigrants won’t want to come to a country whose government is barely holding together and is constantly on the edge of chaos. Moreover, many current residents might take this opportunity to sell their possessions and leave the continent.
92 But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independance, i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain.
92 But the strongest argument of all is that only independence, specifically a continental form of government, can maintain peace across the continent and protect it from civil wars. I fear the outcome of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it’s likely that it will lead to a revolt somewhere, the consequences of which could be far more devastating than all of Britain’s hostility.
93 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 independance, 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 independance. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby.
93 Thousands have already been devastated by British brutality; (thousands more will likely face the same fate). Those people have different feelings than us, who have suffered nothing. All they now have is freedom, what they once enjoyed has been sacrificed for its sake, and with nothing left to lose, they reject submission. Furthermore, the overall attitude of the colonies toward a British government will be like that of a young person who is almost done with their training; they won’t care much about it. A government that can’t maintain peace isn’t a government at all, and in that case, we’re paying for nothing; so what can Britain do, whose power will be just words on paper, if a civil uprising breaks out the very day after reconciliation? I’ve heard some people say, many of whom I think spoke without thinking, that they feared independence, worrying it would lead to civil wars. It’s rare for our initial thoughts to be entirely correct, and this is one of those times; there’s far more to fear from a patched-up connection than from independence. I take the side of the suffering, and I declare that if I were forced from my home, my possessions destroyed, and my situation ruined, as a person aware of injuries, I could never accept the idea of reconciliation or think of myself as bound by it.
94 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, than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for superiority over another.
94 The colonies have shown a strong sense of order and respect for the continental government, which should make any reasonable person feel at ease and content with the situation. No one can really justify their fears with anything other than truly silly and absurd ideas, like the notion that one colony will try to outdo another.
95 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 negociate the mistake.
95 Where there are no distinctions, there can be no superiority; perfect equality poses no temptation. The republics of Europe are generally at peace. Holland and Switzerland are free from wars, both foreign and domestic. It's true that monarchical governments are rarely at rest; the crown itself attracts ambitious troublemakers at home; and the pride and arrogance that often come with royal authority can lead to conflicts with foreign powers, situations where a republican government, based on more natural principles, would resolve the issue.
96 If there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, 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.
96 If there's any real reason to be afraid about independence, it's that there's no plan in place yet. People can't see a clear way forward. So, to start this conversation, I’m offering some ideas; at the same time, I humbly acknowledge that I don't think much of them myself, except that they might inspire something better. If we could gather the scattered thoughts of individuals, they could often provide valuable material for smart and capable people to turn into something useful.
97 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.
97 Let the meetings happen once a year, with just one President. The representation should be more equal. Their work will be entirely local and under the authority of a Continental Congress.
98 Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in Congress will be at least 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.
98 Each colony should be divided into six, eight, or ten convenient districts, with each district sending a suitable number of delegates to Congress, ensuring that each colony sends at least thirty. The total number in Congress will be at least 390. Each Congress will convene and choose a president using the following process. When the delegates gather, a colony will be randomly selected from all thirteen colonies, and then the entire Congress will elect a president from the delegates of that province by ballot. In the next Congress, a colony will be drawn randomly from just twelve, excluding the colony that provided the president in the previous Congress, continuing in this manner until all thirteen have had their turn. To ensure that no law is passed unless it is fairly justified, a majority will be defined as no less than three-fifths of Congress. Anyone who fosters division under a government structured as this one would have sided with Lucifer in his rebellion.
99 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.
99 However, there's a special sensitivity about who or how this situation should start, and it feels most fitting that it should come from a group that stands between the people and those in power, specifically between Congress and the public. Therefore, let a Continental Conference be organized in the way outlined below, for the purpose stated.
100 A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two for each colony. Two members from 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.
100 A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, specifically two from each colony. Two members from each House of Assembly or Provincial Convention; and five representatives of the general public, who will be chosen in the capital city or town of each province by as many qualified voters as choose to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose. Alternatively, if it’s easier, the representatives can be selected from two or three of the most populated areas. This conference, therefore assembled, will combine the two essential principles of business, knowledge and power. The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions will have valuable experience in national issues, making them effective advisors, and, being empowered by the people, will hold genuine legal authority.
101 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.
101 The members gathered should focus on creating a Continental Agreement, or Charter of the United Colonies; (similar to what is known as the Magna Carta of England) establishing the number and method for selecting members of Congress and members of the Assembly, along with their meeting schedules, and defining the scope of their responsibilities and authority: (Always remembering that our strength is continental, not provincial:) Ensuring freedom and property rights for everyone, and most importantly, the free exercise of religion according to individual conscience; along with any other necessary provisions for a charter. Following this, the Conference will dissolve, and the bodies selected according to the charter will serve as the lawmakers and leaders of this continent for the time being: May God preserve their peace and happiness, Amen.
102 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.
102 If a group of people is appointed in the future for this or a similar purpose, I present the following excerpts from the insightful observer of governments, Dragonetti. "The art," he says, "of a politician is about determining the true source of happiness and freedom. Those individuals would earn the gratitude of generations who could find a way of governing that maximizes individual happiness while minimizing national cost."
Dragonetti on virtue and rewards.”
Dragonetti on virtue and rewards.
103 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 of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
103 But where, you might ask, is the King of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above and does not wreak havoc on humanity like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet so we don’t seem lacking in earthly honors, let's set aside a day to officially proclaim the charter; let it be presented on divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed on it, so the world may know that as far as we accept monarchy, in America the law rules. For just as in absolute governments the King is law, in free countries the law ought to be King; and there should be no other. But to prevent any misuse later on, let the crown be destroyed and scattered among the people who rightfully own it at the end of the ceremony.
104 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 ¹ may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independance 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.
104 Having our own government is our natural right. When someone seriously thinks about how uncertain life can be, they'll realize that it's much wiser and safer to create our own constitution thoughtfully while we still have the chance, rather than leave such an important matter up to time and luck. If we don't do it now, some leader might rise up later, taking advantage of public unrest, gathering the desperate and discontent, and seizing control, which could destroy our freedoms entirely. If America were to fall back under British rule, the unstable situation would tempt some reckless individual to gamble with their fate. In that case, what help could Britain provide? By the time they heard the news, it might be too late; we'd be suffering like the unfortunate Britons under a conqueror's oppression. You who oppose independence now, you don't realize what you're doing; you're opening the door to endless tyranny by leaving the government position vacant. There are thousands—tens of thousands—who would see it as an honor to drive out that brutal and hellish power that has stirred up the Indians and enslaved people against us. Their cruelty carries double blame: it's brutal toward us and treacherous toward them.
105 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?
105 Talking about friendship with people we know we can't trust and who hurt us in countless ways is crazy and foolish. Each day weakens the little connection we have with them, so is there any reason to believe that as the relationship fades, our feelings will grow stronger or that we'll get along better when we have even more significant issues to fight over than before?
106 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 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.
106 You who speak of harmony and reconciliation, can you bring back the time that has passed? Can you give innocence back to prostitution? You can't reconcile Britain and America. The last bond is now broken, and the people of England are sending us complaints. There are wounds that nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. Just as a lover cannot forgive the person who violated his mistress, the continent cannot forgive the atrocities committed by Britain. The Almighty has instilled in us these indelible feelings for good and wise reasons. They are the guardians of His image in our hearts. They set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. The social contract would fall apart, and justice would vanish from the earth, or exist only randomly if we were indifferent to the signs of affection. The thief and the murderer would often go unpunished if not for the hurt our tempers endure, which drives us toward justice.
107
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.
107
O you who love humanity! You who dare to challenge not just the oppression but the oppressors, step forward! Every corner of the old world is overwhelmed with tyranny. Freedom has been chased all over the earth. Asia and Africa have long sent her away—Europe treats her like a foreigner, and England has ordered her to leave. O! welcome the refugee, and get ready in time to provide a safe haven for humanity.
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 shewn less judgment, than in endeavouring to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for independance.
I have never met a man, either in England or America, who hasn't admitted that a separation between the countries will happen eventually. And there's no instance where we've shown less judgment than in trying to explain what we call the readiness or suitability of the Continent for independence.
109 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 endeavour, if possible, to find out the very time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for, the time hath found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things prove the fact.
109 Since everyone agrees on the measure, differing only in their views about the timing, let's take a broad look at things to avoid any misunderstandings and try to figure out the exact time. But we don’t have to search far; the inquiry ends immediately because the time has found us. The collective agreement and the amazing unity of everything confirm this fact.
110 It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. The Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of armed and disciplined men of any power under Heaven; and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accomplish the matter, and either more, or, less than this, might be fatal in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot be insensible, that Britain would never suffer an American man of war to be built, while the continent remained in her hands. Wherefore, we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in that branch, than we are now; but the truth is, we should be less so, because the timber of the country is every day diminishing, and that, which will remain at last, will be far off and difficult to procure.
110 Our true strength lies not in numbers, but in unity; however, we currently have enough people to defend against the entire world. The continent now has the largest group of armed and trained soldiers of any power on Earth. We’ve reached a point where no individual colony can stand on its own, but together we can achieve great things, whereas anything less could have serious consequences. Our ground forces are already adequate, and when it comes to naval matters, we must realize that Britain would never allow an American warship to be built as long as the continent remains under her control. Therefore, one hundred years from now, we wouldn’t be any further along in this area than we are today; in fact, we’d be even worse off, as the timber we need is dwindling every day, and what’s left will be harder to get in the future.
111 Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more sea port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to 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.
111 If the continent were packed with people, her struggles in the current situation would be unbearable. The more port towns we have, the more we have to protect and the more we could lose. Our current population is just right for our needs, so no one has to be unemployed. A drop in trade provides troops, and the needs of an army open up new trade opportunities.
112 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 independant 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 is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a pedling politician.
112 We have no debts, and any that we might take on will serve as a proud reminder of our integrity. If we can leave future generations with a stable government and an independent constitution, then whatever it costs will be worth it. However, spending millions just to repeal a few terrible laws and to oust the current government is beneath us and is incredibly unfair to future generations; it burdens them with significant work and a debt that offers them no benefit. Such a thought is not fitting for a person of honor and is a clear sign of a narrow-minded individual and a petty politician.
113 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 an half sterling.
113 The debt we might incur isn't a concern if the job gets done. No country should be without debt. A national debt is a national asset; and when it doesn't accrue interest, it’s not a problem at all. Britain is burdened with a debt of over one hundred and forty million pounds, for which she pays more than four million in interest. In exchange for her debt, she has a large navy; America is debt-free and has no navy; yet for just one-twentieth of the British national debt, it could have a navy twice as large. Right now, England's navy is worth no more than three and a half million pounds.
114 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 just. See Entic’s naval history, intro. page 56.
114 The first and second editions of this pamphlet were published without the following calculations, which are now provided as proof that the earlier estimation of the navy is accurate. See Entic’s naval history, intro. page 56.
115 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.
115 The responsibility of constructing a ship of every type and equipping it with masts, yards, sails, and rigging, along with eight months' worth of supplies for the boatswain and carpenter, as estimated by Mr. Burchett, the Secretary of the Navy.
£ [pounds sterling] |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
116 And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather, of the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was at its greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns:
116 And from this, it’s easy to add up the value, or rather the cost, of the entire British navy, which in the year 1757, at its peak, included the following ships and guns:
Ships. | Guns. | Cost of one. | Cost of all. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cost in £ [pounds sterling] | ||||
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 | 10,606 | 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 | |||
------------ | ||||
3,500,000 |
117 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. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and silver.
117 No country in the world is as well-situated or has the internal resources to build a fleet like America. Tar, timber, iron, and rope are naturally available here. We don't need to rely on imports. The Dutch, who profit from renting out their warships to the Spaniards and Portuguese, have to bring in most of their materials. We should see building a fleet as a business opportunity since it's a natural industry for this country. It's the best investment we can make. A completed navy is worth more than what we spend on it. It's a key aspect of national policy where commerce and protection come together. Let's build; if we don't need them, we can sell them, and in doing so, we can replace our paper money with actual gold and silver.
118 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 landmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than now, while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war, of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New-England, and why not the same now? Ship-building is America’s greatest pride, and in which, she will in time excel the whole world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe, hath either such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature hath given the one, she has withheld the other; to America only hath she been liberal of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce.
118 When it comes to manning a fleet, people often make significant mistakes; it’s not necessary for one-fourth of the crew to be sailors. The notorious privateer, Captain Death, faced the toughest battle of any ship in the last war yet had fewer than twenty sailors on board, even though there were over two hundred men total. A few skilled and sociable sailors can quickly train a sufficient number of active landmen in the basic tasks on a ship. Therefore, we are never better positioned to venture into maritime matters than we are now, while our timber is available, our fisheries are blocked, and our sailors and shipbuilders are unemployed. Warships of seventy and eighty guns were built in New England forty years ago; why can’t we do the same now? Shipbuilding is America’s greatest pride, and in time, we will surpass the entire world in it. The great empires of the East are mostly landlocked, so they can’t compete with us. Africa is in a state of barbarism, and no European power has such an extensive coastline or such a rich supply of materials. Where nature has provided one, she has withheld the other; only America has been generous with both. The vast empire of Russia is nearly cut off from the sea; therefore, her limitless forests, tar, iron, and cordage are merely commercial goods.
119 In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are not the little people now, which we were sixty years ago; at that time we might have trusted our property in the streets, or fields rather; and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defence, ought to improve with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased; and the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the whole Continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.
119 In terms of safety, can we really be without a fleet? We're not the small community we were sixty years ago; back then, we could trust our belongings in the streets—or in fields—and sleep peacefully without locking our doors or windows. Now, things have changed, and our defense measures need to improve as our wealth increases. Just a year ago, a common pirate could have sailed up the Delaware and demanded whatever amount he wanted from the city of Philadelphia; the same could have happened to other places. In fact, any bold person with a ship armed with fourteen or sixteen guns could have robbed the entire continent and made off with half a million dollars. These are serious issues that require our attention and highlight the need for naval protection.
120 Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that she shall keep a navy in our harbours 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 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?
120 Some might argue that once we settle our issues with Britain, she will protect us. Are we really so naive as to think that she will keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense should tell us that the power that tried to subjugate us is the least suitable to defend us. Conquest can be disguised as friendship, and after a long and courageous resistance, we could end up tricked into slavery. And if her ships aren't allowed in our harbors, then how will she protect us? A navy that’s thousands of miles away won’t be helpful, and in emergencies, it won’t be helpful at all. So, if we have to defend ourselves in the future, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for someone else?
121 The English list of ships of war, is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service, numbers of them not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part, of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one time. The East and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason, supposed, that we must have one as large; which not being instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an over match for her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain by her fleet, hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West-Indies, which, by laying in the neighbourhood of the Continent, is entirely at its mercy.
121 The list of warships in England is long and intimidating, but at any given time, less than one-tenth of them are actually ready for service, with many ships not even existing anymore; yet their names remain on the list, even if just a plank from the ship is left. Moreover, not even one-fifth of those that are ready for service can be sent to any one location at the same time. The East and West Indies, the Mediterranean, Africa, and other regions under Britain's claim place significant demands on her navy. Due to a mix of bias and oversight, we've developed a misleading idea about the English navy. We talk as if we would have to face all of it at once and, for that reason, think we need an equally large navy; this notion, which isn’t feasible right away, has been used by a group of concealed loyalists to discourage us from starting our own navy. Nothing could be further from the truth; if America had just one-twentieth of Britain's naval power, she would easily outmatch her. This is because we do not possess or claim any foreign territory, and our entire force would be focused on our own coast, giving us a long-term advantage of two to one over those who would have to travel three or four thousand miles just to attack us, and the same distance to return in order to resupply and restock. And even though Britain’s fleet has some control over our trade with Europe, we have just as much control over her trade with the West Indies, which is completely vulnerable due to its proximity to the continent.
122 Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few 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 defense is sound policy; for when our strength and our riches play into each other’s hand, we need fear no external enemy.
122 We could consider a method to maintain a naval force during peacetime, even if we don't think it's necessary to have a full-time navy. If we offered incentives to merchants to build and operate ships equipped with twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns (with the incentives scaled to the space lost for merchants), having fifty or sixty of these ships, along with a few guard ships on standby, would provide an adequate navy without the burden we often criticize in England, where their fleet rots in the docks during peacetime. Combining the strength of commerce with defense is smart policy; when our power and wealth support each other, we have nothing to fear from outside threats.
123 In almost every article of defense 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, shews the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters.
123 We have plenty of defenses. Hemp grows so abundantly that we won't run out of rope. Our iron is better than what other countries have. Our firearms are on par with the best in the world. We can easily cast cannons. We produce saltpeter and gunpowder every day. Our knowledge is constantly improving. Determination is part of our nature, and we have never lost our courage. So what is it that we actually want? Why are we hesitating? From Britain, we can only expect destruction. If they gain control over America again, this continent will be unlivable. Conflicts will arise all the time; rebellions will occur constantly; and who will step up to handle them? Who will risk their life to force their fellow countrymen into submission to a foreign power? The disagreement between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over some unclaimed land shows how useless British governance is, and clearly proves that only a Continental authority can manage Continental issues.
124 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 dependants, 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.
124 Another reason why this time is better than any other is that the fewer people there are, the more land remains unoccupied. Instead of being wasted by the king on his useless followers, this land could be used in the future not only to pay off the current debt but also to provide ongoing support for the government. No nation on earth has such an advantage as this.
125 The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favour of independance. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far exceeded the moderns: and the reason is evident. For trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in the non-age of a nation. With the increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a Spaniel.
125 The early state of the Colonies, as it’s referred to, actually supports the argument for independence. We are numerous enough, and if we were more so, we might not be as united. It's worth noting that the more populated a country is, the smaller their armies tend to be. In terms of military strength, ancient civilizations far surpassed modern ones, and the reason is clear. Trade results from population growth, causing people to become too absorbed in it to focus on anything else. Commerce weakens both patriotism and the spirit of military defense. History shows us that the greatest achievements happened during a nation’s early years. With the rise of commerce, England has lost its fighting spirit. The city of London, despite its large population, endures ongoing insults with the patience of a coward. The more people have to lose, the less they are willing to risk. Generally, the wealthy are slaves to fear and submit to authority with the nervous submissiveness of a Spaniel.
126 Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able might scorn each other’s assistance: and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would lament, that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune, are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters: we are young and we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in.
126 Youth is the time to build good habits, both in individuals and nations. It could be hard, if not impossible, to unite the continent under one government in fifty years. The wide range of interests from growing trade and population would lead to confusion. Colony would fight against colony. Each would look down on the others' help: while the arrogant and foolish took pride in their small differences, the wise would regret that the union hadn't been formed earlier. Therefore, the present time is the true time to establish it. The close bonds formed in youth and friendships built through hardship are the most enduring. Our current union embodies both: we are young and we have faced challenges; yet our unity has endured through our struggles, creating a lasting inspiration for future generations to take pride in.
127 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 afterward: 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.
127 The present moment is a unique opportunity that only comes once to a nation: the chance to establish its own government. Most nations have missed this chance and ended up having to accept laws from their conquerors instead of creating their own. They first had a king and then a type of government; however, the principles or constitution of government should be established first, and then people should be chosen to carry them out. Let’s learn from the mistakes of other nations and seize this moment—To start government the right way.
128 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?
128 When William the Conqueror conquered England, he imposed laws by force; and until we agree that the government seat in America is legally and officially established, we risk having it taken over by some lucky thug who might treat us the same way. Then where will our freedom be? Where will our property go?
129 As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called, their Christian names.
129 When it comes to religion, I believe it's the essential duty of all governments to protect everyone who sincerely practices their beliefs, and I can’t think of anything else they should be doing in that regard. If someone can let go of that narrow-mindedness and selfishness that many in all professions cling to, they’ll immediately be free from any fears on this topic. Suspicion comes from petty minds and harms good society. Personally, I truly and wholeheartedly believe that it is the will of the Almighty for us to have diverse religious beliefs among us: it creates a larger space for our Christian compassion. If we all thought the same way, our religious beliefs would lack real testing; and based on this open-minded principle, I see the different denominations among us as just like siblings in the same family, differing only in what are called their Christian names.
130 In page forty, 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, personal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends.
130 In page forty, I shared some thoughts on the idea of a Continental Charter, (since I only intend to offer suggestions, not detailed plans) and here, I want to bring up the topic again by noting that a charter should be seen as a serious commitment that everyone agrees to, to protect the rights of each individual part, whether it's related to religion, personal freedom, or property. A solid agreement and a fair deal create lasting friendships.
131 In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation; and there is no political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the Associators petition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania; twenty-eight members only were present, all the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over the delegates of that province, ought to warn the people at large, how they trust power out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the Delegates were put together, which in point of sense and business would have dishonoured a schoolboy, and after being approved by a few, a very few without doors, were carried into the House, and there passed in behalf of the whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know, with what ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a trust.
131 In a former page I also pointed out the importance of having a large and balanced representation; there's no political issue that deserves our attention more. A small number of voters or a small number of representatives can be equally risky. However, if the number of representatives is not only small but also unbalanced, the risk increases. For example, when the Associators' petition was presented to the Pennsylvania House of Assembly, only twenty-eight members were present. All eight members from Bucks County voted against it, and if seven members from Chester County had done the same, this entire province would have been managed by just two counties. This is a constant risk. The inappropriate actions taken by that house during their last session to assert undue control over the province’s delegates should alert the public to how they delegate power. A set of instructions for the delegates was compiled that would have embarrassed a schoolboy in terms of logic and practicality. After being approved by a few, a very few outsiders, it was brought to the House and passed on behalf of the whole colony; if the whole colony were aware of the ill will that House has shown towards some necessary public actions, they wouldn’t think twice about deeming them unworthy of such a responsibility.
132 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.
132 Immediate needs make many things convenient, but if continued, they could become oppressive. Expediency and what is right are not the same thing. When America faced disasters that called for a meeting, there was no quicker or more suitable way at that time than to appoint representatives from the various Houses of Assembly. The wisdom they showed has saved this continent from disaster. However, since it's very likely that we'll always have a Congress, everyone who cares about good order must agree that how we choose the members of that body deserves thought. And I pose this question to those who study human nature: is representation and election too much power for one body of men to hold? When planning for future generations, we should remember that virtue is not passed down by inheritance.
133 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. ¹
133 We often learn valuable lessons from our enemies and are sometimes led to reason through their errors. Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) dismissed the petition from the New-York Assembly as trivial, arguing that since that House only had twenty-six members, it couldn't reasonably represent everyone. We appreciate his unintentional honesty. ¹
134 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 shew, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independance. Some of which are,
134 In conclusion, no matter how strange it may seem to some, or how reluctant they might be to accept it, it doesn't matter because there are many strong and compelling reasons to show that nothing can resolve our issues as quickly as a clear and determined declaration of independence. Some of these reasons are,
135 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.
135 First.—It's common for nations involved in conflict to have other powers, not part of the dispute, step in as mediators to help establish the groundwork for peace. But while America considers itself a subject of Great Britain, no well-meaning power can offer to mediate. Therefore, in our current situation, we might end up fighting indefinitely.
136 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.
136 Secondly.—It’s unrealistic to think that France or Spain will help us if our intention is only to use that help to mend the rift and reinforce the connection between Britain and America; because those countries would be negatively impacted by the outcomes.
137 Thirdly.—While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain, we must, in the eye of foreign nations, be considered as rebels. The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to be in arms under the name of subjects; we, on the spot, can solve the paradox: but to unite resistance and subjection, requires an idea much too refined for common understanding.
137 Thirdly.—Even though we declare ourselves to be subjects of Britain, foreign countries see us as rebels. This situation poses a significant risk to their peace, as it is dangerous for people to take up arms while claiming to be subjects. We can understand this contradiction ourselves, but the concept of combining resistance with being subject is way too complicated for most people to grasp.
138 Fourthly.—Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured, and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress; declaring, at the same time, that not being able, any longer, to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all 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.
138 Fourthly.—If we published a manifesto and sent it to foreign governments, outlining the hardships we've faced and the peaceful methods we've tried to resolve them; stating that we can no longer live happily or safely under the harsh treatment of the British government and that we've been compelled to cut all ties with them; while also assuring those governments of our peaceful intentions and our interest in trading with them: Such a declaration would have a greater positive impact on this continent than if we loaded a ship with petitions to Britain.
139 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 independance, we take rank with other nations.
139 As British subjects, we can't be recognized or taken seriously in other countries. The norm in all courts is against us and will remain so until we achieve independence and stand alongside other nations.
140 These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an independance 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.
140 These proceedings might seem odd and challenging at first; however, like all the other stages we've gone through, they will soon feel familiar and manageable. Until independence is declared, the continent will feel like someone who keeps delaying an unpleasant task, even though they know it has to be done, dreads starting it, wishes it were already over, and is constantly consumed by the thought of its necessity.
Since the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the King’s Speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The bloody mindedness of the one, shew 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 Independance.
Since the release of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the very day it was published, the King's Speech was presented in this city. If the spirit of prophecy had guided the creation of this work, it couldn't have arrived at a more timely moment or a more critical time. The aggressiveness of one highlights the need to embrace the ideas of the other. People read out of a sense of revenge. And the Speech, rather than instilling fear, paved the way for the courageous principles of Independence.
142 Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the King’s Speech, as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a general execration both by the Congress and the people. Yet, as the domestic tranquillity of a nation, depends greatly, on the chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is often better, to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on that guardian of our peace and safety. And, perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the King’s Speech, hath not, before now, suffered a public execution. The Speech if it may be called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this general massacre of mankind, is one of the privileges, and the certain consequence of Kings; for as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their creators. The Speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a Savage than the King of Britain.
142 Ceremony, and even silence, regardless of their motives, have a harmful tendency when they give any support to base and wicked actions; therefore, if we accept this principle, it naturally follows that the King’s Speech, which is a perfect example of villainy, deserves and should continue to receive universal condemnation from both Congress and the public. However, since the domestic peace of a nation largely depends on the integrity of what can be considered national behavior, it is often better to overlook certain things with silent contempt than to adopt new forms of disapproval that could introduce even the slightest changes to that system that safeguards our peace and safety. Perhaps it is mainly due to this careful restraint that the King’s Speech has not yet faced a public execution. The Speech, if we can even call it that, is nothing more than a willful, bold libel against truth, the common good, and humanity itself; it is a formal and grand way of offering human sacrifices to the arrogance of tyrants. But this widespread annihilation of humanity is one of the privileges and inevitable outcomes of kings; for while nature does not recognize them, they do not recognize her, and even though they are beings of our own making, they do not know us and have become the gods of their creators. The Speech has one redeeming quality: it is not meant to deceive, and even if we wanted to, we cannot be fooled by it. Brutality and tyranny are evident on its surface. It leaves us with no confusion: and every line makes it clear, even as we read it, that the one who hunts the forests for prey, the naked and untaught Indian, is less savage than the King of Britain.
143 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.
143 Sir John Dalrymple, the supposed author of a whiny, sneaky piece called, “The Address of the people of England to the inhabitants of USA,” may have mistakenly believed that the people here would be intimidated by the grandeur and description of a king, and thus, (though very unwise of him) he has revealed the true nature of the current one: “But,” says this writer, “if you feel inclined to compliment an administration, which we do not criticize,” (referring to the Marquis of Rockingham’s during the repeal of the Stamp Act) “it is quite unfair for you to withhold those compliments from the prince, by whose solo nod they were allowed to do anything.” This is toryism for all to see! Here is idolatry laid bare: And anyone who can calmly accept and process such ideas has abandoned their claim to rationality—an outcast from true humanity; and should be seen as someone who has not only forsaken the true dignity of man, but has also sunk below the level of animals, crawling through the world in a contemptible manner like a worm.
144 However, it matters very little now, what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be granting away her property, to support a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and christians—Ye, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as ye, who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation—But leaving the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following heads.
144 However, it really doesn't matter now what the king of England says or does; he has shamefully violated every moral and human obligation, trampling nature and conscience underfoot. Through a persistent and constitutional display of arrogance and cruelty, he has earned himself universal hatred. It is now in America's best interest to take care of herself. She already has a large and young family to look after, and it is more her responsibility to care for them than to give away her resources to support a power that has become a disgrace to the names of men and Christians—You, whose job it is to oversee the morals of a nation, regardless of your sect or denomination, as well as you who are more directly responsible for protecting public liberty, if you want to keep your homeland free from European corruption, you must secretly desire separation. But putting aside the moral aspect for private reflection, I will focus my further comments on the following points.
145 First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.
145 First. That it's in America's best interest to separate from Britain.
146 Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independance? with some occasional remarks.
146 Secondly. Which plan is easier and more practical, making amends or independence? with some occasional remarks.
147 In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in a state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by which England is to be benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the countries as independant of each other as France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the independance of this country of Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object worthy of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.
147 To support my point, I could, if I deemed it appropriate, share the views of some of the most capable and experienced individuals on this continent, whose thoughts on this matter are not yet known to the public. It’s actually a clear truth: No nation that is dependent on others, restricted in its trade, and limited in its legislative authority can ever achieve significant status. America doesn’t truly understand what wealth is yet; even though the progress it has made is unmatched in the history of other nations, it’s still in its infancy compared to what it could reach if it rightly had control over its own laws. At this moment, England is arrogantly chasing something that wouldn’t benefit her even if she attained it, while the continent is hesitating over an issue that will lead to its ultimate downfall if ignored. It is America’s trade, not its conquest, that would benefit England, and that trade would largely continue even if the nations were as independent of each other as France and Spain; because in many goods, neither can find a better market. However, the independence of this country from Britain or anyone else is the main and only issue worth fighting for, and like all truths revealed by necessity, it will become clearer and stronger with each passing day.
148 First. Because it will come to that one time or other.
148 First. Because it will eventually happen.
149 Secondly. Because, the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish.
149 Secondly, the longer it's delayed, the harder it will be to get it done.
150 I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies, with silently remarking, 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 dependance. To which I reply, that our military ability, at this time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others. The argument turns thus—at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience; wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time.
150 I've often entertained myself, both in public and private gatherings, by silently noting the misleading errors of those who speak without thinking. Among the many I've heard, the most common seems to be that if this break had happened forty or fifty years later, instead of now, the Continent would have been better able to break free from dependence. To this, I respond that our military capability, at this time, comes from the experience gained in the last war, which would have completely faded in forty or fifty years. By that time, the Continent wouldn’t have had a General or even a military officer left; and we, or those who follow us, would be just as clueless about military matters as the ancient Indians. This single point, when closely examined, clearly shows that the present time is better than any other. The argument goes like this—at the end of the last war, we had experience but lacked numbers; and in forty or fifty years, we would have numbers without experience. Therefore, the right moment must be somewhere between these two extremes, where enough experience remains, and a proper increase in numbers is achieved: and that moment is the present.
151 The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come under the head I first set out with, and to which I again return by the following position, viz.
151 The reader will forgive this sidetrack, as it doesn't quite fit into the topic I initially started with, and to which I will return with the following statement, namely.
152 Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, (which, as matters are now circumstanced, is giving up the point intirely) we shall deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have, or may contract. The value of the back lands which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extention of the limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds sterling per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions yearly.
152 If we were to resolve our issues with Britain and allow her to continue as the governing and sovereign power in America (which, given the current situation, essentially means we’re giving up completely), we would lose our ability to pay off the debt we have or might incur. The value of the back lands that some provinces are unfairly deprived of due to the unjust extension of Canada’s borders, estimated at just five pounds sterling for every hundred acres, totals over twenty-five million in Pennsylvania currency. Additionally, the quit-rents, set at one penny sterling per acre, amount to two million annually.
153 It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burthen to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expence 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.
153 The sale of those lands can cover the debt without burdening anyone, and the annual rent collected from them will gradually reduce and eventually cover the government's yearly expenses. It doesn't matter how long it takes to pay off the debt, as long as the proceeds from the land sales are used to settle it. The Congress at that time will act as the continental trustees for this purpose.
154 I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independance; with some occasional remarks.
154 Now, I will move on to the second point, which is the easiest and most feasible plan: reconciliation or independence; along with some occasional comments.
155 He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally—That independance 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.
155 Anyone who uses nature as their guide isn't easily swayed in their arguments. Based on that, I’ll say generally that independence is straightforward, something we hold within ourselves; while reconciliation is quite complex and tricky, especially when an unpredictable and unreliable court gets involved, so the answer is clear.
156 The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflexion. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which, is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavouring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independance contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between, English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head.
156 The current situation in America is truly alarming for anyone who can think critically. There’s no law, no government, and no real authority other than what’s based on courtesy. We’re held together by an extraordinary agreement of opinions, which can easily change, and every hidden enemy is trying to break it apart. Our current state is about making laws without actual laws; wisdom without a strategy; a constitution without a name; and, strangely enough, perfect independence fighting for dependence. This situation has no precedent; it has never happened before, and who knows what the outcome will be? No one’s property is safe in this unstable system. The crowd’s mindset is aimless, and since they see no clear goal, they chase whatever ideas or opinions come to them. Nothing seems to be a crime; there’s no such thing as treason, which makes everyone feel free to act as they wish. The Tories would have thought twice about gathering if they knew their lives would be at stake for doing so. A clear distinction should be made between English soldiers captured in battle and Americans fighting in arms. The former are prisoners, while the latter are traitors. One loses his freedom; the other loses his life.
157 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 Independance 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 either judgment or honesty.
157 Despite our wisdom, there’s a noticeable weakness in some of our actions that encourages conflicts. The Continental Belt is too loosely fastened. If we don’t take action soon, it will be too late to do anything, and we will end up in a situation where neither Reconciliation nor Independence will be possible. The king and his useless supporters are back to their old strategy of dividing the continent, and there are some among us, like Printers, who will eagerly spread deceptive lies. The crafty and insincere letter that appeared a few months ago in two of the New York papers, as well as in two others, shows that there are people lacking either judgment or integrity.
158 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.”
158 It's easy to get caught up in discussions about reconciliation, but do people really consider how tough and potentially dangerous this task is if the Continent splits over it? Do they take into account all the different groups of people whose situations and circumstances, along with their own, need to be considered? Do they think about the person who has lost everything and the soldier who has given up everything to defend their country? If their misguided moderation is only suited to their own personal situations, without regard for others, they'll soon realize that “they are reckoning without their Host.”
159 Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence, of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress?—No going to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of Crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state; Our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the Continent—but now it is too late, “The Rubicon is passed.”
159 Some people suggest putting us back to where we were in '63. To that, I say, Britain can’t comply with that request now, nor will she even propose it; but even if she could and did, I ask, how can we trust such a corrupt and untrustworthy court to keep its promises? Another parliament, or even the current one, could repeal that obligation later, claiming it was obtained through force or granted foolishly; and in that case, what recourse do we have? There’s no legal action against nations; cannons serve as the lawyers of crowns, and it’s the sword of war, not justice, that settles the dispute. To be back in the situation of '63, it’s not enough for the laws to just revert to their previous state; our circumstances also need to return to where they were. Our burned and destroyed towns should be rebuilt, our personal losses compensated, and our public debts (incurred for defense) settled; otherwise, we’d be in a far worse position than we were during that so-called golden time. If this request had been agreed to a year ago, it would have captured the hearts and minds of the continent—but now it's too late, “The Rubicon is passed.”
160 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 a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the independancy of America, should have been considered, as dating its æra 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.
160 Besides, taking up arms just to enforce the repeal of a financial law seems as unjust according to divine law and as against human feelings as taking up arms to enforce obedience to that law. The goal, on either side, doesn't justify the means; because the lives of people are too precious to be wasted on such trivial matters. It's the violence done and threatened against us, the destruction of our property by armed forces, and the invasion of our country by fire and sword that truly justifies the use of arms. At the moment when such a defense became necessary, all submission to Britain should have ended; and America's independence should have been recognized as starting from and announced with the first musket that was fired against her. This principle is consistent; it’s not driven by whim or extended by ambition, but is the result of a series of events that the colonies didn't create.
161 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 independancy 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 independancy be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The Reflexion is awful—and in this point of view, How trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavellings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.
161 I’ll wrap up these thoughts with some timely and well-meaning suggestions. We should consider that there are three different ways independence might be achieved in the future, and that one of those three will eventually determine America’s fate: either through the legal voice of the people in Congress, through military power, or through mob action. It won’t always be the case that our soldiers are citizens, and the crowd is made up of rational individuals; as I’ve noted before, virtue isn’t inherited, nor is it everlasting. If independence is achieved by the first means, we have every opportunity and encouragement to create the noblest and purest constitution on the planet. We have the power to start fresh. A situation like this hasn’t occurred since the days of Noah. The dawn of a new world is approaching, and a population, perhaps as large as all of Europe, is about to gain their share of freedom due to the events of just a few months. This reflection is daunting—and in this light, how small and ridiculous the petty complaints of a few weak or self-interested individuals seem compared to the weighty matters at hand.
162 Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an Independance 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 Independance, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be independant 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 Independance.
162 If we ignore this current favorable and inviting moment, and independence is achieved later through other means, we must hold ourselves, or rather those narrow-minded individuals who habitually oppose the idea without any thought or inquiry, accountable for the outcome. There are reasons to support independence that people should think about privately instead of publicly debating. We should not be discussing whether we should be independent, but rather eager to establish it on a solid, secure, and honorable foundation, and worried that it hasn’t even started yet. Every day makes its necessity clearer. Even those loyalists (if any still exist among us) should, of all people, be the most eager to support it; for the initial appointment of committees protected them from public anger, and a wise, well-structured government will be the only certain way to ensure their continued security. Therefore, if they lack the virtue to be Whigs, they should at least have the sense to desire independence.
163 In short, Independance is the only Bond that can tye and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well, as a cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates, “rebellious subjects,” for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by independantly redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in 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.
163 In short, independence is the only connection that can tie and keep us together. We will then see our purpose clearly, and our ears will be legally closed to the schemes of a deceitful and cruel enemy. We will also be in a better position to negotiate with Britain; there's reason to believe that the pride of that court will be less offended by negotiating peace terms with the American states than with those they call “rebellious subjects.” Our delay encourages them to hope for victory, and our hesitance only prolongs the war. Since we have withheld our trade without any positive outcome to secure a resolution of our grievances, let’s now try the other option, by independently addressing them ourselves, and then offering to resume trade. The reasonable mercantile faction in England will still be on our side because peace with trade is better than war without it. And if this offer isn't accepted, we can seek assistance from other nations.
164 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 favour 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 neighbour 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 INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.
164 With this, I conclude the matter. And since no one has come forward to challenge the ideas found in the earlier versions of this pamphlet, it serves as proof that either these ideas cannot be disproven, or that those who support them are too many to oppose. So, instead of looking at each other with suspicion or doubt, let’s extend a warm hand of friendship to our neighbors and come together to draw a line that, like a fresh start, will put all past disagreements behind us. Let the labels of Whig and Tory fade away; let’s only hear the names of a good citizen, an open and steadfast friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights of humankind and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.
165 To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing the late piece, entitled “The Ancient Testimony and Principles of the People called Quakers renewed, with Respect to the King and Government, and touching the Commotions now prevailing in these and other parts of America addressed to the People in General.”
165 To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People known as Quakers, or to those among you who were involved in publishing the recent work titled “The Ancient Testimony and Principles of the People known as Quakers renewed, regarding the King and Government, and concerning the Disruptions currently happening in these and other parts of United States, addressed to the General Public.”
166 The Writer of this, is one of those few, who never dishonours religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling in matters, which the professed Quietude of your Principles instruct you not to meddle with.
166 The writer of this is one of the few who never disrespects religion by mocking or criticizing any denomination. Ultimately, everyone is accountable to God, not to other people, for their beliefs. So, this letter isn't really addressed to you as a religious group, but as a political organization, getting involved in issues that your stated principles suggest you shouldn't interfere with.
167 As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting himself in the place of all those, who, approve the very writings and principles, against which your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen this singular situation, in order, that you might discover in him that presumption of character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you can have any claim or title to Political Representation.
167 Since you have, without proper authority, positioned yourselves as representatives of all Quakers, the writer of this, to stand on equal ground with you, needs to represent all those who support the very writings and principles that your testimony opposes. He has taken this unusual stance so that you might recognize in him the arrogance of character that you cannot see in yourselves. Because neither he nor you hold any claim or right to Political Representation.
168 When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not your proper Walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.
168 When people stray from the right path, it's not surprising that they trip and fall. And it's clear from how you've handled your testimony that politics, as a religious group of people, isn't the right path for you; because no matter how fitting it may seem to you, it is still a mix of good and bad thrown together carelessly, leading to conclusions that are both unnatural and unfair.
169 The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you, because the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well the religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this ground, as men labouring to establish an Independant Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burthens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavour, to separate and dissolve a connexion which hath already filled our land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both countries.
169 We’re giving you credit for the first two pages (and together they don’t make four), and we expect the same courtesy in return. The desire for peace isn’t just a Quaker thing; it’s a natural and religious wish shared by all people. That’s why, as we work to create our own Independent Constitution, we surpass others in our hope, purpose, and goals. Our plan is lasting peace. We’re done with fighting Britain and see no real resolution other than a complete separation. We’re acting consistently because we believe that by enduring the hardships of today, we can pave the way for a lasting and uninterrupted peace. We are striving—and will continue to strive—to break away from a connection that has already brought bloodshed to our land; one that, as long as it exists, will cause more damage to both countries in the future.
170 We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the character of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter—Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the continent, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put the Bigot in the place of the Christian.
170 We’re not fighting for revenge or conquest; not out of pride or passion; we’re not sending our fleets and armies to insult the world, nor are we laying waste to the planet for loot. We’re being attacked right under our own vines; the violence is happening in our homes and on our own land. We see our enemies as thieves and burglars, and since we have no legal defense, we have to respond with military force, using the sword where you have previously used the noose. Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted victims all over the continent with a level of compassion that hasn’t yet reached some of you. But make sure you don’t confuse the reason and basis of your claim. Don’t call a lack of compassion religion; nor should you place the Bigot in the position of the Christian.
171 O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles. If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear arms. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James’s, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are piratically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under him whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay ¹ ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but, like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavour to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are not Quakers.
171 Oh, you who selectively uphold your own acknowledged beliefs. If bearing arms is sinful, then going to war is even more sinful, given the difference between a deliberate attack and unavoidable defense. So, if you truly preach from your conscience and aren’t just using your religion for political purposes, prove it to the world by sharing your beliefs with our enemies, since they also bear arms. Show us you’re sincere by making your message known at St. James’s, to the commanders in chief in Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are illegally pillaging our coasts, and to all the murderous villains acting under him whom you claim to serve. If you had the honest spirit of Barclay ¹, you would preach repentance to your king; you would tell the Royal Scoundrel his sins and warn him of eternal damnation. You wouldn’t reserve your harsh criticisms only for the injured and insulted, but, like faithful ministers, you would shout loud and not hold back. Don’t say you’re being persecuted, and don’t try to make us responsible for the shame you’re bringing upon yourselves; we declare to all that we do not complain about you because you are Quakers, but because you pretend to be and are not Quakers.
173 Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.
173 Unfortunately, it seems from some parts of your testimony and other aspects of your behavior that all sin is boiled down to, and defined by, the act of bearing arms, and that only the people are guilty. You seem to have confused political affiliation with moral conviction; because, the overall pattern of your actions lacks consistency: And it's really hard for us to believe many of your claimed concerns; because we see them expressed by the same people who, at the very moment they are denouncing the wealth of this world, are nonetheless pursuing it with the same determination as Time, and an appetite as intense as Death.
174 The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him”; is very unwisely chosen on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the king’s ways (whom ye are desirous of supporting) do not please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.
174 The quote you pulled from Proverbs on the third page of your testimony, “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him,” is a poor choice on your part because it proves that the king’s actions (whom you want to support) do not please the Lord; otherwise, his reign would be peaceful.
175 I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz.
175 I now move on to the second part of your testimony, which seems to serve as an introduction for everything that came before, namely.
176 “It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is God’s peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men: That we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty; under the government which God is pleased to set over us.”—If these are really your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God’s Work, to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with patience and humility, for the event of all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political testimony if you fully believe what it contains: And the very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to practise what ye believe.
176 "It has always been our belief and principle, since we were called to follow the light of Christ Jesus, revealed in our consciences up to this day, that the establishment and removal of kings and governments is God’s unique authority for reasons known only to Him. It is not our place to interfere or meddle in these matters, nor to act out of turn, let alone plot or scheme for the downfall or overthrow of any leader. Instead, we should pray for the king, the safety of our nation, and the well-being of all people, so that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and honesty; under the government that God has chosen for us."—If these are truly your principles, why do you not follow them? Why do you not allow what you call God’s Work to be managed by Him? These very principles guide you to wait patiently and humbly for the outcomes of public policies and to accept those outcomes as God's will for you. So, what need is there for your political testimony if you genuinely believe what it states? The very act of publishing it suggests that either you do not believe what you claim, or you lack the virtue to practice what you believe.
177 The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself leads you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to kings as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present Proud Imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the Testimony, are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments brought about by any other means than such as are common and human; and such as we are now using. Even the dispersion of the Jews, though foretold by our Saviour, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in silence; and unless ye can produce divine authority, to prove, that the Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being independant of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain, unless I say, ye can shew this, how can ye on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up the people “firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire and design to break off the happy connexion we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom of Great-Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him.” What a slap of the face is here! the men, who in the very paragraph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and governments, into the hands of God, are now, recalling their principles, and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the conclusion, which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could only have been made by those, whose understandings were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional and fractional part thereof.
177 The principles of Quakerism tend to make a person a calm and non-offensive subject of any and all governments that oversee him. And if the rise and fall of kings and governments is solely God's authority, He certainly won't let us take that away from Him; so this principle leads you to accept everything that has ever happened or may happen to kings as part of His work. Oliver Cromwell appreciates that. Charles, then, didn't die by human hands; and if the current arrogant imitator of him meets the same unfortunate fate, the writers and publishers of the Testimony are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to celebrate the event. Kings aren’t removed by miracles, nor are changes in governments caused by anything other than common, human means, like the ones we’re using now. Even the scattering of the Jews, which was foretold by our Savior, happened through force. So, as you refuse to be responsible for one side, you should also avoid meddling on the other; instead, wait in silence for the outcome. Unless you can provide divine authority to prove that the Almighty, who has created and situated this new world at the greatest distance possible, east and west, from every part of the old, is against it being independent from the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain—unless you can show this, how can you, based on your principles, justify urging the people to “firmly unite in the abhorrence of all such writings and measures that show a desire to break off the happy connection we have enjoyed with the kingdom of Great Britain and our rightful and necessary submission to the king and those legally in authority under him”? What a slap in the face this is! The men who just a paragraph earlier quietly and passively surrendered the management, alteration, and disposal of kings and governments to God are now reversing their principles and trying to get involved. Is it even possible that the conclusion quoted can follow from the doctrine stated? The inconsistency is too obvious to ignore; the absurdity too great not to laugh at; and it's something only those whose minds were clouded by the narrow, bitter spirit of a desperate political faction could create; for you should not be seen as representing the entire body of Quakers, but only as a small, fractional part of it.
178 Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; “That the setting up and putting down of kings,” most certainly mean, the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore, your testimony in whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgement, and for many other reasons had better have been let alone than published.
178 Here ends the review of your testimony; (which I’m not asking anyone to reject as you have, but only to read and judge fairly;) to which I add the following point: “That establishing and removing kings” definitely refers to making someone a king who isn't one yet, and taking away kingship from someone who already holds it. And what does this have to do with the current situation? We don’t intend to establish or remove anyone, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Therefore, your testimony, no matter how it’s viewed, only serves to undermine your judgment, and for many other reasons, it would have been better left unpublished.
179 First, Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party in political disputes.
179 First, because it undermines and discredits all religion in general, and poses a serious threat to society, it's dangerous to involve it in political conflicts.
180 Secondly, Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and approvers thereof.
180 Secondly, because it shows a group of men, many of whom reject the political statements being published, as they are involved and support them.
181 Thirdly, Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and charitable donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of which, is of the utmost consequence to us all.
181 Thirdly, because it threatens to disrupt the continental harmony and friendship that you have helped establish with your recent generous donations; and preserving this is extremely important for all of us.
182
And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely
wishing, that as men and christians, ye may always fully and
uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your
turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye
have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be
disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of
America.
182
And here, without any anger or resentment, I say goodbye. I sincerely hope that, as individuals and Christians, you may always fully and consistently enjoy every civil and religious right; and that, in turn, you will help secure those rights for others. However, I hope that the example you have carelessly set by mixing religion with politics is rejected and condemned by every citizen of
USA.
F I N I S.
F I N I S.
“No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and familiarity of style, in perspicuity of expression, happiness of elucidation, and in simple and unassuming language.”
“No writer has matched Paine in the ease and friendliness of his style, clarity of expression, effectiveness of explanation, and straightforward, humble language.”
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
“A pamphlet called ‘Commonsense’ makes a great noise. One of the vilest things that ever was published to the world. Full of false representations, lies, calumny, and treason, whose principles are to subvert all Kingly Governments and erect an Independent Republic.”
“A pamphlet titled 'Commonsense' is causing a huge uproar. It's one of the most shameful publications ever. It's full of false statements, lies, slander, and treason, with the goal of dismantling all monarchies and establishing an Independent Republic.”
Nicholas Cresswell
Nicholas Cresswell
“I dreaded the effect so popular a pamphlet might have among the people, and determined to do all in my Power to counteract the effect of it.”
“I was worried about the effect that such a popular pamphlet could have on the public, so I decided to do everything in my power to counter its influence.”
John Adams
John Adams
“Its effects were sudden and extensive upon the American mind. It was read by public men.”
“Its effects were immediate and far-reaching on the American mindset. It was read by prominent individuals.”
Dr. Benjamin Rush
Dr. Benjamin Rush
“Have you read the pamphlet Common Sense? I never saw such a masterful performance.… In short, I own myself convinced, by the arguments, of the necessity of separation.”
“Have you read the pamphlet Common Sense? I’ve never encountered such a compelling piece.… In short, I’m convinced by the arguments for separation.”
General Charles Lee
General Charles Lee
This production of the Bradford edition of Common Sense retains the original characteristics of the document—the author's use of capitalization (large and small), spelling, and italics.
This version of the Bradford edition of Common Sense keeps the original features of the document—the author's use of capitalization (both large and small), spelling, and italics.
The page numbers of this version of the book were my invention, for ease in reading the HTML document. The page numbers can more accurately be called paragraph numbers. They match the paragraph numbers in the edited text of ‘Common Sense’ from the National Humanities Center.
The page numbers in this version of the book are my creation, for easier reading of the HTML document. They could more accurately be referred to as paragraph numbers. They correspond with the paragraph numbers in the edited text of 'Common Sense' from the National Humanities Center.
The section "On Common Sense," containing quotes about Common Sense, have been added by this transcriber.
The section "On Common Sense," which includes quotes about Common Sense, has been added by this transcriber.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!