This is a modern-English version of The Writings of Thomas Paine, Complete: With Index to Volumes I - IV, 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.

This file was first posted, on a President's Day Holiday, in memory of Thomas Paine, one of our most influential and most under-appreciated patriots. DW
This file was first posted on Presidents' Day, in memory of Thomas Paine, one of our most influential yet underrated patriots. DW
CONTENTS
Click on the ## before each title to go directly to a
linked index of the detailed chapters and illustrations
|
CONTENTS of COMMON SENSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS of VOLUME ONE
CONTENTS of VOLUME ONE
CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO
CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
CONTENTS OF VOLUME THREE
CONTENTS OF VOLUME THREE
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD VOLUME.
I. THE REPUBLICAN PROCLAMATION
II. TO THE AUTHORS OF "LE RIPUBLICAIN."
III. TO THE ABBI SIHYES
IV. TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
V. TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS
VI. LETTERS TO ONSLOW CRANLEY
VII. TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SUSSEX,
VIII. TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS
IX. LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ADDRESSERS ON THE LATE PROCLAMATION
X. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE
XI. ANTI-MONARCHAL ESSAY FOR THE USE OF NEW REPUBLICANS
XII. TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON THE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE SECOND PART
XIII. ON THE PROPRIETY OF BRINGING LOUIS XVI. TO TRIAL
XIV. REASONS FOR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF LOUIS CAPET,
XV. SHALL LOUIS XVI. HAVE RESPITE?
XVI. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
XVII. PRIVATE LETTERS TO JEFFERSON
XVIII. LETTER TO DANTON
XIX. A CITIZEN OF AMERICA TO THE CITIZENS OF EUROPE
XX. APPEAL TO THE CONVENTION
XXI. THE MEMORIAL TO MONROE
XXII. LETTER TO GEORGE WASHINGTON
XXIII. OBSERVATIONS
XXIV. DISSERTATION ON FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT
XXV. THE CONSTITUTION OF 1795
XXVI. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF FINANCE
XXVII. FORGETFULNESS
XXVIII. AGRARIAN JUSTICE
XXIX. THE EIGHTEENTH FRUCTIDOR
XXX. THE RECALL OF MONROE
XXXI. PRIVATE LETTER TO PRESIDENT JEFFERSON
XXXII. PROPOSAL THAT LOUISIANA BE PURCHASED
XXXIII. THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
XXXIV. TO THE FRENCH INHABITANTS OF LOUISIANA
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ THE REPUBLICAN PROCLAMATION
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__ TO THE AUTHORS OF "LE RIPUBLICAIN."
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__ TO THE ABBÉ SIHYES
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__ TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__ TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_6__ LETTERS TO ONSLOW CRANLEY
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_7__ TO THE SHERIFF OF SUSSEX COUNTY,
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_8__ TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_9__ LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ADDRESSERS OF THE RECENT PROCLAMATION
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_10__ ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_11__ ANTI-MONARCHY ESSAY FOR THE USE OF NEW REPUBLICANS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_12__ TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE SECOND PART
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_13__ ON THE PROPRIETY OF PUTTING LOUIS XVI ON TRIAL
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_14__ REASONS FOR SPARING THE LIFE OF LOUIS CAPET,
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_15__ WILL LOUIS XVI. RECEIVE A DELAY?
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_16__ DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_17__ PRIVATE LETTERS TO JEFFERSON
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_18__ LETTER TO DANTON
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_19__ AN AMERICAN TO THE CITIZENS OF EUROPE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_20__ APPEAL TO THE CONVENTION
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_21__ THE MEMORIAL TO MONROE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_22__ LETTER TO GEORGE WASHINGTON
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_23__ OBSERVATIONS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_24__ DISSERTATION ON THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_25__ THE CONSTITUTION OF 1795
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_26__ THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ENGLISH FINANCIAL SYSTEM
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_27__ FORGETFULNESS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_28__ AGRARIAN JUSTICE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_29__ THE EIGHTEENTH FRUCTIDOR
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_30__ THE RECALL OF MONROE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_31__ PRIVATE LETTER TO PRESIDENT JEFFERSON
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_32__ PROPOSAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_33__ THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_34__ TO THE FRENCH INHABITANTS OF LOUISIANA
CONTENTS OF VOLUME FOUR
CONTENTS OF VOLUME FOUR
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_19__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_20__

COMMON SENSE;
addressed to the
sent 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 updates throughout the work. Included is an appendix; along with an address to the people called Quakers.
Man knows no Master save creating Heaven
Or
those whom choice and common good ordain.
A person acknowledges no authority other than the one who created Heaven.
or those selected 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 ideas in the following pages aren't yet popular enough to gain widespread support; a long history of not questioning something wrong makes it seem right, and initially sparks a loud reaction to defend tradition. But the noise eventually quiets down. Over time, more people change their minds than through reason.
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 A long history of violent abuse of power typically prompts questions about the legitimacy of that power (and even issues that might not have been considered if the victims hadn’t been pushed to investigate). Since the King of England has taken it upon himself to back the Parliament in what he claims is “theirs,” and given that the good people of this country are suffering greatly from this alliance, they have an undeniable right to question the claims of both sides and to reject the overreach from either one.
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 avoided anything personal between us. Both compliments and criticism of individuals are not included. The wise and deserving don’t need the validation of a pamphlet, and those with misguided or unfriendly opinions will stop on their own unless excessive effort is made to change their minds.
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 cause of America is largely the cause of all humanity. Many situations have arisen, and will continue to arise, that are not just local, but universal, affecting the principles of all those who care for humanity, and in which their feelings are engaged. Destroying a country with fire and sword, waging war against the natural rights of all people, and wiping out its defenders from the face of the Earth is a concern for everyone who has the capacity to feel, including those who, regardless of party judgment, 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 address (if necessary) any attempts to refute the doctrine of independence. Since no response has appeared yet, it is now assumed that there won't be one, as the time needed to prepare such a work for the public 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, since the focus should be on the Doctrine itself, not on the Man. However, it might be worth mentioning that he has no ties to any party and is under no form of public or private influence, just the influence of reason and principle.
Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
Philadelphia, Feb 14, 1776
OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL,
WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION.
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.
Some writers have mixed up society and government so much that there's hardly any difference between them; however, they are not only different but have different origins. Society arises from our needs, while government comes from our wrongdoing; the former promotes our happiness positively by bringing us together, while the latter negatively by limiting our bad behavior. One encourages interaction, the other establishes separations. The first is a supporter, the last is a disciplinarian.
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 suffering or hardships from a government that we could expect in a land without one, our pain is intensified by the realization that we are funding the means by which we suffer. Government, like clothing, symbolizes lost innocence; the kings’ palaces are built on the ruins of what once was paradise. If the impulses of conscience were clear, consistent, and followed without question, people wouldn’t need another lawmaker; however, since that's not the reality, people feel it’s necessary to give up part of their property to protect the rest. They are led to do this by the same wisdom that advises choosing the lesser of two evils in every situation. Therefore, security being the true purpose and goal of government, it logically follows that whatever form of government seems most likely to provide it at the least cost and greatest benefit is the one we should choose above 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 goal of government, let’s imagine a small group of people living in a remote part of the world, isolated from everyone else. They would represent the first inhabitants of any nation or even the world. In this natural state of freedom, society would be their primary concern. Numerous factors would motivate them to come together; no one person can meet all their needs alone, and the human mind isn't built for constant solitude. So, they would quickly need to seek help and support from others, who would, in turn, have the same needs. Four or five people working together could build a decent shelter in the wilderness, but one person might toil for their entire life without achieving much. After cutting down trees, they couldn't move them by themselves or construct anything with them afterward; meanwhile, hunger would drive them away from their work, and each different need would pull them in another direction. Illness or bad luck could be just as devastating, because even though they might not die from them, they could become unable to live, putting them in a state more akin to suffering 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 where the mutual benefits would replace the need for laws and government, as long as they remained fair to one another. But since only heaven is immune to wrongdoing, it’s inevitable that as they overcome the initial challenges of emigration that unite them for a common purpose, they will start to loosen their sense of duty and commitment to one another. This laxity will highlight the need for some form of government to compensate for the lack of moral virtue.
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 convenient tree will serve as their government building, beneath which the entire colony can gather to discuss public issues. It’s likely that their initial laws will simply be called Rules and will only be enforced through public disapproval. In this first parliament, every man will have a seat by natural right.
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 But as the colony grows, public concerns will likewise increase, and the distance between members will make it too inconvenient for everyone to meet as they did at first when their numbers were small, their homes close together, and public issues few and minor. This highlights the need for them to agree to let a select group manage the legislative duties, chosen from the entire body, who are expected to have the same interests as those who appointed them and will act as the whole body would if they were present. If the colony continues to grow, it will become necessary to increase the number of representatives, and to ensure that every part of the colony is represented, it will be best to divide the entire area into manageable sections, each section sending its appropriate number. To prevent the elected from forming an interest separate from the electors, it will be wise to hold elections frequently; because this way, the elected can return and reconnect with the general body of electors in a few months, securing their loyalty to the public through the wise realization of not creating problems for themselves. This regular interchange will establish a common interest among all parts of the community, allowing them to mutually support one another, and upon this (not just the meaningless title of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.
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 Here is where government originated and evolved; it became necessary due to the inability of moral virtue to manage the world. This is also the purpose and goal of government: to ensure freedom and security. No matter how much we may be blinded by appearances or misled by persuasive words; no matter how bias might twist our wills or self-interest cloud our judgment, the clear voice of nature and reason will tell us that it's the right thing to do.
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 the government on a natural principle that cannot be changed by any art: the simpler something is, the less likely it is to become chaotic and the easier it is to fix when it does. With that principle in mind, I want to share a few thoughts on the highly praised constitution of England. It's true that it was impressive for the dark and oppressive times when it was created. When the world was filled with tyranny, any step away from it was a significant improvement. However, it’s clear that the system is flawed, prone to instability, and unable to deliver what it appears to promise.
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 they are a disgrace to human nature) have this one advantage: they are straightforward. When the people suffer, they know exactly where the suffering comes from, and they also understand the solution, so they aren’t confused by multiple causes and remedies. However, the constitution of England is so incredibly complex that the nation can suffer for years without figuring out where the problem lies. Some will blame one thing, while others blame something else, and every political expert will suggest 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 know it’s tough to move past local or long-held biases, but if we take the time to look at the parts that make up the English constitution, we’ll see that they’re primarily leftovers from two ancient forms of tyranny mixed with some newer republican elements.
15 First.—The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.
15 First.—The remnants of royal oppression represented by the king.
16 Secondly.—The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.
16 Second.—The remnants of aristocratic oppression found in the nobility.
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 the freedom of England.
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, by being passed down through inheritance, are not accountable to the people; therefore, in a constitutional sense, they do not contribute to the state's freedom.
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 Saying that the constitution of England is a union of three powers that check each other is ridiculous; either the words don’t mean anything, or they are outright contradictions.
20 To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things:
20 Saying that the commons control 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 supervision, or in other words, that an obsession with total control 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 commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either smarter or more deserving of trust than the crown.
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 just as the constitution gives the Commons the power to hold the king in check by refusing to provide funds, it also gives the king the power to hold the Commons in check by allowing him to veto their other bills; this again assumes that the king is smarter than those who the constitution has already deemed 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 how monarchy works; it keeps a person from having access to information, yet gives them the authority to make critical decisions. A king is isolated from the world, but his role demands that he understands it completely; therefore, these conflicting aspects clash and undermine each other, making the entire concept seem 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 described the English constitution like this: the king is one part, the people are another; the peers represent the king, while the commons represent the people. But this creates the idea of a house divided against itself. Even though the phrasing sounds nice, when you analyze it, it seems empty and unclear. It will always turn out that the most refined wording, when trying to describe something that either can’t exist or is too complex to explain, ends up being just sounds. While they might please the ear, they don’t enlighten the mind, because this explanation raises a prior question: How did the king come into a power that the people are scared to trust and are always forced to control? Such power couldn’t possibly come from a wise people, and no power that requires control can be from God; yet the framework the constitution establishes assumes that this 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 provision isn't up to the job; the means either can't or won't achieve the goal, and the whole situation is self-defeating. The greater force will always lift the lesser, and just as all the parts of a machine are powered by one, we only need to determine which power in the system has the most influence, because that will be in charge. Even though the others, or some of them, might slow it down or, as they say, check its speed, as long as they can't stop it, their efforts will be pointless. The initial driving force will ultimately prevail, and any lack of speed will be compensated 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 obvious that the crown plays a dominating role in the English constitution and that it gains its entire significance just from distributing positions and pensions. Therefore, while we've been smart enough to close and lock the door on absolute monarchy, we've also been foolish enough to hand 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 in favor of their own system of government, which includes the king, lords, and commons, comes more from national pride than from logic. While people are certainly 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, with the only difference being that instead of coming straight from his mouth, it’s presented to the people as an act of parliament. The fate of Charles the first has only made kings craftier—not fairer.
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 towards traditions and systems, the simple truth is that the difference in how oppressive the crown is in England compared to Turkey is entirely due to the nature of the people, not the structure of the government.
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 An examination of the constitutional errors in the English government is essential right now. Just like we can't truly do justice to others while we're being influenced by strong biases, we can't do justice to ourselves if we're stuck in stubborn prejudices. Similarly, a man who's involved with a prostitute is not in the right mindset to choose or judge a good wife; in the same way, any bias favoring a flawed government structure will prevent us from recognizing a better 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 being originally equals in the order of creation, that equality could only be broken by some later circumstances; the distinctions between rich and poor can largely be explained without resorting to the harsh, unpleasant terms of oppression and greed. Oppression is often the result, but rarely the cause of wealth; and while greed may keep a person 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 true natural or religious explanation can be given, and that is, the separation of people into monarchs and subjects. Male and female are natural distinctions, good and bad are distinctions from above; but how a group of people emerged in the world so elevated above the others, distinguished like some new species, is worth exploring, as well as 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, according to the biblical timeline, there were no kings; as a result, there were no wars. It’s the arrogance of kings that leads to chaos among people. For the past century, Holland, without a king, has experienced more peace than any of the monarchies in Europe. History supports this observation; the simple and peaceful lives of the early patriarchs have a certain joy to them that disappears when we examine the story of Jewish kingship.
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 Kingship was first introduced to the world by the pagans, from whom the Israelites borrowed the practice. It was the most successful scheme the Devil ever devised for spreading idolatry. The pagans honored their dead kings as divine, 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 being who, in the midst of his glory, 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 the elevation of one person above everyone else can't be based on the equal rights of nature, nor can it be defended by scripture; because the will of the Almighty, as stated by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, clearly rejects government by kings. All the anti-monarchical sections of scripture have been conveniently ignored in monarchical governments, but they certainly deserve the attention of countries still forming their governments. “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s” is the scriptural doctrine in courts, yet it doesn't support monarchical government, as the Jews at that time were without a king and 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 from the biblical creation story until the Jews, under a collective misconception, asked for a king. Before that, their government (except in extraordinary situations where God intervened) functioned like a republic led by a judge and the elders of the tribes. They had no kings, and it was considered sinful to recognize anyone with that title except the Lord of Hosts. When someone seriously thinks about the idolatrous reverence given to kings, it’s not surprising that God, ever protective of His honor, would disapprove of a government system that so disrespectfully encroaches on 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 one of the sins of the Jews in the scriptures, for which a curse is held against them. It's important to pay attention to the history of that event.
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 children of Israel were being oppressed by the Midianites, so Gideon marched against them with a small army. Thanks to divine intervention, victory was secured for him. The Israelites, thrilled with their success and believing it was due 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. Yet, out of piety, Gideon responded, I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will govern you. His words couldn’t be clearer; Gideon did not decline the honor but rejected their right to offer it. He also didn’t flatter them with false expressions of gratitude; instead, with the authority of a prophet, he rebuked them for their disloyalty 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 worship of the Heathens is quite baffling; nevertheless, seizing upon the misbehavior of Samuel’s two sons, who were in charge of some earthly matters, they came to Samuel abruptly and loudly, saying, Look, you are old, and your sons do not follow your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations. Here, we must notice that their motives were flawed; they wanted to be like other nations, meaning the Heathens, while their true honor lay in being as unlike them as possible. But Samuel was displeased when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed to the Lord. The Lord said to Samuel, Listen to the people in all that they say to you; they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, so that I should not reign over them. Just like all the actions they have taken since the day I brought them out of Egypt until now—forsaking me and serving other gods—they will also do the same to you. Now, listen to their voice, but solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who will reign over them, i.e. not just any specific king, but the general behavior of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eager to imitate. Despite the long passage of time and differences in customs, the character remains relevant today. And Samuel explained all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. He said, This is how the king who will reign over you will act; he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots, to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots (this description aligns with the current practice of conscripting men) and he will appoint captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will make them till his ground, reap his harvest, and create his weapons of war and his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers (this illustrates both the expenses and luxuries as well as the oppression imposed by kings) and he will take your fields and your olive groves, even the best among them, and give them to his servants; and he will take a tenth of your grain and your vineyards, and distribute them to his officers and servants (showing that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are common flaws among kings) and he will take a tenth of your male servants, female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work; 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 listen to you on that day. This explains the persistence of monarchy; the character of the few good kings who have ruled since does not justify the title nor erase the sin of its origins; the high praise given to David only acknowledges him as a man after God’s own heart, not officially as a king. Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to Samuel, and they said, No, we want a king over us so we can be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, go out before us, and fight our battles. Samuel tried to reason with them, but to no avail; he pointed out their ingratitude, but nothing worked; seeing them determined in their foolishness, he exclaimed, I will call on the Lord, and he will send thunder and rain (which was a punishment at that time, since it was during the wheat harvest) so that you may realize how great your wickedness is in the sight of the Lord, by requesting a king. So Samuel called on the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people were greatly afraid of the Lord and Samuel. They said to Samuel, Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, so we do not die, for We have added to our sins by demanding a king. These portions of scripture are straightforward and definite. They allow for no ambiguous interpretation. It’s true that the Almighty has protested against monarchical government here, or else the scripture is false. A person has good reason to believe that there is as much king-craft as priest-craft in restricting scripture from the public in Catholic countries. For in every case, monarchy reflects 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 issues of monarchy; and just as the first degrades and diminishes us, the second—claimed as a right—disrespects and burdens future generations. Since all people are originally equal, no one by birth should have the right to establish their own family as better than everyone else's forever. While someone might deserve some level of respect from their peers, their descendants could be completely unworthy of that legacy. One of the clearest natural proofs of the foolishness of hereditary kingship is that nature itself seems to reject it, as it often mocks us by giving humanity 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 originally hold any public honors beyond those given to him, the people who bestowed those honors had no power to give away the rights of future generations. Even if they claimed, “We choose you as our leader,” they couldn’t, without serious unfairness to their children, say “your children and your grandchildren will rule over ours forever.” Such a foolish, unjust, and unnatural agreement could possibly lead them to be ruled by a scoundrel or an idiot in the next generation. Most wise people have always viewed hereditary rights with disdain in their private thoughts; however, it’s one of those problems that, once established, is hard to get rid of. Many comply out of fear, others out of superstition, and the more powerful ones share in the spoils with the king at the expense of 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 the current lineage of kings in the world has a noble origin; however, it's quite likely that if we could peel away the obscurity of history and trace them back to their beginnings, we would find the first of them was nothing more than the top thug of some unruly group, whose brutal nature or cleverness earned him the title of leader among thieves. As he gained power and expanded his raids, he intimidated the peaceful and defenseless into buying their safety through regular payments. Yet, his voters would likely have never considered granting hereditary rights to his offspring, as such a permanent exclusion of themselves clashed with the free and unrestricted values they claimed to uphold. Thus, hereditary succession in the early days of monarchy couldn't arise as a claim, but rather as something random or ceremonial. But since there were few, if any, records at that time, and the oral history was filled with myths, it became easy, after a few generations, to fabricate some superstitious story, conveniently timed like Mahomet, to force hereditary right onto the masses. Perhaps the chaos that erupted or seemed to erupt upon a leader's death and the selection of a new one (since elections among thugs were unlikely to be very organized) led many to initially support hereditary claims; as a result, what started as a matter of convenience became, over time, 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 England, since the conquest, has had a few decent kings, but has suffered through many more bad ones; yet no sensible person can claim that their right to rule from William the Conqueror is particularly honorable. A French bastard arriving with a group of armed thugs and making himself king of England without the agreement of the locals is, quite frankly, a pathetic and deceitful start. —There’s certainly nothing divine about it. Still, it’s not worth spending too much time pointing out the absurdity of hereditary claims; if there are those so foolish as to believe in it, they can freely worship the donkey and the lion, and that’s fine by me. I won’t imitate their submissiveness, nor will I disrupt 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 would be curious to know how they think kings came to be in the first place? The question really has only three possible answers: either by chance, by choice, or by taking power. If the first king was chosen by chance, it sets a rule for the next, which leaves out hereditary succession. Saul was chosen by lot, but the succession wasn’t hereditary, nor does it seem there was any intention for it to be so. If the first king of any country was chosen by election, that also sets a rule for the next; because to say that the right of all future generations is taken away by the decision of the first electors, who choose not only a king but a family of kings forever, has no comparison in or out of scripture except the idea of original sin, which assumes that the free will of all people was lost in Adam. And in that comparison, which is the only one that fits, hereditary succession gains no honor. For just as in Adam all sinned, in the first electors all people obeyed; as all humanity was subjected to Satan through the first, it was subjected to Sovereignty through the latter; as our innocence was lost in the first, our authority was lost in the last; and as both prevent us from regaining some previous state and privilege, it clearly follows that original sin and hereditary succession are similar. Dishonorable rank! Unglorious connection! Yet even the most skillful debater cannot come up with a better analogy.
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 When it comes to usurpation, nobody will have the nerve to justify it; the fact that William the Conqueror was an usurper is undeniable. The straightforward reality is that the history of the English monarchy doesn't hold 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 so much the absurdity as the unfairness of hereditary succession that worries people. If it guaranteed a lineage of good and wise leaders, it would carry the stamp of divine approval, but since it allows room for the foolish, the wicked, and the unfit, it has a tendency toward oppression. Those who believe they were born to rule, while others are meant to serve, quickly become arrogant; chosen from the rest of society, their minds get twisted by their sense of superiority early on. The world they inhabit is so different from the real world that they have very little chance to understand its true needs, and when they take over the government, they are often the most ignorant and unqualified people in the entire 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 a minor at any age; during that time, the regents, operating under the facade of a king, have every chance and motivation to betray their trust. The same national disaster occurs when a king, exhausted by age and illness, reaches the final stage of human frailty. In both scenarios, the public becomes a target for any wrongdoer who can 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 that has ever been made for hereditary succession is that it keeps 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 proves this wrong. Since the conquest, thirty kings and two minors have ruled that troubled kingdom, during which time (including the Revolution) there have been at least eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. So, instead of promoting peace, it actually works against it and undermines 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 the throne and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster plunged England into years of bloodshed. Twelve major battles, along with numerous skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Henry was captured by Edward twice, and Edward was also imprisoned by Henry. The outcome of war and the mood of a nation can be so unpredictable—especially when personal issues fuel the conflict—that Henry went from being a prisoner to living in a palace, while Edward had to flee from his palace to another country. However, these sudden changes in fortune are rarely stable; Henry was eventually removed from the throne, and Edward was brought back to take his place. Parliament consistently aligned with the stronger side.
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 wasn't completely resolved until Henry the Seventh, who united the families. This spanned 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 brought not just this or that kingdom, but the entire world to bloodshed and ruin. It’s a form of government that the word of God speaks against, and bloodshed 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 find that in some countries there aren’t any; they end up wasting their lives without pleasure for themselves or benefit to the nation, eventually stepping away and leaving their successors to follow the same pointless routine. In absolute monarchies, the king carries the entire burden of civil and military affairs; the people of Israel, in their request for a king, argued that “he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.” But in places where he’s neither a judge nor a general, like in England, it can be 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 a bit tricky to give a proper name to the government of England. Sir William Meredith refers to it as a republic; however, in its current state, it doesn't deserve that title because the corrupt influence of the crown, controlling all the positions, has effectively absorbed the power and drained the integrity of the House of Commons (the republican part of the constitution), making the government of England nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. People argue about names without truly understanding them. It's the republican aspect, not the monarchical one, of England’s constitution that the English take pride in, specifically the freedom to elect a House of Commons from among themselves—and it's clear that when republican values collapse, oppression follows. Why is the constitution of England in a weak state? Because monarchy has tainted the republic, and 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 has little more to do than wage war and hand out positions; which, in simple terms, means to drain the nation's wealth and create conflict. It's quite a deal for someone to be given eight hundred thousand pounds a year for that and be adored 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. I only ask that the reader set aside any bias or preconceived notions, allowing their reason and emotions to guide them. I hope they will embrace, or rather not reject, the true essence of humanity and open their perspective beyond just the present moment.
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 of all backgrounds have engaged in the debate for different reasons and with various goals; but all efforts have failed, and the time for discussion is over. Weapons, as a last resort, will settle the dispute; the king made the call, and the continent has taken up 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, although he was a capable minister, had his flaws) that when he was criticized in the House of Commons for his measures being only temporary, he replied, “they will last my time.” If the colonies were to adopt such a destructive and cowardly mindset in the current struggle, future generations would remember the name of their ancestors with disdain.
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 shined 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 world we live in. This isn’t just a concern for a day, a year, or an age; future generations are essentially involved in this struggle and will be affected by what happens now, even until the end of time. Now is the time to lay the groundwork for continental unity, trust, and integrity. Even the smallest crack now will be like a mark made with a pin on the soft bark of a young oak; the wound will grow with the tree, and future generations will read it in bold letters.
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 shifting the debate from discussion to conflict, a new era in politics has begun; a new way of thinking has emerged. All plans and proposals made before April 19th, meaning before the fighting started, are like last year's calendars—once relevant, but now outdated and useless. Everything that was argued by both sides at that time aimed towards one goal: a union with Great Britain. The only difference between the two sides was their approach—one suggested using force, the other advocated for friendship. However, it's turned out that the first approach has failed, and the second has lost 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 A lot has been said about the benefits of reconciliation, which, like a pleasant dream, has faded away and left us unchanged. It makes sense for us to look at the other side of the argument and consider some of the significant harms these colonies face, and will continue to face, by being connected to and dependent on Great Britain. We should 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 I have heard some people claim that because America did well during its previous connection with Great Britain, that connection is essential for its future happiness and will always have the same impact. Nothing could be more misleading than this argument. It’s as ridiculous as saying that just because a child thrives on milk, it should never have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives should set a standard for the next twenty. But even this is overstating the case because I firmly say that America would have thrived just as much, if not more, if no European power had any involvement with her. The trade that has made her prosperous consists of the necessities of life, which will always find a market as long as eating is part of European customs.
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 looked out for us. It's true that she has captivated us and has defended the continent at both our expense and hers. It's also recognized that she would have defended Turkey for the same reason—namely, 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 by old prejudices for too long and have made significant sacrifices to superstition. We've taken pride in the protection of Great Britain without realizing that her motivation was self-interest, not loyalty; that she didn't protect us from our enemies for our sake, but from her enemies for her own sake, from those who had no issue with us otherwise, and who will always see us as enemies for the same reason. If Britain were to abandon 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 troubles of Hanover in the last war should remind us to be wary of 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 only connected to each other through the parent country. In other words, Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, along with the others, are considered sister colonies only because of England. This is certainly a very roundabout way of proving a relationship, but it's the nearest and only true way of proving animosity, if I can put it that way. France and Spain have never been, and probably never will 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 But some say Britain is the parent country. Then that makes her conduct even more shameful. Even beasts don’t harm their young, nor do savages wage war against their families; so if that claim is true, it reflects poorly on her. But it's not entirely true, or only partially true, and the terms parent or mother country have been cleverly used by the king and his followers to unfairly influence the gullible nature of our minds. Europe, not England, is the true parent country of America. This new world has been a refuge for those fleeing persecution for civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. They didn’t escape from the warm embrace of a mother, but rather from the cruelty of a monster; and it remains true of England that the same tyranny which forced the first emigrants to leave continues to chase their descendants.
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 embrace brotherhood with every European Christian and take pride in the generosity of that sentiment.
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, with each step, we move beyond local biases as we broaden our understanding of the world. A person born in any town in England divided into parishes will typically bond most with those in his parish (since their interests often overlap) and refer to them as neighbors; if he encounters one a few miles from home, he shifts from the narrow view of a street and greets him as a townsman; if he travels out of the county and meets someone in another county, he sets aside those smaller distinctions and calls him a countryman, meaning county-man; but if they happen to meet in France or elsewhere in Europe, their local ties expand to the identity of Englishmen. Similarly, all Europeans meeting in America or anywhere else on the globe are countrymen; because when you compare England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden to the larger global context, they occupy a similar position to that of street, town, and county on a smaller scale—distinctions that are too limited for a continental perspective. Not even a third of the people living in this province are of English descent. Therefore, I reject the term parent or mother country applied only to England as being 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, being our current enemy, erases every other identity and title. Claiming that reconciliation is our responsibility is honestly ridiculous. The first king of England from this line (William the Conqueror) was French, and half of the Lords in England are descendants from the same place; thus, by the 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 strength of Britain and the colonies, suggesting that together they could stand against the world. But that’s just arrogance; the outcome of war is unpredictable, and these claims don’t mean anything. This continent would never allow itself to be drained of people just to support British troops 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 Besides, what do we gain by defying the world? Our goal is trade, and if we focus on that, it will ensure our peace and friendship with all of Europe; because, it benefits all of Europe to have America as a free port. Her trade will always provide 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 anyone who supports reconciliation to show me even one benefit that this continent gains from being connected to Great Britain. I say it again, there is not a single advantage. Our corn will sell at a good price in any European market, and we have to pay for our imported goods, no matter where we get 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 But the injuries and disadvantages we face from that connection are countless; our responsibility to humanity as a whole, 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 conflicts, and puts us in opposition to nations that would otherwise want our friendship, and against whom we hold no anger or grievances. Since Europe is our trading market, we shouldn't form any one-sided relationships with any part of it. It’s genuinely in America’s best interest to avoid European disputes, which she can never achieve as long as her dependence on Britain makes her a pawn in British politics.
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 too many kingdoms to stay peaceful for long, and whenever a war starts between England and another country, American trade suffers because of its ties to Britain. The next war might not go the same way as the last one, and if that happens, those who are pushing for reconciliation now will be eager for separation then, because neutrality would be a safer way to navigate things than relying on military might. Every argument for what is right and natural supports the case for separation. The blood of the fallen and the sorrowful cries of nature declare, It's time to part. Even the distance between England and America is a strong and natural indication that the authority of one over the other was never intended by God. The timing of the continent's discovery also strengthens this argument, as does the way it was settled. The Reformation happened right before the discovery of America, as if God wanted to provide a refuge for the persecuted in the years to come, when their homelands would offer no 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 type of government that will eventually come to an end. A serious person can’t find real enjoyment in looking ahead when they know that what they call “the present constitution” is only temporary. As parents, we can’t take joy in knowing that this government isn’t stable enough to guarantee anything we might pass on to future generations. By a simple line of reasoning, since we are putting the next generation into debt, we should take responsibility for it; otherwise, we treat them poorly and without dignity. To understand our duties correctly, we should hold our children close and look a few years ahead in life; that perspective will reveal possibilities that a few current fears and biases 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 will do my best to avoid causing unnecessary offense, I do believe that everyone who supports the idea of reconciliation can be described in the following ways. There are self-serving individuals who can't be trusted; there are weak individuals who cannot see; there are biased individuals who will not see; and then there’s a group of moderate individuals who have a higher opinion of the European world than it deserves. This last group, through misguided decisions, is likely to bring more disasters to this continent than all 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 troubles don’t reach their doorsteps enough to make them aware of how fragile all 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 reject any power we can’t trust. The people of that unfortunate city, who just a few months ago were living comfortably, now have no choice but to either stay and starve or go outside and beg. If they stay in the city, they risk the fires set by their friends, and if they leave, they face being robbed by soldiers. In their current state, they are prisoners with no hope of rescue, and any attempt to seek help would expose them to 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 Men with a passive temperament tend to overlook Britain’s offenses, still hoping for the best, often saying, “Come on, we’ll be friends again after all this.” But if you truly examine human passions and feelings, put the idea of reconciliation to the test of nature, then ask yourself: can you truly love, honor, and faithfully serve a power that has brought destruction and violence into your land? If you can't do those things, then you’re just fooling yourselves, and by delaying, you're bringing disaster to future generations. Your future connection with Britain, which you cannot love or honor, will be forced and unnatural, based only on current convenience, and will soon fall back into a state worse than before. But if you think you can continue to overlook these violations, then I ask: Has your home been burned? Has your property been destroyed 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, leaving you as a ruined and miserable survivor? If you haven’t, then you're not qualified to judge those who have. But if you have, and you can still shake hands with the murderers, then you’re unworthy of being called a husband, father, friend, or lover, and no matter what your rank or status in life, 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 is not about stirring up emotions or exaggerating the situation, but rather examining it through the feelings and passions that are natural and essential for us to fulfill our social responsibilities and enjoy life’s blessings. I'm not trying to create horror just to incite revenge, but to wake us from dangerous and cowardly complacency, so we can decisively pursue a clear goal. It is beyond Britain or Europe’s power to conquer America if they cannot conquer their own delays and fears. This winter is more valuable than many years if used wisely, but if wasted or ignored, the entire continent will suffer the consequences; and no punishment will be too harsh for anyone—whoever they are or wherever they are—who causes us to squander such a vital and beneficial season.
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 against the natural order of things, as well as contrary to all examples from the past, to believe that this continent can continue to be ruled by any outside power. Even the most optimistic people in Britain don't think that's possible. There’s no plan that can guarantee the continent even a year of safety without separation. Reconciliation is now a misleading illusion. Nature has abandoned the connection, and artifice cannot fill that void. As Milton wisely states, “true reconciliation can never happen where deep wounds of deadly hate exist.”
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 Every peaceful approach to achieving peace has failed. Our prayers have been dismissed with contempt; and they only serve to show us that nothing flatters vanity or reinforces stubbornness in kings more than constant begging—and nothing has contributed more to making the kings of Europe absolute than this very tactic: Just look at Denmark and Sweden. Therefore, since only force will work, for the love of God, let’s finally separate and not leave the next generation to be slaughtering each other, under the empty and 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 say that they will never try it again is pointless and unrealistic. We thought that way when the stamp act was repealed, but we were proven wrong a year or two later; it's just as foolish to 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 As for government issues, Britain can't do justice to this continent. Managing our affairs will soon be too heavy and complicated to handle conveniently from so far away, especially when they know so little about us. If they can't defeat us, they can't govern us. Constantly running three or four thousand miles with a story or a petition, waiting four or five months for a response, which then takes another five or six months to clarify, will soon be seen as foolish and childish. There was a time when this was appropriate, and there will be a time when it needs to 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 should be cared for by larger kingdoms; however, it's quite ridiculous to think a continent could always be ruled by an island. In no case has nature allowed a satellite to be larger than its main planet, and since England and America, in relation to each other, go against the natural order, it's clear they belong to different systems: England is part of Europe, and America is independent.
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 am not driven by pride, party loyalty, or anger to support the idea of separation and independence; I firmly and deeply believe that it is in the best interest of this continent to do so. Anything less than that is just a temporary fix, it won't bring lasting happiness — it is handing the sword over to our children and hesitating at a moment when just a bit more effort would have made this continent a shining example for 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 no terms will be acceptable to the continent or anywhere near justified by the cost of blood and treasure we have already spent.
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 object we're fighting for should always be proportional to the cost involved. Removing North or the entire detestable group isn't worth the millions we've spent. A temporary halt in trade would have been a minor inconvenience that could have balanced out the repeal of all the acts we complain about, if we had gotten those repeals; but if the entire continent must take up arms, and every person must become a soldier, it hardly seems worthwhile to fight against a pathetic ministry alone. We pay dearly for the repeal of these acts if that's all we're fighting for; in a fair assessment, it's just as foolish to pay a Bunker Hill price for a law as it is for land. I’ve always thought that the independence of this continent was something that would eventually happen, and given the rapid progress we’ve made, that time isn’t far off. Therefore, when hostilities broke out, it wasn't worth arguing over something that time would have eventually resolved, unless we were serious about it; otherwise, it’s like wasting a fortune on a legal battle over the trespasses of a tenant whose lease is about to run out. No one desired reconciliation more than I did before the tragic events of April 19, 1775, but the moment I learned what happened that day, I completely rejected the cold, stubborn Pharaoh of England; I scorn the wretch who can call himself the father of his community and heartlessly hear of their slaughter while sleeping peacefully 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 acknowledge that things are resolved now, what will happen next? I say, the downfall of the continent. And that's for a few 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 governing powers are still held by the king, which gives him a veto over all the legislation on this continent. Given that he has demonstrated himself to be a staunch enemy of liberty and shown a strong desire for absolute power, is he truly a suitable person to tell these colonies, “You shall make no laws but what I approve.”? Is there anyone in America so unaware that, according to what is called the present constitution, this continent can only make laws with the king's permission? And is there anyone so foolish that they do not realize, given the events that have transpired, he will not allow any laws to be implemented here unless they serve his interests? We can be just as effectively enslaved by a lack of laws in America as by accepting laws imposed on us from England. Once issues are settled (as it is phrased), can there be any doubt that the full power of the crown will be used to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of progressing, we will regress, or be locked in constant disputes or absurdly petitioning. We are already bigger than the king wants us to be, and will he not strive to make us smaller in the future? To simplify the matter: Is the power that is envious of our success the right power to govern us? Anyone who answers No to this question is an independent, as independence simply means whether we will create our own laws or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent has or can have, will dictate, “there shall be no laws but those I favor.”
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 might 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 has often happened) 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’ll set aside this kind of argument for now, even though I’ll always point out how absurd it is, and I’ll just say that England is the king’s home, while America is not, which makes the situation completely different. The king’s veto here is far more dangerous and harmful than it can ever be in England, because there, he will hardly ever deny his consent to a bill aimed at putting England in the strongest possible position for defense, while in America, he would never allow such a bill to be passed.
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 looks out for the well-being of this country only as far as it serves her own interests. Therefore, her self-interest drives her to stifle our growth in any situation that doesn't benefit her or that even slightly threatens it. We’d be in a pretty dire situation under such a second-rate government, especially considering what’s happened! People don’t turn from enemies to friends just because of a name change: And to illustrate that reconciliation now is a risky idea, I assert, that it would be smart for the king at this time to repeal the laws to regain control over the provinces; so that He can accomplish through cleverness and finesse, over time, what he can't achieve through power and aggression in the short term. Reconciliation and ruin are closely connected.
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. Even the best arrangements we can hope for will only serve as a temporary solution or a sort of guardianship-style government, which won't last longer than until the colonies are fully established. Meanwhile, the overall situation will remain unstable and unpromising. Wealthy immigrants won't want to come to a country whose government is barely holding on and is constantly on the verge of unrest. Many current residents might take advantage of this period to sell their belongings 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, meaning a unified form of government, can maintain peace across the continent and keep it safe from civil wars. I'm really worried about the possibility of reconciling with Britain now, as it’s likely that it will lead to a revolt somewhere, the fallout of which could be much worse than anything Britain could do.
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 are already suffering because of British cruelty; (many more will likely face the same fate.) Those people have different feelings than us who have never experienced such hardship. All they now have is freedom, what they once enjoyed is sacrificed for that, and having nothing left to lose, they reject submission. Moreover, the overall attitude of the colonies towards a British government will be like that of a young person who is about to graduate; they won’t care much about it. A government that can't maintain peace is not a government at all, and in that case, we’re paying our taxes for nothing. And tell me, what can Britain do, whose power will be purely theoretical, if a civil conflict breaks out the very next day after reconciliation? I've heard some people say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they feared independence, worrying it would lead to civil wars. It's rare that our initial thoughts are completely correct, and that's the case here; because there’s far more to fear from a half-hearted connection than from independence. I relate to the suffering of others, and I insist that if I were forced from my home, my belongings destroyed, and my life ruined, as a human being aware of injustices, I could never accept the idea of reconciliation, nor view 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 content and secure about the situation. No one can provide a valid reason for their concerns other than those that are truly petty and absurd, such as the idea that one colony will try to dominate 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 brings no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and we could say always) at peace. Holland and Switzerland are free from wars, both foreign and domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, rarely stay peaceful for long; the crown itself is an attraction for ambitious troublemakers at home; and the pride and arrogance that often come with royal authority can lead to conflicts with other nations, in cases where a republic, based on more natural principles, would have resolved the misunderstanding.
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 fear about independence, it’s because there’s no clear plan yet. People can't see a way forward—So, as a starting point for that conversation, I’m sharing the following ideas; at the same time, I modestly acknowledge that I don’t think much of them myself, except that they might spark something better. If we could gather the scattered thoughts of individuals, they would often provide material for wise 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. Make the representation more equal. Their matters should 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 Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten manageable districts, with each district sending a suitable number of delegates to Congress, ensuring that every colony sends at least thirty. The total number in Congress will be at least 390. Each Congress will convene and elect a president using the following method: When the delegates gather, a colony will be randomly selected from all thirteen colonies, after which the entire Congress will elect (by secret ballot) a president from the delegates of that province. In the next Congress, a colony will be drawn at random from only twelve, excluding the colony that provided the president in the previous Congress, and this process will continue until all thirteen colonies have had their turn. To ensure that no law is passed without being just, at least three-fifths of Congress must be present to constitute a majority. Anyone who encourages discord in a government structured so fairly as this would have aligned themselves 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, since it’s important to consider who should start this process and how, and because it makes sense for this to come from an intermediary group between the governed and those in power—specifically between Congress and the people—let’s hold a Continental Conference in the following way and for the following purpose.
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 from the general public, who will be selected in the capital city or town of each province by any qualified voters who choose to participate from all areas of the province for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives can be chosen in two or three of the most populated areas. In this meeting, the two essential elements of business, knowledge and power, will come together. The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, having experience in national issues, will be able and valuable advisors, and the entire group, 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 Once the members are assembled, their task should be to create a Continental Agreement or Charter of the United Colonies, similar to what is known as the Magna Carta of England. This charter should establish the number and method for selecting members of Congress and members of the Assembly, including when they will meet, and delineate the scope of their work and jurisdiction. (Always remembering that our strength lies in our unity as a continent, not in regional divisions.) It should ensure freedom and property rights for all individuals and, most importantly, allow the free exercise of religion according to personal conscience, along with any other necessary provisions for a charter. Afterward, the Conference should dissolve, and the bodies elected according to this charter will serve as the legislators and governors 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 any group of people is chosen in the future for this or a similar purpose, I present the following quotes from the insightful observer on governments, Dragonetti. “The science,” he says, “of the politician is about determining the true source of happiness and freedom. Those who find a way to govern that maximizes individual happiness while minimizing national expenses would deserve the gratitude of generations.”
Dragonetti on virtue and rewards.”
Dragonetti on values 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 is the King of America, you ask? I'll tell you, my friend: he reigns above and doesn't wreak havoc on people like the Royal Brute of Britain. Still, to show that we aren't lacking in earthly honors, let’s set aside a day to officially announce our charter; let it be presented grounded in divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed on it, so the world knows that as much as we accept monarchy, in America the law rules. Just as in absolute governments the King is the law, in free countries the law should be King; and there should be no other. But to prevent any misuse later on, let the crown be destroyed at the end of the ceremony and distributed among the people who rightfully own it.
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 A government of our own is our natural right. When someone seriously considers how fragile human affairs can be, they'll realize that it's much wiser and safer to create our own constitution thoughtfully, while we have the opportunity, rather than leaving such an important matter up to chance. If we neglect this now, someone like Massanello ¹ might arise in the future, taking advantage of public unrest, gathering the desperate and discontented, and seizing control of the government, possibly robbing us of our liberties like a flood. If America's government falls back under British control, the unstable situation will tempt some reckless individual to test their luck; and in that case, what help can Britain provide? By the time they hear the news, the damage might already be done, leaving us suffering like the unfortunate Britons under the oppression of a conqueror. Those of 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 empty. There are thousands, even tens of thousands, who would consider it glorious to drive out that brutal and hellish power that has incited the Indians and Negroes to destroy us. This cruelty is doubly wrong, as it is both 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 can’t trust and who have hurt us in countless ways is just crazy. Every day diminishes the little connection we have left with them, so what reason do we have to think that as the relationship fades, our feelings will grow stronger? Or that we’ll get along better when we have even more issues to argue about 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 talk about harmony and reconciliation, can you return to us the time that has passed? Can you restore innocence to prostitution? You also cannot bring Britain and America back together. The last bond is now broken, the people of England are issuing statements against us. There are wounds that nature cannot overlook; she would no longer be nature if she did. Just as a lover cannot forgive the person who assaulted his partner, the continent cannot forgive the atrocities committed by Britain. The Almighty has placed these undeniable feelings within us for good and wise reasons. They protect the essence of his image in our hearts. They set us apart from the rest of nature. The social contract would fall apart, and justice would disappear from the earth, or exist only sporadically, if we were indifferent to feelings of affection. The thief and the murderer would often go unpunished if the harm inflicted on our emotions did not drive us to seek 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 care for humanity! You who are brave enough to challenge not just oppression, but the oppressors themselves, step forward! Every part of the old world is filled with oppression. Freedom has been chased around the world. Asia and Africa have long rejected her—Europe looks at her as if she's a stranger, and England has told her to leave. O! welcome the refugee, and get ready to provide a safe place for humanity in time.
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, whether in England or America, who hasn't admitted his belief that a separation between the two countries will eventually happen. And there's no example in which we've shown less wisdom than trying to explain what we refer to as 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 and only differs in their views about the timing, let's take a broad look at things to clear up any confusion and try, if we can, to determine the exact time. However, we don’t need to look too far because the inquiry stops right here, as the time has come to us. The overall agreement and the magnificent unity of all things confirm this truth.
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, our current numbers are enough to fend off any threat from around the world. Right now, the continent has the largest group of armed and organized soldiers of any power on Earth; we’ve reached a level of strength where no single colony can stand alone. Together, we can achieve our goals, but anything less or more could have serious consequences. Our land forces are already sufficient, and as for our navy, we know that Britain wouldn’t allow an American warship to be built while the continent is under her control. So, in a hundred years, we wouldn't be any further along in that area than we are now; in fact, we might be worse off because the country’s timber resources are dwindling, 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 coastal towns we had, the more we would have to protect and the more we could lose. Our current population is perfectly balanced with our needs, so no one has to be without work. A drop in trade leads to the creation of an army, and the needs of that army spark a new kind of trade.
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 take on will just serve as a proud reminder of our integrity. If we can leave future generations with a stable government and an independent constitution, then any cost will be worth it. But spending millions just to repeal a few terrible laws and remove the current government is not worth it; it would be incredibly unfair to future generations. It leaves them with the heavy lifting to do and a debt that gives them no benefit. Such thinking is beneath a person of honor, and it reflects a small-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 take on shouldn't concern us if the work is done. No nation should be without debt. A national debt is a national commitment; and when it doesn't accrue interest, it isn't a problem. Britain has a debt of over one hundred and forty million pounds, for which it pays over four million in interest. In exchange for this debt, it has a large navy; America has no debt and no navy; yet for just a fraction of the English national debt, it could have a navy twice the size. Right now, the English navy isn't worth 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 included to confirm that the earlier estimate 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 task of constructing a ship of each type and equipping it with masts, yards, sails, and rigging, along with a share of eight months’ worth of supplies for the boatswain and carpenter, as estimated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the Navy.
£ GBP |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 It’s straightforward to calculate the worth, or rather the expense, of the entire British navy, which in 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 ideally located or as capable of building a fleet as America. We have an abundance of tar, timber, iron, and rope. We don’t need to rely on imports. In contrast, the Dutch, who profit by renting out their warships to the Spaniards and Portuguese, have to import most of the materials they need. We should consider building a fleet as a viable industry, as it’s a natural production for this country. It’s the smartest investment we can make. A completed navy is worth more than what we spent on it. It represents that key aspect of national policy where commerce and defense come together. Let’s build; if we don’t need them, we can sell them, and in doing so replace our paper currency 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 big mistakes; it's not necessary for one out of four crew members to be sailors. The formidable privateer, Captain Death, faced the toughest battles of any ship during the last war, yet had fewer than twenty sailors on board, despite having over two hundred crew members. A few skilled and sociable sailors can quickly train enough active landmen in the basic tasks of a ship. Therefore, we can’t be better positioned to embark on maritime endeavors than we are right now, with our timber available, our fisheries blocked, and our sailors and shipwrights out of work. Warships with seventy or eighty guns were built in New England forty years ago, so why can’t we do the same now? Shipbuilding is America’s greatest pride, and in time, we will surpass the whole world in this. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, making it impossible for them to compete with us. Africa is still in a state of barbarism, and no European power has such a vast coastline or such abundant materials. Where nature has given one side something, it has withheld the other; only America has been generous with both. The immense empire of Russia is nearly cut off from the sea; thus, its endless forests, tar, iron, and cordage are solely items of trade.
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 When it comes to safety, should we really be without a fleet? We're not the small nation we were sixty years ago; back then, we could leave our belongings out in the streets or fields and sleep soundly without locks or bolts on our doors or windows. Now, things have changed, and our defense strategies need to improve along with our growing wealth. Just a year ago, a common pirate could have sailed up the Delaware and demanded money from the city of Philadelphia at will; the same could happen to other places. In fact, any bold person with a brig carrying fourteen or sixteen guns could have robbed the entire continent and made off with half a million dollars. These are circumstances 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 things with Britain, she will have our back. Can we really be so naive to think that she will keep a navy in our ports for that reason? Common sense tells us that the power that tried to take us down is the last one we should count on for protection. Conquest can happen under the guise of friendship, and after a long and brave fight, we could end up being tricked into slavery. And if her ships aren’t allowed in our ports, I wonder how she plans to protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles away won’t do much, and in emergencies, it won’t help at all. So, if we have to protect ourselves in the future, why not do it 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 British warships is long and impressive, but at any given time, less than a tenth of them are actually ready for service, with many not even being operational; yet their names are still proudly listed, even if only a single plank remains of the ship. Additionally, not even a fifth of those that are ready can be deployed to any one location at the same time. The East and West Indies, the Mediterranean, Africa, and other regions under British claim place significant demands on the navy. Due to a mix of bias and neglect, we've developed a misguided idea about the British navy, speaking as if we would face the entire force at once, leading us to believe we must match their size; this notion, which isn't immediately feasible, has been exploited by some disguised Tories to dissuade us from starting our own efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth; if America had just one-twentieth of Britain’s naval power, it would far exceed what they have. This is because, unlike Britain, we don't have any foreign territories to maintain, so our entire force could be focused along our own coast, where we would ultimately have a two-to-one advantage over an enemy that has to travel three to four thousand miles to reach us, and the same distance back to resupply and regroup. While Britain’s fleet restricts our trade with Europe, we have a similarly strong grip on her trade with the West Indies, which, being close to the mainland, is completely vulnerable to us.
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 might find a way to maintain a naval force during peacetime, even if we don't think it's necessary to keep a permanent navy. If we offered incentives to merchants to build and operate ships equipped with twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns (with the incentives reflecting the loss of capacity for the merchants), then having fifty or sixty of those ships, along with a few guard ships on active duty, would be enough to maintain a decent navy without having to deal with the common complaint in England about their fleet decaying in the docks during peacetime. Combining the strengths of commerce and defense is a smart strategy; when our power and wealth support each other, we won't need to worry about external 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 resources for defense. Hemp grows abundantly, so we won’t run out of rope. Our iron is better than others’. Our firearms are as good as any in the world. We can make cannons whenever we want. We produce saltpeter and gunpowder every day. Our knowledge is constantly improving. Determination is part of our nature, and courage has never left us. So, what do we really need? Why do we hesitate? We can expect nothing but disaster from Britain. If they regain control over America, this continent will be unbearable. Jealousies will always come up; uprisings will always happen, and who will go out 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 unassigned land shows just how pointless British governance is, proving 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 we have, the more land is still available. Instead of being wasted by the king on his unworthy followers, this land can be used in the future not just to pay off current debt but also to continually support the government. No nation on Earth has such an advantage.
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 stage of the Colonies, as it’s called, actually supports the case for independence. We have enough people, and if we had more, we might be less united. It’s noteworthy that the more populated a country is, the smaller their armies tend to be. In terms of military size, ancient civilizations far surpassed modern ones, and the reason is clear. As trade grows from population increase, people become too preoccupied with it to focus on anything else. Commerce stifles the spirit of both patriotism and military defense. History shows us that the greatest achievements were always made in the early years of a nation. With the rise of commerce, England has lost its fighting spirit. Even though the city of London has many people, it endures constant insults with the patience of a coward. The more people have to lose, the less willing they are to take risks. Generally, the wealthy are slaves to their fears and submit to social power with the nervous deceit 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 develop good habits, both for nations and individuals. It might be challenging, if not impossible, to unite the continent under one government fifty years from now. The wide range of interests, brought about by increased trade and population, would lead to confusion. Colonies would oppose one another. Each might look down on the assistance of others: and while the proud and foolish took pride in their small differences, the wise would regret that the union wasn't established earlier. Therefore, the present time is the true time to create it. The bonds formed in youth and the friendships developed in hardship are, above all, the most enduring and unchangeable. Our current union embodies both of these qualities: we are young, and we have faced challenges; yet our unity has overcome our troubles, establishing a noteworthy legacy 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 time is a unique moment that only comes once for a nation, which is when it can establish itself as a government. Most nations have missed this chance and ended up having to accept laws from their conquerors, rather than creating their own. They first had a king and then a type of government; however, the rules or charter for government should be created first, with people appointed to carry them out afterward. Let’s learn from the mistakes of other nations and seize the current opportunity—To start government in 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 took over England, he imposed laws at the end of a sword; and until we agree to have a legitimate and authoritative government in America, we risk having it taken over by some lucky thug, who might treat us the same way, and then, where will our freedom be? Where will our property be?
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 Regarding religion, I believe it's the essential responsibility of every government to protect all sincere believers, and I don’t see any other role for government in this matter. If a person lets go of that narrow-mindedness and selfishness that people from all walks of life are often reluctant to abandon, they will quickly overcome their fears on this subject. Suspicion dwells in the hearts of petty individuals and poisons all good communities. Personally, I sincerely believe that it is the will of the Almighty that we have a variety of religious beliefs among us; it creates a broader opportunity for our Christian compassion. If we all thought the same, our religious beliefs would lack the ability to be tested; and based on this open-minded approach, I see the different denominations among us as 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 appropriateness of a Continental Charter (since I only intend to offer suggestions, not plans), and here, I’d like to bring up the topic again by noting that a charter is understood as a serious commitment that everyone agrees to in order to uphold the rights of each individual part, whether related to religion, personal freedom, or property. A solid agreement and fair dealings 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 mentioned the need for a large and equal representation; and there's no political issue that deserves our attention more. A small group of voters or a small number of representatives is equally risky. But if the representatives are not only few but also unequal, the risk increases. For example, when the Associators' petition was discussed in 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 had done the same, this entire province would have been governed by just two counties, which is a constant danger. The unjust power grab that the House made in their last session to gain unfair control over the delegates of that province should warn the public about how they delegate power. A set of instructions for the Delegates was compiled, which in terms of logic and business would have embarrassed a schoolboy, and after being approved by a few, a very few outsiders, was brought into the House and passed on behalf of the whole colony; however, if the entire colony knew how reluctantly that House approached some necessary public actions, they wouldn't hesitate for a second to deem them unworthy of such trust.
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 they continue, they can turn into oppressions. Expediency and what is right are not the same. When the crises in America called for a meeting, there was no easier or more appropriate way at that time than to appoint people from the different Houses of Assembly for that purpose; and the wisdom with which they acted has saved this continent from disaster. But since it’s likely that we will always have a Congress, anyone who values good order must agree that the process for selecting members of that body deserves careful thought. I ask those who study human behavior whether representation and election is not too much power for one group of men to hold? When planning for future generations, we should remember that virtue is not inherited.
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 compelled to think rationally by their errors. Mr. Cornwall (one of the Treasury Lords) dismissed the New York Assembly's petition, claiming that the Assembly, made up of only twenty-six members, couldn't reasonably represent the entire population. 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. There are many strong and compelling reasons to show that nothing can resolve our issues as quickly as a clear and decisive declaration for 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 at war to have other countries, not involved in the conflict, step in as mediators to help establish the groundwork for peace. However, as long as America considers itself a subject of Great Britain, no nation, no matter how willing, can offer to mediate. Therefore, in our current situation, we could argue 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 doesn’t make sense to think that France or Spain will help us if our intention is just to fix things and strengthen the ties between Britain and America, since those countries would be negatively impacted by the outcome.
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 claim to be loyal subjects of Britain, other countries see us as rebels. This situation poses a risk to their peace, as it's concerning for people to take up arms while calling themselves subjects. We can make sense of this contradiction ourselves, but combining resistance with being subject requires a concept that's 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 a manifesto were published and sent to foreign governments, explaining the hardships we've faced and the peaceful methods we've tried for resolution; declaring that we can no longer live happily or safely under the harsh treatment of the British court, which has forced us to cut all ties with her; while also assuring these governments of our peaceful intentions towards them and our eagerness to trade with them: This kind of declaration would have a greater positive impact on this continent than if we filled 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 acknowledged or listened to overseas. The practice of all courts is against us, and it will remain that way until we achieve independence and can 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 events might initially seem odd and challenging, but like all the other steps we've already taken, they'll soon become familiar and enjoyable. Until independence is declared, the continent will feel like someone who keeps postponing an unpleasant task day after day, knowing it has to be done, dreading to start, wishing it were over, and constantly haunted 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 same day it was published, the King’s Speech also appeared in this city. If the spirit of prophecy had guided the creation of this work, it couldn’t have come at a more suitable moment or a more critical time. The violence of one highlights the need to embrace the principles of the other. People read out of a desire for revenge. And the Speech, instead of scaring them, paved the way for the courageous ideals 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, no matter the reason behind them, often end up supporting harmful and wicked actions. Therefore, if we accept this principle, it follows that the King’s Speech, being a complete act of villainy, rightly deserves widespread condemnation from both Congress and the public. However, since a nation’s peace relies heavily on the integrity of what can be called its national manners, sometimes it’s better to ignore certain things with silent contempt than to resort to new methods of expressing discontent that could disrupt the very foundations of our safety and peace. Perhaps it’s mainly due to this cautious sensitivity that the King’s Speech hasn’t faced public retribution until now. If we can even call it a Speech, it’s nothing more than a willful, brazen attack against the truth, the common good, and human existence, serving as a formal and grand way to sacrifice people to the pride of tyrants. This mass destruction of humanity is one of the privileges and inevitable outcomes of Kings; while nature doesn’t recognize them, they don’t recognize nature either, and even though they are creations of our own making, they don’t know us anymore and have become the gods of their creators. The Speech has one redeeming quality: it isn’t designed to deceive, and even if we tried, we couldn’t be misled by it. Brutality and tyranny are evident throughout. There’s no confusion: and every line makes it clear, even while reading it, that he who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untamed Indian, is less of a 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, tricky piece, mistakenly titled, “The Address of the people of England to the inhabitants of USA,” may have, out of a foolish assumption that the people here would be intimidated by the grandeur and description of a king, revealed, (though very unwise of him) the true nature of the current one: “But,” says this writer, “if you feel inclined to flatter an administration, which we do not criticize,” (referring to the Marquis of Rockingham’s government at the repeal of the Stamp Act) “it’s very unfair of you to withhold those compliments from that prince, by whose nod alone they were allowed to do anything.” This is Toryism blatant! Here is idol worship even without pretense: And anyone who can calmly accept and digest such beliefs has forfeited their claim to rationality—an apostate from the essence of manhood; and should be viewed as someone who has not only given up the true dignity of humanity, but has sunk below the level of animals, crawling through life 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 doesn't really matter anymore what the king of England says or does; he has wickedly disregarded every moral and human obligation, trampled over nature and conscience; and through a constant attitude of arrogance and cruelty, he has earned himself universal hatred. It is now in America's best interest to take care of itself. She already has a large and young family that she has a greater responsibility to care for 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 is to oversee the morals of a nation, regardless of your sect or denomination, as well as you, who are more directly responsible for safeguarding public freedom, if you want to keep your homeland untainted by European corruption, you must secretly wish for separation—But setting aside the moral aspect for personal consideration, I will mainly focus my further observations on the following points.
145 First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.
145 First, it’s in America’s best interest to break away from Britain.
146 Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independance? with some occasional remarks.
146 Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practical approach, reconciling or self-reliance? 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, present opinions from some of the most capable and experienced individuals on this continent, whose views on this matter are not yet publicly known. It's actually quite obvious: No nation that depends on foreign powers, restricted in its trade and limited in its legislative authority, can achieve any significant prominence. America doesn’t fully understand what true wealth is; and while the progress she has made is unmatched in the history of other nations, it is still just the beginning compared to what she could achieve if she had legislative control. Currently, England is arrogantly pursuing something that wouldn’t benefit her even if she succeeded; meanwhile, the continent is hesitating on an issue that will ultimately lead to its downfall if ignored. It’s the trade of America, not her conquest, that would benefit England, and that trade would largely continue if the countries were as independent from each other as France and Spain; because in many aspects, neither can find a better market. But it is the independence of this country from Britain or anyone else that is now 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 is put off, the harder it will be to achieve.
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 often entertain myself both in public and private by quietly noting the obvious mistakes of those who speak without thinking. Among the many I've heard, the most common is that if this break had happened forty or fifty years from now, instead of now, the Continent would have been better able to shake off its dependence. To that, I respond that our military capability, at this time, comes from the experience gained in the last war, which, in forty or fifty years, would have completely faded. By that time, the Continent would not have had a General or even a military officer left; and we, or those who come after us, would be as clueless about military affairs as the ancient Indians. This single point, if closely examined, will undeniably show 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 forty or fifty years from now, we would have numbers without experience. Therefore, the ideal moment must be some particular time between these two extremes, where enough of the former remains and a proper increase of the latter 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 Please excuse this side note, as it doesn’t really fit with the topic I started with, and I’ll get back to it with the following point, 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 settle things with Britain and she continues to be the controlling and sovereign power in America, (which, given the current situation, means completely giving in) we will lose the very means to pay off the debt we have or might incur. The value of the back lands that some provinces have been unfairly stripped of due to the unjust expansion of Canada’s borders, valued at only five pounds sterling per hundred acres, totals over twenty-five million in Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre come to two million each year.
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 Selling those lands can eliminate the debt without burdening anyone. The quit-rent collected from them will gradually decrease and eventually will fully cover the annual expenses of the government. It doesn't matter how long it takes to pay off the debt, as long as the money from the land sales goes toward it, and for this purpose, Congress will act as the continental trustees.
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 I will now discuss the second point, which is the easiest and most feasible option, making amends or self-sufficiency; 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 Someone who relies on nature as their guide is hard to shake in their argument, and for that reason, I respond generally—That freedom is a simple, clear idea, found within us; while reconciliation is a matter that is very confusing and complicated, where a deceptive and unpredictable court will intervene, ultimately providing the answer without a doubt.
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 genuinely concerning for anyone who can think critically. We have no law, no government, and no authority except that which is based on, and granted through, courtesy. We're held together by an unprecedented agreement of belief, which is still vulnerable to change, and which every hidden adversary is trying to break apart. Our current state is characterized by legislation without law, wisdom without a plan, a constitution without a name, and, oddly enough, complete independence striving 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 disorganized system. The masses are left to their own devices, and without a clear focus, they chase whatever ideas or opinions catch their attention. Nothing is considered a crime; there’s no such thing as treason; therefore, everyone believes they can act however they want. The Tories wouldn't have dared to assemble aggressively if they had understood that their lives would be forfeited to the laws of the state by that action. A distinction should be made between English soldiers captured in battle and American residents taken up in arms. The former are prisoners, while the latter are traitors. One loses their freedom, and the other loses their 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 is a clear weakness in some of our actions that encourages disputes. The Continental Belt is too loosely tied. If we don’t take action soon, it will be too late to do anything, and we’ll end up in a situation where neither Reconciliation nor Independence will be possible. The king and his useless supporters are back to their old tactic of dividing the Continent, and there are printers among us who will gladly spread deceptive lies. The clever and deceitful letter that appeared a few months ago in two New York papers, as well as in two others, shows that there are people who lack 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 into small discussions about reconciliation: But do these people really think about how tough the job is and how risky it could become if the continent splits over it? Do they consider all the different groups of people whose situations and circumstances, along with their own, need to be taken into account? Do they put themselves in the shoes of the person who has lost everything, and the soldier who has given up everything to defend his country? If their misguided moderation only reflects their own private circumstances, ignoring everyone else, they'll eventually 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 are asking us to return to the situation we had in sixty-three. I respond that Britain can’t fulfill that request now, nor will she suggest it; but even if it were possible and granted, I have to ask, how can we trust such a corrupt and unfaithful government to stick to its promises? Another parliament, or even the current one, could later repeal that obligation, claiming it was obtained through force or given without thought. In that case, where do we turn for justice? We can't take nations to court; cannons are the lawyers of kings, and warfare, not justice, determines the outcome. To return to the state of sixty-three, it’s not enough just to restore the laws; our circumstances must be restored too. Our destroyed towns must be rebuilt, our personal losses compensated, and our public debts (taken on for protection) settled. Otherwise, we would be in a much worse position than we were at that desirable time. If this request had been met a year ago, it would have won the hearts and minds of the continent—but now it’s too late, “The Rubicon is crossed.”
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 unjustified by divine law and as against human feelings as taking up arms to enforce obedience to it. The goal on either side doesn’t justify the means; the lives of people are too precious to be wasted on such trivial matters. It’s the violence done and threatened against our lives, the destruction of our property by armed forces, and the invasion of our land by fire and sword that truly justifies the use of arms. The moment when such a defense became necessary, all submission to Britain should have ended, and America's independence should have been considered to begin from, and announced by, the first musket that was fired against her. This point is consistent; it’s not drawn by whim or extended by ambition, but it comes from a series of events that the colonies did not cause.
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 will wrap up these thoughts with some timely and well-meaning suggestions. We should consider that there are three different ways independence could be achieved in the future; and one of those three will eventually be the fate of America: through the legal voice of the people in Congress; through military force; or through a mob. It won’t always be the case that our soldiers are citizens, and the crowd is made up of reasonable people; virtue, as I've already noted, isn’t inherited and it doesn’t last forever. If independence is achieved through the first method, we have every opportunity and motivation to create the most noble and pure constitution on earth. We have the power to start the world anew. A situation like the one we are in now hasn’t occurred since the days of Noah. The birth of a new world is coming, and a population, perhaps as large as all of Europe, is about to gain their share of freedom in a matter of months. The thought is daunting—and from this perspective, how trivial and ridiculous the petty complaints of a few weak or self-interested individuals seem when compared to the matter of a world.
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 favorable and inviting moment, and Independence is achieved through other means in the future, we can only blame ourselves, or rather those whose narrow-minded and prejudiced views consistently oppose the idea without questioning or reflecting on it. There are reasons to support Independence that people should consider privately rather than be told publicly. We shouldn’t be debating whether to be independent, but rather be eager to establish it on a solid, secure, and honorable foundation, and worried that it hasn’t started yet. Every day shows us how necessary it is. Even the Tories (if there are any left among us) should be the most eager to support it; because just as the formation of committees protected them from public anger in the beginning, a wise and well-structured government will be the only reliable way to ensure their safety moving forward. Therefore, if they don't have the virtue to be Whig Party, they should at least have the sense to want 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 bond that can tie and keep us together. We will then see our goal clearly, and we will be legally closed off from the schemes of a cunning and cruel enemy. We will also be in a better position to negotiate with Britain; because it’s likely that their pride will be less offended by negotiating with the American states for peace terms than with those they call “rebellious subjects” for a settlement. It’s our delays that encourage them to hope for victory, and our hesitance only drags out the war. Since we have, without any good results, restricted our trade to seek redress for our grievances, let’s try the opposite now by independently addressing them ourselves and then offering to reopen trade. The reasonable and mercantile side in England will still be on our side; after all, peace with trade is preferable to war without it. And if this offer isn’t accepted, we can seek other courts for assistance.
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 Based on this, I conclude the matter. Since no one has offered a counterargument to the ideas presented in earlier editions of this pamphlet, it suggests that either the ideas can’t be refuted, or there are too many people supporting them to be opposed. So, instead of looking at each other with suspicion or doubt, let’s all extend a genuine hand of friendship to our neighbors and come together to draw a line that will, like an act of forgiveness, forget all previous disagreements. Let the labels of Whig and Tory fade away, and let us only be known as a good citizen, an open and committed friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights of humanity 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 group known as Quakers, or to those of you involved in publishing the recent work titled “The Ancient Testimony and Principles of the group known as Quakers renewed, regarding the King and the Government, and about the Disruptions currently happening in these and other areas of USA 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 author of this is one of the few who never disrespects religion by mocking or criticizing any group. Everyone is accountable to God, not to other people, when it comes to matters of faith. Therefore, this letter is addressed more to you as a political entity than as a religious one, engaging in issues that your stated principles of peace suggest you should not involve yourselves 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, taken on the role of the entire Quaker community, the writer of this must, in order to be on the same level as you, take on the perspective of all those who support the very writings and principles you are opposing. He has chosen this unique position so that you can recognize in him the arrogance of character that you can't see in yourselves. Because neither he nor you has 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 no surprise that they trip and fall. It’s clear from how you’ve handled your testimony that politics, as a group of religious individuals, isn’t the right path for you. Even if it seems like a good fit, it’s actually a mix of good and bad put together in a poor way, 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 acknowledge the first two pages (and the entire thing doesn’t add up to four) and expect you to show us the same courtesy because the love and desire for peace isn’t limited to Quakerism; it’s a natural and religious wish shared by all people. With that in mind, as individuals striving to create our own independent constitution, we surpass others in our hope, purpose, and aim. Our plan is lasting peace. We’re fed up with conflict with Britain and can see no real resolution except through complete separation. Our actions are consistent because we endure the hardships and burdens of today for the sake of achieving an endless and uninterrupted peace. We are working hard and will keep working to separate and end a connection that has already brought bloodshed to our land and will continue to cause future harm to both countries as long as its name endures.
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 fight not for revenge or to conquer; not out of pride or passion; we don’t degrade the world with our fleets and armies, nor do we plunder the globe. We are attacked in the comfort of our own homes; the violence against us happens in our own backyards and on our own land. We see our enemies as robbers and intruders, and since we have no protection from civil law, we must respond with military force, applying the sword in situations where you have previously used the noose—Perhaps we empathize with the devastated and insulted victims across the continent with a level of compassion that hasn’t yet reached some of your hearts. But make no mistake about the reason behind your beliefs. Don’t confuse a lack of compassion with religion; don’t replace the Christian with a Bigot.
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 O you selective ministers of your own acknowledged beliefs. If bearing arms is sinful, then going to war must be even worse, considering the difference between deliberate aggression and necessary defense. So, if you truly preach from the heart and don’t intend to turn your religion into a political agenda, show the world by declaring your beliefs to our enemies, who also bear arms. Prove your sincerity by broadcasting it at St. James’s, to the leaders in Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are illegally attacking our coasts, and to all the murderous scoundrels acting under him whom you claim to serve. If you possessed the integrity of Barclay ¹ you would be preaching repentance to your king; you would confront the Royal Wretch about his sins and warn him of eternal consequences. You wouldn’t just direct your biased attacks at the wronged and insulted, but, like true ministers, you would speak out boldly and spare none. Don’t say that you are being persecuted, nor try to make us responsible for the shame you are bringing upon yourselves; because we declare to all that we do not criticize you for being Quakers, but because you claim 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 that based on certain parts of your testimony and your behavior, you believe that all wrongdoing is reduced to and defined by the act of bearing arms, and only by the people. You appear to have confused party loyalty with true conscience; because your overall actions lack consistency. It’s incredibly hard for us to take seriously many of your supposed concerns because we see them coming from the same individuals who, at the very moment they criticize the wealth of this world, are still chasing after it with the determination of Time and a desire as strong 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 used from Proverbs on the third page of your testimony—that “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies be at peace with him”—is a poor choice on your part. It actually proves that the king's ways (which 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 will now move on to the second part of your testimony, which all the previous remarks seem to set up for, 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 “We have always believed that since we were called to share the light of Christ Jesus, revealed in our consciences to this day, the authority to establish and remove kings and governments is solely God's right, for reasons known only to Him. It is not our role to interfere or meddle in these matters; we shouldn't act beyond our position, much less scheme against or seek to overthrow them. Instead, we should pray for the king, the safety of our nation, and the well-being of everyone, so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives, in all godliness and honesty; under the government which God is pleased to set over us.”—If these are truly your beliefs, why do you not follow them? Why not let what you call God's Work be handled by Him? These very beliefs encourage you to wait patiently and humbly for the outcome of all public matters and to accept that outcome as God's will for you. So, what is the purpose of your political testimony if you genuinely believe in its content? The very act of publishing it suggests that either you do not believe what you say or you lack the integrity 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 naturally make a person a calm and harmless subject of any and all governments that are in place over him. And if the rise and fall of kings and governments is solely God's right, He certainly won't let us take that away from Him; therefore, this principle leads you to accept everything that has ever happened or may happen to kings as being part of His work. Oliver Cromwell appreciates your support. Charles, then, did not die by human hands; and if the current Proud Imitator of him meets the same untimely fate, the writers and publishers of the Testimony are obligated, according to its teachings, to celebrate the event. Kings are not removed through miracles, nor are changes in governments achieved by any means other than those that are common and human; and the means we are currently using. Even the scattering of the Jews, though predicted by our Savior, was carried out through warfare. Therefore, since you refuse to be active on one side, you should also avoid interfering on the other; instead, wait for the outcome in silence; and unless you can provide divine evidence to prove that the Almighty who created and positioned this new world at the farthest possible distance, east and west, from every part of the old world disapproves of its independence from the corrupt and discarded court of Britain, unless I stress again, you can demonstrate this, how can you, based on your principles, justify encouraging and rallying the people “to firmly unite in the abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, that show a desire and plan to break off the happy connection we have enjoyed with the kingdom of Great Britain, and our rightful and necessary subordination to the king, and those lawfully in authority under him”? What an insult this is! The same men who in the very previous paragraph have peacefully and passively relinquished the authority, change, and management of kings and governments into God’s hands are now reversing their principles and seeking to get involved in the affairs. Is it really possible that the conclusion drawn here can follow from the principles stated? The inconsistency is too obvious to overlook; the absurdity too significant not to be ridiculed; and it could only have come from those whose understanding was clouded by the narrow and bitter mindset of a desperate political party; for you should not be seen as the entire body of Quakers but merely as a factional and 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 This concludes the review of your testimony; (which I don't ask anyone to despise, as you have, but only to read and evaluate fairly;) to which I add the following point: “The act of elevating and deposing kings” certainly refers to making someone a king who isn't one yet, and to making someone who is already a king no longer a king. So, what does this have to do with the current situation? We don’t intend to elevate or to depose, neither to create nor to destroy, but rather to have nothing to do with them. Therefore, your testimony, no matter how it is viewed, only serves to undermine your judgment, and for many other reasons 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 involving religion in political disputes tends to undermine and discredit all faiths, and poses a serious risk to society.
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, it shows a group of individuals, many of whom reject the idea of publishing political statements, claiming they are not involved and do not 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 to build with your recent generous donations; and maintaining that 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
Without any anger or resentment, I say goodbye to you. I truly hope that as individuals and Christians, you will always fully and uninterruptedly 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've foolishly set by mixing religion with politics is rejected and condemned by every person in USA.
F I N I S.
Finished.
“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 done better than Paine in terms of the simplicity and familiarity of his style, clarity in his expression, effectiveness in his explanations, and in using straightforward and 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 quite a stir. It's one of the worst publications ever. It’s packed with false statements, lies, slander, and treason, promoting ideas that aim to take down all royal governments and create 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 concerned about the effect that such a popular pamphlet could have on people, so I chose to do everything possible 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 impact was instant and far-reaching on the American mindset. Public figures read it."
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 seen such an impressive piece of work. 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 uppercase and lowercase), 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, making it easier to read the HTML document. These page numbers are better described as paragraph numbers. They correspond to 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.
THE WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE
Common Sense |
Volume One |
Volume Two |
Volume Three |
Volume Four |
THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE
VOLUME I.
COLLECTED AND EDITED BY MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY
1774 - 1779
CONTENTS of VOLUME ONE
CONTENTS of VOLUME ONE
THE AMERICAN CRISIS.
EDITOR'S PREFACE.
THOMAS PAINE, in his Will, speaks of this work as The American Crisis, remembering perhaps that a number of political pamphlets had appeared in London, 1775-1776, under general title of "The Crisis." By the blunder of an early English publisher of Paine's writings, one essay in the London "Crisis" was attributed to Paine, and the error has continued to cause confusion. This publisher was D. I. Eaton, who printed as the first number of Paine's "Crisis" an essay taken from the London publication. But his prefatory note says: "Since the printing of this book, the publisher is informed that No. 1, or first Crisis in this publication, is not one of the thirteen which Paine wrote, but a letter previous to them." Unfortunately this correction is sufficiently equivocal to leave on some minds the notion that Paine did write the letter in question, albeit not as a number of his "Crisis "; especially as Eaton's editor unwarrantably appended the signature "C. S.," suggesting "Common Sense." There are, however, no such letters in the London essay, which is signed "Casca." It was published August, 1775, in the form of a letter to General Gage, in answer to his Proclamation concerning the affair at Lexington. It was certainly not written by Paine. It apologizes for the Americans for having, on April 19, at Lexington, made "an attack upon the King's troops from behind walls and lurking holes." The writer asks: "Have not the Americans been driven to this frenzy? Is it not common for an enemy to take every advantage?" Paine, who was in America when the affair occurred at Lexington, would have promptly denounced Gage's story as a falsehood, but the facts known to every one in America were as yet not before the London writer. The English "Crisis" bears evidence throughout of having been written in London. It derived nothing from Paine, and he derived nothing from it, unless its title, and this is too obvious for its origin to require discussion. I have no doubt, however, that the title was suggested by the English publication, because Paine has followed its scheme in introducing a "Crisis Extraordinary." His work consists of thirteen numbers, and, in addition to these, a "Crisis Extraordinary" and a "Supernumerary Crisis." In some modern collections all of these have been serially numbered, and a brief newspaper article added, making sixteen numbers. But Paine, in his Will, speaks of the number as thirteen, wishing perhaps, in his characteristic way, to adhere to the number of the American Colonies, as he did in the thirteen ribs of his iron bridge. His enumeration is therefore followed in the present volume, and the numbers printed successively, although other writings intervened.
THOMAS PAINE, in his Will, refers to this work as The American Crisis, perhaps recalling that several political pamphlets were published in London from 1775-1776 under the general title of "The Crisis." Due to a mistake by an early English publisher of Paine's writings, one essay from the London "Crisis" was misattributed to Paine, and this error has continued to create confusion. The publisher was D. I. Eaton, who printed the first issue of Paine's "Crisis" using an essay from the London publication. However, his introductory note states: "Since the printing of this book, the publisher has been informed that Number 1, or the first Crisis in this publication, is not one of the thirteen written by Paine, but a letter that predates them." Unfortunately, this correction is vague enough to leave some people thinking that Paine did write the letter, even if it isn’t part of his "Crisis"; especially since Eaton's editor improperly added the signature "C. S.," implying "Common Sense." However, there are no such letters in the London essay, which is signed "Casca." It was published in August 1775 as a letter to General Gage, in response to his Proclamation regarding the incident at Lexington. It was definitely not written by Paine. It apologizes for the Americans for having, on April 19, at Lexington, made "an attack upon the King's troops from behind walls and lurking holes." The writer asks: "Haven't the Americans been driven to this frenzy? Isn't it common for an enemy to take every advantage?" Paine, who was in America when the Lexington events occurred, would have quickly condemned Gage's account as falsehood, but the facts known to everyone in America were not yet known to the London writer. The English "Crisis" clearly shows signs of being written in London. It did not borrow anything from Paine, and he took nothing from it, except for its title, which is so obvious in its origin that it doesn't need further discussion. I am confident that the title was inspired by the English publication because Paine followed its approach by introducing a "Crisis Extraordinary." His work contains thirteen issues, along with an additional "Crisis Extraordinary" and a "Supernumerary Crisis." In some modern collections, all of these have been numbered serially, with a brief newspaper article added, making a total of sixteen issues. However, Paine, in his Will, refers to the total as thirteen, possibly wishing to stick with the number of the American Colonies, as he did with the thirteen ribs of his iron bridge. Therefore, his numbering is followed in this volume, with the issues printed consecutively, even though other writings appeared in between.
The first "Crisis" was printed in the Pennsylvania Journal, December 19, 1776, and opens with the famous sentence, "These are the times that try men's souls"; the last "Crisis" appeared April 19,1783, (eighth anniversary of the first gun of the war, at Lexington,) and opens with the words, "The times that tried men's souls are over." The great effect produced by Paine's successive publications has been attested by Washington and Franklin, by every leader of the American Revolution, by resolutions of Congress, and by every contemporary historian of the events amid which they were written. The first "Crisis" is of especial historical interest. It was written during the retreat of Washington across the Delaware, and by order of the Commander was read to groups of his dispirited and suffering soldiers. Its opening sentence was adopted as the watchword of the movement on Trenton, a few days after its publication, and is believed to have inspired much of the courage which won that victory, which, though not imposing in extent, was of great moral effect on Washington's little army.
The first "Crisis" was published in the Pennsylvania Journal on December 19, 1776, and starts with the famous line, "These are the times that try men's souls." The last "Crisis" came out on April 19, 1783, the eighth anniversary of the first shot of the war at Lexington, and begins with the words, "The times that tried men's souls are over." The significant impact of Paine's successive publications has been acknowledged by Washington and Franklin, by every leader of the American Revolution, through resolutions of Congress, and by every contemporary historian of the events surrounding their creation. The first "Crisis" is particularly historically significant. It was written during Washington's retreat across the Delaware and was read to his weary and suffering soldiers by his order. Its opening line became the rallying cry for the movement at Trenton just a few days after it was published, and it is thought to have inspired much of the courage that led to that victory, which, although not large in scale, had a significant moral impact on Washington's small army.
THE CRISIS
THE CRISIS I. (THESE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY MEN'S SOULS)
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.
THESE are the times that test people's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, back away from the service of their country; but those who stand firm now deserve the love and thanks of everyone. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily defeated; yet we find comfort in knowing that the harder the struggle, the more glorious the victory. What we obtain too easily, we value too lightly: only what is hard to get gives everything its worth. Heaven knows how to set the right price on its treasures; it would be strange indeed if such a precious thing as FREEDOM were not valued highly. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has claimed that she has the right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that way is not slavery, then there is no such thing as slavery on earth. Even that phrase is blasphemous; such unlimited power can belong only to God.
Whether the independence of the continent was declared too soon, or delayed too long, I will not now enter into as an argument; my own simple opinion is, that had it been eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We did not make a proper use of last winter, neither could we, while we were in a dependent state. However, the fault, if it were one, was all our own*; we have none to blame but ourselves. But no great deal is lost yet. All that Howe has been doing for this month past, is rather a ravage than a conquest, which the spirit of the Jerseys, a year ago, would have quickly repulsed, and which time and a little resolution will soon recover.
Whether the continent declared its independence too soon or waited too long, I won't argue that now; my simple opinion is that if it had happened eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We didn't make good use of last winter, and we couldn't while we were still dependent. However, if there's any fault, it's entirely our own; we have no one to blame but ourselves. But not much has been lost yet. Everything Howe has been doing this past month is more like destruction than conquest, which the spirit of New Jersey would have quickly pushed back a year ago, and with time and a bit of determination, we will recover.
* This winter is worth a lifetime if used wisely; but if it’s wasted or ignored, everyone will suffer the consequences. There’s no punishment that anyone doesn’t deserve, no matter who they are or where they come from, if they’re the cause of wasting such a valuable and beneficial season.
I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils; and as I do not, I cannot see on what grounds the king of Britain can look up to heaven for help against us: a common murderer, a highwayman, or a house-breaker, has as good a pretence as he.
I have as little superstition in me as anyone else, but my honest belief has always been, and still is, that God won’t let a people who have desperately and repeatedly tried to avoid the horrors of war, by every sensible means possible, suffer military destruction or be left to die without support. I’m not so irreverent as to think He has abandoned control of the world and handed us over to evil; and since I don’t believe that, I can’t understand why the king of Britain thinks he can call on heaven for help against us. A common murderer, a thief, or a burglar has just as much right to do so.
'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head, that shall penitentially solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware.
It's surprising to see how quickly a panic can spread through a country. Every nation and era has experienced them. Britain has trembled like it had a fever at the news of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fifteenth century, the entire English army, after rampaging across France, was driven back like men frozen in fear; this brave feat was accomplished by a small group led by a woman, Joan of Arc. If only heaven would inspire some maid from Jersey to rally her countrymen and save her fellow sufferers from devastation and violation! Yet, panics can have their benefits; they can do as much good as harm. Their effects are usually short-lived; the mind quickly grows past them and develops a stronger resolve than before. But their unique advantage is that they reveal sincerity and hypocrisy, bringing out things and people that might otherwise remain hidden forever. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors that an imagined ghost would have on a murderer. They expose the hidden thoughts of people and put them on display for the world. Many disguised loyalists have recently shown themselves, and they will regret the day Howe arrived on the Delaware with curses.
As I was with the troops at Fort Lee, and marched with them to the edge of Pennsylvania, I am well acquainted with many circumstances, which those who live at a distance know but little or nothing of. Our situation there was exceedingly cramped, the place being a narrow neck of land between the North River and the Hackensack. Our force was inconsiderable, being not one-fourth so great as Howe could bring against us. We had no army at hand to have relieved the garrison, had we shut ourselves up and stood on our defence. Our ammunition, light artillery, and the best part of our stores, had been removed, on the apprehension that Howe would endeavor to penetrate the Jerseys, in which case Fort Lee could be of no use to us; for it must occur to every thinking man, whether in the army or not, that these kind of field forts are only for temporary purposes, and last in use no longer than the enemy directs his force against the particular object which such forts are raised to defend. Such was our situation and condition at Fort Lee on the morning of the 20th of November, when an officer arrived with information that the enemy with 200 boats had landed about seven miles above; Major General [Nathaniel] Green, who commanded the garrison, immediately ordered them under arms, and sent express to General Washington at the town of Hackensack, distant by the way of the ferry = six miles. Our first object was to secure the bridge over the Hackensack, which laid up the river between the enemy and us, about six miles from us, and three from them. General Washington arrived in about three-quarters of an hour, and marched at the head of the troops towards the bridge, which place I expected we should have a brush for; however, they did not choose to dispute it with us, and the greatest part of our troops went over the bridge, the rest over the ferry, except some which passed at a mill on a small creek, between the bridge and the ferry, and made their way through some marshy grounds up to the town of Hackensack, and there passed the river. We brought off as much baggage as the wagons could contain, the rest was lost. The simple object was to bring off the garrison, and march them on till they could be strengthened by the Jersey or Pennsylvania militia, so as to be enabled to make a stand. We staid four days at Newark, collected our out-posts with some of the Jersey militia, and marched out twice to meet the enemy, on being informed that they were advancing, though our numbers were greatly inferior to theirs. Howe, in my little opinion, committed a great error in generalship in not throwing a body of forces off from Staten Island through Amboy, by which means he might have seized all our stores at Brunswick, and intercepted our march into Pennsylvania; but if we believe the power of hell to be limited, we must likewise believe that their agents are under some providential control.
As I was with the troops at Fort Lee and marched with them to the edge of Pennsylvania, I'm familiar with many details that those living far away know little or nothing about. Our situation there was extremely cramped, as we were on a narrow strip of land between the North River and the Hackensack. Our forces were minimal, barely one-fourth the size of what Howe could bring against us. We didn’t have an army nearby to relieve the garrison had we decided to fortify ourselves and defend. Our ammunition, light artillery, and most of our supplies had been moved, fearing that Howe would try to push into New Jersey, in which case Fort Lee would be useless to us. It must be clear to any reasonable person, whether in the army or not, that these types of field forts are only temporary and last only as long as the enemy focuses their forces on the specific target those forts are meant to protect. That was our situation on the morning of November 20th when an officer arrived with news that the enemy had landed about seven miles upstream with 200 boats. Major General [Nathaniel] Green, who commanded the garrison, quickly ordered everyone to arm themselves and sent a message to General Washington, who was in Hackensack, six miles away by ferry. Our first goal was to secure the bridge over the Hackensack River, located about six miles upstream from us and three miles from the enemy. General Washington arrived in about 45 minutes and led the troops toward the bridge, where I expected we would have a confrontation; however, the enemy chose not to conflict with us. Most of our troops crossed the bridge, while others used the ferry, except for a few who crossed at a mill on a small creek between the bridge and the ferry and made their way through some marshy areas to reach Hackensack and cross the river there. We managed to bring as much of our baggage as the wagons could hold; the rest was lost. The main goal was to evacuate the garrison and move them until they could be reinforced by the New Jersey or Pennsylvania militia, allowing us to make a stand. We stayed in Newark for four days, gathered our outposts with some of the New Jersey militia, and went out twice to confront the enemy when we heard they were advancing, despite our numbers being significantly smaller. I think Howe made a major mistake in not sending a force from Staten Island through Amboy, which would have allowed him to seize all our supplies at Brunswick and cut off our march into Pennsylvania; but if we believe evil has its limits, we must also accept that its agents are under some kind of providential control.
I shall not now attempt to give all the particulars of our retreat to the Delaware; suffice it for the present to say, that both officers and men, though greatly harassed and fatigued, frequently without rest, covering, or provision, the inevitable consequences of a long retreat, bore it with a manly and martial spirit. All their wishes centred in one, which was, that the country would turn out and help them to drive the enemy back. Voltaire has remarked that King William never appeared to full advantage but in difficulties and in action; the same remark may be made on General Washington, for the character fits him. There is a natural firmness in some minds which cannot be unlocked by trifles, but which, when unlocked, discovers a cabinet of fortitude; and I reckon it among those kind of public blessings, which we do not immediately see, that God hath blessed him with uninterrupted health, and given him a mind that can even flourish upon care.
I won't try to detail all the specifics of our retreat to the Delaware; for now, it's enough to say that both the officers and the men, despite being heavily stressed and exhausted, often without rest, shelter, or food—the unavoidable results of a long retreat—handled it with strength and determination. They all had one wish: that the country would step up and help them push the enemy back. Voltaire noted that King William only shined in tough situations and during action; the same can be said for General Washington, as that description fits him well. Some people have a natural toughness that isn’t shaken by minor issues, but when it is challenged, it reveals a wealth of resilience. I consider it one of those public blessings that we often overlook: that God has granted him good health and a mind that can even thrive amidst worry.
I shall conclude this paper with some miscellaneous remarks on the state of our affairs; and shall begin with asking the following question, Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! what is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.
I’ll wrap up this paper with a few random thoughts on our situation; first, I want to pose this question: Why have the enemy left New England and chosen these central provinces as the battleground? The answer is simple: New England isn’t crawling with Tories, but we are. I’ve been careful not to call out these people too harshly and have used countless arguments to highlight their danger, but we can’t sacrifice everything for their foolishness or their treachery. The moment has come when either they or we must change our views, or one or both of us will be defeated. And what’s a Tory anyway? Good grief! What is he? I wouldn’t hesitate to stand with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories if they dared to arm themselves. Every Tory is a coward; servile, self-serving fear is the core of Toryism, and a person driven by that, no matter how cruel they may be, will never be brave.
But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him. Howe is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. He expects you will all take up arms, and flock to his standard, with muskets on your shoulders. Your opinions are of no use to him, unless you support him personally, for 'tis soldiers, and not Tories, that he wants.
But before we reach a point of no return between us, let's talk this through: Your actions are giving the enemy a chance, yet less than one in a thousand of you has the courage to join him. Howe is just as fooled by you as the American cause is hurt by you. He thinks you will all take up arms and rally to him with guns on your shoulders. Your opinions don’t matter to him unless you actually support him in person because he wants soldiers, not Tories.
I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.
I once felt all that anger that a person should feel towards the unfair principles held by the Tories. A well-known tavern owner in Amboy was standing at his door, holding a beautiful child, about eight or nine years old, who was the prettiest I had ever seen. After expressing his thoughts as freely as he thought was safe, he ended with this unparental comment, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a single person on the continent doubts that a separation will eventually happen, and a true parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my time, so my child can have peace." This thought alone, when well considered, is enough to inspire everyone to take action. No place on earth could be as happy as America. Its location is far from all the fighting happening elsewhere, and it only needs to engage in trade with them. A person can tell the difference between temperament and principle, and I am as sure as I am that God controls the world, that America will never be happy until it breaks free from foreign control. Continuous wars will erupt until that moment comes, and in the end, the continent will prevail; for although the flame of liberty may sometimes flicker, the ember can never fade.
America did not, nor does not want force; but she wanted a proper application of that force. Wisdom is not the purchase of a day, and it is no wonder that we should err at the first setting off. From an excess of tenderness, we were unwilling to raise an army, and trusted our cause to the temporary defence of a well-meaning militia. A summer's experience has now taught us better; yet with those troops, while they were collected, we were able to set bounds to the progress of the enemy, and, thank God! they are again assembling. I always considered militia as the best troops in the world for a sudden exertion, but they will not do for a long campaign. Howe, it is probable, will make an attempt on this city [Philadelphia]; should he fail on this side the Delaware, he is ruined. If he succeeds, our cause is not ruined. He stakes all on his side against a part on ours; admitting he succeeds, the consequence will be, that armies from both ends of the continent will march to assist their suffering friends in the middle states; for he cannot go everywhere, it is impossible. I consider Howe as the greatest enemy the Tories have; he is bringing a war into their country, which, had it not been for him and partly for themselves, they had been clear of. Should he now be expelled, I wish with all the devotion of a Christian, that the names of Whig and Tory may never more be mentioned; but should the Tories give him encouragement to come, or assistance if he come, I as sincerely wish that our next year's arms may expel them from the continent, and the Congress appropriate their possessions to the relief of those who have suffered in well-doing. A single successful battle next year will settle the whole. America could carry on a two years' war by the confiscation of the property of disaffected persons, and be made happy by their expulsion. Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the soft resentment of a suffering people, who, having no object in view but the good of all, have staked their own all upon a seemingly doubtful event. Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice.
America didn’t want force, nor does she now; instead, she wanted the right use of that force. Wisdom isn’t something you buy in a day, so it’s no surprise that we made mistakes right at the beginning. Out of too much kindness, we hesitated to raise an army and relied on the temporary defense of a well-meaning militia. A summer's experience has taught us better; yet, with those troops gathered, we managed to limit the enemy’s advance, and thankfully, they are assembling again. I’ve always thought militia are the best troops for quick action, but they’re not suitable for a prolonged campaign. Howe will probably try to capture this city [Philadelphia]; if he fails on this side of the Delaware, he’s done for. If he succeeds, our cause isn’t lost. He’s risking everything on one side against just part of ours; if he wins, it will lead to armies from both ends of the continent marching to help their friends in the middle states because he can’t be everywhere at once, it’s just not possible. I see Howe as the biggest enemy the Tories have; he’s bringing a war to their land, which, if not for him and partly themselves, they would have avoided. If he were to be removed, I sincerely hope the terms Whig and Tory will never be mentioned again; but if the Tories support him or help him if he comes, I wish just as sincerely that our efforts next year will drive them off the continent, and Congress will take their property to help those who have suffered for doing the right thing. One successful battle next year could settle everything. America could sustain a two-year war through the confiscation of the property of those who aren’t loyal and could find happiness in their removal. Don’t call this revenge; think of it instead as the gentle resentment of a suffering people who, with no other purpose than the common good, have risked everything on an uncertain outcome. But it’s pointless to argue with a hardened heart; eloquence might catch the ear, and words of sorrow might bring a tear of compassion, but nothing can touch the heart that’s been shut off by prejudice.
Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but "show your faith by your works," that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.
Leaving behind this group of men, I turn with the warm enthusiasm of a friend to those who have nobly stood strong and are still committed to seeing this through: I call not just a few, but everyone; not just this state or that state, but every state: rise up and help us; put your shoulder to the wheel; it’s better to have too much effort than too little when such a huge goal is at stake. Let it be said to future generations that in the dead of winter, when only hope and virtue could survive, the city and the countryside, alarmed by a shared danger, came together to confront and push it back. Don’t say that thousands are gone, rally your tens of thousands; don’t shift the burden of the day onto Providence, but "show your faith by your works," so that God may bless you. It doesn’t matter where you live, or what social status you hold; the harm or the blessing will affect you all. The near and the far, the local and the remote, the rich and the poor will all either suffer or celebrate together. The heart that doesn’t feel this now is dead; the blood of his children will condemn the cowardice of anyone who shrinks back at a moment when just a little effort could have saved everyone and made them happy. I admire the person who can smile in adversity, who can draw strength from hardship, and grow courageous through reflection. It’s the nature of small minds to shrink back; but he whose heart is strong, and whose conscience supports his actions, will pursue his principles to the death. My own reasoning is as straightforward and clear as a ray of light. I don’t believe that all the treasures in the world could persuade me to support an unjust war, because I see it as murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and threatens to kill me or those inside, and tries to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, should I just accept it? What difference does it make to me whether the one doing it is a king or a common man; my fellow countryman or not; whether it’s done by one individual villain or an army of them? If we reason down to the basics, we will find no difference; nor can there be any just reason why we should punish one case and pardon the other. Let them call me a rebel if they like; I don’t feel concerned about it; but I would suffer the torments of hell if I were to corrupt my soul by pledging allegiance to someone whose character is that of a foolish, ignorant, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I also have a horrific idea about accepting mercy from a being who, on the last day, will be screaming for the rocks and mountains to hide him, fleeing in terror from the orphans, widows, and victims of America.
There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. Howe's first object is, partly by threats and partly by promises, to terrify or seduce the people to deliver up their arms and receive mercy. The ministry recommended the same plan to Gage, and this is what the tories call making their peace, "a peace which passeth all understanding" indeed! A peace which would be the immediate forerunner of a worse ruin than any we have yet thought of. Ye men of Pennsylvania, do reason upon these things! Were the back counties to give up their arms, they would fall an easy prey to the Indians, who are all armed: this perhaps is what some Tories would not be sorry for. Were the home counties to deliver up their arms, they would be exposed to the resentment of the back counties who would then have it in their power to chastise their defection at pleasure. And were any one state to give up its arms, that state must be garrisoned by all Howe's army of Britons and Hessians to preserve it from the anger of the rest. Mutual fear is the principal link in the chain of mutual love, and woe be to that state that breaks the compact. Howe is mercifully inviting you to barbarous destruction, and men must be either rogues or fools that will not see it. I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes.
There are situations that words cannot fully capture, and this is one of them. Some people don't realize the full extent of the danger they face; they comfort themselves with the hope that if the enemy succeeds, they will show mercy. It's foolish madness to expect compassion from those who have denied justice; even mercy, when conquest is the goal, is merely a tactic of war. The slyness of the fox is just as deadly as the brutality of the wolf, and we should be just as cautious of both. Howe's main goal is, through a mix of threats and promises, to scare or entice people into surrendering their weapons and seeking mercy. The government suggested the same approach to Gage, and this is what the loyalists refer to as making their peace, “a peace that surpasses all understanding,” indeed! A peace that would lead to a fate worse than anything we've imagined. You men of Pennsylvania, think about this! If the remote counties were to lay down their arms, they would become easy targets for the armed Indians, which perhaps some loyalists would not mind. If the local counties were to surrender their weapons, they would face the anger of the remote counties, who would then have the power to punish their betrayal at will. And if any one state were to disarm, that state would have to be protected by Howe's entire army of British and Hessian soldiers to shield it from the fury of the others. Mutual fear is the main bond that holds mutual affection together, and woe to the state that breaks that agreement. Howe is falsely inviting you to brutal destruction, and only rogues or fools would fail to recognize it. I’m not speaking from flights of fancy; I’m bringing reason to your attention, and in language as clear as A, B, C, I present the truth to you.
I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it. While our army was collected, Howe dared not risk a battle; and it is no credit to him that he decamped from the White Plains, and waited a mean opportunity to ravage the defenceless Jerseys; but it is great credit to us, that, with a handful of men, we sustained an orderly retreat for near an hundred miles, brought off our ammunition, all our field pieces, the greatest part of our stores, and had four rivers to pass. None can say that our retreat was precipitate, for we were near three weeks in performing it, that the country might have time to come in. Twice we marched back to meet the enemy, and remained out till dark. The sign of fear was not seen in our camp, and had not some of the cowardly and disaffected inhabitants spread false alarms through the country, the Jerseys had never been ravaged. Once more we are again collected and collecting; our new army at both ends of the continent is recruiting fast, and we shall be able to open the next campaign with sixty thousand men, well armed and clothed. This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils—a ravaged country—a depopulated city—habitations without safety, and slavery without hope—our homes turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.
I thank God that I'm not afraid. I see no real reason to be scared. I know our situation well and can see a way out. While our army was assembled, Howe didn't dare risk a battle; and it doesn't reflect well on him that he left the White Plains and waited for a cowardly opportunity to plunder the defenseless Jerseys. But it speaks volumes about us that, with just a handful of men, we managed an orderly retreat for nearly a hundred miles, brought our ammunition, all our artillery, most of our supplies, and crossed four rivers. No one can say our retreat was hasty; we took nearly three weeks to carry it out to give the country time to join us. Twice we marched back to confront the enemy and stayed out until dark. There was no sign of fear in our camp, and if it weren't for some cowardly and disloyal locals spreading false alarms, the Jerseys would never have been ravaged. Once again, we are gathering ourselves; our new army is quickly recruiting at both ends of the continent, and we will be able to start the next campaign with sixty thousand men, well-armed and supplied. This is our current situation, and anyone is welcome to know it. With determination and resilience, we have the prospect of a glorious outcome; with cowardice and submission, we face a sad choice of many evils—a ravaged land, a depopulated city, homes without safety, and slavery with no hope—our homes turned into barracks and brothels for Hessians, and a future generation to worry about, whose fathers we will doubt. Look at this picture and weep! And if there is still one thoughtless fool who doesn't believe it, let them suffer without pity.
COMMON SENSE.
Common sense.
December 23, 1776.
December 23, 1776.
THE CRISIS II. TO LORD HOWE.
"What's in a name, really, that I should be afraid To share my problems with everyone?" CHURCHILL.
UNIVERSAL empire is the prerogative of a writer. His concerns are with all mankind, and though he cannot command their obedience, he can assign them their duty. The Republic of Letters is more ancient than monarchy, and of far higher character in the world than the vassal court of Britain; he that rebels against reason is a real rebel, but he that in defence of reason rebels against tyranny has a better title to "Defender of the Faith," than George the Third.
UNIVERSAL empire is the privilege of a writer. Their focus is on all of humanity, and while they can’t command everyone's obedience, they can define their responsibilities. The Republic of Letters has existed longer than monarchy and holds a far greater status in the world than the servile court of Britain; someone who opposes reason is a true rebel, but someone who fights against tyranny in defense of reason has a stronger claim to the title of "Defender of the Faith" than George the Third.
As a military man your lordship may hold out the sword of war, and call it the "ultima ratio regum": the last reason of kings; we in return can show you the sword of justice, and call it "the best scourge of tyrants." The first of these two may threaten, or even frighten for a while, and cast a sickly languor over an insulted people, but reason will soon recover the debauch, and restore them again to tranquil fortitude. Your lordship, I find, has now commenced author, and published a proclamation; I have published a Crisis. As they stand, they are the antipodes of each other; both cannot rise at once, and one of them must descend; and so quick is the revolution of things, that your lordship's performance, I see, has already fallen many degrees from its first place, and is now just visible on the edge of the political horizon.
As a military leader, you may wield the sword of war and call it the "last resort of kings," but we can show you the sword of justice and refer to it as "the best weapon against tyrants." The first sword can threaten or even scare people for a time and impose a weak, sickly feeling over those who have been insulted, but reason will soon recover from that and bring them back to a calm strength. I see that you have now started writing and published a proclamation; I have published a Crisis. As they stand, they are complete opposites; both cannot rise simultaneously, and one must decline. The pace of change is so swift that your work has already dropped many levels from its initial position and is now barely visible on the political horizon.
It is surprising to what a pitch of infatuation, blind folly and obstinacy will carry mankind, and your lordship's drowsy proclamation is a proof that it does not even quit them in their sleep. Perhaps you thought America too was taking a nap, and therefore chose, like Satan to Eve, to whisper the delusion softly, lest you should awaken her. This continent, sir, is too extensive to sleep all at once, and too watchful, even in its slumbers, not to startle at the unhallowed foot of an invader. You may issue your proclamations, and welcome, for we have learned to "reverence ourselves," and scorn the insulting ruffian that employs you. America, for your deceased brother's sake, would gladly have shown you respect and it is a new aggravation to her feelings, that Howe should be forgetful, and raise his sword against those, who at their own charge raised a monument to his brother. But your master has commanded, and you have not enough of nature left to refuse. Surely there must be something strangely degenerating in the love of monarchy, that can so completely wear a man down to an ingrate, and make him proud to lick the dust that kings have trod upon. A few more years, should you survive them, will bestow on you the title of "an old man": and in some hour of future reflection you may probably find the fitness of Wolsey's despairing penitence—"had I served my God as faithful as I have served my king, he would not thus have forsaken me in my old age."
It's surprising how far infatuation, foolishness, and stubbornness can take people, and your lordship’s sleepy announcement proves that they don't even let go of it in their sleep. Maybe you thought America was also dozing off, so you chose to whisper your deception softly, like Satan did to Eve, in case you woke her up. This continent, sir, is too vast to be asleep all at once and too alert, even while dreaming, not to react to the unholy presence of an invader. You can issue your proclamations all you want, because we’ve learned to "respect ourselves" and dismiss the insulting thug who uses you. For the sake of your deceased brother, America would have gladly shown you respect, but it adds to her frustration that Howe would forget and raise his sword against those who, at their own expense, honored his brother with a monument. But your master has ordered it, and you lack the basic decency to refuse. Surely, there must be something terribly degrading in the love of monarchy that can turn a man into an ingrate, making him proud to lick the dust that kings have walked on. If you survive a few more years, you'll earn the title of "old man," and during a moment of future reflection, you may recognize the truth in Wolsey's desperate regret—"if I had served my God as faithfully as I served my king, He would not have abandoned me in my old age."
The character you appear to us in, is truly ridiculous. Your friends, the Tories, announced your coming, with high descriptions of your unlimited powers; but your proclamation has given them the lie, by showing you to be a commissioner without authority. Had your powers been ever so great they were nothing to us, further than we pleased; because we had the same right which other nations had, to do what we thought was best. "The UNITED STATES of AMERICA," will sound as pompously in the world or in history, as "the kingdom of Great Britain"; the character of General Washington will fill a page with as much lustre as that of Lord Howe: and the Congress have as much right to command the king and Parliament in London to desist from legislation, as they or you have to command the Congress. Only suppose how laughable such an edict would appear from us, and then, in that merry mood, do but turn the tables upon yourself, and you will see how your proclamation is received here. Having thus placed you in a proper position in which you may have a full view of your folly, and learn to despise it, I hold up to you, for that purpose, the following quotation from your own lunarian proclamation.—"And we (Lord Howe and General Howe) do command (and in his majesty's name forsooth) all such persons as are assembled together, under the name of general or provincial congresses, committees, conventions or other associations, by whatever name or names known and distinguished, to desist and cease from all such treasonable actings and doings."
The way you present yourself is truly absurd. Your allies, the Tories, bragged about your arrival, boasting about your supposed unlimited powers; but your announcement has proven them wrong by showing you to be a commissioner without any real authority. Even if your powers had been significant, they would mean nothing to us unless we chose to acknowledge them, because we have the same right as any other nation to do what we believe is best. "The UNITED STATES of AMERICA" will hold as much weight in the world and in history as "the kingdom of Great Britain"; General Washington will shine just as brightly in the annals of history as Lord Howe will; and Congress has just as much right to tell the king and Parliament in London to stop their legislation as they—or you—have to command Congress. Just imagine how ridiculous such an order would look coming from us, and then, in that light-hearted spirit, flip the situation around, and you will see how your proclamation is viewed here. Having put you in a position where you can clearly see your foolishness and learn to disregard it, I present to you the following quote from your own outrageous proclamation. —"And we (Lord Howe and General Howe) do command (and in his majesty's name forsooth) all such persons as are assembled together, under the name of general or provincial congresses, committees, conventions or other associations, by whatever name or names known and distinguished, to desist and cease from all such treasonable actings and doings."
You introduce your proclamation by referring to your declarations of the 14th of July and 19th of September. In the last of these you sunk yourself below the character of a private gentleman. That I may not seem to accuse you unjustly, I shall state the circumstance: by a verbal invitation of yours, communicated to Congress by General Sullivan, then a prisoner on his parole, you signified your desire of conferring with some members of that body as private gentlemen. It was beneath the dignity of the American Congress to pay any regard to a message that at best was but a genteel affront, and had too much of the ministerial complexion of tampering with private persons; and which might probably have been the case, had the gentlemen who were deputed on the business possessed that kind of easy virtue which an English courtier is so truly distinguished by. Your request, however, was complied with, for honest men are naturally more tender of their civil than their political fame. The interview ended as every sensible man thought it would; for your lordship knows, as well as the writer of the Crisis, that it is impossible for the King of England to promise the repeal, or even the revisal of any acts of parliament; wherefore, on your part, you had nothing to say, more than to request, in the room of demanding, the entire surrender of the continent; and then, if that was complied with, to promise that the inhabitants should escape with their lives. This was the upshot of the conference. You informed the conferees that you were two months in soliciting these powers. We ask, what powers? for as commissioner you have none. If you mean the power of pardoning, it is an oblique proof that your master was determined to sacrifice all before him; and that you were two months in dissuading him from his purpose. Another evidence of his savage obstinacy! From your own account of the matter we may justly draw these two conclusions: 1st, That you serve a monster; and 2d, That never was a messenger sent on a more foolish errand than yourself. This plain language may perhaps sound uncouthly to an ear vitiated by courtly refinements, but words were made for use, and the fault lies in deserving them, or the abuse in applying them unfairly.
You start your proclamation by referencing your statements from July 14th and September 19th. In the latter, you lowered yourself below the status of a private citizen. To avoid being unjustly accusatory, let me explain: Through a verbal invitation from you, relayed to Congress by General Sullivan, who was then a prisoner on parole, you expressed a desire to meet with some members of Congress as private citizens. It was beneath the dignity of the American Congress to respond to a message that was, at best, a polite insult and had too much of a ministerial vibe of meddling with private individuals; and this could very well have been true, had the gentlemen sent to meet with you possessed the kind of casually charming nature typically seen in an English courtier. Nonetheless, your request was honored, as honest people tend to protect their reputations in civil matters more than in political ones. The meeting concluded as any reasonable person would have expected; for you know, just like the writer of the Crisis, that it’s impossible for the King of England to promise to repeal or even revise any acts of Parliament; thus, on your part, you had nothing to discuss except to request, instead of demanding, the complete surrender of the continent; and then, if that was granted, to promise that the inhabitants would be allowed to keep their lives. That was the result of the meeting. You informed the attendees that you spent two months seeking these powers. We wonder, what powers? Because as a commissioner, you have none. If you mean the power to pardon, it merely shows that your master is determined to sacrifice everything in his way; and you spent two months trying to talk him out of it. Another indication of his brutal stubbornness! From your own account, we can fairly draw these two conclusions: 1st, that you serve a monster; and 2nd, that no messenger was ever sent on a more foolish mission than you. This straightforward language may sound harsh to ears accustomed to courtly niceties, but words are meant for communication, and the problem lies in deserving them or misusing them.
Soon after your return to New York, you published a very illiberal and unmanly handbill against the Congress; for it was certainly stepping out of the line of common civility, first to screen your national pride by soliciting an interview with them as private gentlemen, and in the conclusion to endeavor to deceive the multitude by making a handbill attack on the whole body of the Congress; you got them together under one name, and abused them under another. But the king you serve, and the cause you support, afford you so few instances of acting the gentleman, that out of pity to your situation the Congress pardoned the insult by taking no notice of it.
Soon after you got back to New York, you published a really unfair and cowardly leaflet against Congress; it was definitely out of line to first hide behind your national pride by asking for a meeting with them as private individuals, and then try to mislead the public by launching a leaflet attack on the whole Congress. You gathered them under one name and insulted them under another. But the king you serve, and the cause you back, provide you with so few chances to act like a gentleman that out of pity for your situation, Congress decided to ignore the insult.
You say in that handbill, "that they, the Congress, disavowed every purpose for reconciliation not consonant with their extravagant and inadmissible claim of independence." Why, God bless me! what have you to do with our independence? We ask no leave of yours to set it up; we ask no money of yours to support it; we can do better without your fleets and armies than with them; you may soon have enough to do to protect yourselves without being burdened with us. We are very willing to be at peace with you, to buy of you and sell to you, and, like young beginners in the world, to work for our living; therefore, why do you put yourselves out of cash, when we know you cannot spare it, and we do not desire you to run into debt? I am willing, sir, that you should see your folly in every point of view I can place it in, and for that reason descend sometimes to tell you in jest what I wish you to see in earnest. But to be more serious with you, why do you say, "their independence?" To set you right, sir, we tell you, that the independency is ours, not theirs. The Congress were authorized by every state on the continent to publish it to all the world, and in so doing are not to be considered as the inventors, but only as the heralds that proclaimed it, or the office from which the sense of the people received a legal form; and it was as much as any or all their heads were worth, to have treated with you on the subject of submission under any name whatever. But we know the men in whom we have trusted; can England say the same of her Parliament?
In your handbill, you say, "the Congress rejected any idea of reconciliation that doesn't align with their outrageous and unacceptable claim of independence." Well, goodness! What do you have to do with our independence? We don’t need your permission to establish it; we don’t need your money to support it; we can get by just fine without your fleets and armies. Soon enough, you might have your hands full just trying to protect yourselves without taking on our problems. We’re more than happy to be at peace with you, to buy from you and sell to you, and, like newcomers in the world, to work for our living. So, why are you putting yourselves in a financial bind when we know you can’t afford it and we don’t want you to go into debt? I’m willing to help you see your mistakes from every angle I can, which is why I sometimes jokingly point out what I want you to understand seriously. But seriously, why do you say "their independence?" To clarify, it’s our independence, not theirs. The Congress was authorized by every state on the continent to announce it to the world. They aren’t the inventors but merely the messengers who declared it, or the office that gave the people’s will a legal form; it would not have been worth their time to negotiate with you about submission under any name. But we know the people we trust; can England say the same about her Parliament?
I come now more particularly to your proclamation of the 30th of November last. Had you gained an entire conquest over all the armies of America, and then put forth a proclamation, offering (what you call) mercy, your conduct would have had some specious show of humanity; but to creep by surprise into a province, and there endeavor to terrify and seduce the inhabitants from their just allegiance to the rest by promises, which you neither meant nor were able to fulfil, is both cruel and unmanly: cruel in its effects; because, unless you can keep all the ground you have marched over, how are you, in the words of your proclamation, to secure to your proselytes "the enjoyment of their property?" What is to become either of your new adopted subjects, or your old friends, the Tories, in Burlington, Bordentown, Trenton, Mount Holly, and many other places, where you proudly lorded it for a few days, and then fled with the precipitation of a pursued thief? What, I say, is to become of those wretches? What is to become of those who went over to you from this city and State? What more can you say to them than "shift for yourselves?" Or what more can they hope for than to wander like vagabonds over the face of the earth? You may now tell them to take their leave of America, and all that once was theirs. Recommend them, for consolation, to your master's court; there perhaps they may make a shift to live on the scraps of some dangling parasite, and choose companions among thousands like themselves. A traitor is the foulest fiend on earth.
I want to address your proclamation from November 30th specifically. If you had completely defeated all the armies of America and then issued a proclamation offering what you call mercy, your actions might have seemed somewhat humane. But to sneak into a region and then try to scare and tempt the people away from their rightful loyalty to others by making promises you neither intended nor could fulfill is both cruel and cowardly. It’s cruel because, unless you can hold onto all the territory you’ve marched through, how can you, as you say in your proclamation, ensure that your new followers "enjoy their property"? What will happen to your newly adopted subjects or your old allies, the Tories, in places like Burlington, Bordentown, Trenton, Mount Holly, and many others, where you briefly held power and then fled like a coward? What will happen to those unfortunate souls? What about those who switched sides in this city and state? What can you tell them other than "figure it out on your own?" Or what can they expect but to roam the earth like homeless wanderers? You might now tell them to abandon America and everything that once belonged to them. Suggest they seek comfort at your master's court; there they might manage to survive on the leftovers of some sycophant and find company among countless others just like them. A traitor is the most despicable being on earth.
In a political sense we ought to thank you for thus bequeathing estates to the continent; we shall soon, at this rate, be able to carry on a war without expense, and grow rich by the ill policy of Lord Howe, and the generous defection of the Tories. Had you set your foot into this city, you would have bestowed estates upon us which we never thought of, by bringing forth traitors we were unwilling to suspect. But these men, you'll say, "are his majesty's most faithful subjects;" let that honor, then, be all their fortune, and let his majesty take them to himself.
In a political sense, we should thank you for leaving estates to the continent; if this continues, we'll soon be able to wage a war without any cost and get rich off the poor decisions of Lord Howe and the generous betrayal of the Tories. If you had stepped foot in this city, you would have given us estates we never imagined by bringing out traitors we were hesitant to suspect. But these people, you’ll say, “are his majesty's most loyal subjects;” let that honor be their only fortune, and let his majesty take them for himself.
I am now thoroughly disgusted with them; they live in ungrateful ease, and bend their whole minds to mischief. It seems as if God had given them over to a spirit of infidelity, and that they are open to conviction in no other line but that of punishment. It is time to have done with tarring, feathering, carting, and taking securities for their future good behavior; every sensible man must feel a conscious shame at seeing a poor fellow hawked for a show about the streets, when it is known he is only the tool of some principal villain, biassed into his offence by the force of false reasoning, or bribed thereto, through sad necessity. We dishonor ourselves by attacking such trifling characters while greater ones are suffered to escape; 'tis our duty to find them out, and their proper punishment would be to exile them from the continent for ever. The circle of them is not so great as some imagine; the influence of a few have tainted many who are not naturally corrupt. A continual circulation of lies among those who are not much in the way of hearing them contradicted, will in time pass for truth; and the crime lies not in the believer but the inventor. I am not for declaring war with every man that appears not so warm as myself: difference of constitution, temper, habit of speaking, and many other things, will go a great way in fixing the outward character of a man, yet simple honesty may remain at bottom. Some men have naturally a military turn, and can brave hardships and the risk of life with a cheerful face; others have not; no slavery appears to them so great as the fatigue of arms, and no terror so powerful as that of personal danger. What can we say? We cannot alter nature, neither ought we to punish the son because the father begot him in a cowardly mood. However, I believe most men have more courage than they know of, and that a little at first is enough to begin with. I knew the time when I thought that the whistling of a cannon ball would have frightened me almost to death; but I have since tried it, and find that I can stand it with as little discomposure, and, I believe, with a much easier conscience than your lordship. The same dread would return to me again were I in your situation, for my solemn belief of your cause is, that it is hellish and damnable, and, under that conviction, every thinking man's heart must fail him.
I am now completely disgusted with them; they live in ungrateful comfort and focus all their energy on causing trouble. It seems like God has given them over to a spirit of disbelief, and they’re only receptive to ideas when it comes to punishment. It’s time to stop with the public shaming, the tarring, feathering, and securing promises for better behavior; every sensible person must feel a sense of shame seeing a poor guy paraded around as a spectacle when everyone knows he’s just a pawn of some main villain, pushed into his wrongdoing through false logic or coerced by harsh necessity. We dishonor ourselves by targeting these minor players while letting the bigger ones get away; we should seek them out, and their appropriate punishment would be to banish them from the continent forever. The number of them isn’t as large as some think; the influence of a few has corrupted many who aren’t inherently bad. A constant stream of lies among those who don't often hear them challenged will eventually be accepted as truth; the real blame lies not with the believer but with the liar. I’m not in favor of waging war against everyone who doesn’t seem as passionate as I am: differences in constitution, temperament, speaking style, and many other factors can greatly shape a person’s outward character, yet simple honesty may still exist underneath. Some men are naturally inclined towards military life and can face hardships and danger with a smile; others can't bear the thought, and for them, no form of slavery is worse than the effort of arms, and no fear is as strong as personal danger. What can we do? We can’t change human nature, nor should we punish a son because his father brought him into the world in a cowardly moment. Still, I believe most men have more courage than they realize, and that a little bit of courage is all it takes to start. I remember a time when I thought the sound of a cannonball whizzing by would scare me to death; but I’ve faced it since and found I can handle it without much distress, and I think with a clearer conscience than your lordship. That same fear would come back to me if I were in your position, because I truly believe your cause is wicked and wrong, and under that belief, every thoughtful person's heart must falter.
From a concern that a good cause should be dishonored by the least disunion among us, I said in my former paper, No. I. "That should the enemy now be expelled, I wish, with all the sincerity of a Christian, that the names of Whig and Tory might never more be mentioned;" but there is a knot of men among us of such a venomous cast, that they will not admit even one's good wishes to act in their favor. Instead of rejoicing that heaven had, as it were, providentially preserved this city from plunder and destruction, by delivering so great a part of the enemy into our hands with so little effusion of blood, they stubbornly affected to disbelieve it till within an hour, nay, half an hour, of the prisoners arriving; and the Quakers put forth a testimony, dated the 20th of December, signed "John Pemberton," declaring their attachment to the British government.* These men are continually harping on the great sin of our bearing arms, but the king of Britain may lay waste the world in blood and famine, and they, poor fallen souls, have nothing to say.
Out of concern that a good cause should not be tainted by any division among us, I mentioned in my previous paper, No. I, "If the enemy is expelled now, I sincerely hope that the names Whig and Tory will never be mentioned again;" but there’s a group among us that is so toxic that they won’t even accept good wishes aimed at them. Instead of celebrating that, in a sense, heaven has providentially saved this city from looting and destruction by delivering a significant portion of the enemy into our hands without much bloodshed, they stubbornly refused to believe it until just an hour, even half an hour, before the prisoners arrived; and the Quakers published a statement, dated December 20th, signed "John Pemberton," expressing their loyalty to the British government.* These individuals continuously complain about the serious sin of us taking up arms, yet the king of Britain can devastate the world with bloodshed and famine, and they, poor misguided souls, have nothing to say.
* I have always been careful about accusing entire groups of people, but since the document in question is put out by an unknown group claiming to represent everyone, and since the entire Society of Quakers seems to accept its validity through silence, the public can't make any distinctions. This is especially true because the New York paper from December 30th, published with our enemies' permission, states that "the Quakers are starting to speak openly about their loyalty to the British Constitution." We know we have many friends among them, and we want to connect with them.
In some future paper I intend to distinguish between the different kind of persons who have been denominated Tories; for this I am clear in, that all are not so who have been called so, nor all men Whigs who were once thought so; and as I mean not to conceal the name of any true friend when there shall be occasion to mention him, neither will I that of an enemy, who ought to be known, let his rank, station or religion be what it may. Much pains have been taken by some to set your lordship's private character in an amiable light, but as it has chiefly been done by men who know nothing about you, and who are no ways remarkable for their attachment to us, we have no just authority for believing it. George the Third has imposed upon us by the same arts, but time, at length, has done him justice, and the same fate may probably attend your lordship. You avowed purpose here is to kill, conquer, plunder, pardon, and enslave: and the ravages of your army through the Jerseys have been marked with as much barbarism as if you had openly professed yourself the prince of ruffians; not even the appearance of humanity has been preserved either on the march or the retreat of your troops; no general order that I could ever learn, has ever been issued to prevent or even forbid your troops from robbery, wherever they came, and the only instance of justice, if it can be called such, which has distinguished you for impartiality, is, that you treated and plundered all alike; what could not be carried away has been destroyed, and mahogany furniture has been deliberately laid on fire for fuel, rather than the men should be fatigued with cutting wood.* There was a time when the Whigs confided much in your supposed candor, and the Tories rested themselves in your favor; the experiments have now been made, and failed; in every town, nay, every cottage, in the Jerseys, where your arms have been, is a testimony against you. How you may rest under this sacrifice of character I know not; but this I know, that you sleep and rise with the daily curses of thousands upon you; perhaps the misery which the Tories have suffered by your proffered mercy may give them some claim to their country's pity, and be in the end the best favor you could show them.
In a future paper, I plan to differentiate between the various people labeled as Tories. I’m convinced that not everyone called a Tory really is one, nor is every man labeled a Whig truly one as well. I don’t intend to hide the name of any true friend when the occasion arises, nor will I conceal the names of enemies, regardless of their rank, position, or religion. Some have worked hard to portray your private character in a positive light, but since this has mostly been done by people who know nothing about you and who aren’t particularly loyal to us, we have no real reason to believe it. George the Third has deceived us with similar tactics, but time has ultimately set the record straight, and the same fate may await you. Your stated purpose is to kill, conquer, plunder, pardon, and enslave: the destruction caused by your army in New Jersey has been marked by such brutality, it’s as if you openly declared yourself the king of thugs; not even a semblance of humanity was maintained during your troops' advance or retreat. I've never learned of any general orders issued to prevent or even prohibit your soldiers from robbing wherever they went, and the only example of fairness, if you can call it that, is that you treated and plundered everyone equally; what couldn’t be taken was destroyed, and mahogany furniture was deliberately burned for fuel rather than letting the men get tired chopping wood. There was a time when the Whigs trusted your supposed honesty, and the Tories relied on your favor; we’ve tried those approaches, and they’ve failed. In every town, even every cottage in New Jersey touched by your forces, there’s proof against you. I don’t know how you can handle this damage to your reputation, but I do know that you go to sleep and wake up with the daily curses of thousands on your back; perhaps the suffering the Tories have endured due to your so-called mercy might earn them some sympathy from their country, and ultimately be the best favor you could give them.
* Some people might question the reality of such reckless destruction, so I feel it's important to share that one of the individuals known as Quakers, who resides in Trenton, provided me with this information at the home of Mr. Michael Hutchinson, (who is in the same line of work) living near Trenton ferry on the Pennsylvania side, with Mr. Hutchinson present.
In a folio general-order book belonging to Col. Rhal's battalion, taken at Trenton, and now in the possession of the council of safety for this state, the following barbarous order is frequently repeated, "His excellency the Commander-in-Chief orders, that all inhabitants who shall be found with arms, not having an officer with them, shall be immediately taken and hung up." How many you may thus have privately sacrificed, we know not, and the account can only be settled in another world. Your treatment of prisoners, in order to distress them to enlist in your infernal service, is not to be equalled by any instance in Europe. Yet this is the humane Lord Howe and his brother, whom the Tories and their three-quarter kindred, the Quakers, or some of them at least, have been holding up for patterns of justice and mercy!
In a general-order book belonging to Col. Rhal's battalion, captured at Trenton and now held by the state's council of safety, the following cruel order is often repeated: "His excellency the Commander-in-Chief orders that all residents found with arms, without an officer present, shall be immediately captured and hanged." We don't know how many you've secretly sacrificed, and that account can only be settled in the next life. Your treatment of prisoners, aimed at forcing them to enlist in your evil cause, is unmatched by any example in Europe. Yet this is the so-called humane Lord Howe and his brother, whom the Tories and their like, including some Quakers, have falsely promoted as models of justice and mercy!
A bad cause will ever be supported by bad means and bad men; and whoever will be at the pains of examining strictly into things, will find that one and the same spirit of oppression and impiety, more or less, governs through your whole party in both countries: not many days ago, I accidentally fell in company with a person of this city noted for espousing your cause, and on my remarking to him, "that it appeared clear to me, by the late providential turn of affairs, that God Almighty was visibly on our side," he replied, "We care nothing for that you may have Him, and welcome; if we have but enough of the devil on our side, we shall do." However carelessly this might be spoken, matters not, 'tis still the insensible principle that directs all your conduct and will at last most assuredly deceive and ruin you.
A bad cause will always be backed by bad methods and bad people; and anyone who takes the time to look closely at things will see that the same spirit of oppression and wrongdoing, to varying degrees, drives your entire group in both countries. Just a few days ago, I happened to meet someone from this city who is known for supporting your cause. When I told him, "It seems clear to me, given the recent turn of events, that God is clearly on our side," he replied, "We don't care about that; if we have enough of the devil on our side, we'll be fine." While he may have said this casually, it reflects the underlying principle guiding all your actions, which will ultimately deceive and ruin you.
If ever a nation was made and foolish, blind to its own interest and bent on its own destruction, it is Britain. There are such things as national sins, and though the punishment of individuals may be reserved to another world, national punishment can only be inflicted in this world. Britain, as a nation, is, in my inmost belief, the greatest and most ungrateful offender against God on the face of the whole earth. Blessed with all the commerce she could wish for, and furnished, by a vast extension of dominion, with the means of civilizing both the eastern and western world, she has made no other use of both than proudly to idolize her own "thunder," and rip up the bowels of whole countries for what she could get. Like Alexander, she has made war her sport, and inflicted misery for prodigality's sake. The blood of India is not yet repaid, nor the wretchedness of Africa yet requited. Of late she has enlarged her list of national cruelties by her butcherly destruction of the Caribbs of St. Vincent's, and returning an answer by the sword to the meek prayer for "Peace, liberty and safety." These are serious things, and whatever a foolish tyrant, a debauched court, a trafficking legislature, or a blinded people may think, the national account with heaven must some day or other be settled: all countries have sooner or later been called to their reckoning; the proudest empires have sunk when the balance was struck; and Britain, like an individual penitent, must undergo her day of sorrow, and the sooner it happens to her the better. As I wish it over, I wish it to come, but withal wish that it may be as light as possible.
If there’s ever been a nation that is foolish, blind to its own interests, and hell-bent on its own destruction, it’s Britain. National sins exist, and while individual punishment may await in another world, national punishment can only happen here. I truly believe that Britain is the greatest and most ungrateful offender against God on this entire planet. Blessed with all the trade it could ask for and having expanded its dominion enough to civilize both the East and West, it has chosen instead to worship its own power and exploit entire countries for its own gain. Like Alexander, it treats war as a game and brings suffering just for the sake of extravagance. The blood spilled in India hasn’t been repaid, nor has the suffering in Africa been addressed. Recently, it has added to its list of national atrocities with the brutal destruction of the Caribs in St. Vincent and responded with violence to a humble plea for "Peace, liberty, and safety." These are serious matters, and regardless of what a foolish tyrant, a corrupt court, a self-serving legislature, or a blinded populace may think, the national account with heaven must eventually be settled: every country has been called to account in time; the proudest empires have fallen when reckoning came; and Britain, like an individual seeking redemption, will have to face its day of sorrow, and the sooner that comes, the better. While I wish for it to be over, I also hope that it arrives as gently as possible.
Perhaps your lordship has no taste for serious things; by your connections in England I should suppose not; therefore I shall drop this part of the subject, and take it up in a line in which you will better understand me.
Maybe you don’t have an interest in serious matters, considering your connections in England; I would think not. So, I’ll drop this part of the topic and approach it in a way that you’ll understand better.
By what means, may I ask, do you expect to conquer America? If you could not effect it in the summer, when our army was less than yours, nor in the winter, when we had none, how are you to do it? In point of generalship you have been outwitted, and in point of fortitude outdone; your advantages turn out to your loss, and show us that it is in our power to ruin you by gifts: like a game of drafts, we can move out of one square to let you come in, in order that we may afterwards take two or three for one; and as we can always keep a double corner for ourselves, we can always prevent a total defeat. You cannot be so insensible as not to see that we have two to one the advantage of you, because we conquer by a drawn game, and you lose by it. Burgoyne might have taught your lordship this knowledge; he has been long a student in the doctrine of chances.
How do you plan to conquer America? If you couldn't do it in the summer when our army was smaller than yours, or in the winter when we had no army at all, how do you expect to achieve this? In strategy, you've been outsmarted, and in resilience, you've been outperformed; your advantages have turned into disadvantages, showing us that we can defeat you through generosity: like a game of checkers, we can step back to let you advance, only to capture two or three of your pieces later; and since we always keep a strong position for ourselves, we can prevent a complete loss. You can’t be so oblivious as not to realize that we have a two-to-one advantage, because we win by drawing, while you lose by it. Burgoyne could have taught you this lesson; he has long been a student of probability.
I have no other idea of conquering countries than by subduing the armies which defend them: have you done this, or can you do it? If you have not, it would be civil in you to let your proclamations alone for the present; otherwise, you will ruin more Tories by your grace and favor, than you will Whigs by your arms.
I don't have any other way to conquer countries besides defeating the armies that protect them: have you done this, or are you able to do it? If not, it would be polite of you to hold off on your proclamations for now; otherwise, you'll end up hurting more Tories with your kindness and favor than you will Whigs with your military actions.
Were you to obtain possession of this city, you would not know what to do with it more than to plunder it. To hold it in the manner you hold New York, would be an additional dead weight upon your hands; and if a general conquest is your object, you had better be without the city than with it. When you have defeated all our armies, the cities will fall into your hands of themselves; but to creep into them in the manner you got into Princeton, Trenton, &c. is like robbing an orchard in the night before the fruit be ripe, and running away in the morning. Your experiment in the Jerseys is sufficient to teach you that you have something more to do than barely to get into other people's houses; and your new converts, to whom you promised all manner of protection, and seduced into new guilt by pardoning them from their former virtues, must begin to have a very contemptible opinion both of your power and your policy. Your authority in the Jerseys is now reduced to the small circle which your army occupies, and your proclamation is no where else seen unless it be to be laughed at. The mighty subduers of the continent have retreated into a nutshell, and the proud forgivers of our sins are fled from those they came to pardon; and all this at a time when they were despatching vessel after vessel to England with the great news of every day. In short, you have managed your Jersey expedition so very dexterously, that the dead only are conquerors, because none will dispute the ground with them.
If you took over this city, you wouldn’t know what to do with it other than to loot it. Keeping it like you do with New York would just add more burden for you; and if your goal is total conquest, it’s better to not have the city at all. Once you’ve defeated all our armies, the cities will fall into your hands on their own, but sneaking into them like you did in Princeton, Trenton, etc. is like stealing fruit from an orchard at night before it’s ripe and then running away in the morning. Your experience in the Jerseys should show you that you need to do more than just invade people’s homes; and your new followers, whom you promised all kinds of protection and tempted into new wrongdoing by letting them off for their past mistakes, must be starting to think very little of both your strength and your strategy. Your influence in the Jerseys is now limited to the small area your army occupies, and your proclamation is hardly seen anywhere else unless it’s to be mocked. The great conquerors of the continent have shrunk down to a tiny space, and the proud forgivers of our wrongs have fled from those they came to save; all of this while they were sending ship after ship to England with the latest news. In short, you’ve handled your Jersey campaign so skillfully that only the dead are the true conquerors, since no one will argue with them over the territory.
In all the wars which you have formerly been concerned in you had only armies to contend with; in this case you have both an army and a country to combat with. In former wars, the countries followed the fate of their capitals; Canada fell with Quebec, and Minorca with Port Mahon or St. Phillips; by subduing those, the conquerors opened a way into, and became masters of the country: here it is otherwise; if you get possession of a city here, you are obliged to shut yourselves up in it, and can make no other use of it, than to spend your country's money in. This is all the advantage you have drawn from New York; and you would draw less from Philadelphia, because it requires more force to keep it, and is much further from the sea. A pretty figure you and the Tories would cut in this city, with a river full of ice, and a town full of fire; for the immediate consequence of your getting here would be, that you would be cannonaded out again, and the Tories be obliged to make good the damage; and this sooner or later will be the fate of New York.
In all the wars you’ve dealt with before, you only had armies to fight against; this time, you’re up against both an army and an entire country. In past conflicts, the fate of countries depended on their capitals; Canada fell with Quebec, and Minorca with Port Mahon or St. Phillips. By conquering those, the victors could easily move into and take control of the country. This situation is different; if you capture a city here, you end up having to lock yourselves in it, and the only thing you can do is waste your country’s resources. That’s all the benefit you’ve gotten from New York; and you’d gain even less from Philadelphia because it takes more force to hold it, and it’s much further from the ocean. You and the Loyalists would make quite a scene in this city, with a river full of ice and a town full of flames; the immediate outcome of you getting here would be that you’d be bombarded and forced out again, leaving the Loyalists to cover the costs. Sooner or later, New York will face the same fate.
I wish to see the city saved, not so much from military as from natural motives. 'Tis the hiding place of women and children, and Lord Howe's proper business is with our armies. When I put all the circumstances together which ought to be taken, I laugh at your notion of conquering America. Because you lived in a little country, where an army might run over the whole in a few days, and where a single company of soldiers might put a multitude to the rout, you expected to find it the same here. It is plain that you brought over with you all the narrow notions you were bred up with, and imagined that a proclamation in the king's name was to do great things; but Englishmen always travel for knowledge, and your lordship, I hope, will return, if you return at all, much wiser than you came.
I want to see the city protected, not just from military threats but from natural reasons. It's a safe haven for women and children, and Lord Howe's real concern should be with our armies. When I consider all the factors involved, I find your idea of conquering America laughable. Because you come from a small country where an army can take over quickly, and where a single group of soldiers can scatter a crowd, you assumed it would be the same here. It's clear that you brought your limited views with you, thinking that a declaration in the king's name would accomplish significant things. However, Englishmen often travel to gain knowledge, and I hope, if you do return, you'll come back much wiser than when you arrived.
We may be surprised by events we did not expect, and in that interval of recollection you may gain some temporary advantage: such was the case a few weeks ago, but we soon ripen again into reason, collect our strength, and while you are preparing for a triumph, we come upon you with a defeat. Such it has been, and such it would be were you to try it a hundred times over. Were you to garrison the places you might march over, in order to secure their subjection, (for remember you can do it by no other means,) your army would be like a stream of water running to nothing. By the time you extended from New York to Virginia, you would be reduced to a string of drops not capable of hanging together; while we, by retreating from State to State, like a river turning back upon itself, would acquire strength in the same proportion as you lost it, and in the end be capable of overwhelming you. The country, in the meantime, would suffer, but it is a day of suffering, and we ought to expect it. What we contend for is worthy the affliction we may go through. If we get but bread to eat, and any kind of raiment to put on, we ought not only to be contented, but thankful. More than that we ought not to look for, and less than that heaven has not yet suffered us to want. He that would sell his birthright for a little salt, is as worthless as he who sold it for pottage without salt; and he that would part with it for a gay coat, or a plain coat, ought for ever to be a slave in buff. What are salt, sugar and finery, to the inestimable blessings of "Liberty and Safety!" Or what are the inconveniences of a few months to the tributary bondage of ages? The meanest peasant in America, blessed with these sentiments, is a happy man compared with a New York Tory; he can eat his morsel without repining, and when he has done, can sweeten it with a repast of wholesome air; he can take his child by the hand and bless it, without feeling the conscious shame of neglecting a parent's duty.
We can be caught off guard by unexpected events, and during that time for reflection, you might gain a short-lived advantage: that happened a few weeks ago, but we quickly regain our reason, gather our strength, and while you're getting ready to celebrate a victory, we hit back with a defeat. It's been like that, and it would continue to be so if you tried it a hundred more times. If you were to secure the areas you could march through to ensure their subjugation (remember, there’s no other way for you to do it), your army would become like a stream of water that eventually dries up. By the time you stretched from New York to Virginia, you would find yourselves reduced to isolated drops that can’t hold together; while we, by retreating from state to state like a river reversing its flow, would gain strength in direct proportion to your losses, ultimately becoming capable of overwhelming you. The country will suffer in the meantime, but suffering is expected during this time. What we are fighting for is worth any hardship we endure. If we only have bread to eat and some form of clothing, we should not only be content but also grateful. We shouldn’t expect more than that, and so far Heaven has ensured we haven't lacked even that minimum. A person who would sell their birthright for a little salt is just as worthless as someone who sold it for stew without seasoning; and anyone willing to part with it for a fancy coat or a plain one should forever wear the chains of servitude. What are salt, sugar, and finery compared to the priceless gifts of "Liberty and Safety"? Or what are the struggles of a few months against the lifelong bondage of ages? The lowliest peasant in America, who holds these beliefs, is far happier than a New York loyalist; he can enjoy his food without complaining, and when he’s done, he can sweeten it with a breath of fresh air; he can hold his child’s hand and bless them without feeling the guilt of neglecting his parental responsibilities.
In publishing these remarks I have several objects in view.
In sharing these thoughts, I have a few goals in mind.
On your part they are to expose the folly of your pretended authority as a commissioner; the wickedness of your cause in general; and the impossibility of your conquering us at any rate. On the part of the public, my intention is, to show them their true and sold interest; to encourage them to their own good, to remove the fears and falsities which bad men have spread, and weak men have encouraged; and to excite in all men a love for union, and a cheerfulness for duty.
Your role is to reveal the foolishness of your fake authority as a commissioner, the wrongness of your cause in general, and the fact that you can never conquer us. From the public's perspective, my goal is to show them their true and genuine interests; to motivate them for their own benefit, to dispel the fears and lies spread by bad people and supported by weak ones; and to inspire everyone with a love for unity and a positive attitude towards their responsibilities.
I shall submit one more case to you respecting your conquest of this country, and then proceed to new observations.
I will present one more example to you regarding your takeover of this country, and then move on to new observations.
Suppose our armies in every part of this continent were immediately to disperse, every man to his home, or where else he might be safe, and engage to reassemble again on a certain future day; it is clear that you would then have no army to contend with, yet you would be as much at a loss in that case as you are now; you would be afraid to send your troops in parties over to the continent, either to disarm or prevent us from assembling, lest they should not return; and while you kept them together, having no arms of ours to dispute with, you could not call it a conquest; you might furnish out a pompous page in the London Gazette or a New York paper, but when we returned at the appointed time, you would have the same work to do that you had at first.
Imagine if our armies across this continent suddenly disbanded, with every soldier going home or finding a safe place, and they promised to gather again on a specific future date. It's clear that you'd have no army to face, yet you'd still be just as stuck as you are now; you'd hesitate to send your troops in groups to the continent to disarm us or stop us from regrouping, fearing they might not come back. And while you kept your troops together, without any of our weapons to fight against, you couldn't really call it a victory; you could put out a grand announcement in the London Gazette or a New York paper, but when we showed up at the agreed time, you'd find yourself back in the same situation you were in at the start.
It has been the folly of Britain to suppose herself more powerful than she really is, and by that means has arrogated to herself a rank in the world she is not entitled to: for more than this century past she has not been able to carry on a war without foreign assistance. In Marlborough's campaigns, and from that day to this, the number of German troops and officers assisting her have been about equal with her own; ten thousand Hessians were sent to England last war to protect her from a French invasion; and she would have cut but a poor figure in her Canadian and West Indian expeditions, had not America been lavish both of her money and men to help her along. The only instance in which she was engaged singly, that I can recollect, was against the rebellion in Scotland, in the years 1745 and 1746, and in that, out of three battles, she was twice beaten, till by thus reducing their numbers, (as we shall yours) and taking a supply ship that was coming to Scotland with clothes, arms and money, (as we have often done,) she was at last enabled to defeat them. England was never famous by land; her officers have generally been suspected of cowardice, have more of the air of a dancing-master than a soldier, and by the samples which we have taken prisoners, we give the preference to ourselves. Her strength, of late, has lain in her extravagance; but as her finances and credit are now low, her sinews in that line begin to fail fast. As a nation she is the poorest in Europe; for were the whole kingdom, and all that is in it, to be put up for sale like the estate of a bankrupt, it would not fetch as much as she owes; yet this thoughtless wretch must go to war, and with the avowed design, too, of making us beasts of burden, to support her in riot and debauchery, and to assist her afterwards in distressing those nations who are now our best friends. This ingratitude may suit a Tory, or the unchristian peevishness of a fallen Quaker, but none else.
Britain has been foolish to think of herself as more powerful than she really is, and because of that belief, she has claimed a status in the world that she doesn’t deserve. For over a century, she hasn’t been able to fight a war without help from other countries. Since Marlborough's campaigns, the number of German troops and officers aiding her has been about equal to her own forces; during the last war, ten thousand Hessians were sent to England to defend her from a French invasion; and she would have struggled in her Canadian and West Indian missions if America hadn’t generously contributed both money and soldiers. The only time she fought alone that I can remember was during the rebellion in Scotland in 1745 and 1746, and in that conflict, she lost two out of three battles until she reduced their numbers (as we shall do to yours) and captured a supply ship heading to Scotland with clothes, arms, and money (as we have often done), which finally allowed her to defeat them. England has never been known for her strength on land; her officers are often suspected of cowardice, resembling more of a dancing instructor than a soldier, and based on the prisoners we’ve taken, we consider ourselves superior. Recently, her power has come from her excessive spending, but now that her finances and credit are low, her resources in that area are quickly running out. As a nation, she is the poorest in Europe; if the entire kingdom and everything in it were to be sold like a bankrupt's estate, it wouldn't even cover her debts. Yet this reckless nation insists on going to war with the clear intention of making us laborers to support her excesses and to help her later in oppressing those nations who are currently our best allies. This kind of ingratitude might appeal to a Tory or the unchristian bitterness of a disgraced Quaker, but not to anyone else.
'Tis the unhappy temper of the English to be pleased with any war, right or wrong, be it but successful; but they soon grow discontented with ill fortune, and it is an even chance that they are as clamorous for peace next summer, as the king and his ministers were for war last winter. In this natural view of things, your lordship stands in a very critical situation: your whole character is now staked upon your laurels; if they wither, you wither with them; if they flourish, you cannot live long to look at them; and at any rate, the black account hereafter is not far off. What lately appeared to us misfortunes, were only blessings in disguise; and the seeming advantages on your side have turned out to our profit. Even our loss of this city, as far as we can see, might be a principal gain to us: the more surface you spread over, the thinner you will be, and the easier wiped away; and our consolation under that apparent disaster would be, that the estates of the Tories would become securities for the repairs. In short, there is no old ground we can fail upon, but some new foundation rises again to support us. "We have put, sir, our hands to the plough, and cursed be he that looketh back."
It's the unfortunate nature of the English to get excited about any war, whether it's justified or not, as long as it seems successful; but they quickly become unhappy with bad luck, and it's likely they'll be just as vocal for peace next summer as the king and his ministers were for war last winter. In this context, you are in a very delicate position: your entire reputation is tied to your accomplishments; if they fade, you fade with them; if they thrive, you won't be around long enough to enjoy them; and in any case, a bad reckoning isn't far off. What we recently saw as misfortunes were actually blessings in disguise; and the apparent benefits on your side have turned out to benefit us. Even losing this city, as far as we can see, might actually turn out to be a significant gain for us: the more territory you cover, the thinner your presence will be, and the easier it will be to erase; and our consolation in that apparent disaster would be that the estates of the Tories would become collateral for the repairs. In short, there's no old ground we can fall back on without some new foundation rising up to support us. "We have put, sir, our hands to the plow, and cursed be he that looks back."
Your king, in his speech to parliament last spring, declared, "That he had no doubt but the great force they had enabled him to send to America, would effectually reduce the rebellious colonies." It has not, neither can it; but it has done just enough to lay the foundation of its own next year's ruin. You are sensible that you left England in a divided, distracted state of politics, and, by the command you had here, you became a principal prop in the court party; their fortunes rest on yours; by a single express you can fix their value with the public, and the degree to which their spirits shall rise or fall; they are in your hands as stock, and you have the secret of the alley with you. Thus situated and connected, you become the unintentional mechanical instrument of your own and their overthrow. The king and his ministers put conquest out of doubt, and the credit of both depended on the proof. To support them in the interim, it was necessary that you should make the most of every thing, and we can tell by Hugh Gaine's New York paper what the complexion of the London Gazette is. With such a list of victories the nation cannot expect you will ask new supplies; and to confess your want of them would give the lie to your triumphs, and impeach the king and his ministers of treasonable deception. If you make the necessary demand at home, your party sinks; if you make it not, you sink yourself; to ask it now is too late, and to ask it before was too soon, and unless it arrive quickly will be of no use. In short, the part you have to act, cannot be acted; and I am fully persuaded that all you have to trust to is, to do the best you can with what force you have got, or little more. Though we have greatly exceeded you in point of generalship and bravery of men, yet, as a people, we have not entered into the full soul of enterprise; for I, who know England and the disposition of the people well, am confident, that it is easier for us to effect a revolution there, than you a conquest here; a few thousand men landed in England with the declared design of deposing the present king, bringing his ministers to trial, and setting up the Duke of Gloucester in his stead, would assuredly carry their point, while you are grovelling here, ignorant of the matter. As I send all my papers to England, this, like Common Sense, will find its way there; and though it may put one party on their guard, it will inform the other, and the nation in general, of our design to help them.
Your king, in his speech to parliament last spring, stated, "I have no doubt that the great force you helped me send to America will effectively reduce the rebellious colonies." It hasn't, and it can't; but it has done just enough to set the stage for its own downfall next year. You're aware that you left England in a divided and chaotic political state, and with the authority you hold here, you've become a key support for the court party. Their future depends on yours; a single message from you can determine their reputation with the public and whether their spirits will rise or fall. They are in your hands like stocks, and you hold the key to their success. Given this situation and your connections, you unintentionally become a mechanical instrument in your own and their downfall. The king and his ministers are betting on certain victory, with both their credibility resting on proving it. To support them in the meantime, it's essential that you maximize every opportunity, and we can gauge the tone of the London Gazette by what Hugh Gaine's New York paper reports. With such a list of victories, the nation can't expect you to request new supplies; to admit you need them would contradict your triumphs and accuse the king and his ministers of treasonous deceit. If you make the necessary demand back home, your party will collapse; if you don’t ask, you will fail yourself; asking now is too late, and asking before was premature, and unless it comes quickly, it will be useless. In short, the role you have to play can't be played; I believe your only option is to do the best you can with the limited forces you have. Although we have significantly outperformed you in terms of strategy and bravery, as a people, we haven't fully embraced the spirit of enterprise; I, who know England and the mindset of its people well, am confident that it's easier for us to spark a revolution there than for you to achieve conquest here; a few thousand men landing in England with the explicit goal of deposing the current king, putting his ministers on trial, and establishing the Duke of Gloucester in his place would surely succeed, while you struggle here, unaware of what's really going on. As I send all my papers to England, this, like Common Sense, will make its way there; and though it may alert one party, it will inform the other and the nation as a whole of our intention to assist them.
Thus far, sir, I have endeavored to give you a picture of present affairs: you may draw from it what conclusions you please. I wish as well to the true prosperity of England as you can, but I consider INDEPENDENCE as America's natural right and interest, and never could see any real disservice it would be to Britain. If an English merchant receives an order, and is paid for it, it signifies nothing to him who governs the country. This is my creed of politics. If I have any where expressed myself over-warmly, 'tis from a fixed, immovable hatred I have, and ever had, to cruel men and cruel measures. I have likewise an aversion to monarchy, as being too debasing to the dignity of man; but I never troubled others with my notions till very lately, nor ever published a syllable in England in my life. What I write is pure nature, and my pen and my soul have ever gone together. My writings I have always given away, reserving only the expense of printing and paper, and sometimes not even that. I never courted either fame or interest, and my manner of life, to those who know it, will justify what I say. My study is to be useful, and if your lordship loves mankind as well as I do, you would, seeing you cannot conquer us, cast about and lend your hand towards accomplishing a peace. Our independence with God's blessing we will maintain against all the world; but as we wish to avoid evil ourselves, we wish not to inflict it on others. I am never over-inquisitive into the secrets of the cabinet, but I have some notion that, if you neglect the present opportunity, it will not be in our power to make a separate peace with you afterwards; for whatever treaties or alliances we form, we shall most faithfully abide by; wherefore you may be deceived if you think you can make it with us at any time. A lasting independent peace is my wish, end and aim; and to accomplish that, I pray God the Americans may never be defeated, and I trust while they have good officers, and are well commanded, and willing to be commanded, that they NEVER WILL BE.
So far, sir, I've tried to give you a clear view of the current situation: you can draw whatever conclusions you like from it. I wish for England's true prosperity just as much as you do, but I believe that INDEPENDENCE is America's natural right and interest, and I don't see how it would harm Britain in any real way. If an English merchant gets an order and gets paid for it, it doesn't matter to him who is in charge of the country. This is my political belief. If I've expressed myself too passionately at times, it's because of my deep, unchanging disdain for cruel people and cruel actions. I also dislike monarchy because it undermines human dignity; however, I never bothered others with my views until very recently, nor have I ever published a single word in England in my life. What I write comes from the heart, and my pen and my spirit have always been in sync. I've always given away my writings, only asking for help with printing and paper costs, and sometimes not even that. I never sought fame or self-interest, and my way of life, to those who know me, will back up what I say. My goal is to be helpful, and if your lordship cares for humanity as much as I do, you would realize that since you can’t conquer us, you should consider aiding in achieving peace. With God's blessing, we will defend our independence against anyone; but since we want to avoid harm ourselves, we don't want to impose it on others. I don't pry too much into government secrets, but I suspect that if you miss this current opportunity, we won't be able to make a separate peace with you later. Whatever treaties or alliances we enter into, we will honor them; so, you might be mistaken if you think you can negotiate with us whenever you wish. A lasting independent peace is my goal, and to achieve that, I pray the Americans are never defeated. I believe that as long as they have capable leaders and are willing to be led, they NEVER WILL BE.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 13, 1777.
THE CRISIS III. (IN THE PROGRESS OF POLITICS)
IN THE progress of politics, as in the common occurrences of life, we are not only apt to forget the ground we have travelled over, but frequently neglect to gather up experience as we go. We expend, if I may so say, the knowledge of every day on the circumstances that produce it, and journey on in search of new matter and new refinements: but as it is pleasant and sometimes useful to look back, even to the first periods of infancy, and trace the turns and windings through which we have passed, so we may likewise derive many advantages by halting a while in our political career, and taking a review of the wondrous complicated labyrinth of little more than yesterday.
In politics, just like in everyday life, we often forget where we've been and frequently neglect to learn from our experiences as we go. We tend to use the knowledge we gain each day on the situations that create it, while constantly searching for new information and new ideas. However, it can be both enjoyable and beneficial to reflect on our past, even back to our earliest days, and to trace the twists and turns we've navigated. Similarly, we can gain a lot by pausing in our political journey to review the complex maze of events that happened just yesterday.
Truly may we say, that never did men grow old in so short a time! We have crowded the business of an age into the compass of a few months, and have been driven through such a rapid succession of things, that for the want of leisure to think, we unavoidably wasted knowledge as we came, and have left nearly as much behind us as we brought with us: but the road is yet rich with the fragments, and, before we finally lose sight of them, will repay us for the trouble of stopping to pick them up.
Truly, we can say that people have never aged so quickly! We’ve packed the events of an entire era into just a few months and have rushed through so many experiences that, lacking the time to reflect, we’ve inevitably wasted the knowledge gained along the way and left behind almost as much as we brought. However, the path still offers plenty of valuable insights, and before we completely move on, it will be worth taking the time to gather them.
Were a man to be totally deprived of memory, he would be incapable of forming any just opinion; every thing about him would seem a chaos: he would have even his own history to ask from every one; and by not knowing how the world went in his absence, he would be at a loss to know how it ought to go on when he recovered, or rather, returned to it again. In like manner, though in a less degree, a too great inattention to past occurrences retards and bewilders our judgment in everything; while, on the contrary, by comparing what is past with what is present, we frequently hit on the true character of both, and become wise with very little trouble. It is a kind of counter-march, by which we get into the rear of time, and mark the movements and meaning of things as we make our return. There are certain circumstances, which, at the time of their happening, are a kind of riddles, and as every riddle is to be followed by its answer, so those kind of circumstances will be followed by their events, and those events are always the true solution. A considerable space of time may lapse between, and unless we continue our observations from the one to the other, the harmony of them will pass away unnoticed: but the misfortune is, that partly from the pressing necessity of some instant things, and partly from the impatience of our own tempers, we are frequently in such a hurry to make out the meaning of everything as fast as it happens, that we thereby never truly understand it; and not only start new difficulties to ourselves by so doing, but, as it were, embarrass Providence in her good designs.
If a man were completely stripped of his memory, he wouldn’t be able to form any accurate opinions; everything around him would appear chaotic. He would even have to ask everyone about his own history, and since he wouldn’t know how the world operated during his absence, he would struggle to figure out how it should continue once he returned. Similarly, although to a lesser extent, being too inattentive to past events slows down and confuses our judgment in everything. In contrast, by comparing the past with the present, we often uncover the true nature of both and gain wisdom with minimal effort. It’s like a reverse journey, where we look back at time and observe the movements and meanings of things as we reflect on them. Some events, when they occur, are puzzling, and just as every riddle has an answer, those puzzling circumstances will lead to their outcomes, which are always the genuine solution. A significant amount of time may pass in between, and if we don’t keep track of both, the connection will fade from our awareness. Unfortunately, due to the urgent demands of certain immediate matters and our own impatience, we often rush to decipher the meaning of things as they happen, which prevents us from truly understanding them. This not only creates new challenges for us but also, in a sense, complicates the good plans Providence has in store.
I have been civil in stating this fault on a large scale, for, as it now stands, it does not appear to be levelled against any particular set of men; but were it to be refined a little further, it might afterwards be applied to the Tories with a degree of striking propriety: those men have been remarkable for drawing sudden conclusions from single facts. The least apparent mishap on our side, or the least seeming advantage on the part of the enemy, have determined with them the fate of a whole campaign. By this hasty judgment they have converted a retreat into a defeat; mistook generalship for error; while every little advantage purposely given the enemy, either to weaken their strength by dividing it, embarrass their councils by multiplying their objects, or to secure a greater post by the surrender of a less, has been instantly magnified into a conquest. Thus, by quartering ill policy upon ill principles, they have frequently promoted the cause they designed to injure, and injured that which they intended to promote.
I have been polite in addressing this issue on a large scale, as it currently doesn’t seem to target any specific group of people. However, if it were to be expressed a bit more clearly, it could be directed towards the Tories with some striking relevance: these individuals are known for jumping to conclusions based on isolated facts. The slightest setback on our part or the smallest perceived advantage for the enemy has determined the outcome of an entire campaign for them. Due to this rash judgment, they have turned a retreat into a defeat; confused strategy with error; and every small advantage we intentionally offered the enemy to weaken their forces by splitting them up, disrupt their plans by complicating their objectives, or to gain a more significant position by sacrificing a lesser one, has been blown out of proportion into a victory. So, by applying poor policy to flawed principles, they have often advanced the cause they meant to harm and harmed what they aimed to support.
It is probable the campaign may open before this number comes from the press. The enemy have long lain idle, and amused themselves with carrying on the war by proclamations only. While they continue their delay our strength increases, and were they to move to action now, it is a circumstantial proof that they have no reinforcement coming; wherefore, in either case, the comparative advantage will be ours. Like a wounded, disabled whale, they want only time and room to die in; and though in the agony of their exit, it may be unsafe to live within the flapping of their tail, yet every hour shortens their date, and lessens their power of mischief. If any thing happens while this number is in the press, it will afford me a subject for the last pages of it. At present I am tired of waiting; and as neither the enemy, nor the state of politics have yet produced any thing new, I am thereby left in the field of general matter, undirected by any striking or particular object. This Crisis, therefore, will be made up rather of variety than novelty, and consist more of things useful than things wonderful.
It’s likely that the campaign will start before this issue goes to print. The enemy has been inactive for a while, just keeping the war going through proclamations. While they continue to delay, our strength is growing, and if they were to take action now, it would clearly show they aren’t getting any reinforcements. So, in either scenario, the advantage will be on our side. Like a wounded whale, they just need time and space to perish; and even though it might be dangerous to be close while they thrash about in their death throes, each passing hour weakens them and reduces their ability to cause harm. If something happens while this issue is being printed, it will give me material for the final pages. Right now, I’m tired of waiting, and since neither the enemy nor the political situation has produced anything new, I’m left with a lot of general topics to cover without a specific focus. This crisis, therefore, will be composed more of variety than novelty and will include more useful things than amazing ones.
The success of the cause, the union of the people, and the means of supporting and securing both, are points which cannot be too much attended to. He who doubts of the former is a desponding coward, and he who wilfully disturbs the latter is a traitor. Their characters are easily fixed, and under these short descriptions I leave them for the present.
The success of the cause, the unity of the people, and the ways to support and protect both are issues that deserve our utmost attention. Anyone who doubts the former is a hopeless coward, and anyone who deliberately undermines the latter is a traitor. Their identities are clear, and I’ll leave it at that for now.
One of the greatest degrees of sentimental union which America ever knew, was in denying the right of the British parliament "to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." The Declaration is, in its form, an almighty one, and is the loftiest stretch of arbitrary power that ever one set of men or one country claimed over another. Taxation was nothing more than the putting the declared right into practice; and this failing, recourse was had to arms, as a means to establish both the right and the practice, or to answer a worse purpose, which will be mentioned in the course of this number. And in order to repay themselves the expense of an army, and to profit by their own injustice, the colonies were, by another law, declared to be in a state of actual rebellion, and of consequence all property therein would fall to the conquerors.
One of the strongest feelings of unity that America ever experienced was in rejecting the British parliament's claim "to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." The Declaration is, in its essence, extremely powerful, and it's the highest level of arbitrary authority that any group of people or country has ever asserted over another. Taxation was simply the implementation of that declared right; and when that failed, people turned to arms as a way to establish both the right and the action, or to serve a worse purpose, which will be discussed later in this piece. To cover the costs of an army and benefit from their own wrongdoing, the colonies were, through another law, labeled as being in a state of actual rebellion, meaning that all property there would belong to the victors.
The colonies, on their part, first, denied the right; secondly, they suspended the use of taxable articles, and petitioned against the practice of taxation: and these failing, they, thirdly, defended their property by force, as soon as it was forcibly invaded, and, in answer to the declaration of rebellion and non-protection, published their Declaration of Independence and right of self-protection.
The colonies, for their part, first denied the right to tax; second, they stopped using taxable items and petitioned against the practice of taxation. When these efforts failed, they, third, defended their property by force as soon as it was invaded, and in response to the declaration of rebellion and lack of protection, issued their Declaration of Independence and right to self-defense.
These, in a few words, are the different stages of the quarrel; and the parts are so intimately and necessarily connected with each other as to admit of no separation. A person, to use a trite phrase, must be a Whig or a Tory in a lump. His feelings, as a man, may be wounded; his charity, as a Christian, may be moved; but his political principles must go through all the cases on one side or the other. He cannot be a Whig in this stage, and a Tory in that. If he says he is against the united independence of the continent, he is to all intents and purposes against her in all the rest; because this last comprehends the whole. And he may just as well say, that Britain was right in declaring us rebels; right in taxing us; and right in declaring her "right to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." It signifies nothing what neutral ground, of his own creating, he may skulk upon for shelter, for the quarrel in no stage of it hath afforded any such ground; and either we or Britain are absolutely right or absolutely wrong through the whole.
These, in a few words, are the different stages of the quarrel; and the parts are so closely and necessarily connected with each other that they cannot be separated. A person, to use a common phrase, must be a Whig or a Tory as a whole. His feelings, as a human being, may be hurt; his compassion, as a Christian, may be stirred; but his political beliefs must align consistently on one side or the other. He can't be a Whig at one moment and a Tory at another. If he claims to be against the united independence of the continent, he is, in every practical sense, against it in all aspects because this last point encompasses everything. And he might as well say that Britain was right in calling us rebels, right in taxing us, and right in claiming her "right to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." It doesn't matter what neutral ground he tries to hide on, as the quarrel has never offered any such ground; we or Britain are completely right or completely wrong throughout the whole issue.
Britain, like a gamester nearly ruined, has now put all her losses into one bet, and is playing a desperate game for the total. If she wins it, she wins from me my life; she wins the continent as the forfeited property of rebels; the right of taxing those that are left as reduced subjects; and the power of binding them slaves: and the single die which determines this unparalleled event is, whether we support our independence or she overturn it. This is coming to the point at once. Here is the touchstone to try men by. He that is not a supporter of the independent States of America in the same degree that his religious and political principles would suffer him to support the government of any other country, of which he called himself a subject, is, in the American sense of the word, A TORY; and the instant that he endeavors to bring his toryism into practice, he becomes A TRAITOR. The first can only be detected by a general test, and the law hath already provided for the latter.
Britain, like a gambler nearly broke, has now placed all her losses on one bet and is playing a desperate game for it all. If she wins, she takes from me my life; she claims the continent as the forfeited property of rebels; she gains the right to tax those who remain as conquered subjects; and she obtains the power to enslave them. The single die that determines this unprecedented outcome is whether we uphold our independence or she crushes it. This is getting to the core of the issue. Here is the test to judge people by. Anyone who does not support the independent States of America to the same extent that their religious and political beliefs would allow them to support the government of any other country, which they consider themselves a subject of, is, in the American sense of the word, A TORY; and the moment they try to put their Toryism into action, they become A TRAITOR. The first can only be identified by a general test, and the law has already accounted for the latter.
It is unnatural and impolitic to admit men who would root up our independence to have any share in our legislation, either as electors or representatives; because the support of our independence rests, in a great measure, on the vigor and purity of our public bodies. Would Britain, even in time of peace, much less in war, suffer an election to be carried by men who professed themselves to be not her subjects, or allow such to sit in Parliament? Certainly not.
It’s unnatural and unwise to allow people who would undermine our independence to have any role in our legislation, whether as voters or representatives. Our independence largely depends on the integrity and strength of our public institutions. Would Britain, even in peacetime and especially in wartime, allow an election to be won by those who claim they are not her subjects, or let those individuals sit in Parliament? Definitely not.
But there are a certain species of Tories with whom conscience or principle has nothing to do, and who are so from avarice only. Some of the first fortunes on the continent, on the part of the Whigs, are staked on the issue of our present measures. And shall disaffection only be rewarded with security? Can any thing be a greater inducement to a miserly man, than the hope of making his Mammon safe? And though the scheme be fraught with every character of folly, yet, so long as he supposes, that by doing nothing materially criminal against America on one part, and by expressing his private disapprobation against independence, as palliative with the enemy, on the other part, he stands in a safe line between both; while, I say, this ground be suffered to remain, craft, and the spirit of avarice, will point it out, and men will not be wanting to fill up this most contemptible of all characters.
But there are certain types of Tories who are driven solely by greed, not by conscience or principle. Some of the biggest fortunes on the continent from the Whigs are riding on the outcome of our current actions. Shouldn’t disloyalty be met with consequences instead of security? What could motivate a miser more than the chance to protect his wealth? Even if the plan is completely foolish, as long as he believes that by not committing any major wrongdoing against America on one side, and by voicing his personal disapproval of independence as a cover with the enemy on the other, he can stay safely neutral; as long as this situation is allowed to persist, cunning and the desire for wealth will highlight it, and there will always be people willing to take on this most despicable role.
These men, ashamed to own the sordid cause from whence their disaffection springs, add thereby meanness to meanness, by endeavoring to shelter themselves under the mask of hypocrisy; that is, they had rather be thought to be Tories from some kind of principle, than Tories by having no principle at all. But till such time as they can show some real reason, natural, political, or conscientious, on which their objections to independence are founded, we are not obliged to give them credit for being Tories of the first stamp, but must set them down as Tories of the last.
These men, embarrassed to admit the ugly reasons behind their dissatisfaction, add to their own pettiness by trying to hide behind a facade of hypocrisy; in other words, they would rather be seen as Tories for some principle than as Tories without any principle at all. But until they can provide a legitimate reason—be it natural, political, or moral—for their objections to independence, we are not required to recognize them as genuine Tories; instead, we must regard them as the lesser kind.
In the second number of the Crisis, I endeavored to show the impossibility of the enemy's making any conquest of America, that nothing was wanting on our part but patience and perseverance, and that, with these virtues, our success, as far as human speculation could discern, seemed as certain as fate. But as there are many among us, who, influenced by others, have regularly gone back from the principles they once held, in proportion as we have gone forward; and as it is the unfortunate lot of many a good man to live within the neighborhood of disaffected ones; I shall, therefore, for the sake of confirming the one and recovering the other, endeavor, in the space of a page or two, to go over some of the leading principles in support of independence. It is a much pleasanter task to prevent vice than to punish it, and, however our tempers may be gratified by resentment, or our national expenses eased by forfeited estates, harmony and friendship is, nevertheless, the happiest condition a country can be blessed with.
In the second issue of the Crisis, I tried to show that the enemy couldn’t conquer America; all we needed was patience and perseverance, and with those qualities, our success seemed as certain as fate could predict. However, there are many among us who, swayed by others, have completely abandoned the principles they once believed in, just as we have moved forward. Since it's the unfortunate reality for many good people to live near those who are discontented, I will, therefore, take a page or two to revisit some of the key principles in support of independence, to strengthen some and reclaim others. It’s a much more pleasant task to prevent wrongdoing than to punish it, and while our tempers might find satisfaction in resentment or our national expenses might be reduced by seized estates, harmony and friendship are, nonetheless, the best conditions a country can hope for.
The principal arguments in support of independence may be comprehended under the four following heads.
The main arguments in favor of independence can be understood under the following four categories.
1st, The natural right of the continent to be independent. 2nd, Its interest in being independent. 3rd, The necessity, —and 4th, The moral benefits that come from it.
I. The natural right of the continent to independence, is a point which never yet was called in question. It will not even admit of a debate. To deny such a right, would be a kind of atheism against nature: and the best answer to such an objection would be, "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God."
I. The continent's natural right to independence has never been questioned. It shouldn't even be up for debate. To deny that right would be like denying nature itself: and the best response to such an argument would be, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God."
II. The interest of the continent in being independent is a point as clearly right as the former. America, by her own internal industry, and unknown to all the powers of Europe, was, at the beginning of the dispute, arrived at a pitch of greatness, trade and population, beyond which it was the interest of Britain not to suffer her to pass, lest she should grow too powerful to be kept subordinate. She began to view this country with the same uneasy malicious eye, with which a covetous guardian would view his ward, whose estate he had been enriching himself by for twenty years, and saw him just arriving at manhood. And America owes no more to Britain for her present maturity, than the ward would to the guardian for being twenty-one years of age. That America hath flourished at the time she was under the government of Britain, is true; but there is every natural reason to believe, that had she been an independent country from the first settlement thereof, uncontrolled by any foreign power, free to make her own laws, regulate and encourage her own commerce, she had by this time been of much greater worth than now. The case is simply this: the first settlers in the different colonies were left to shift for themselves, unnoticed and unsupported by any European government; but as the tyranny and persecution of the old world daily drove numbers to the new, and as, by the favor of heaven on their industry and perseverance, they grew into importance, so, in a like degree, they became an object of profit to the greedy eyes of Europe. It was impossible, in this state of infancy, however thriving and promising, that they could resist the power of any armed invader that should seek to bring them under his authority. In this situation, Britain thought it worth her while to claim them, and the continent received and acknowledged the claimer. It was, in reality, of no very great importance who was her master, seeing, that from the force and ambition of the different powers of Europe, she must, till she acquired strength enough to assert her own right, acknowledge some one. As well, perhaps, Britain as another; and it might have been as well to have been under the states of Holland as any. The same hopes of engrossing and profiting by her trade, by not oppressing it too much, would have operated alike with any master, and produced to the colonies the same effects. The clamor of protection, likewise, was all a farce; because, in order to make that protection necessary, she must first, by her own quarrels, create us enemies. Hard terms indeed!
II. The continent's desire for independence is just as valid as before. America, through her own efforts, and unknown to all the powers of Europe, had reached a level of greatness in trade and population by the start of the conflict that Britain didn’t want her to exceed, fearing she would become too powerful to control. Britain began to look at this country with the same greedy, uneasy gaze that a money-hungry guardian might fix on a ward whose wealth he had been exploiting for twenty years, now approaching adulthood. And America owes Britain no more for her current strength than a ward owes a guardian for turning 21. It’s true that America thrived while under British rule, but there’s every reason to believe that if she had been independent from the very beginning, free to make her own laws and manage her own trade, she would be far better off today. The fact is, the first settlers in the various colonies were left to fend for themselves, ignored and unsupported by any European government. However, as the tyranny and persecution of the old world pushed more people to the new world, and as they succeeded thanks to hard work and perseverance, they became an attractive target for European greed. It was impossible in their early stages, despite their growth and potential, for them to resist any armed invader who sought to take control. In this situation, Britain found it worthwhile to claim them, and the continent accepted that claim. Ultimately, it didn’t matter much who was in charge, since given Europe's power dynamics, they would have to acknowledge some authority until they could assert their own rights. Britain could well have been as good a master as anyone, and it might have been just as beneficial to be under the control of the Dutch. The same hopes of benefiting from trade without too much oppression would apply with any ruler and have similar effects on the colonies. The claim of protection was also a sham because, to make that protection necessary, they had to create enemies through their own conflicts. Quite the harsh reality!
To know whether it be the interest of the continent to be independent, we need only ask this easy, simple question: Is it the interest of a man to be a boy all his life? The answer to one will be the answer to both. America hath been one continued scene of legislative contention from the first king's representative to the last; and this was unavoidably founded in the natural opposition of interest between the old country and the new. A governor sent from England, or receiving his authority therefrom, ought never to have been considered in any other light than that of a genteel commissioned spy, whose private business was information, and his public business a kind of civilized oppression. In the first of these characters he was to watch the tempers, sentiments, and disposition of the people, the growth of trade, and the increase of private fortunes; and, in the latter, to suppress all such acts of the assemblies, however beneficial to the people, which did not directly or indirectly throw some increase of power or profit into the hands of those that sent him.
To determine if it's in the continent's best interest to be independent, we just need to ask this straightforward question: Is it in a man's best interest to stay a boy forever? The answer to one will apply to both. America has been an ongoing scene of legislative conflict from the first king's representative to the last; this was inevitably rooted in the natural clash of interests between the old country and the new. A governor sent from England, or one who derives his authority from there, should never have been viewed in any other way than as an elegant commissioned spy, whose private mission was gathering information and whose public purpose was a form of civilized oppression. In the first role, he was supposed to observe the moods, opinions, and attitudes of the people, the growth of trade, and the increase of private wealth; and in the latter role, to suppress any actions by the assemblies, no matter how beneficial to the people, that didn’t directly or indirectly provide more power or profit to those who sent him.
America, till now, could never be called a free country, because her legislation depended on the will of a man three thousand miles distant, whose interest was in opposition to ours, and who, by a single "no," could forbid what law he pleased.
America has never truly been a free country because our laws depended on the wishes of a man three thousand miles away, whose interests were against ours, and who could block any law he wanted with a simple "no."
The freedom of trade, likewise, is, to a trading country, an article of such importance, that the principal source of wealth depends upon it; and it is impossible that any country can flourish, as it otherwise might do, whose commerce is engrossed, cramped and fettered by the laws and mandates of another—yet these evils, and more than I can here enumerate, the continent has suffered by being under the government of England. By an independence we clear the whole at once—put an end to the business of unanswered petitions and fruitless remonstrances—exchange Britain for Europe—shake hands with the world—live at peace with the world—and trade to any market where we can buy and sell.
The freedom to trade is hugely important for a trading nation, as its main source of wealth relies on it. No country can truly prosper if its commerce is restricted, limited, and controlled by the laws and regulations of another country. The continent has endured numerous issues, among them, the burdens of being governed by England. By gaining independence, we can resolve everything at once—stop the cycle of ignored petitions and pointless protests—trade Britain for Europe—make connections with the world—live in peace—and trade wherever we want to buy and sell.
III. The necessity, likewise, of being independent, even before it was declared, became so evident and important, that the continent ran the risk of being ruined every day that she delayed it. There was reason to believe that Britain would endeavor to make an European matter of it, and, rather than lose the whole, would dismember it, like Poland, and dispose of her several claims to the highest bidder. Genoa, failing in her attempts to reduce Corsica, made a sale of it to the French, and such trafficks have been common in the old world. We had at that time no ambassador in any part of Europe, to counteract her negotiations, and by that means she had the range of every foreign court uncontradicted on our part. We even knew nothing of the treaty for the Hessians till it was concluded, and the troops ready to embark. Had we been independent before, we had probably prevented her obtaining them. We had no credit abroad, because of our rebellious dependency. Our ships could claim no protection in foreign ports, because we afforded them no justifiable reason for granting it to us. The calling ourselves subjects, and at the same time fighting against the power which we acknowledged, was a dangerous precedent to all Europe. If the grievances justified the taking up arms, they justified our separation; if they did not justify our separation, neither could they justify our taking up arms. All Europe was interested in reducing us as rebels, and all Europe (or the greatest part at least) is interested in supporting us as independent States. At home our condition was still worse: our currency had no foundation, and the fall of it would have ruined Whig and Tory alike. We had no other law than a kind of moderated passion; no other civil power than an honest mob; and no other protection than the temporary attachment of one man to another. Had independence been delayed a few months longer, this continent would have been plunged into irrecoverable confusion: some violent for it, some against it, till, in the general cabal, the rich would have been ruined, and the poor destroyed. It is to independence that every Tory owes the present safety which he lives in; for by that, and that only, we emerged from a state of dangerous suspense, and became a regular people.
III. The need to be independent, even before it was officially declared, became so clear and crucial that the continent risked being destroyed every day it delayed. There was reason to believe that Britain would try to turn it into a European issue and, rather than lose everything, would break it apart like Poland and sell off its parts to the highest bidder. Genoa, failing in its attempts to conquer Corsica, sold it to the French, and such trades were common back then. At that time, we had no ambassador anywhere in Europe to counteract their negotiations, which gave them free rein in every foreign court without any challenge from us. We even found out about the treaty for the Hessians only after it was signed and the troops were ready to leave. If we had been independent earlier, we probably could have prevented them from getting those troops. We had no credit abroad due to our rebellious dependency. Our ships couldn’t claim protection in foreign ports because we provided no valid reason for them to grant it. Calling ourselves subjects while fighting against the power we acknowledged set a dangerous example for all of Europe. If the grievances justified taking up arms, they also justified our separation; if they didn’t justify our separation, then they couldn’t justify our taking up arms. All of Europe was interested in reducing us to rebels, and most of Europe was interested in supporting us as independent states. At home, our situation was even worse: our currency had no solid foundation, and its collapse would have ruined both Whigs and Tories. We had no law other than a kind of controlled passion; no civil authority other than a well-meaning mob; and no protection other than the temporary loyalty of one person to another. If independence had been delayed a few more months, this continent would have descended into chaos: some pushing for it, some against it, until all the wealthy were ruined and the poor destroyed. Every Tory owes his current safety to independence; it was that—and only that—that allowed us to emerge from a dangerous state of uncertainty and become a stable people.
The necessity, likewise, of being independent, had there been no rupture between Britain and America, would, in a little time, have brought one on. The increasing importance of commerce, the weight and perplexity of legislation, and the entangled state of European politics, would daily have shown to the continent the impossibility of continuing subordinate; for, after the coolest reflections on the matter, this must be allowed, that Britain was too jealous of America to govern it justly; too ignorant of it to govern it well; and too far distant from it to govern it at all.
The need for independence, even if there hadn't been a break between Britain and America, would have eventually led to one. The growing significance of commerce, the complexity of legislation, and the tangled nature of European politics would have continuously highlighted to the continent the impossibility of remaining subordinate. After careful consideration, it must be acknowledged that Britain was too concerned about America to govern it fairly; too unaware of it to govern it effectively; and too distant from it to govern it at all.
IV. But what weigh most with all men of serious reflection are, the moral advantages arising from independence: war and desolation have become the trade of the old world; and America neither could nor can be under the government of Britain without becoming a sharer of her guilt, and a partner in all the dismal commerce of death. The spirit of duelling, extended on a national scale, is a proper character for European wars. They have seldom any other motive than pride, or any other object than fame. The conquerors and the conquered are generally ruined alike, and the chief difference at last is, that the one marches home with his honors, and the other without them. 'Tis the natural temper of the English to fight for a feather, if they suppose that feather to be an affront; and America, without the right of asking why, must have abetted in every quarrel, and abided by its fate. It is a shocking situation to live in, that one country must be brought into all the wars of another, whether the measure be right or wrong, or whether she will or not; yet this, in the fullest extent, was, and ever would be, the unavoidable consequence of the connection. Surely the Quakers forgot their own principles when, in their late Testimony, they called this connection, with these military and miserable appendages hanging to it—"the happy constitution."
IV. What really matters to thoughtful people are the moral benefits of independence: war and destruction have become the business of the old world; and America couldn't and can’t be governed by Britain without sharing in her guilt and participating in all the grim activities of death. The spirit of dueling, taken on a national level, is a fitting description of European wars. They rarely have any motivation other than pride or any goal other than fame. Both the victors and the vanquished generally end up ruined, and the main difference is that one returns home with honors while the other does not. It's in the English nature to fight over trivial matters if they see those matters as an insult; and America, without the right to question why, would have been pulled into every conflict and had to accept the outcome. It’s a terrible situation to live in, where one country is dragged into all the wars of another, whether the actions are right or wrong, or whether she wants to or not; yet this was, and would always be, the unavoidable result of that connection. Surely the Quakers lost sight of their own principles when, in their recent Testimony, they called this connection, with its military and miserable attachments—"the happy constitution.”
Britain, for centuries past, has been nearly fifty years out of every hundred at war with some power or other. It certainly ought to be a conscientious as well political consideration with America, not to dip her hands in the bloody work of Europe. Our situation affords us a retreat from their cabals, and the present happy union of the states bids fair for extirpating the future use of arms from one quarter of the world; yet such have been the irreligious politics of the present leaders of the Quakers, that, for the sake of they scarce know what, they would cut off every hope of such a blessing by tying this continent to Britain, like Hector to the chariot wheel of Achilles, to be dragged through all the miseries of endless European wars.
Britain has been at war with various powers nearly fifty out of every hundred years for centuries. This should definitely be a serious and political consideration for America, as we shouldn't get involved in the bloody conflicts of Europe. Our situation gives us a way to avoid their schemes, and the current happy union of the states promises to eliminate the need for arms in one part of the world; yet the irreligious politics of the current leaders of the Quakers have led them to, for reasons they hardly understand, cut off all hope for such a blessing by tying this continent to Britain, like Hector being dragged behind Achilles' chariot, doomed to suffer through the endless miseries of European wars.
The connection, viewed from this ground, is distressing to every man who has the feelings of humanity. By having Britain for our master, we became enemies to the greatest part of Europe, and they to us: and the consequence was war inevitable. By being our own masters, independent of any foreign one, we have Europe for our friends, and the prospect of an endless peace among ourselves. Those who were advocates for the British government over these colonies, were obliged to limit both their arguments and their ideas to the period of an European peace only; the moment Britain became plunged in war, every supposed convenience to us vanished, and all we could hope for was not to be ruined. Could this be a desirable condition for a young country to be in?
The connection, seen from this perspective, is upsetting to anyone who has a sense of humanity. With Britain as our ruler, we became enemies with most of Europe, and they with us, leading to inevitable war. By being our own rulers, free from any foreign control, we have Europe as our allies and the chance for lasting peace among ourselves. Those who supported British government over these colonies could only base their arguments and ideas on the idea of European peace; the moment Britain was caught up in war, any supposed benefits for us disappeared, and all we could hope for was not to be destroyed. Is this really a desirable situation for a young country?
Had the French pursued their fortune immediately after the defeat of Braddock last war, this city and province had then experienced the woful calamities of being a British subject. A scene of the same kind might happen again; for America, considered as a subject to the crown of Britain, would ever have been the seat of war, and the bone of contention between the two powers.
If the French had gone after their fortune right after Braddock's defeat in the last war, this city and province would have faced the unfortunate disasters of being a British subject. A similar situation could happen again; because America, viewed as a territory under British rule, would always be the battleground and point of conflict between the two powers.
On the whole, if the future expulsion of arms from one quarter of the world would be a desirable object to a peaceable man; if the freedom of trade to every part of it can engage the attention of a man of business; if the support or fall of millions of currency can affect our interests; if the entire possession of estates, by cutting off the lordly claims of Britain over the soil, deserves the regard of landed property; and if the right of making our own laws, uncontrolled by royal or ministerial spies or mandates, be worthy our care as freemen;—then are all men interested in the support of independence; and may he that supports it not, be driven from the blessing, and live unpitied beneath the servile sufferings of scandalous subjection!
Overall, if getting rid of weapons in one part of the world is something a peaceful person would want; if free trade everywhere can catch the interest of a businessman; if the rise or fall of millions in currency can impact our interests; if fully owning land, by removing Britain’s claims over it, is worth considering for property owners; and if having the right to create our own laws, without royal or government interference, is something we should value as free individuals—then everyone has a stake in supporting independence; and may those who support it not be pushed away from its benefits, instead living pitifully under the disgraceful burdens of oppression!
We have been amused with the tales of ancient wonders; we have read, and wept over the histories of other nations: applauded, censured, or pitied, as their cases affected us. The fortitude and patience of the sufferers—the justness of their cause—the weight of their oppressions and oppressors—the object to be saved or lost—with all the consequences of a defeat or a conquest—have, in the hour of sympathy, bewitched our hearts, and chained it to their fate: but where is the power that ever made war upon petitioners? Or where is the war on which a world was staked till now?
We've been entertained by stories of ancient wonders; we've read about and cried over the histories of other nations: cheered, criticized, or felt sorry for them based on how their situations affected us. The strength and patience of those who suffer—the fairness of their cause—the severity of their oppressions and oppressors—the stakes involved—along with all the consequences of a loss or a victory—have, in moments of empathy, captured our hearts and tied us to their fate: but where is the power that ever waged war against those who petition? Or where is the war on which the world has been staked until now?
We may not, perhaps, be wise enough to make all the advantages we ought of our independence; but they are, nevertheless, marked and presented to us with every character of great and good, and worthy the hand of him who sent them. I look through the present trouble to a time of tranquillity, when we shall have it in our power to set an example of peace to all the world. Were the Quakers really impressed and influenced by the quiet principles they profess to hold, they would, however they might disapprove the means, be the first of all men to approve of independence, because, by separating ourselves from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, it affords an opportunity never given to man before of carrying their favourite principle of peace into general practice, by establishing governments that shall hereafter exist without wars. O! ye fallen, cringing, priest-and-Pemberton-ridden people! What more can we say of ye than that a religious Quaker is a valuable character, and a political Quaker a real Jesuit.
We may not be wise enough to fully take advantage of our independence, but it is clearly marked and offered to us with all the traits of greatness, goodness, and worthiness from the one who granted it. I envision a future of calm, where we can set an example of peace for the whole world. If the Quakers truly embraced the quiet principles they claim to hold, despite their disapproval of the methods, they would be the first to support independence. By separating ourselves from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, we gain a unique opportunity to actively promote their cherished principle of peace by establishing governments that can exist without wars. Oh! You fallen, submissive, priest- and Pemberton-dominated people! What else can we say about you except that a religious Quaker is a valuable individual, while a political Quaker is a true Jesuit.
Having thus gone over some of the principal points in support of independence, I must now request the reader to return back with me to the period when it first began to be a public doctrine, and to examine the progress it has made among the various classes of men. The area I mean to begin at, is the breaking out of hostilities, April 19th, 1775. Until this event happened, the continent seemed to view the dispute as a kind of law-suit for a matter of right, litigating between the old country and the new; and she felt the same kind and degree of horror, as if she had seen an oppressive plaintiff, at the head of a band of ruffians, enter the court, while the cause was before it, and put the judge, the jury, the defendant and his counsel, to the sword. Perhaps a more heart-felt convulsion never reached a country with the same degree of power and rapidity before, and never may again. Pity for the sufferers, mixed with indignation at the violence, and heightened with apprehensions of undergoing the same fate, made the affair of Lexington the affair of the continent. Every part of it felt the shock, and all vibrated together. A general promotion of sentiment took place: those who had drank deeply into Whiggish principles, that is, the right and necessity not only of opposing, but wholly setting aside the power of the crown as soon as it became practically dangerous (for in theory it was always so), stepped into the first stage of independence; while another class of Whigs, equally sound in principle, but not so sanguine in enterprise, attached themselves the stronger to the cause, and fell close in with the rear of the former; their partition was a mere point. Numbers of the moderate men, whose chief fault, at that time, arose from entertaining a better opinion of Britain than she deserved, convinced now of their mistake, gave her up, and publicly declared themselves good Whigs. While the Tories, seeing it was no longer a laughing matter, either sank into silent obscurity, or contented themselves with coming forth and abusing General Gage: not a single advocate appeared to justify the action of that day; it seemed to appear to every one with the same magnitude, struck every one with the same force, and created in every one the same abhorrence. From this period we may date the growth of independence.
Having covered some of the key arguments for independence, I now ask the reader to go back with me to when it first became a public idea and to look at how it progressed among different groups of people. The starting point I want to focus on is the outbreak of hostilities on April 19th, 1775. Before this event, the continent seemed to view the conflict as a sort of lawsuit about a matter of rights, litigating between the old country and the new; it felt the same kind of horror as if it had witnessed an oppressive plaintiff leading a group of thugs into the courtroom while the case was being heard, putting the judge, jury, defendant, and his lawyer in danger. Perhaps no nation has ever experienced such a deep and swift upheaval as this, and it may never do so again. Sympathy for the victims, mixed with anger at the violence and anxiety about facing the same fate, turned the event at Lexington into a continental issue. Every part of the country felt the shock, and everyone resonated together. A widespread change in sentiment took place: those who strongly embraced Whig principles—the right and necessity to not just oppose but completely eliminate the power of the crown as soon as it became practically dangerous (as it had always been in theory)—took the first step toward independence; meanwhile, another group of Whigs, equally principled but less eager for action, became even more committed to the cause and closely followed the former group; their divide was minimal. Many moderate individuals, whose main mistake at that time was having an overly positive view of Britain, realizing their error, abandoned their sentiments and declared themselves loyal Whigs. The Tories, seeing that the situation was no longer a joke, either faded into silent obscurity or surfaced to criticize General Gage; no one appeared to defend the actions of that day; it seemed equally significant to everyone, impacted everyone uniformly, and created the same feelings of revulsion in all. From this point, we can trace the rise of independence.
If the many circumstances which happened at this memorable time, be taken in one view, and compared with each other, they will justify a conclusion which seems not to have been attended to, I mean a fixed design in the king and ministry of driving America into arms, in order that they might be furnished with a pretence for seizing the whole continent, as the immediate property of the crown. A noble plunder for hungry courtiers!
If you look at all the events that occurred during this significant time and compare them, it supports a conclusion that seems to have been overlooked: there was a deliberate plan by the king and his government to push America towards rebellion so they could create a reason to claim the entire continent as their territory. A grand heist for greedy courtiers!
It ought to be remembered, that the first petition from the Congress was at this time unanswered on the part of the British king. That the motion, called Lord North's motion, of the 20th of February, 1775, arrived in America the latter end of March. This motion was to be laid, by the several governors then in being, before, the assembly of each province; and the first assembly before which it was laid, was the assembly of Pennsylvania, in May following. This being a just state of the case, I then ask, why were hostilities commenced between the time of passing the resolve in the House of Commons, of the 20th of February, and the time of the assemblies meeting to deliberate upon it? Degrading and famous as that motion was, there is nevertheless reason to believe that the king and his adherents were afraid the colonies would agree to it, and lest they should, took effectual care they should not, by provoking them with hostilities in the interim. They had not the least doubt at that time of conquering America at one blow; and what they expected to get by a conquest being infinitely greater than any thing they could hope to get either by taxation or accommodation, they seemed determined to prevent even the possibility of hearing each other, lest America should disappoint their greedy hopes of the whole, by listening even to their own terms. On the one hand they refused to hear the petition of the continent, and on the other hand took effectual care the continent should not hear them.
It should be noted that the first petition from Congress was still unanswered by the British king at this time. The motion known as Lord North's motion, from February 20, 1775, reached America at the end of March. This motion was supposed to be presented by the various governors to the assembly of each province; the first assembly that reviewed it was the Pennsylvania assembly in May of the following year. Given this situation, I ask: Why did hostilities start between the time the House of Commons passed the resolution on February 20 and the time the assemblies met to discuss it? As notorious as that motion was, it seems likely that the king and his supporters were worried the colonies would agree to it. To prevent that from happening, they took strong action to provoke hostilities in the meantime. They had no doubt they could conquer America in one swift move, and the rewards they anticipated from that conquest were far greater than anything they could hope to gain from taxes or compromise. They seemed determined to stop even the chance of communication between the two sides, fearing America might frustrate their greedy ambitions by considering their own terms. On one side, they refused to hear the continent's petition, and on the other side, they made sure the continent wouldn’t hear them.
That the motion of the 20th February and the orders for commencing hostilities were both concerted by the same person or persons, and not the latter by General Gage, as was falsely imagined at first, is evident from an extract of a letter of his to the administration, read among other papers in the House of Commons; in which he informs his masters, "That though their idea of his disarming certain counties was a right one, yet it required him to be master of the country, in order to enable him to execute it." This was prior to the commencement of hostilities, and consequently before the motion of the 20th February could be deliberated on by the several assemblies.
That the action on February 20th and the orders to start fighting were both planned by the same person or group, and not by General Gage as initially thought, is clear from a letter he sent to the administration, which was read along with other documents in the House of Commons. In this letter, he tells his superiors, "Even though your idea of disarming certain counties was a good one, it required me to be in control of the country to carry it out." This was before hostilities began, and therefore before the action on February 20th could be discussed by the various assemblies.
Perhaps it may be asked, why was the motion passed, if there was at the same time a plan to aggravate the Americans not to listen to it? Lord North assigned one reason himself, which was a hope of dividing them. This was publicly tempting them to reject it; that if, in case the injury of arms should fail in provoking them sufficiently, the insult of such a declaration might fill it up. But by passing the motion and getting it afterwards rejected in America, it enabled them, in their wicked idea of politics, among other things, to hold up the colonies to foreign powers, with every possible mark of disobedience and rebellion. They had applied to those powers not to supply the continent with arms, ammunition, etc., and it was necessary they should incense them against us, by assigning on their own part some seeming reputable reason why. By dividing, it had a tendency to weaken the States, and likewise to perplex the adherents of America in England. But the principal scheme, and that which has marked their character in every part of their conduct, was a design of precipitating the colonies into a state which they might afterwards deem rebellion, and, under that pretence, put an end to all future complaints, petitions and remonstrances, by seizing the whole at once. They had ravaged one part of the globe, till it could glut them no longer; their prodigality required new plunder, and through the East India article tea they hoped to transfer their rapine from that quarter of the world to this. Every designed quarrel had its pretence; and the same barbarian avarice accompanied the plant to America, which ruined the country that produced it.
Maybe someone will ask why the motion was passed if there was also a plan to provoke the Americans into ignoring it. Lord North gave one reason himself, which was the hope of creating a divide among them. This was a direct challenge for them to reject it; if the threat of military action didn’t stir them up enough, the insult of such a declaration might do the trick. But by passing the motion and then having it rejected in America, it allowed them, in their devious political strategy, to portray the colonies to foreign powers as being completely disobedient and rebellious. They had reached out to those powers asking them not to supply the continent with arms, ammunition, etc., and they needed to stir up animosity against us by giving some seemingly respectable reason for it. By creating division, it weakened the States and also confused those in England who supported America. However, the main plan, which has defined their approach throughout, was to push the colonies into a situation that they could later label as rebellion, and under that guise, silence any future complaints, petitions, or protests by taking control all at once. They had plundered one part of the world until it could no longer satisfy their greed; their extravagance demanded new targets, and through the East India tea trade, they hoped to shift their looting from that area of the world to this one. Every intended conflict had its justification; and the same brutal greed that ruined the land where the plant grew followed it to America.
That men never turn rogues without turning fools is a maxim, sooner or later, universally true. The commencement of hostilities, being in the beginning of April, was, of all times the worst chosen: the Congress were to meet the tenth of May following, and the distress the continent felt at this unparalleled outrage gave a stability to that body which no other circumstance could have done. It suppressed too all inferior debates, and bound them together by a necessitous affection, without giving them time to differ upon trifles. The suffering likewise softened the whole body of the people into a degree of pliability, which laid the principal foundation-stone of union, order, and government; and which, at any other time, might only have fretted and then faded away unnoticed and unimproved. But Providence, who best knows how to time her misfortunes as well as her immediate favors, chose this to be the time, and who dare dispute it?
That men never become dishonest without also becoming foolish is a truth that holds, sooner or later, for everyone. The start of hostilities, happening in early April, was, at that moment, the worst possible timing. Congress was set to meet on May 10, and the distress felt across the continent from this unprecedented aggression gave that body a unity that no other circumstance could have achieved. It also silenced lesser debates and connected them through a necessary bond, without giving them time to argue over trivial matters. The suffering also softened the entire population to a degree of flexibility, which laid the essential groundwork for unity, order, and governance; at any other time, this might have simply caused frustration and faded away without notice or improvement. But Providence, who knows best when to bring about misfortunes as well as blessings, chose this moment, and who would dare to challenge that?
It did not seem the disposition of the people, at this crisis, to heap petition upon petition, while the former remained unanswered. The measure however was carried in Congress, and a second petition was sent; of which I shall only remark that it was submissive even to a dangerous fault, because the prayer of it appealed solely to what it called the prerogative of the crown, while the matter in dispute was confessedly constitutional. But even this petition, flattering as it was, was still not so harmonious as the chink of cash, and consequently not sufficiently grateful to the tyrant and his ministry. From every circumstance it is evident, that it was the determination of the British court to have nothing to do with America but to conquer her fully and absolutely. They were certain of success, and the field of battle was the only place of treaty. I am confident there are thousands and tens of thousands in America who wonder now that they should ever have thought otherwise; but the sin of that day was the sin of civility; yet it operated against our present good in the same manner that a civil opinion of the devil would against our future peace.
It didn't seem like the people were in the mood, at that moment, to keep piling on petitions while the previous ones went unanswered. However, the measure passed in Congress, and a second petition was sent. I can only note that this one was submissive to a dangerous extent because it appealed only to what it called the crown's prerogative, while the real issue was clearly constitutional. But even this flattering petition wasn't as appealing as cold hard cash and, therefore, didn't show enough gratitude to the tyrant and his government. From everything that's been said, it's clear that the British court was determined to have nothing to do with America except to conquer it completely. They were confident of their victory, and the battlefield was the only place for negotiations. I'm sure there are thousands upon thousands in America who now wonder why they ever thought differently; but the mistake of that day was one of civility; yet it worked against our present good just like a polite attitude towards the devil would undermine our future peace.
Independence was a doctrine scarce and rare, even towards the conclusion of the year 1775; all our politics had been founded on the hope of expectation of making the matter up—a hope, which, though general on the side of America, had never entered the head or heart of the British court. Their hope was conquest and confiscation. Good heavens! what volumes of thanks does America owe to Britain? What infinite obligation to the tool that fills, with paradoxical vacancy, the throne! Nothing but the sharpest essence of villany, compounded with the strongest distillation of folly, could have produced a menstruum that would have effected a separation. The Congress in 1774 administered an abortive medicine to independence, by prohibiting the importation of goods, and the succeeding Congress rendered the dose still more dangerous by continuing it. Had independence been a settled system with America, (as Britain has advanced,) she ought to have doubled her importation, and prohibited in some degree her exportation. And this single circumstance is sufficient to acquit America before any jury of nations, of having a continental plan of independence in view; a charge which, had it been true, would have been honorable, but is so grossly false, that either the amazing ignorance or the wilful dishonesty of the British court is effectually proved by it.
Independence was a rare idea, even by the end of 1775; all our politics were based on the hope of reconciliation—a hope that, while common in America, had never occurred to the British court. Their aim was conquest and confiscation. Good heavens! What a debt of gratitude does America owe to Britain? What an endless obligation to the tool that paradoxically occupies the throne! Only the worst kind of villainy, mixed with the strongest foolishness, could create a solution that would lead to separation. The Congress in 1774 tried a failed remedy for independence by banning the importation of goods, and the next Congress made the situation even riskier by continuing this ban. If independence had truly been a settled idea for America, as Britain claimed, she should have increased her imports and somewhat reduced her exports. This single fact is enough to clear America before any international jury of having a continental plan for independence in mind; a charge that, if it were true, would be honorable, but is so blatantly false that it clearly reveals either the incredible ignorance or the deliberate dishonesty of the British court.
The second petition, like the first, produced no answer; it was scarcely acknowledged to have been received; the British court were too determined in their villainy even to act it artfully, and in their rage for conquest neglected the necessary subtleties for obtaining it. They might have divided, distracted and played a thousand tricks with us, had they been as cunning as they were cruel.
The second petition, just like the first, got no response; it was barely acknowledged as received; the British court was too committed to their wrongdoing to even pretend otherwise, and in their obsession with conquest, they ignored the important tactics needed to achieve it. They could have divided, distracted, and played a thousand tricks on us if they had been as clever as they were cruel.
This last indignity gave a new spring to independence. Those who knew the savage obstinacy of the king, and the jobbing, gambling spirit of the court, predicted the fate of the petition, as soon as it was sent from America; for the men being known, their measures were easily foreseen. As politicians we ought not so much to ground our hopes on the reasonableness of the thing we ask, as on the reasonableness of the person of whom we ask it: who would expect discretion from a fool, candor from a tyrant, or justice from a villain?
This final humiliation sparked a new drive for independence. Those familiar with the king's stubbornness and the corrupt, gambling nature of the court anticipated the outcome of the petition as soon as it was sent from America; since the people involved were known, their tactics were easy to predict. As politicians, we shouldn’t base our hopes on how reasonable our demands are but rather on the reasonableness of the person we are asking; who would expect wisdom from a fool, honesty from a tyrant, or fairness from a villain?
As every prospect of accommodation seemed now to fail fast, men began to think seriously on the matter; and their reason being thus stripped of the false hope which had long encompassed it, became approachable by fair debate: yet still the bulk of the people hesitated; they startled at the novelty of independence, without once considering that our getting into arms at first was a more extraordinary novelty, and that all other nations had gone through the work of independence before us. They doubted likewise the ability of the continent to support it, without reflecting that it required the same force to obtain an accommodation by arms as an independence. If the one was acquirable, the other was the same; because, to accomplish either, it was necessary that our strength should be too great for Britain to subdue; and it was too unreasonable to suppose, that with the power of being masters, we should submit to be servants.* Their caution at this time was exceedingly misplaced; for if they were able to defend their property and maintain their rights by arms, they, consequently, were able to defend and support their independence; and in proportion as these men saw the necessity and correctness of the measure, they honestly and openly declared and adopted it, and the part that they had acted since has done them honor and fully established their characters. Error in opinion has this peculiar advantage with it, that the foremost point of the contrary ground may at any time be reached by the sudden exertion of a thought; and it frequently happens in sentimental differences, that some striking circumstance, or some forcible reason quickly conceived, will effect in an instant what neither argument nor example could produce in an age.
As every opportunity for accommodation seemed to disappear quickly, people started to seriously consider the situation; and with their hopes stripped away, they became open to rational discussion. Still, the majority hesitated; they were taken aback by the idea of independence, not realizing that taking up arms in the first place was an even greater leap, and that all other nations had gone through the process of gaining independence before us. They also questioned whether the continent could sustain it, without realizing that it took the same effort to gain an agreement by force as it did to achieve independence. If one was achievable, the other was as well; because, to accomplish either, our strength needed to be too great for Britain to conquer us, and it was unreasonable to think that we would choose to be subservient when we had the power to be in control. Their caution at this time was completely misplaced; for if they could defend their property and maintain their rights with force, they could also defend and uphold their independence. As more of these individuals recognized the necessity and validity of independence, they sincerely and openly supported it, and their actions since have brought them honor and solidified their reputations. Mistakes in opinion have this unique advantage: the key points of opposing views can be reached at any time with a sudden realization. It often happens that in emotional disputes, a striking event or a compelling idea can instantly change perspectives in ways that neither argument nor example could achieve in years.
* In this time of political uncertainty, the pamphlet Common Sense was published, and I’m not one to brag about its success. Dr. Franklin, along with Mr. Samuel and John Adams, were mentioned as the possible authors. At that time, I didn’t know the latter two personally. I did have the privilege of Dr. Franklin's friendship while in England, and my introduction to this part of the world was through his support. When I was a schoolboy, I stumbled upon an interesting natural history of Virginia, and since that day, my desire to see the western side of the Atlantic never faded. In October 1775, Dr. Franklin offered to give me the materials he had to help complete a history of current events and seemed keen to publish the first volume by the following Spring. I had already outlined Common Sense and nearly finished the first part; thinking that the doctor wanted to launch a new system to kick off the new year, I planned to surprise him with my work on that topic much sooner than he anticipated. Without telling him what I was working on, I prepared it for publication as quickly as I could and sent him the first pamphlet as soon as it was printed.
I find it impossible in the small compass I am limited to, to trace out the progress which independence has made on the minds of the different classes of men, and the several reasons by which they were moved. With some, it was a passionate abhorrence against the king of England and his ministry, as a set of savages and brutes; and these men, governed by the agony of a wounded mind, were for trusting every thing to hope and heaven, and bidding defiance at once. With others, it was a growing conviction that the scheme of the British court was to create, ferment and drive on a quarrel, for the sake of confiscated plunder: and men of this class ripened into independence in proportion as the evidence increased. While a third class conceived it was the true interest of America, internally and externally, to be her own master, and gave their support to independence, step by step, as they saw her abilities to maintain it enlarge. With many, it was a compound of all these reasons; while those who were too callous to be reached by either, remained, and still remain Tories.
I find it impossible within the limited space I have to outline the progress independence has made in the minds of different classes of people and the various reasons that motivated them. For some, it was a deep anger against the king of England and his government, viewed as a group of savages and brutes. These individuals, driven by the pain of a wounded heart, were willing to leave everything to hope and fate, boldly defying the odds. For others, it was a growing realization that the British court intended to stir up and exploit a conflict for the sake of stealing wealth, and this group moved toward independence as evidence of this became clearer. A third group believed it was truly in America's best interest, both internally and externally, to govern itself, and they supported independence step by step as they saw America gaining the ability to stand on its own. For many, it was a mix of all these reasons, while those who were too indifferent to be influenced by any of them remained, and still remain, Tories.
The legal necessity of being independent, with several collateral reasons, is pointed out in an elegant masterly manner, in a charge to the grand jury for the district of Charleston, by the Hon. William Henry Drayton, chief justice of South Carolina, [April 23, 1776]. This performance, and the address of the convention of New York, are pieces, in my humble opinion, of the first rank in America.
The legal need for independence, along with several supporting reasons, is highlighted in a skillfully crafted address to the grand jury for the district of Charleston, delivered by the Hon. William Henry Drayton, chief justice of South Carolina, [April 23, 1776]. This speech, along with the address from the convention of New York, are, in my opinion, top-tier works in America.
The principal causes why independence has not been so universally supported as it ought, are fear and indolence, and the causes why it has been opposed, are, avarice, down-right villany, and lust of personal power. There is not such a being in America as a Tory from conscience; some secret defect or other is interwoven in the character of all those, be they men or women, who can look with patience on the brutality, luxury and debauchery of the British court, and the violations of their army here. A woman's virtue must sit very lightly on her who can even hint a favorable sentiment in their behalf. It is remarkable that the whole race of prostitutes in New York were tories; and the schemes for supporting the Tory cause in this city, for which several are now in jail, and one hanged, were concerted and carried on in common bawdy-houses, assisted by those who kept them.
The main reasons why independence hasn't been as widely supported as it should be are fear and laziness, while the reasons for opposition include greed, outright villainy, and the desire for personal power. There isn't anyone in America who is a Tory out of principle; there’s some hidden flaw in the character of anyone, whether man or woman, who can tolerate the cruelty, excess, and corruption of the British court, as well as the misconduct of their army here. A woman's integrity must be very fragile if she can even suggest a positive opinion about them. It's notable that all the prostitutes in New York were Tories; the plans to support the Tory cause in this city, which have led to several being jailed and one hanged, were hatched and executed in shared brothels, with help from those who ran them.
The connection between vice and meanness is a fit subject for satire, but when the satire is a fact, it cuts with the irresistible power of a diamond. If a Quaker, in defence of his just rights, his property, and the chastity of his house, takes up a musket, he is expelled the meeting; but the present king of England, who seduced and took into keeping a sister of their society, is reverenced and supported by repeated Testimonies, while, the friendly noodle from whom she was taken (and who is now in this city) continues a drudge in the service of his rival, as if proud of being cuckolded by a creature called a king.
The link between bad behavior and cruelty is a suitable topic for satire, but when that satire is based on reality, it cuts deep like a diamond. If a Quaker defends his rights, his property, and the purity of his home by picking up a gun, he's kicked out of the meeting. Yet the current king of England, who seduced and took in a sister from their community, is honored and supported with repeated endorsements, while the poor guy she was taken from (who’s now in this city) remains a servant to his rival, as if he’s proud to be betrayed by someone called a king.
Our support and success depend on such a variety of men and circumstances, that every one who does but wish well, is of some use: there are men who have a strange aversion to arms, yet have hearts to risk every shilling in the cause, or in support of those who have better talents for defending it. Nature, in the arrangement of mankind, has fitted some for every service in life: were all soldiers, all would starve and go naked, and were none soldiers, all would be slaves. As disaffection to independence is the badge of a Tory, so affection to it is the mark of a Whig; and the different services of the Whigs, down from those who nobly contribute every thing, to those who have nothing to render but their wishes, tend all to the same center, though with different degrees of merit and ability. The larger we make the circle, the more we shall harmonize, and the stronger we shall be. All we want to shut out is disaffection, and, that excluded, we must accept from each other such duties as we are best fitted to bestow. A narrow system of politics, like a narrow system of religion, is calculated only to sour the temper, and be at variance with mankind.
Our support and success rely on a mix of people and circumstances, so anyone who wishes us well is of some help. There are people who dislike fighting but are willing to risk everything for the cause or to support those who are better at defending it. Nature has equipped different people for various roles in life: if everyone were soldiers, we’d all starve and be without clothes, and if no one were soldiers, we’d all be enslaved. Dislike of independence is a trait of Tories, while love for it is a signature of Whigs; the different contributions of the Whigs, from those who generously give everything to those who have only good wishes to offer, all aim toward the same goal, though with varying levels of merit and ability. The broader we make our circle, the more in sync we’ll be, and the stronger we'll become. All we need to exclude is disaffection, and once that’s out, we must accept from each other the roles we're best suited to fulfill. A narrow approach to politics, like a narrow approach to religion, only brings bitterness and conflict with others.
All we want to know in America is simply this, who is for independence, and who is not? Those who are for it, will support it, and the remainder will undoubtedly see the reasonableness of paying the charges; while those who oppose or seek to betray it, must expect the more rigid fate of the jail and the gibbet. There is a bastard kind of generosity, which being extended to all men, is as fatal to society, on one hand, as the want of true generosity is on the other. A lax manner of administering justice, falsely termed moderation, has a tendency both to dispirit public virtue, and promote the growth of public evils. Had the late committee of safety taken cognizance of the last Testimony of the Quakers and proceeded against such delinquents as were concerned therein, they had, probably, prevented the treasonable plans which have been concerted since. When one villain is suffered to escape, it encourages another to proceed, either from a hope of escaping likewise, or an apprehension that we dare not punish. It has been a matter of general surprise, that no notice was taken of the incendiary publication of the Quakers, of the 20th of November last; a publication evidently intended to promote sedition and treason, and encourage the enemy, who were then within a day's march of this city, to proceed on and possess it. I here present the reader with a memorial which was laid before the board of safety a few days after the Testimony appeared. Not a member of that board, that I conversed with, but expressed the highest detestation of the perverted principles and conduct of the Quaker junto, and a wish that the board would take the matter up; notwithstanding which, it was suffered to pass away unnoticed, to the encouragement of new acts of treason, the general danger of the cause, and the disgrace of the state.
All we want to know in America is simply this: who supports independence, and who doesn’t? Those in favor will back it, and the others will likely see the reasonableness of paying the costs; while those who oppose it or try to betray it must expect the harsher consequences of jail and execution. There’s a false kind of generosity that, when extended to everyone, is just as harmful to society as a lack of true generosity is. A loose approach to justice, misleadingly called moderation, tends to undermine public virtue and allow social problems to grow. If the recent committee of safety had paid attention to the last Testimony of the Quakers and acted against those involved, they might have prevented the treasonous schemes that have since emerged. When one criminal is allowed to go free, it encourages others to act, either from the hope of escaping too or the fear that we won’t dare to punish them. It has been widely surprising that no action was taken regarding the inflammatory publication from the Quakers on November 20th; a publication clearly designed to incite rebellion and treason, and to motivate the enemy, who were then just a day’s march away from this city, to advance and take it. I now present the reader with a memorial that was submitted to the board of safety a few days after the Testimony was released. Every member of that board that I spoke with expressed their strong disgust at the misguided principles and actions of the Quaker group, and their hope that the board would address the issue; yet, it was allowed to go unnoticed, encouraging further acts of treason, putting our cause at greater risk, and shaming the state.
To the esteemed Council of Safety of the State of Pennsylvania.
At a meeting of a reputable number of the inhabitants of the city of Philadelphia, impressed with a proper sense of the justice of the cause which this continent is engaged in, and animated with a generous fervor for supporting the same, it was resolved, that the following be laid before the board of safety:
At a meeting of a significant number of the residents of Philadelphia, driven by a strong belief in the justice of the cause our continent is fighting for, and fueled by a passionate eagerness to support it, it was decided that the following should be presented to the board of safety:
"We profess liberality of sentiment to all men; with this distinction only, that those who do not deserve it would become wise and seek to deserve it. We hold the pure doctrines of universal liberty of conscience, and conceive it our duty to endeavor to secure that sacred right to others, as well as to defend it for ourselves; for we undertake not to judge of the religious rectitude of tenets, but leave the whole matter to Him who made us.
"We believe in being open-minded towards everyone, with the understanding that those who don't deserve it should strive to earn it. We stand by the principles of universal freedom of belief and see it as our responsibility to protect that important right for others, just as we do for ourselves. We choose not to judge the moral correctness of beliefs, leaving that judgement to the One who created us."
"We persecute no man, neither will we abet in the persecution of any man for religion's sake; our common relation to others being that of fellow-citizens and fellow-subjects of one single community; and in this line of connection we hold out the right hand of fellowship to all men. But we should conceive ourselves to be unworthy members of the free and independent States of America, were we unconcernedly to see or to suffer any treasonable wound, public or private, directly or indirectly, to be given against the peace and safety of the same. We inquire not into the rank of the offenders, nor into their religious persuasion; we have no business with either, our part being only to find them out and exhibit them to justice.
"We don't persecute anyone, and we won't support the persecution of anyone based on their religion; our connection to others is that of fellow citizens and members of one community. In this spirit, we extend the hand of friendship to everyone. However, we would consider ourselves unworthy members of the free and independent States of America if we were to ignore or tolerate any act of treason, whether public or private, that jeopardizes the peace and safety of our nation. We don't concern ourselves with the status of the offenders or their religious beliefs; our only responsibility is to identify them and bring them to justice."
"A printed paper, dated the 20th of November, and signed 'John Pemberton,' whom we suppose to be an inhabitant of this city, has lately been dispersed abroad, a copy of which accompanies this. Had the framers and publishers of that paper conceived it their duty to exhort the youth and others of their society, to a patient submission under the present trying visitations, and humbly to wait the event of heaven towards them, they had therein shown a Christian temper, and we had been silent; but the anger and political virulence with which their instructions are given, and the abuse with which they stigmatize all ranks of men not thinking like themselves, leave no doubt on our minds from what spirit their publication proceeded: and it is disgraceful to the pure cause of truth, that men can dally with words of the most sacred import, and play them off as mechanically as if religion consisted only in contrivance. We know of no instance in which the Quakers have been compelled to bear arms, or to do any thing which might strain their conscience; wherefore their advice, 'to withstand and refuse to submit to the arbitrary instructions and ordinances of men,' appear to us a false alarm, and could only be treasonably calculated to gain favor with our enemies, when they are seemingly on the brink of invading this State, or, what is still worse, to weaken the hands of our defence, that their entrance into this city might be made practicable and easy.
A printed paper dated November 20th, signed 'John Pemberton,' who we assume is a resident of this city, has recently been circulated, and a copy of it is included here. If the authors and distributors of that paper had chosen to encourage the youth and others in their community to endure the current hardships patiently and to humbly wait for what heaven has in store for them, they would have demonstrated a Christian attitude, and we would have remained silent. However, the anger and political bitterness evident in their instructions, along with the contempt they show toward all those who think differently than they do, makes it clear to us what kind of spirit their publication comes from. It is shameful for the true cause of justice that people can manipulate words of the utmost significance, treating them as if religion were merely a matter of cleverness. We aren’t aware of any instances where the Quakers have been forced to take up arms or do anything that would challenge their conscience. Therefore, their advice to 'resist and refuse to submit to the arbitrary dictates and orders of men' seems like a false alarm, likely calculated to curry favor with our enemies, especially when they appear to be on the verge of invading this State, or worse yet, to undermine our defenses, making it easier for them to enter this city.
"We disclaim all tumult and disorder in the punishment of offenders; and wish to be governed, not by temper but by reason, in the manner of treating them. We are sensible that our cause has suffered by the two following errors: first, by ill-judged lenity to traitorous persons in some cases; and, secondly, by only a passionate treatment of them in others. For the future we disown both, and wish to be steady in our proceedings, and serious in our punishments.
"We reject all chaos and disorder in punishing offenders, and we want to be guided by reason, not emotion, in how we treat them. We realize that our cause has been harmed by two main mistakes: first, by being overly lenient with traitors in some cases, and second, by reacting with only passion in others. Moving forward, we renounce both approaches and aim to be consistent in our actions and serious in our punishments."
"Every State in America has, by the repeated voice of its inhabitants, directed and authorized the Continental Congress to publish a formal Declaration of Independence of, and separation from, the oppressive king and Parliament of Great Britain; and we look on every man as an enemy, who does not in some line or other, give his assistance towards supporting the same; at the same time we consider the offence to be heightened to a degree of unpardonable guilt, when such persons, under the show of religion, endeavor, either by writing, speaking, or otherwise, to subvert, overturn, or bring reproach upon the independence of this continent as declared by Congress.
"Every state in America has, through the repeated voice of its people, directed and authorized the Continental Congress to formally declare our independence from the oppressive king and Parliament of Great Britain. We view every person as an enemy who does not contribute in some way to support this cause. Moreover, we believe that the offense becomes an unpardonable sin when individuals, under the guise of religion, try to undermine, overturn, or tarnish the independence of this continent as declared by Congress."
"The publishers of the paper signed 'John Pemberton,' have called in a loud manner to their friends and connections, 'to withstand or refuse' obedience to whatever 'instructions or ordinances' may be published, not warranted by (what they call) 'that happy Constitution under which they and others long enjoyed tranquillity and peace.' If this be not treason, we know not what may properly be called by that name.
"The publishers of the paper signed 'John Pemberton' have loudly urged their friends and connections to 'resist or reject' any 'instructions or rules' that may be published, which they claim are not authorized by 'the happy Constitution under which they and others have enjoyed peace and stability for so long.' If this isn't treason, then we don't know what could be rightly considered treason."
"To us it is a matter of surprise and astonishment, that men with the word 'peace, peace,' continually on their lips, should be so fond of living under and supporting a government, and at the same time calling it 'happy,' which is never better pleased than when a war—that has filled India with carnage and famine, Africa with slavery, and tampered with Indians and negroes to cut the throats of the freemen of America. We conceive it a disgrace to this State, to harbor or wink at such palpable hypocrisy. But as we seek not to hurt the hair of any man's head, when we can make ourselves safe without, we wish such persons to restore peace to themselves and us, by removing themselves to some part of the king of Great Britain's dominions, as by that means they may live unmolested by us and we by them; for our fixed opinion is, that those who do not deserve a place among us, ought not to have one.
"To us, it's surprising and astonishing that people who constantly talk about 'peace, peace' are so eager to live under and support a government they call 'happy,' which thrives on war—creating destruction and famine in India, slavery in Africa, and inciting violence against the free people of America. We think it's shameful for this State to tolerate such obvious hypocrisy. However, since we don't want to hurt anyone if we can ensure our own safety, we wish these individuals would find peace for themselves and us by relocating to some part of the king of Great Britain's territories, where they can live without interference from us and we from them; because we firmly believe that those who don't deserve to be among us shouldn't have a place here."
"We conclude with requesting the Council of Safety to take into consideration the paper signed 'John Pemberton,' and if it shall appear to them to be of a dangerous tendency, or of a treasonable nature, that they would commit the signer, together with such other persons as they can discover were concerned therein, into custody, until such time as some mode of trial shall ascertain the full degree of their guilt and punishment; in the doing of which, we wish their judges, whoever they may be, to disregard the man, his connections, interest, riches, poverty, or principles of religion, and to attend to the nature of his offence only."
"We conclude by asking the Council of Safety to consider the document signed 'John Pemberton.' If they find it to be dangerous or treasonous, we request that they place the signer, along with anyone else involved, into custody until a trial can determine their guilt and punishment. In this process, we hope the judges—whoever they are—will focus only on the nature of the offense and disregard the individual's connections, interests, wealth, poverty, or religious beliefs."
The most cavilling sectarian cannot accuse the foregoing with containing the least ingredient of persecution. The free spirit on which the American cause is founded, disdains to mix with such an impurity, and leaves it as rubbish fit only for narrow and suspicious minds to grovel in. Suspicion and persecution are weeds of the same dunghill, and flourish together. Had the Quakers minded their religion and their business, they might have lived through this dispute in enviable ease, and none would have molested them. The common phrase with these people is, 'Our principles are peace.' To which may be replied, and your practices are the reverse; for never did the conduct of men oppose their own doctrine more notoriously than the present race of the Quakers. They have artfully changed themselves into a different sort of people to what they used to be, and yet have the address to persuade each other that they are not altered; like antiquated virgins, they see not the havoc deformity has made upon them, but pleasantly mistaking wrinkles for dimples, conceive themselves yet lovely and wonder at the stupid world for not admiring them.
Even the most picky critic can't say that the earlier points contained any hint of persecution. The free spirit that the American cause is built on refuses to mix with such impurities and leaves it as trash meant only for narrow and suspicious minds to wallow in. Suspicion and persecution grow from the same rotten ground and thrive together. If the Quakers had focused on their beliefs and their affairs, they could have weathered this dispute in comfort, and no one would have bothered them. Their common saying is, "Our principles are peace." To which one can reply that their actions tell a different story; there has never been a time when people's behavior contradicted their beliefs more clearly than with the current group of Quakers. They have cleverly transformed into a new kind of person compared to who they used to be, yet they manage to convince one another that they haven’t changed at all; like aging women, they fail to see the damage that time has done to them, mistakenly interpreting wrinkles for smiles, believing they are still attractive, and wondering why the world doesn’t admire them.
Did no injury arise to the public by this apostacy of the Quakers from themselves, the public would have nothing to do with it; but as both the design and consequences are pointed against a cause in which the whole community are interested, it is therefore no longer a subject confined to the cognizance of the meeting only, but comes, as a matter of criminality, before the authority either of the particular State in which it is acted, or of the continent against which it operates. Every attempt, now, to support the authority of the king and Parliament of Great Britain over America, is treason against every State; therefore it is impossible that any one can pardon or screen from punishment an offender against all.
If the Quakers' departure from their beliefs didn't harm the public, then the public wouldn't care. But since both the intent and the outcomes are directed against a cause that affects the entire community, this is no longer just an issue for their meeting; it also falls under the jurisdiction of the state in which it happens, or the continent as a whole. Every attempt to uphold the king and Parliament of Great Britain’s authority over America is considered treason against every state; therefore, it’s impossible for anyone to excuse or protect from punishment someone who offends all.
But to proceed: while the infatuated Tories of this and other States were last spring talking of commissioners, accommodation, making the matter up, and the Lord knows what stuff and nonsense, their good king and ministry were glutting themselves with the revenge of reducing America to unconditional submission, and solacing each other with the certainty of conquering it in one campaign. The following quotations are from the parliamentary register of the debate's of the House of Lords, March 5th, 1776:
But to continue: while the obsessed Tories in this and other states were last spring discussing commissioners, compromise, figuring things out, and all sorts of nonsense, their good king and government were indulging themselves in the satisfaction of forcing America into total submission and comforting each other with the belief that they could conquer it in just one campaign. The following quotes are from the parliamentary record of the debates in the House of Lords, March 5th, 1776:
"The Americans," says Lord Talbot,* "have been obstinate, undutiful, and ungovernable from the very beginning, from their first early and infant settlements; and I am every day more and more convinced that this people never will be brought back to their duty, and the subordinate relation they stand in to this country, till reduced to unconditional, effectual submission; no concession on our part, no lenity, no endurance, will have any other effect but that of increasing their insolence."
"The Americans," says Lord Talbot,* "have been stubborn, disrespectful, and uncontrollable from the very start, from their earliest settlements; and I'm more convinced every day that this group will never be brought back to their responsibilities and the subordinate relationship they have with this country until they're reduced to complete, effective submission; no concessions from us, no leniency, no patience will do anything but increase their arrogance."
* Steward of the king's household.
"The struggle," says Lord Townsend,* "is now a struggle for power; the die is cast, and the only point which now remains to be determined is, in what manner the war can be most effectually prosecuted and speedily finished, in order to procure that unconditional submission, which has been so ably stated by the noble Earl with the white staff" (meaning Lord Talbot;) "and I have no reason to doubt that the measures now pursuing will put an end to the war in the course of a single campaign. Should it linger longer, we shall then have reason to expect that some foreign power will interfere, and take advantage of our domestic troubles and civil distractions."
"The struggle," says Lord Townsend,* "is now a fight for power; the die is cast, and the only thing left to decide is how we can fight this war most effectively and wrap it up quickly, in order to achieve the unconditional surrender that the noble Earl with the white staff" (meaning Lord Talbot) "has articulated so well. I have no reason to believe that the strategies we are currently pursuing won’t bring the war to an end in just one campaign. If it drags on longer, we can expect that some foreign power will step in and take advantage of our internal issues and civil unrest."
* Formerly General Townsend, in Quebec, and recently the lord-lieutenant of Ireland.
Lord Littleton. "My sentiments are pretty well known. I shall only observe now that lenient measures have had no other effect than to produce insult after insult; that the more we conceded, the higher America rose in her demands, and the more insolent she has grown. It is for this reason that I am now for the most effective and decisive measures; and am of opinion that no alternative is left us, but to relinquish America for ever, or finally determine to compel her to acknowledge the legislative authority of this country; and it is the principle of an unconditional submission I would be for maintaining."
Lord Littleton. "My views are pretty well known. I'll just say now that lenient actions have only resulted in one insult after another; the more we gave in, the higher America's demands got, and the more disrespectful she became. For this reason, I now support the most effective and decisive actions; I believe we have no choice but to either let go of America forever or finally insist that she recognizes this country’s legislative authority. It's the principle of unconditional submission that I want to uphold."
Can words be more expressive than these? Surely the Tories will believe the Tory lords! The truth is, they do believe them and know as fully as any Whig on the continent knows, that the king and ministry never had the least design of an accommodation with America, but an absolute, unconditional conquest. And the part which the Tories were to act, was, by downright lying, to endeavor to put the continent off its guard, and to divide and sow discontent in the minds of such Whigs as they might gain an influence over. In short, to keep up a distraction here, that the force sent from England might be able to conquer in "one campaign." They and the ministry were, by a different game, playing into each other's hands. The cry of the Tories in England was, "No reconciliation, no accommodation," in order to obtain the greater military force; while those in America were crying nothing but "reconciliation and accommodation," that the force sent might conquer with the less resistance.
Can words be more expressive than these? Surely the Tories will trust the Tory lords! The truth is, they do trust them and know just as well as any Whig on the continent that the king and ministry never intended to make peace with America, but rather aimed for complete, unconditional conquest. The role of the Tories was to lie outright to keep the continent off guard, and to create division and discontent among the Whigs they could influence. In short, they wanted to maintain a distraction here so that the forces sent from England could conquer in "one campaign." They and the ministry were, through a different strategy, helping each other. The Tories in England were shouting, "No reconciliation, no accommodation," in order to secure a larger military force, while those in America were only calling for "reconciliation and accommodation," so that the force sent could conquer with less resistance.
But this "single campaign" is over, and America not conquered. The whole work is yet to do, and the force much less to do it with. Their condition is both despicable and deplorable: out of cash—out of heart, and out of hope. A country furnished with arms and ammunition as America now is, with three millions of inhabitants, and three thousand miles distant from the nearest enemy that can approach her, is able to look and laugh them in the face.
But this "single campaign" is over, and America hasn't been conquered. The entire effort is still ahead, and the resources to achieve it are much fewer. Their situation is both pathetic and sad: they're out of cash, out of morale, and out of hope. A country equipped with arms and ammunition like America is now, with three million inhabitants and three thousand miles away from the nearest enemy that can approach, is in a position to look at them and laugh.
Howe appears to have two objects in view, either to go up the North River, or come to Philadelphia.
Howe seems to have two goals in mind: either to head up the North River or to reach Philadelphia.
By going up the North River, he secures a retreat for his army through Canada, but the ships must return if they return at all, the same way they went; as our army would be in the rear, the safety of their passage down is a doubtful matter. By such a motion he shuts himself from all supplies from Europe, but through Canada, and exposes his army and navy to the danger of perishing. The idea of his cutting off the communication between the eastern and southern states, by means of the North River, is merely visionary. He cannot do it by his shipping; because no ship can lay long at anchor in any river within reach of the shore; a single gun would drive a first rate from such a station. This was fully proved last October at Forts Washington and Lee, where one gun only, on each side of the river, obliged two frigates to cut and be towed off in an hour's time. Neither can he cut it off by his army; because the several posts they must occupy would divide them almost to nothing, and expose them to be picked up by ours like pebbles on a river's bank; but admitting that he could, where is the injury? Because, while his whole force is cantoned out, as sentries over the water, they will be very innocently employed, and the moment they march into the country the communication opens.
By heading up the North River, he creates a way for his army to retreat through Canada, but the ships can only come back the same way they went; since our army would be behind them, their safe passage down is uncertain. This move cuts him off from all supplies from Europe, except through Canada, and puts his army and navy at risk of failure. The idea that he can sever communication between the eastern and southern states using the North River is simply unrealistic. He can't do it with his ships; no ship can stay anchored in any river within range of the shore for long; just one cannon could force a top-tier ship to leave such a spot. This was clearly demonstrated last October at Forts Washington and Lee, where a single cannon on each side of the river forced two frigates to cut anchor and be towed away within an hour. He also can't block it with his army because the various posts they would need to occupy would spread them too thin, making them easy targets for us like pebbles on a riverbank; but even if he could, what damage would that cause? While his entire force is spread out as sentries over the water, they’ll be occupied with that task, and the moment they march into the countryside, communication opens back up.
The most probable object is Philadelphia, and the reasons are many. Howe's business is to conquer it, and in proportion as he finds himself unable to the task, he will employ his strength to distress women and weak minds, in order to accomplish through their fears what he cannot accomplish by his own force. His coming or attempting to come to Philadelphia is a circumstance that proves his weakness: for no general that felt himself able to take the field and attack his antagonist would think of bringing his army into a city in the summer time; and this mere shifting the scene from place to place, without effecting any thing, has feebleness and cowardice on the face of it, and holds him up in a contemptible light to all who can reason justly and firmly. By several informations from New York, it appears that their army in general, both officers and men, have given up the expectation of conquering America; their eye now is fixed upon the spoil. They suppose Philadelphia to be rich with stores, and as they think to get more by robbing a town than by attacking an army, their movement towards this city is probable. We are not now contending against an army of soldiers, but against a band of thieves, who had rather plunder than fight, and have no other hope of conquest than by cruelty.
The most likely target is Philadelphia, and there are many reasons for this. Howe's goal is to conquer it, and the more he realizes he can't achieve that, the more he'll turn to hurting women and vulnerable people, trying to succeed through their fears when he can't do it with his own strength. His effort to come to Philadelphia shows his weakness: a general who truly believed he could face his enemy wouldn’t consider bringing his army into a city in the summer. This mere moving of the battlefield, without actually accomplishing anything, just looks weak and cowardly, making him seem pathetic to anyone who can think clearly. From various reports out of New York, it seems that their army, both officers and soldiers, has given up on the hope of conquering America; now their focus is on looting. They think Philadelphia is full of riches and believe they can gain more by robbing a city than by fighting an army, so it makes sense that they would move towards this city. We are no longer fighting against a trained army but against a group of thieves who prefer to steal rather than battle, whose only hope for victory lies in their cruelty.
They expect to get a mighty booty, and strike another general panic, by making a sudden movement and getting possession of this city; but unless they can march out as well as in, or get the entire command of the river, to remove off their plunder, they may probably be stopped with the stolen goods upon them. They have never yet succeeded wherever they have been opposed, but at Fort Washington. At Charleston their defeat was effectual. At Ticonderoga they ran away. In every skirmish at Kingsbridge and the White Plains they were obliged to retreat, and the instant that our arms were turned upon them in the Jerseys, they turned likewise, and those that turned not were taken.
They expect to grab a huge loot and create another widespread panic by making a sudden move to take over this city. However, unless they can leave as easily as they came in or take complete control of the river to transport their stolen goods, they might get caught with the loot. They haven't succeeded anywhere they've faced opposition, except at Fort Washington. At Charleston, they were decisively defeated. At Ticonderoga, they fled. In every skirmish at Kingsbridge and the White Plains, they had to retreat, and the moment we targeted them in the Jerseys, they did the same; those who didn’t flee were captured.
The necessity of always fitting our internal police to the circumstances of the times we live in, is something so strikingly obvious, that no sufficient objection can be made against it. The safety of all societies depends upon it; and where this point is not attended to, the consequences will either be a general languor or a tumult. The encouragement and protection of the good subjects of any state, and the suppression and punishment of bad ones, are the principal objects for which all authority is instituted, and the line in which it ought to operate. We have in this city a strange variety of men and characters, and the circumstances of the times require that they should be publicly known; it is not the number of Tories that hurt us, so much as the not finding out who they are; men must now take one side or the other, and abide by the consequences: the Quakers, trusting to their short-sighted sagacity, have, most unluckily for them, made their declaration in their last Testimony, and we ought now to take them at their word. They have involuntarily read themselves out of the continental meeting, and cannot hope to be restored to it again but by payment and penitence. Men whose political principles are founded on avarice, are beyond the reach of reason, and the only cure of Toryism of this cast is to tax it. A substantial good drawn from a real evil, is of the same benefit to society, as if drawn from a virtue; and where men have not public spirit to render themselves serviceable, it ought to be the study of government to draw the best use possible from their vices. When the governing passion of any man, or set of men, is once known, the method of managing them is easy; for even misers, whom no public virtue can impress, would become generous, could a heavy tax be laid upon covetousness.
The need to always adjust our internal controls to fit the times we live in is so obviously important that no real objection can be made against it. The safety of all societies depends on this; when it's ignored, the outcome will either be widespread apathy or chaos. Supporting and protecting the good citizens of any state, while suppressing and punishing the bad ones, are the main purposes for which all authority is established, and the areas in which it should operate. In this city, we have a bizarre mix of people and characters, and the current circumstances require that they be publicly known; it’s not just the number of Tories that affect us, but the inability to identify who they are. People must now choose a side and deal with the consequences. The Quakers, relying on their narrow view, have unfortunately made their position clear in their last Testimony, and we should take them at their word now. They have inadvertently excluded themselves from the continental meeting and can only hope to be readmitted through payment and contrition. Those whose political beliefs are based on greed are unreachable by reason, and the only way to address this kind of Toryism is through taxation. A tangible benefit gained from a real evil is just as useful to society as one obtained from a virtue; when individuals lack the public spirit to be useful, it should be the government’s goal to make the best use of their vices. Once the driving motivation of any individual or group is understood, managing them becomes straightforward; even misers, who cannot be swayed by public virtue, would become generous if a heavy tax were imposed on greed.
The Tories have endeavored to insure their property with the enemy, by forfeiting their reputation with us; from which may be justly inferred, that their governing passion is avarice. Make them as much afraid of losing on one side as on the other, and you stagger their Toryism; make them more so, and you reclaim them; for their principle is to worship the power which they are most afraid of.
The Tories have tried to protect their wealth by sacrificing their reputation with us; this clearly shows that their main motivation is greed. If you make them as scared of losing on one side as the other, you weaken their Tory beliefs; if you make them even more afraid, you can bring them back to our side, because they follow the power they fear the most.
This method of considering men and things together, opens into a large field for speculation, and affords me an opportunity of offering some observations on the state of our currency, so as to make the support of it go hand in hand with the suppression of disaffection and the encouragement of public spirit.
This way of looking at people and things together opens up a vast area for thought and gives me a chance to share some insights on the condition of our currency, aiming to ensure that its support aligns with reducing discontent and boosting civic pride.
The thing which first presents itself in inspecting the state of the currency, is, that we have too much of it, and that there is a necessity of reducing the quantity, in order to increase the value. Men are daily growing poor by the very means that they take to get rich; for in the same proportion that the prices of all goods on hand are raised, the value of all money laid by is reduced. A simple case will make this clear; let a man have 100 L. in cash, and as many goods on hand as will to-day sell for 20 L.; but not content with the present market price, he raises them to 40 L. and by so doing obliges others, in their own defence, to raise cent. per cent. likewise; in this case it is evident that his hundred pounds laid by, is reduced fifty pounds in value; whereas, had the market lowered cent. per cent., his goods would have sold but for ten, but his hundred pounds would have risen in value to two hundred; because it would then purchase as many goods again, or support his family as long again as before. And, strange as it may seem, he is one hundred and fifty pounds the poorer for raising his goods, to what he would have been had he lowered them; because the forty pounds which his goods sold for, is, by the general raise of the market cent. per cent., rendered of no more value than the ten pounds would be had the market fallen in the same proportion; and, consequently, the whole difference of gain or loss is on the difference in value of the hundred pounds laid by, viz. from fifty to two hundred. This rage for raising goods is for several reasons much more the fault of the Tories than the Whigs; and yet the Tories (to their shame and confusion ought they to be told of it) are by far the most noisy and discontented. The greatest part of the Whigs, by being now either in the army or employed in some public service, are buyers only and not sellers, and as this evil has its origin in trade, it cannot be charged on those who are out of it.
The first thing that stands out when looking at the state of the currency is that we have too much of it, and we need to reduce the amount to increase its value. People are getting poorer while trying to get rich; as the prices of all goods rise, the value of all saved money drops. A simple example highlights this: suppose a man has £100 in cash and goods that can sell for £20 today. Not satisfied with the current market price, he raises the price of his goods to £40, which forces others to raise their prices as well. In this case, it’s clear that his £100 cash is now worth only £50. However, if the market had dropped by the same percentage, his goods would sell for £10, and his £100 would increase in value to £200, because he could buy just as many goods again or support his family for as long as before. Strange as it may seem, he’s £150 worse off for raising his prices compared to if he had lowered them; the £40 that his goods sold for is made worth no more than the £10 would be if the market had declined similarly. Thus, the entire gain or loss hinges on the change in value of his £100 savings, from £50 to £200. This obsession with raising prices is more the fault of the Tories than the Whigs for several reasons; yet the Tories, shamefully, are also the loudest and most discontented. Most of the Whigs, being in the army or engaged in public service, are just buyers and not sellers, and since this issue originates in trade, it can’t be blamed on those who are outside of it.
But the grievance has now become too general to be remedied by partial methods, and the only effectual cure is to reduce the quantity of money: with half the quantity we should be richer than we are now, because the value of it would be doubled, and consequently our attachment to it increased; for it is not the number of dollars that a man has, but how far they will go, that makes him either rich or poor. These two points being admitted, viz. that the quantity of money is too great, and that the prices of goods can only be effectually reduced by, reducing the quantity of the money, the next point to be considered is, the method how to reduce it.
But the complaint has now become too widespread to be fixed with small measures, and the only real solution is to decrease the amount of money: with half as much, we would be wealthier than we are now because its value would double, and therefore our attachment to it would grow; it's not the amount of dollars a person has, but how far they can stretch that makes someone rich or poor. Accepting these two points—that the amount of money is too high and that prices can only be effectively lowered by cutting the quantity of money—the next thing to consider is how to achieve that reduction.
The circumstances of the times, as before observed, require that the public characters of all men should now be fully understood, and the only general method of ascertaining it is by an oath or affirmation, renouncing all allegiance to the king of Great Britain, and to support the independence of the United States, as declared by Congress. Let, at the same time, a tax of ten, fifteen, or twenty per cent. per annum, to be collected quarterly, be levied on all property. These alternatives, by being perfectly voluntary, will take in all sorts of people. Here is the test; here is the tax. He who takes the former, conscientiously proves his affection to the cause, and binds himself to pay his quota by the best services in his power, and is thereby justly exempt from the latter; and those who choose the latter, pay their quota in money, to be excused from the former, or rather, it is the price paid to us for their supposed, though mistaken, insurance with the enemy.
The situation we find ourselves in now, as mentioned earlier, demands that the public figures of all individuals be clearly recognized. The main way to determine this is through an oath or affirmation, renouncing any loyalty to the king of Great Britain and pledging to support the independence of the United States as declared by Congress. At the same time, a tax of ten, fifteen, or twenty percent per year, collected quarterly, should be imposed on all property. These options, being completely voluntary, will include all kinds of people. This is the test; this is the tax. Those who choose the first option show their commitment to the cause and commit to contributing their efforts, and therefore, they are fairly exempt from the tax. Those who opt for the tax pay their share in money to be excused from the oath, or rather, it serves as the price they pay for their assumed, albeit misguided, protection from the enemy.
But this is only a part of the advantage which would arise by knowing the different characters of men. The Whigs stake everything on the issue of their arms, while the Tories, by their disaffection, are sapping and undermining their strength; and, of consequence, the property of the Whigs is the more exposed thereby; and whatever injury their estates may sustain by the movements of the enemy, must either be borne by themselves, who have done everything which has yet been done, or by the Tories, who have not only done nothing, but have, by their disaffection, invited the enemy on.
But this is just part of the advantage that comes from understanding the different characters of people. The Whigs have all their bets on the outcome of their military efforts, while the Tories, through their lack of loyalty, are weakening their position. As a result, the property of the Whigs is more vulnerable; any damage their estates suffer from the enemy’s actions will either fall on them, since they have done everything that has been done so far, or on the Tories, who have done nothing at all and have, through their disloyalty, drawn the enemy in.
In the present crisis we ought to know, square by square and house by house, who are in real allegiance with the United Independent States, and who are not. Let but the line be made clear and distinct, and all men will then know what they are to trust to. It would not only be good policy but strict justice, to raise fifty or one hundred thousand pounds, or more, if it is necessary, out of the estates and property of the king of England's votaries, resident in Philadelphia, to be distributed, as a reward to those inhabitants of the city and State, who should turn out and repulse the enemy, should they attempt to march this way; and likewise, to bind the property of all such persons to make good the damages which that of the Whigs might sustain. In the undistinguishable mode of conducting a war, we frequently make reprisals at sea, on the vessels of persons in England, who are friends to our cause compared with the resident Tories among us.
In the current crisis, we should clearly identify, block by block and house by house, who genuinely supports the United Independent States and who does not. Once the line is drawn clearly, everyone will know where to place their trust. It would not only be smart policy but also a matter of fairness to raise fifty or a hundred thousand pounds, or even more if needed, from the estates and property of those loyal to the king of England, living in Philadelphia. This money should be used as rewards for those residents of the city and state who stand up and push back against the enemy if they try to come this way. Additionally, we should hold the property of these individuals accountable for covering any damages that the Whigs might incur. During the chaotic nature of wartime, we often retaliate at sea against the ships of people in England who are supportive of our cause, in contrast to the loyalists among us.
In every former publication of mine, from Common Sense down to the last Crisis, I have generally gone on the charitable supposition, that the Tories were rather a mistaken than a criminal people, and have applied argument after argument, with all the candor and temper which I was capable of, in order to set every part of the case clearly and fairly before them, and if possible to reclaim them from ruin to reason. I have done my duty by them and have now done with that doctrine, taking it for granted, that those who yet hold their disaffection are either a set of avaricious miscreants, who would sacrifice the continent to save themselves, or a banditti of hungry traitors, who are hoping for a division of the spoil. To which may be added, a list of crown or proprietary dependants, who, rather than go without a portion of power, would be content to share it with the devil. Of such men there is no hope; and their obedience will only be according to the danger set before them, and the power that is exercised over them.
In all my previous writings, from Common Sense to the latest Crisis, I've generally assumed that the Tories were more misguided than malicious. I've presented argument after argument, with as much honesty and patience as I could muster, to clearly and fairly lay out the case for them, hoping to bring them back from destruction to reason. I’ve done my part for them, and I’m done with that line of thinking, assuming that those who still cling to their disloyalty are either greedy scoundrels who would sacrifice the continent to save themselves or a group of traitorous renegades hoping to cash in on the chaos. Additionally, there’s a group of loyalists or supporters who, rather than risk losing their share of power, would happily partner with the devil. There’s no hope for these individuals; their obedience will only come from the threats they face and the power that is held over them.
A time will shortly arrive, in which, by ascertaining the characters of persons now, we shall be guarded against their mischiefs then; for in proportion as the enemy despair of conquest, they will be trying the arts of seduction and the force of fear by all the mischiefs which they can inflict. But in war we may be certain of these two things, viz. that cruelty in an enemy, and motions made with more than usual parade, are always signs of weakness. He that can conquer, finds his mind too free and pleasant to be brutish; and he that intends to conquer, never makes too much show of his strength.
A time will soon come when, by understanding people's true natures now, we can protect ourselves from their harmful actions later; as our enemies lose hope of victory, they will resort to manipulation and fear tactics through whatever harm they can cause. In war, we can be sure of two things: that an enemy's cruelty and any exaggerated displays of strength are always signs of weakness. A person who can win is too confident and carefree to act brutally, and someone who aims to conquer doesn't need to flaunt their power.
We now know the enemy we have to do with. While drunk with the certainty of victory, they disdained to be civil; and in proportion as disappointment makes them sober, and their apprehensions of an European war alarm them, they will become cringing and artful; honest they cannot be. But our answer to them, in either condition they may be in, is short and full—"As free and independent States we are willing to make peace with you to-morrow, but we neither can hear nor reply in any other character."
We now know who our enemy is. In their drunken state of believing they will win, they refused to be respectful; and as disappointment brings them back to reality and their fears of a European war start to worry them, they will become desperate and cunning; they can’t be honest. But our response to them, no matter their state, is clear and straightforward—“As free and independent states, we are ready to make peace with you tomorrow, but we refuse to engage with you in any other way.”
If Britain cannot conquer us, it proves that she is neither able to govern nor protect us, and our particular situation now is such, that any connection with her would be unwisely exchanging a half-defeated enemy for two powerful ones. Europe, by every appearance, is now on the eve, nay, on the morning twilight of a war, and any alliance with George the Third brings France and Spain upon our backs; a separation from him attaches them to our side; therefore, the only road to peace, honor and commerce is Independence.
If Britain can't defeat us, it shows that she isn't capable of governing or protecting us. Our situation right now is such that any connection with her would be a foolish trade of a half-defeated enemy for two strong ones. Europe seems to be on the brink, or rather, at the dawn of a war, and any alliance with George the Third would bring France and Spain against us; separating from him would make them our allies. So, the only way to achieve peace, honor, and trade is through Independence.
Written this fourth year of the UNION, which God preserve.
Written in this fourth year of the UNION, which God protect.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, April 19, 1777.
THE CRISIS IV. (THOSE WHO EXPECT TO REAP THE BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM)
THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.
THOSE who want to enjoy the benefits of freedom must, like anyone else, work hard to maintain it. What happened yesterday was one of those alerts that encourages us to take action without being serious enough to weaken our resolve. We are not just protecting a small piece of land, but a cause, and whether we beat the enemy in one battle or gradually over time, the outcome will be the same.
Look back at the events of last winter and the present year, there you will find that the enemy's successes always contributed to reduce them. What they have gained in ground, they paid so dearly for in numbers, that their victories have in the end amounted to defeats. We have always been masters at the last push, and always shall be while we do our duty. Howe has been once on the banks of the Delaware, and from thence driven back with loss and disgrace: and why not be again driven from the Schuylkill? His condition and ours are very different. He has everybody to fight, we have only his one army to cope with, and which wastes away at every engagement: we can not only reinforce, but can redouble our numbers; he is cut off from all supplies, and must sooner or later inevitably fall into our hands.
Looking back at the events of last winter and this year, you'll see that the enemy's victories have always ended up working against them. What they gained in territory, they paid for dearly in lives, so their victories have ultimately turned into defeats. We have always excelled in the final push, and we always will as long as we do our part. Howe has been to the banks of the Delaware before, only to be driven back with losses and shame: so why can’t he be pushed back from the Schuylkill again? Our situations are very different. He has to fight everyone, while we only have his one army to deal with, and that army is dwindling with every battle. We can not only bring in more reinforcements but can also multiply our numbers; he is cut off from all supplies and will, sooner or later, inevitably fall into our hands.
Shall a band of ten or twelve thousand robbers, who are this day fifteen hundred or two thousand men less in strength than they were yesterday, conquer America, or subdue even a single state? The thing cannot be, unless we sit down and suffer them to do it. Another such a brush, notwithstanding we lost the ground, would, by still reducing the enemy, put them in a condition to be afterwards totally defeated. Could our whole army have come up to the attack at one time, the consequences had probably been otherwise; but our having different parts of the Brandywine creek to guard, and the uncertainty which road to Philadelphia the enemy would attempt to take, naturally afforded them an opportunity of passing with their main body at a place where only a part of ours could be posted; for it must strike every thinking man with conviction, that it requires a much greater force to oppose an enemy in several places, than is sufficient to defeat him in any one place.
Can a group of ten or twelve thousand robbers, who are now fifteen hundred or two thousand men weaker than they were yesterday, conquer America or even take over a single state? That can’t happen unless we just sit back and let it occur. Another fight like the last one, even though we lost the ground, would still weaken the enemy and leave them vulnerable to being completely defeated later. If our entire army could have attacked at the same time, the outcome would likely have been different; however, our need to guard different parts of the Brandywine creek and the uncertainty about which route to Philadelphia the enemy would take gave them the chance to move their main body through a spot where only a portion of our forces could be positioned. It should be clear to anyone who thinks about it that it takes a much larger force to oppose an enemy at multiple locations than it does to beat them in a single spot.
Men who are sincere in defending their freedom, will always feel concern at every circumstance which seems to make against them; it is the natural and honest consequence of all affectionate attachments, and the want of it is a vice. But the dejection lasts only for a moment; they soon rise out of it with additional vigor; the glow of hope, courage and fortitude, will, in a little time, supply the place of every inferior passion, and kindle the whole heart into heroism.
Men who genuinely defend their freedom will always worry about any situation that seems to go against them; this concern is a natural and honest response to all genuine connections, and not feeling it is a flaw. However, the sadness only lasts for a moment; they quickly bounce back with even more strength. Soon, the feelings of hope, courage, and determination will replace any lesser emotions and ignite their entire spirit into heroism.
There is a mystery in the countenance of some causes, which we have not always present judgment enough to explain. It is distressing to see an enemy advancing into a country, but it is the only place in which we can beat them, and in which we have always beaten them, whenever they made the attempt. The nearer any disease approaches to a crisis, the nearer it is to a cure. Danger and deliverance make their advances together, and it is only the last push, in which one or the other takes the lead.
There’s a mystery in the nature of some situations that we don’t always have the insight to understand. It’s concerning to see an enemy moving into a territory, but it’s the only place where we can defeat them, and we’ve always managed to do so whenever they tried. The closer any illness gets to a breaking point, the closer it is to being healed. Danger and rescue move forward together, and it’s just the final effort where one or the other takes the lead.
There are many men who will do their duty when it is not wanted; but a genuine public spirit always appears most when there is most occasion for it. Thank God! our army, though fatigued, is yet entire. The attack made by us yesterday, was under many disadvantages, naturally arising from the uncertainty of knowing which route the enemy would take; and, from that circumstance, the whole of our force could not be brought up together time enough to engage all at once. Our strength is yet reserved; and it is evident that Howe does not think himself a gainer by the affair, otherwise he would this morning have moved down and attacked General Washington.
There are many men who will fulfill their duties even when they're not appreciated; however, true public spirit shines the brightest when it’s needed the most. Thank God! Our army, although worn out, is still intact. The attack we launched yesterday faced many challenges, primarily due to the uncertainty of which route the enemy would take; because of this, we couldn’t gather our entire force in time to engage them all at once. Our strength is still preserved, and it's clear that Howe doesn’t see himself as having benefited from the encounter, or else he would have moved down this morning to attack General Washington.
Gentlemen of the city and country, it is in your power, by a spirited improvement of the present circumstance, to turn it to a real advantage. Howe is now weaker than before, and every shot will contribute to reduce him. You are more immediately interested than any other part of the continent: your all is at stake; it is not so with the general cause; you are devoted by the enemy to plunder and destruction: it is the encouragement which Howe, the chief of plunderers, has promised his army. Thus circumstanced, you may save yourselves by a manly resistance, but you can have no hope in any other conduct. I never yet knew our brave general, or any part of the army, officers or men, out of heart, and I have seen them in circumstances a thousand times more trying than the present. It is only those that are not in action, that feel languor and heaviness, and the best way to rub it off is to turn out, and make sure work of it.
Gentlemen of the city and countryside, you have the power, through a determined effort in this current situation, to truly benefit from it. Howe is now weaker than before, and every shot will help weaken him further. You have more at stake than any other region on the continent: everything you hold dear is in jeopardy; the general cause is not the same. The enemy has marked you for looting and destruction: that's the promise Howe, the leader of looters, has made to his troops. Given these circumstances, you can save yourselves through strong resistance, but you can’t rely on any other approach. I’ve never seen our brave general, or any part of the army—officers or soldiers—defeated in spirit, and I’ve witnessed them face situations much more challenging than this one. It’s only those who are not actively engaged who feel sluggish and weighed down, and the best way to shake it off is to get involved and handle the situation decisively.
Our army must undoubtedly feel fatigue, and want a reinforcement of rest though not of valor. Our own interest and happiness call upon us to give them every support in our power, and make the burden of the day, on which the safety of this city depends, as light as possible. Remember, gentlemen, that we have forces both to the northward and southward of Philadelphia, and if the enemy be but stopped till those can arrive, this city will be saved, and the enemy finally routed. You have too much at stake to hesitate. You ought not to think an hour upon the matter, but to spring to action at once. Other states have been invaded, have likewise driven off the invaders. Now our time and turn is come, and perhaps the finishing stroke is reserved for us. When we look back on the dangers we have been saved from, and reflect on the success we have been blessed with, it would be sinful either to be idle or to despair.
Our army is definitely feeling tired and needs a break, though not in courage. Our own interests and happiness urge us to support them in every way we can, making the load of this critical day, which determines the safety of this city, as light as possible. Remember, gentlemen, we have troops both north and south of Philadelphia, and if we can just hold off the enemy until they arrive, this city will be saved, and we will finally defeat the enemy. You have too much to lose to hesitate. You shouldn’t spend even an hour thinking about it; we need to take action right now. Other states have been invaded and have successfully driven back their attackers. Now it's our turn, and perhaps the final blow is meant for us. When we think about the dangers we've survived and the success we've had, it would be wrong to be inactive or to lose hope.
I close this paper with a short address to General Howe. You, sir, are only lingering out the period that shall bring with it your defeat. You have yet scarce began upon the war, and the further you enter, the faster will your troubles thicken. What you now enjoy is only a respite from ruin; an invitation to destruction; something that will lead on to our deliverance at your expense. We know the cause which we are engaged in, and though a passionate fondness for it may make us grieve at every injury which threatens it, yet, when the moment of concern is over, the determination to duty returns. We are not moved by the gloomy smile of a worthless king, but by the ardent glow of generous patriotism. We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. In such a case we are sure that we are right; and we leave to you the despairing reflection of being the tool of a miserable tyrant.
I wrap up this paper with a brief message to General Howe. You, sir, are just delaying the moment that will lead to your defeat. You have barely started this war, and the deeper you get, the more troubles will pile up. What you currently have is just a break from destruction; a path to your downfall; something that will ultimately bring about our freedom at your cost. We understand the cause we’re fighting for, and while a passionate attachment to it might make us upset at every threat to it, once the moment of worry passes, our commitment to our duty returns. We are not swayed by the hollow grin of a worthless king, but by the fiery passion of true patriotism. We fight not to enslave but to free our country and to create space on this planet for decent people to live. In this battle, we are confident we are in the right; and we leave you with the bleak reality of being a pawn for a pathetic tyrant.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 12, 1777.
THE CRISIS. V. TO GEN. SIR WILLIAM HOWE.
TO argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture. Enjoy, sir, your insensibility of feeling and reflecting. It is the prerogative of animals. And no man will envy you these honors, in which a savage only can be your rival and a bear your master.
Arguing with someone who has rejected reason and sees humanity as inferior is like trying to give medicine to a corpse or convincing an atheist with scripture. Enjoy your lack of feelings and thoughts, sir. That's something only animals experience. No one will be jealous of your status, where a savage is your only competitor and a bear is your superior.
As the generosity of this country rewarded your brother's services in the last war, with an elegant monument in Westminster Abbey, it is consistent that she should bestow some mark of distinction upon you. You certainly deserve her notice, and a conspicuous place in the catalogue of extraordinary persons. Yet it would be a pity to pass you from the world in state, and consign you to magnificent oblivion among the tombs, without telling the future beholder why. Judas is as much known as John, yet history ascribes their fame to very different actions.
As the generosity of this country honored your brother's contributions in the last war with a beautiful monument in Westminster Abbey, it makes sense that it should give you some recognition as well. You definitely deserve attention and a prominent spot in the list of remarkable people. However, it would be a shame to let you leave this world in silence and fade into splendid forgetfulness among the tombs, without explaining to future onlookers why. Judas is just as well-known as John, but history attributes their fame to very different deeds.
Sir William has undoubtedly merited a monument; but of what kind, or with what inscription, where placed or how embellished, is a question that would puzzle all the heralds of St. James's in the profoundest mood of historical deliberation. We are at no loss, sir, to ascertain your real character, but somewhat perplexed how to perpetuate its identity, and preserve it uninjured from the transformations of time or mistake. A statuary may give a false expression to your bust, or decorate it with some equivocal emblems, by which you may happen to steal into reputation and impose upon the hereafter traditionary world. Ill nature or ridicule may conspire, or a variety of accidents combine to lessen, enlarge, or change Sir William's fame; and no doubt but he who has taken so much pains to be singular in his conduct, would choose to be just as singular in his exit, his monument and his epitaph.
Sir William definitely deserves a monument; but what kind it should be, what inscription it should have, where it should be placed, or how it should be adorned is a question that would confuse all the historians at St. James's in their deepest historical contemplation. We don't have trouble figuring out your true character, but we are somewhat puzzled about how to make sure it stays recognizable and remains untouched by the changes of time or mistakes. A statue might misrepresent your likeness or decorate it with ambiguous symbols, potentially allowing you to gain a reputation that misleads future generations. Malice or mockery might come together, or various incidents might result in diminishing, expanding, or altering Sir William's legacy; and undoubtedly, someone who has put so much effort into being unique in their actions would want their departure, monument, and epitaph to be just as unique.
The usual honors of the dead, to be sure, are not sufficiently sublime to escort a character like you to the republic of dust and ashes; for however men may differ in their ideas of grandeur or of government here, the grave is nevertheless a perfect republic. Death is not the monarch of the dead, but of the dying. The moment he obtains a conquest he loses a subject, and, like the foolish king you serve, will, in the end, war himself out of all his dominions.
The typical honors given to the dead just aren’t grand enough to accompany someone like you to the realm of dust and ashes; because, no matter how much people may disagree about greatness or governance here, the grave is, after all, a true republic. Death isn’t the ruler of the dead, but of those who are dying. The moment he claims a victory, he loses a subject, and, like the foolish king you serve, will eventually wear himself out of all his territories.
As a proper preliminary towards the arrangement of your funeral honors, we readily admit of your new rank of knighthood. The title is perfectly in character, and is your own, more by merit than creation. There are knights of various orders, from the knight of the windmill to the knight of the post. The former is your patron for exploits, and the latter will assist you in settling your accounts. No honorary title could be more happily applied! The ingenuity is sublime! And your royal master has discovered more genius in fitting you therewith, than in generating the most finished figure for a button, or descanting on the properties of a button mould.
As a proper step toward organizing your funeral honors, we gladly acknowledge your new title of knight. It suits you perfectly, as it’s more about your achievements than just a title. There are knights of various kinds, from the knight of the windmill to the knight of the post. The former is your inspiration for adventures, and the latter will help you with your finances. No honorary title could be more fitting! The creativity is brilliant! And your royal master has shown more skill in giving you this title than in creating the ideal button or discussing the properties of a button mold.
But how, sir, shall we dispose of you? The invention of a statuary is exhausted, and Sir William is yet unprovided with a monument. America is anxious to bestow her funeral favors upon you, and wishes to do it in a manner that shall distinguish you from all the deceased heroes of the last war. The Egyptian method of embalming is not known to the present age, and hieroglyphical pageantry hath outlived the science of deciphering it. Some other method, therefore, must be thought of to immortalize the new knight of the windmill and post. Sir William, thanks to his stars, is not oppressed with very delicate ideas. He has no ambition of being wrapped up and handed about in myrrh, aloes and cassia. Less expensive odors will suffice; and it fortunately happens that the simple genius of America has discovered the art of preserving bodies, and embellishing them too, with much greater frugality than the ancients. In balmage, sir, of humble tar, you will be as secure as Pharaoh, and in a hieroglyphic of feathers, rival in finery all the mummies of Egypt.
But how, sir, should we handle your situation? The idea of creating a statue has run its course, and Sir William still lacks a monument. America is eager to honor you in death and wants to do so in a way that sets you apart from all the fallen heroes of the last war. The Egyptian method of embalming is not known today, and the art of reading hieroglyphs has faded away. Therefore, we need to come up with another way to immortalize the new knight of the windmill and post. Sir William, fortunate for him, isn’t burdened with overly refined ideas. He doesn’t aspire to be wrapped in myrrh, aloes, and cassia. More modest scents will do; and luckily, the inventive spirit of America has found a way to preserve bodies, and even beautify them, far more economically than the ancients. With the humble tar for embalming, you’ll be just as secure as Pharaoh, and adorned with feather decorations, you’ll rival all the mummies of Egypt in style.
As you have already made your exit from the moral world, and by numberless acts both of passionate and deliberate injustice engraved an "here lieth" on your deceased honor, it must be mere affectation in you to pretend concern at the humors or opinions of mankind respecting you. What remains of you may expire at any time. The sooner the better. For he who survives his reputation, lives out of despite of himself, like a man listening to his own reproach.
Since you've already stepped away from the moral world and, through countless acts of both passionate and intentional wrongdoing, have marked your lost honor with an "here lies," it’s just an act for you to pretend to care about the thoughts or feelings of others regarding you. What’s left of you could fade away at any moment. The sooner, the better. Because a person who outlives their reputation exists only in spite of themselves, like someone who is forced to listen to their own criticism.
Thus entombed and ornamented, I leave you to the inspection of the curious, and return to the history of your yet surviving actions. The character of Sir William has undergone some extraordinary revolutions. since his arrival in America. It is now fixed and known; and we have nothing to hope from your candor or to fear from your capacity. Indolence and inability have too large a share in your composition, ever to suffer you to be anything more than the hero of little villainies and unfinished adventures. That, which to some persons appeared moderation in you at first, was not produced by any real virtue of your own, but by a contrast of passions, dividing and holding you in perpetual irresolution. One vice will frequently expel another, without the least merit in the man; as powers in contrary directions reduce each other to rest.
So, wrapped up and decorated, I’ll leave you to the curiosity of others and return to the story of your ongoing actions. Sir William’s character has gone through some remarkable changes since he arrived in America. It's now set and well-known; we have nothing to expect from your fairness or to fear from your abilities. Laziness and incompetence play too big a role in who you are for you to ever be anything more than the protagonist in minor misdeeds and unfinished stories. What some people saw as moderation in you at first wasn’t due to any true virtue of yours, but rather a clash of desires that kept you in a constant state of indecision. One flaw often pushes another out of the way without any real merit on your part, just like opposing forces bring each other to a standstill.
It became you to have supported a dignified solemnity of character; to have shown a superior liberality of soul; to have won respect by an obstinate perseverance in maintaining order, and to have exhibited on all occasions such an unchangeable graciousness of conduct, that while we beheld in you the resolution of an enemy, we might admire in you the sincerity of a man. You came to America under the high sounding titles of commander and commissioner; not only to suppress what you call rebellion, by arms, but to shame it out of countenance by the excellence of your example. Instead of which, you have been the patron of low and vulgar frauds, the encourager of Indian cruelties; and have imported a cargo of vices blacker than those which you pretend to suppress.
You should have maintained a dignified and serious character; shown a generous spirit; earned respect through stubborn persistence in keeping order, and displayed an unwavering kindness in all your actions. While we recognized you as an adversary, we could also admire your honesty as a person. You came to America with grand titles of commander and commissioner; not just to crush what you call rebellion with force, but to shame it into submission through your great example. Instead, you have supported deceitful and base actions, encouraged Indian atrocities, and brought in a cargo of vices far worse than those you claim to oppose.
Mankind are not universally agreed in their determination of right and wrong; but there are certain actions which the consent of all nations and individuals has branded with the unchangeable name of meanness. In the list of human vices we find some of such a refined constitution, they cannot be carried into practice without seducing some virtue to their assistance; but meanness has neither alliance nor apology. It is generated in the dust and sweepings of other vices, and is of such a hateful figure that all the rest conspire to disown it. Sir William, the commissioner of George the Third, has at last vouchsafed to give it rank and pedigree. He has placed the fugitive at the council board, and dubbed it companion of the order of knighthood.
People do not always agree on what is right and what is wrong; however, there are certain actions that all nations and individuals have unanimously labeled as mean. Among human vices, some are so subtle that they cannot be acted upon without dragging some virtue along for support, but meanness has no allies or justifications. It arises from the leftover remnants of other vices and is so loathsome that all other vices seek to distance themselves from it. Sir William, the commissioner of George the Third, has finally acknowledged its existence and given it a status and background. He has brought this outcast into the decision-making circle and recognized it as a companion of the knighthood.
The particular act of meanness which I allude to in this description, is forgery. You, sir, have abetted and patronized the forging and uttering counterfeit continental bills. In the same New York newspapers in which your own proclamation under your master's authority was published, offering, or pretending to offer, pardon and protection to these states, there were repeated advertisements of counterfeit money for sale, and persons who have come officially from you, and under the sanction of your flag, have been taken up in attempting to put them off.
The specific act of cruelty I’m talking about here is forgery. You, sir, have supported and promoted the creation and distribution of fake continental currency. In the same New York newspapers where your own declaration under your master’s authority was published, claiming to offer pardon and protection to these states, there were numerous ads for counterfeit money for sale. People who have come officially from you, backed by your flag, have been caught trying to pass off that fake currency.
A conduct so basely mean in a public character is without precedent or pretence. Every nation on earth, whether friends or enemies, will unite in despising you. 'Tis an incendiary war upon society, which nothing can excuse or palliate,—an improvement upon beggarly villany—and shows an inbred wretchedness of heart made up between the venomous malignity of a serpent and the spiteful imbecility of an inferior reptile.
A publicly disgraceful behavior like this has never been seen before. Every nation, friend or foe, will come together to look down on you. This is an outrageous attack on society, which cannot be justified or softened—it’s a step up from pathetic wickedness—and it reveals a deeply rooted misery in your heart, combining the poisonous spite of a snake with the petty foolishness of a lesser creature.
The laws of any civilized country would condemn you to the gibbet without regard to your rank or titles, because it is an action foreign to the usage and custom of war; and should you fall into our hands, which pray God you may, it will be a doubtful matter whether we are to consider you as a military prisoner or a prisoner for felony.
The laws of any civilized country would punish you severely regardless of your status or titles, because it’s an action that goes against the norms of warfare; and if you happen to be captured by us, which we hope you will be, it’s uncertain whether we should treat you as a military prisoner or a criminal prisoner.
Besides, it is exceedingly unwise and impolitic in you, or any other persons in the English service, to promote or even encourage, or wink at the crime of forgery, in any case whatever. Because, as the riches of England, as a nation, are chiefly in paper, and the far greater part of trade among individuals is carried on by the same medium, that is, by notes and drafts on one another, they, therefore, of all people in the world, ought to endeavor to keep forgery out of sight, and, if possible, not to revive the idea of it. It is dangerous to make men familiar with a crime which they may afterwards practise to much greater advantage against those who first taught them. Several officers in the English army have made their exit at the gallows for forgery on their agents; for we all know, who know any thing of England, that there is not a more necessitous body of men, taking them generally, than what the English officers are. They contrive to make a show at the expense of the tailors, and appear clean at the charge of the washer-women.
Moreover, it's really unwise and inappropriate for you, or anyone else in the English service, to promote, encourage, or even overlook the crime of forgery in any situation. The riches of England as a nation are primarily in paper, and most trade between individuals relies on this same medium—notes and drafts exchanged among each other. Therefore, more than anyone else in the world, they should work to keep forgery hidden and, if possible, not rekindle the idea of it. It's dangerous to make people familiar with a crime they might later commit to far greater advantage against those who first introduced it to them. Several officers in the English army have faced execution for forgery against their agents because, as we all know, anyone familiar with England understands that English officers are generally among the most financially strained individuals. They manage to maintain appearances at the expense of tailors and look tidy at the cost of washerwomen.
England, has at this time, nearly two hundred million pounds sterling of public money in paper, for which she has no real property: besides a large circulation of bank notes, bank post bills, and promissory notes and drafts of private bankers, merchants and tradesmen. She has the greatest quantity of paper currency and the least quantity of gold and silver of any nation in Europe; the real specie, which is about sixteen millions sterling, serves only as change in large sums, which are always made in paper, or for payment in small ones. Thus circumstanced, the nation is put to its wit's end, and obliged to be severe almost to criminality, to prevent the practice and growth of forgery. Scarcely a session passes at the Old Bailey, or an execution at Tyburn, but witnesses this truth, yet you, sir, regardless of the policy which her necessity obliges her to adopt, have made your whole army intimate with the crime. And as all armies at the conclusion of a war, are too apt to carry into practice the vices of the campaign, it will probably happen, that England will hereafter abound in forgeries, to which art the practitioners were first initiated under your authority in America. You, sir, have the honor of adding a new vice to the military catalogue; and the reason, perhaps, why the invention was reserved for you, is, because no general before was mean enough even to think of it.
At this time, England has almost two hundred million pounds in public funds in paper money, with no real assets to back it up. Additionally, there’s a large amount of circulation from banknotes, bank post bills, and promissory notes from private bankers, merchants, and tradespeople. England holds the most paper currency and the least amount of gold and silver of any nation in Europe; the actual coinage, which is about sixteen million pounds, is only used for change in large transactions, while payments are usually made in paper for smaller amounts. Given this situation, the nation is in a tough spot and feels compelled to take strict measures, almost to the point of being criminal, to prevent the rise of forgery. Hardly a session goes by at the Old Bailey or an execution at Tyburn without showing this truth. Yet, you, sir, ignoring the policies driven by the country’s needs, have made your entire army familiar with this crime. As is common with armies at the end of a war, they tend to adopt the vices of their campaigns; it’s likely that England will soon see an increase in forgeries, a practice that your authority initially introduced to them in America. You, sir, have the dubious honor of adding a new vice to the military's list; and perhaps the reason this innovation was left to you is that no general before you was low enough to even consider it.
That a man whose soul is absorbed in the low traffic of vulgar vice, is incapable of moving in any superior region, is clearly shown in you by the event of every campaign. Your military exploits have been without plan, object or decision. Can it be possible that you or your employers suppose that the possession of Philadelphia will be any ways equal to the expense or expectation of the nation which supports you? What advantages does England derive from any achievements of yours? To her it is perfectly indifferent what place you are in, so long as the business of conquest is unperformed and the charge of maintaining you remains the same.
That a man who is consumed by petty vices is incapable of rising to any greater purpose is clearly demonstrated by the outcome of every campaign. Your military actions have been aimless, without any strategy, goal, or determination. Can you or your backers really believe that capturing Philadelphia will balance out the costs and expectations of the nation that supports you? What benefits does England gain from any of your successes? To them, it doesn’t matter where you are, as long as the task of conquest remains incomplete and the cost of keeping you is unchanged.
If the principal events of the three campaigns be attended to, the balance will appear against you at the close of each; but the last, in point of importance to us, has exceeded the former two. It is pleasant to look back on dangers past, and equally as pleasant to meditate on present ones when the way out begins to appear. That period is now arrived, and the long doubtful winter of war is changing to the sweeter prospects of victory and joy. At the close of the campaign, in 1775, you were obliged to retreat from Boston. In the summer of 1776, you appeared with a numerous fleet and army in the harbor of New York. By what miracle the continent was preserved in that season of danger is a subject of admiration! If instead of wasting your time against Long Island you had run up the North River, and landed any where above New York, the consequence must have been, that either you would have compelled General Washington to fight you with very unequal numbers, or he must have suddenly evacuated the city with the loss of nearly all the stores of his army, or have surrendered for want of provisions; the situation of the place naturally producing one or the other of these events.
If you look at the main events of the three campaigns, you’ll see the odds against you at the end of each one; however, the last campaign is more significant for us than the first two. It's nice to reflect on past dangers and just as nice to consider present ones when a path forward starts to emerge. That time has now come, and the long, uncertain winter of war is giving way to the hopeful signs of victory and happiness. At the end of the campaign in 1775, you had to retreat from Boston. In the summer of 1776, you showed up with a large fleet and army in the New York harbor. It's truly remarkable how the continent was saved during that dangerous time! If instead of wasting time on Long Island, you had moved up the North River and landed anywhere above New York, the outcome would have been that either you would have forced General Washington to engage you with vastly fewer troops, or he would have had to quickly evacuate the city, losing nearly all his army's supplies, or surrender because of a lack of food; the situation would have naturally led to one of those two outcomes.
The preparations made to defend New York were, nevertheless, wise and military; because your forces were then at sea, their numbers uncertain; storms, sickness, or a variety of accidents might have disabled their coming, or so diminished them on their passage, that those which survived would have been incapable of opening the campaign with any prospect of success; in which case the defence would have been sufficient and the place preserved; for cities that have been raised from nothing with an infinitude of labor and expense, are not to be thrown away on the bare probability of their being taken. On these grounds the preparations made to maintain New York were as judicious as the retreat afterwards. While you, in the interim, let slip the very opportunity which seemed to put conquest in your power.
The preparations made to defend New York were definitely smart and strategic because your forces were out at sea, and their numbers were uncertain. Storms, illness, or various accidents could have delayed their arrival or reduced their numbers during the journey, leaving those who survived unable to start the campaign with any real chance of success. In that case, the defense would have been enough, and the city would have been saved; after all, cities built from scratch with endless effort and resources aren't worth risking just on the possibility of them being captured. For these reasons, the preparations to hold New York were as wise as the retreat that followed. Meanwhile, you missed the very opportunity that seemed to hand victory to you.
Through the whole of that campaign you had nearly double the forces which General Washington immediately commanded. The principal plan at that time, on our part, was to wear away the season with as little loss as possible, and to raise the army for the next year. Long Island, New York, Forts Washington and Lee were not defended after your superior force was known under any expectation of their being finally maintained, but as a range of outworks, in the attacking of which your time might be wasted, your numbers reduced, and your vanity amused by possessing them on our retreat. It was intended to have withdrawn the garrison from Fort Washington after it had answered the former of those purposes, but the fate of that day put a prize into your hands without much honor to yourselves.
Throughout that entire campaign, you had almost twice the number of troops that General Washington was commanding. Our main strategy at that time was to get through the season with minimal losses and to build up the army for the following year. Long Island, New York, and Forts Washington and Lee weren't defended once your superior numbers became clear, as we didn't expect to hold them in the long run. Instead, they served as a series of outworks to waste your time, reduce your forces, and satisfy your pride by having them during our retreat. We had planned to pull back the garrison from Fort Washington after it had served its purpose, but the outcome of that day put victory in your hands without much honor on your part.
Your progress through the Jerseys was accidental; you had it not even in contemplation, or you would not have sent a principal part of your forces to Rhode Island beforehand. The utmost hope of America in the year 1776, reached no higher than that she might not then be conquered. She had no expectation of defeating you in that campaign. Even the most cowardly Tory allowed, that, could she withstand the shock of that summer, her independence would be past a doubt. You had then greatly the advantage of her. You were formidable. Your military knowledge was supposed to be complete. Your fleets and forces arrived without an accident. You had neither experience nor reinforcements to wait for. You had nothing to do but to begin, and your chance lay in the first vigorous onset.
Your journey through the Jerseys was unplanned; you didn't even consider it, or you wouldn't have deployed a major part of your forces to Rhode Island earlier. America's highest hope in 1776 was simply to avoid being conquered. There was no belief that she could defeat you in that campaign. Even the most fearful Tory admitted that if she could survive that summer's onslaught, her independence would be assured. At that time, you had a significant advantage over her. You were intimidating. Your military expertise was believed to be complete. Your fleets and forces arrived without any issues. You didn't have to wait for experience or reinforcements. All you needed to do was start, and your chances depended on the first strong attack.
America was young and unskilled. She was obliged to trust her defence to time and practice; and has, by mere dint of perseverance, maintained her cause, and brought the enemy to a condition, in which she is now capable of meeting him on any grounds.
America was young and inexperienced. She had to rely on time and practice for her defense; and through sheer determination, she has upheld her cause and brought the enemy to a point where she can now confront him on any battlefield.
It is remarkable that in the campaign of 1776 you gained no more, notwithstanding your great force, than what was given you by consent of evacuation, except Fort Washington; while every advantage obtained by us was by fair and hard fighting. The defeat of Sir Peter Parker was complete. The conquest of the Hessians at Trenton, by the remains of a retreating army, which but a few days before you affected to despise, is an instance of their heroic perseverance very seldom to be met with. And the victory over the British troops at Princeton, by a harassed and wearied party, who had been engaged the day before and marched all night without refreshment, is attended with such a scene of circumstances and superiority of generalship, as will ever give it a place in the first rank in the history of great actions.
It's impressive that in the campaign of 1776 you achieved no more, despite your large force, than what was granted to you through evacuation, except for Fort Washington; while every advantage we gained was through fair and tough fighting. Sir Peter Parker's defeat was complete. The defeat of the Hessians at Trenton, by the remnants of a retreating army that you had just a few days earlier chosen to look down on, is a testament to their heroic perseverance that's rarely seen. The victory over the British troops at Princeton, by a worn-out and weary group who had been engaged the day before and marched all night without rest, comes with such a remarkable set of circumstances and superior strategy that it will always hold a significant place in the history of great deeds.
When I look back on the gloomy days of last winter, and see America suspended by a thread, I feel a triumph of joy at the recollection of her delivery, and a reverence for the characters which snatched her from destruction. To doubt now would be a species of infidelity, and to forget the instruments which saved us then would be ingratitude.
When I think back to the dark days of last winter and see America hanging by a thread, I feel a rush of joy at the memory of her recovery, and I have great respect for the people who saved her from disaster. To doubt now would be a kind of betrayal, and to forget the heroes who rescued us then would be ungrateful.
The close of that campaign left us with the spirit of conquerors. The northern districts were relieved by the retreat of General Carleton over the lakes. The army under your command were hunted back and had their bounds prescribed. The continent began to feel its military importance, and the winter passed pleasantly away in preparations for the next campaign.
The end of that campaign left us feeling like conquerors. The northern areas were relieved by General Carleton's retreat over the lakes. The army under your command was pushed back and had its limits set. The continent started to recognize its military significance, and the winter went by pleasantly as we prepared for the next campaign.
However confident you might be on your first arrival, the result of the year 1776 gave you some idea of the difficulty, if not impossibility of conquest. To this reason I ascribe your delay in opening the campaign of 1777. The face of matters, on the close of the former year, gave you no encouragement to pursue a discretionary war as soon as the spring admitted the taking the field; for though conquest, in that case, would have given you a double portion of fame, yet the experiment was too hazardous. The ministry, had you failed, would have shifted the whole blame upon you, charged you with having acted without orders, and condemned at once both your plan and execution.
However confident you felt when you first arrived, the events of 1776 made it clear how difficult, if not impossible, conquest could be. This is why I believe you delayed starting the campaign of 1777. The situation at the end of the previous year didn’t give you any reason to engage in a discretionary war as soon as spring allowed you to take the field; even though victory in that scenario would have earned you a lot of fame, the risk was too high. If you had failed, the ministry would have pinned all the blame on you, accused you of acting without orders, and condemned both your strategy and its execution.
To avoid the misfortunes, which might have involved you and your money accounts in perplexity and suspicion, you prudently waited the arrival of a plan of operations from England, which was that you should proceed for Philadelphia by way of the Chesapeake, and that Burgoyne, after reducing Ticonderoga, should take his route by Albany, and, if necessary, join you.
To avoid the troubles that could have complicated your finances and raised suspicions, you wisely waited for a plan of action from England, which stated you should head to Philadelphia via the Chesapeake, while Burgoyne, after taking Ticonderoga, would go through Albany and, if needed, meet up with you.
The splendid laurels of the last campaign have flourished in the north. In that quarter America has surprised the world, and laid the foundation of this year's glory. The conquest of Ticonderoga, (if it may be called a conquest) has, like all your other victories, led on to ruin. Even the provisions taken in that fortress (which by General Burgoyne's return was sufficient in bread and flour for nearly 5000 men for ten weeks, and in beef and pork for the same number of men for one month) served only to hasten his overthrow, by enabling him to proceed to Saratoga, the place of his destruction. A short review of the operations of the last campaign will show the condition of affairs on both sides.
The impressive victories from the last campaign have thrived in the north. In that region, America has astonished the world and laid the groundwork for this year's success. The capture of Ticonderoga (if it can even be called a capture) has, like all your other victories, led to disaster. Even the supplies taken from that fortress (which, according to General Burgoyne's report, were enough in bread and flour for nearly 5,000 men for ten weeks and in beef and pork for the same number of men for one month) only expedited his downfall by allowing him to move on to Saratoga, the site of his defeat. A quick review of the actions from last campaign will reveal the state of affairs on both sides.
You have taken Ticonderoga and marched into Philadelphia. These are all the events which the year has produced on your part. A trifling campaign indeed, compared with the expenses of England and the conquest of the continent. On the other side, a considerable part of your northern force has been routed by the New York militia under General Herkemer. Fort Stanwix has bravely survived a compound attack of soldiers and savages, and the besiegers have fled. The Battle of Bennington has put a thousand prisoners into our hands, with all their arms, stores, artillery and baggage. General Burgoyne, in two engagements, has been defeated; himself, his army, and all that were his and theirs are now ours. Ticonderoga and Independence [forts] are retaken, and not the shadow of an enemy remains in all the northern districts. At this instant we have upwards of eleven thousand prisoners, between sixty and seventy [captured] pieces of brass ordnance, besides small arms, tents, stores, etc.
You've taken Ticonderoga and marched into Philadelphia. Those are all the events that have happened this year on your part. A pretty minor campaign, really, compared to England's expenses and the conquest of the continent. On the flip side, a significant part of your northern forces has been defeated by the New York militia led by General Herkemer. Fort Stanwix has bravely withstood a combined attack from soldiers and natives, and the attackers have retreated. The Battle of Bennington has given us a thousand prisoners, along with all their weapons, supplies, artillery, and baggage. General Burgoyne has been defeated in two battles; he, his army, and everything that belonged to them is now ours. Ticonderoga and Independence [forts] have been reclaimed, and not a single enemy remains in all the northern areas. Right now, we have over eleven thousand prisoners, between sixty and seventy captured pieces of brass artillery, in addition to small arms, tents, supplies, and so on.
In order to know the real value of those advantages, we must reverse the scene, and suppose General Gates and the force he commanded to be at your mercy as prisoners, and General Burgoyne, with his army of soldiers and savages, to be already joined to you in Pennsylvania. So dismal a picture can scarcely be looked at. It has all the tracings and colorings of horror and despair; and excites the most swelling emotions of gratitude by exhibiting the miseries we are so graciously preserved from.
To truly understand the value of those advantages, let's flip the scenario. Imagine General Gates and the troops he led are at your mercy as prisoners, and General Burgoyne, along with his army of soldiers and mercenaries, has already joined you in Pennsylvania. It's a bleak picture that’s hard to look at. It’s filled with all the signs and shades of horror and despair, and it stirs up deep feelings of gratitude by showing us the suffering we’ve been thankfully spared from.
I admire the distribution of laurels around the continent. It is the earnest of future union. South Carolina has had her day of sufferings and of fame; and the other southern States have exerted themselves in proportion to the force that invaded or insulted them. Towards the close of the campaign, in 1776, these middle States were called upon and did their duty nobly. They were witnesses to the almost expiring flame of human freedom. It was the close struggle of life and death, the line of invisible division; and on which the unabated fortitude of a Washington prevailed, and saved the spark that has since blazed in the north with unrivalled lustre.
I appreciate the way recognition is spread throughout the continent. It symbolizes the promise of future unity. South Carolina has experienced both its hardships and its recognition; and the other southern states have stepped up based on the challenges they faced. Toward the end of the campaign in 1776, the middle states were called upon, and they rose to the occasion with honor. They witnessed the nearly fading light of human freedom. It was a desperate fight for survival, defining the invisible line of separation; and it was Washington's unwavering determination that prevailed and preserved the spark that has since shone brightly in the north with unmatched brilliance.
Let me ask, sir, what great exploits have you performed? Through all the variety of changes and opportunities which the war has produced, I know no one action of yours that can be styled masterly. You have moved in and out, backward and forward, round and round, as if valor consisted in a military jig. The history and figure of your movements would be truly ridiculous could they be justly delineated. They resemble the labors of a puppy pursuing his tail; the end is still at the same distance, and all the turnings round must be done over again.
Let me ask you, sir, what impressive feats have you accomplished? Throughout all the various changes and opportunities that the war has brought, I can't think of a single action of yours that could be called exceptional. You've been going in and out, back and forth, round and round, as if bravery were just a military dance. The story and pattern of your movements would be pretty laughable if they were accurately depicted. They look like a puppy chasing its tail; the goal is still just as far away, and all the turning around has to happen all over again.
The first appearance of affairs at Ticonderoga wore such an unpromising aspect, that it was necessary, in July, to detach a part of the forces to the support of that quarter, which were otherwise destined or intended to act against you; and this, perhaps, has been the means of postponing your downfall to another campaign. The destruction of one army at a time is work enough. We know, sir, what we are about, what we have to do, and how to do it.
The initial situation at Ticonderoga looked so bleak that in July, it was essential to send some of the troops there for support, which were originally supposed to be used against you. This may have delayed your downfall to the next campaign. Dealing with the destruction of one army at a time is challenging enough. We understand, sir, what we need to do and how to get it done.
Your progress from the Chesapeake, was marked by no capital stroke of policy or heroism. Your principal aim was to get General Washington between the Delaware and Schuylkill, and between Philadelphia and your army. In that situation, with a river on each of his flanks, which united about five miles below the city, and your army above him, you could have intercepted his reinforcements and supplies, cut off all his communication with the country, and, if necessary, have despatched assistance to open a passage for General Burgoyne. This scheme was too visible to succeed: for had General Washington suffered you to command the open country above him, I think it a very reasonable conjecture that the conquest of Burgoyne would not have taken place, because you could, in that case, have relieved him. It was therefore necessary, while that important victory was in suspense, to trepan you into a situation in which you could only be on the defensive, without the power of affording him assistance. The manoeuvre had its effect, and Burgoyne was conquered.
Your progress from the Chesapeake was not marked by any major policy decision or acts of heroism. Your main goal was to position General Washington between the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers, and between Philadelphia and your army. In that scenario, with a river on each side of him, which joined about five miles below the city, and your army positioned above him, you could have cut off his reinforcements and supplies, blocked all his communication with the surrounding area, and, if needed, sent help to create a route for General Burgoyne. This plan was too obvious to succeed: if General Washington had allowed you to control the open land above him, it’s reasonable to assume that Burgoyne wouldn’t have been defeated, because you could have come to his aid. Therefore, it was necessary, while that significant victory was still uncertain, to trick you into a position where you could only defend yourself, without being able to help him. The strategy worked, and Burgoyne was defeated.
There has been something unmilitary and passive in you from the time of your passing the Schuylkill and getting possession of Philadelphia, to the close of the campaign. You mistook a trap for a conquest, the probability of which had been made known to Europe, and the edge of your triumph taken off by our own information long before.
There’s always been something non-military and laid-back about you since you crossed the Schuylkill and took over Philadelphia, right up until the end of the campaign. You confused a trap for a win, which had already been signaled to Europe, and the excitement of your victory was diminished by our own reports long before.
Having got you into this situation, a scheme for a general attack upon you at Germantown was carried into execution on the 4th of October, and though the success was not equal to the excellence of the plan, yet the attempting it proved the genius of America to be on the rise, and her power approaching to superiority. The obscurity of the morning was your best friend, for a fog is always favorable to a hunted enemy. Some weeks after this you likewise planned an attack on General Washington while at Whitemarsh. You marched out with infinite parade, but on finding him preparing to attack you next morning, you prudently turned about, and retreated to Philadelphia with all the precipitation of a man conquered in imagination.
After putting you in this situation, a plan for a general attack on you at Germantown was executed on October 4th. While the success didn't match the quality of the plan, attempting it showed that America's potential was on the rise and her power was becoming more dominant. The morning's fog worked in your favor, as it always helps a hunted enemy. A few weeks later, you also planned to attack General Washington while he was at Whitemarsh. You set out with great fanfare, but when you discovered he was preparing to attack you the next morning, you wisely turned around and retreated to Philadelphia with the haste of someone who feels defeated in their mind.
Immediately after the battle of Germantown, the probability of Burgoyne's defeat gave a new policy to affairs in Pennsylvania, and it was judged most consistent with the general safety of America, to wait the issue of the northern campaign. Slow and sure is sound work. The news of that victory arrived in our camp on the 18th of October, and no sooner did that shout of joy, and the report of the thirteen cannon reach your ears, than you resolved upon a retreat, and the next day, that is, on the 19th, you withdrew your drooping army into Philadelphia. This movement was evidently dictated by fear; and carried with it a positive confession that you dreaded a second attack. It was hiding yourself among women and children, and sleeping away the choicest part of the campaign in expensive inactivity. An army in a city can never be a conquering army. The situation admits only of defence. It is mere shelter: and every military power in Europe will conclude you to be eventually defeated.
Immediately after the Battle of Germantown, the likelihood of Burgoyne's defeat led to a new strategy in Pennsylvania. It was seen as wise for the overall safety of America to wait and see how the northern campaign would unfold. Slow and steady wins the race. The news of that victory reached our camp on October 18th, and as soon as that cheer of joy and the sound of the thirteen cannons reached your ears, you decided to retreat. The next day, on the 19th, you pulled your weary army back into Philadelphia. This move was clearly driven by fear and openly admitted that you were afraid of a second attack. It was like hiding among women and children, wasting away the best part of the campaign in costly inaction. An army in a city can never be a victorious army; it can only defend. It’s merely a refuge, and every military power in Europe will conclude that you will eventually be defeated.
The time when you made this retreat was the very time you ought to have fought a battle, in order to put yourself in condition of recovering in Pennsylvania what you had lost in Saratoga. And the reason why you did not, must be either prudence or cowardice; the former supposes your inability, and the latter needs no explanation. I draw no conclusions, sir, but such as are naturally deduced from known and visible facts, and such as will always have a being while the facts which produced them remain unaltered.
The time you chose to retreat was exactly when you should have fought to regain what you lost in Saratoga. The reason you didn’t must be either caution or fear; the former suggests you were unable, while the latter speaks for itself. I don’t make any conclusions, sir, other than those that can be logically drawn from clear and observable facts, which will always exist as long as the facts that caused them stay the same.
After this retreat a new difficulty arose which exhibited the power of Britain in a very contemptible light; which was the attack and defence of Mud Island. For several weeks did that little unfinished fortress stand out against all the attempts of Admiral and General Howe. It was the fable of Bender realized on the Delaware. Scheme after scheme, and force upon force were tried and defeated. The garrison, with scarce anything to cover them but their bravery, survived in the midst of mud, shot and shells, and were at last obliged to give it up more to the powers of time and gunpowder than to military superiority of the besiegers.
After this retreat, a new challenge emerged that highlighted Britain's power in a pretty disgraceful way: the attack and defense of Mud Island. That small, unfinished fortress held out against all the efforts of Admiral and General Howe for several weeks. It was like the fable of Bender coming to life on the Delaware. Strategy after strategy, and force after force, were attempted and failed. The garrison, with hardly anything to protect them but their bravery, endured amid the mud, gunfire, and explosions, and eventually had to surrender more due to the effects of time and gunpowder than because of the military superiority of the besiegers.
It is my sincere opinion that matters are in much worse condition with you than what is generally known. Your master's speech at the opening of Parliament, is like a soliloquy on ill luck. It shows him to be coming a little to his reason, for sense of pain is the first symptom of recovery, in profound stupefaction. His condition is deplorable. He is obliged to submit to all the insults of France and Spain, without daring to know or resent them; and thankful for the most trivial evasions to the most humble remonstrances. The time was when he could not deign an answer to a petition from America, and the time now is when he dare not give an answer to an affront from France. The capture of Burgoyne's army will sink his consequence as much in Europe as in America. In his speech he expresses his suspicions at the warlike preparations of France and Spain, and as he has only the one army which you command to support his character in the world with, it remains very uncertain when, or in what quarter it will be most wanted, or can be best employed; and this will partly account for the great care you take to keep it from action and attacks, for should Burgoyne's fate be yours, which it probably will, England may take her endless farewell not only of all America but of all the West Indies.
I honestly believe that things are much worse for you than most people realize. Your leader’s speech at the start of Parliament sounds like a lament about bad luck. It shows he’s starting to come to his senses, as feeling pain is the first sign of recovery from deep shock. His situation is terrible. He has to endure all the insults from France and Spain without daring to acknowledge or retaliate; he’s grateful for the slightest excuses and the most humble complaints. There was a time when he wouldn’t even acknowledge a petition from America, and now he’s afraid to respond to a slight from France. The capture of Burgoyne’s army will damage his standing as much in Europe as it will in America. In his speech, he expresses his concerns about the military preparations of France and Spain, and since he only has the one army you lead to maintain his reputation globally, it’s unclear when and where it will be most needed or best used; this partly explains why you’re so careful to keep it out of action and avoid attacks, because if Burgoyne’s fate becomes yours, which is likely, England may have to say an endless goodbye not just to all of America but to the entire West Indies.
Never did a nation invite destruction upon itself with the eagerness and the ignorance with which Britain has done. Bent upon the ruin of a young and unoffending country, she has drawn the sword that has wounded herself to the heart, and in the agony of her resentment has applied a poison for a cure. Her conduct towards America is a compound of rage and lunacy; she aims at the government of it, yet preserves neither dignity nor character in her methods to obtain it. Were government a mere manufacture or article of commerce, immaterial by whom it should be made or sold, we might as well employ her as another, but when we consider it as the fountain from whence the general manners and morality of a country take their rise, that the persons entrusted with the execution thereof are by their serious example an authority to support these principles, how abominably absurd is the idea of being hereafter governed by a set of men who have been guilty of forgery, perjury, treachery, theft and every species of villany which the lowest wretches on earth could practise or invent. What greater public curse can befall any country than to be under such authority, and what greater blessing than to be delivered therefrom. The soul of any man of sentiment would rise in brave rebellion against them, and spurn them from the earth.
No nation has ever invited destruction upon itself with the eagerness and ignorance that Britain has. Determined to ruin a young and innocent country, she has drawn the sword that has struck her to the heart, and in her rage, she has applied poison instead of a cure. Her actions toward America are a mix of anger and insanity; she seeks to govern it, yet lacks both dignity and character in her approach. If government were simply a product or commodity, irrelevant to who makes or sells it, we could just as well use her as anyone else. But when we see it as the source from which a country's values and morals emerge, and that those in charge set a serious example that supports these principles, then how outrageously absurd is the idea of being governed in the future by a group of people guilty of forgery, perjury, betrayal, theft, and every kind of wickedness that the lowest beings on earth could practice or imagine? What greater public curse can a nation face than being under such authority, and what greater blessing than being freed from it? Any man with a sense of justice would rise up in rebellion against them and reject them from the earth.
The malignant and venomous tempered General Vaughan has amused his savage fancy in burning the whole town of Kingston, in York government, and the late governor of that state, Mr. Tryon, in his letter to General Parsons, has endeavored to justify it and declared his wish to burn the houses of every committeeman in the country. Such a confession from one who was once intrusted with the powers of civil government, is a reproach to the character. But it is the wish and the declaration of a man whom anguish and disappointment have driven to despair, and who is daily decaying into the grave with constitutional rottenness.
The cruel and hot-tempered General Vaughan has entertained his savage instincts by burning down the entire town of Kingston in York government. The former governor of that state, Mr. Tryon, in his letter to General Parsons, has tried to justify this act and expressed his desire to set fire to the homes of every committeeman in the country. Such an admission from someone who was once entrusted with civil authority is a disgrace to their character. However, it reflects the wishes and statements of a man pushed to despair by anguish and disappointment, who is slowly deteriorating with constitutional decay.
There is not in the compass of language a sufficiency of words to express the baseness of your king, his ministry and his army. They have refined upon villany till it wants a name. To the fiercer vices of former ages they have added the dregs and scummings of the most finished rascality, and are so completely sunk in serpentine deceit, that there is not left among them one generous enemy.
There aren’t enough words in the language to describe how terrible your king, his advisors, and his army are. They’ve taken wickedness to a level that doesn’t even have a name. They’ve combined the worst traits of past evils with the lowest forms of deception, and they’re so deeply entrenched in deceit that there isn’t a single honorable opponent among them.
From such men and such masters, may the gracious hand of Heaven preserve America! And though the sufferings she now endures are heavy, and severe, they are like straws in the wind compared to the weight of evils she would feel under the government of your king, and his pensioned Parliament.
From men like these and leaders like these, may the kind hand of Heaven protect America! And even though the hardships she is currently facing are tough and intense, they are nothing compared to the burdens she would bear under your king and his funded Parliament.
There is something in meanness which excites a species of resentment that never subsides, and something in cruelty which stirs up the heart to the highest agony of human hatred; Britain has filled up both these characters till no addition can be made, and has not reputation left with us to obtain credit for the slightest promise. The will of God has parted us, and the deed is registered for eternity. When she shall be a spot scarcely visible among the nations, America shall flourish the favorite of heaven, and the friend of mankind.
There’s something about meanness that sparks a kind of resentment that never goes away, and something in cruelty that brings the heart to the deepest level of human hatred. Britain has embodied both of these traits to the point where no further damage can be done, and it no longer holds any reputation with us to earn even the slightest trust. The will of God has separated us, and that decision is set in stone for eternity. When Britain becomes hardly noticeable among the nations, America will thrive as the favorite of heaven and a friend to humanity.
For the domestic happiness of Britain and the peace of the world, I wish she had not a foot of land but what is circumscribed within her own island. Extent of dominion has been her ruin, and instead of civilizing others has brutalized herself. Her late reduction of India, under Clive and his successors, was not so properly a conquest as an extermination of mankind. She is the only power who could practise the prodigal barbarity of tying men to mouths of loaded cannon and blowing them away. It happens that General Burgoyne, who made the report of that horrid transaction, in the House of Commons, is now a prisoner with us, and though an enemy, I can appeal to him for the truth of it, being confident that he neither can nor will deny it. Yet Clive received the approbation of the last Parliament.
For the happiness of Britain and the peace of the world, I wish she had no land except what is within her own island. The extent of her empire has led to her downfall, and instead of civilizing others, she has brutalized herself. Her recent control of India, under Clive and his successors, was less a conquest and more an extermination of people. She is the only power that could commit the shocking brutality of tying men to the mouths of cannons and firing them. It so happens that General Burgoyne, who reported that horrific event in the House of Commons, is now a prisoner with us, and although he is an enemy, I can rely on him to confirm the truth of it, knowing that he neither can nor will deny it. Yet Clive received the approval of the last Parliament.
When we take a survey of mankind, we cannot help cursing the wretch, who, to the unavoidable misfortunes of nature, shall wilfully add the calamities of war. One would think there were evils enough in the world without studying to increase them, and that life is sufficiently short without shaking the sand that measures it. The histories of Alexander, and Charles of Sweden, are the histories of human devils; a good man cannot think of their actions without abhorrence, nor of their deaths without rejoicing. To see the bounties of heaven destroyed, the beautiful face of nature laid waste, and the choicest works of creation and art tumbled into ruin, would fetch a curse from the soul of piety itself. But in this country the aggravation is heightened by a new combination of affecting circumstances. America was young, and, compared with other countries, was virtuous. None but a Herod of uncommon malice would have made war upon infancy and innocence: and none but a people of the most finished fortitude, dared under those circumstances, have resisted the tyranny. The natives, or their ancestors, had fled from the former oppressions of England, and with the industry of bees had changed a wilderness into a habitable world. To Britain they were indebted for nothing. The country was the gift of heaven, and God alone is their Lord and Sovereign.
When we look at humanity, we can't help but curse the miserable person who, in addition to the unavoidable hardships of life, intentionally brings about the disasters of war. You'd think there are already enough problems in the world without trying to add to them, and that life is short enough without hastening its end. The stories of Alexander and Charles of Sweden are tales of human evil; a good person can't think about what they did without feeling disgust, nor can they reflect on their deaths without feeling relief. Witnessing the blessings of nature destroyed, the beauty of the world ravaged, and the finest achievements of creation and art laid to waste would provoke a curse from even the most pious soul. But in this country, the situation is made worse by a new mix of touching circumstances. America was young and, compared to other nations, virtuous. Only a person with extreme malice would wage war against childhood and innocence, and only a people of remarkable strength would have dared to resist tyranny in such a situation. The natives, or their ancestors, had fled from past oppressions in England and, working as hard as bees, transformed a wilderness into a livable world. They owed nothing to Britain. The land was a gift from heaven, and God alone is their Lord and Sovereign.
The time, sir, will come when you, in a melancholy hour, shall reckon up your miseries by your murders in America. Life, with you, begins to wear a clouded aspect. The vision of pleasurable delusion is wearing away, and changing to the barren wild of age and sorrow. The poor reflection of having served your king will yield you no consolation in your parting moments. He will crumble to the same undistinguished ashes with yourself, and have sins enough of his own to answer for. It is not the farcical benedictions of a bishop, nor the cringing hypocrisy of a court of chaplains, nor the formality of an act of Parliament, that can change guilt into innocence, or make the punishment one pang the less. You may, perhaps, be unwilling to be serious, but this destruction of the goods of Providence, this havoc of the human race, and this sowing the world with mischief, must be accounted for to him who made and governs it. To us they are only present sufferings, but to him they are deep rebellions.
The time will come, sir, when you’ll reflect on your suffering and the lives you’ve taken in America during a dark moment. Your life is starting to feel heavy. The illusion of pleasure is fading, giving way to the emptiness of age and sorrow. The meager satisfaction of having served your king won't bring you comfort in your final moments. He will turn to the same unremarkable ashes as you, burdened with sins of his own to account for. It’s not the ridiculous blessings from a bishop, nor the sycophantic deceit of a court of chaplains, nor the formalities of a parliamentary act that can turn guilt into innocence or lessen your punishment. You might not want to take this seriously, but the destruction of God’s gifts, the ruin of humanity, and the chaos you’ve spread in the world must be answered to the one who created and oversees it. For us, they are just present sufferings, but to Him, they are serious rebellions.
If there is a sin superior to every other, it is that of wilful and offensive war. Most other sins are circumscribed within narrow limits, that is, the power of one man cannot give them a very general extension, and many kinds of sins have only a mental existence from which no infection arises; but he who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. We leave it to England and Indians to boast of these honors; we feel no thirst for such savage glory; a nobler flame, a purer spirit animates America. She has taken up the sword of virtuous defence; she has bravely put herself between Tyranny and Freedom, between a curse and a blessing, determined to expel the one and protect the other.
If there’s one sin that stands above all others, it’s the sin of deliberate and destructive war. Most other sins are limited in scope; one person can't expand their reach much, and many types of sins only exist in thought, causing no real harm. But someone who starts a war unleashes a total hellish contagion and opens a wound that can bleed a nation dry. We’ll leave it to England and the Indians to take pride in such honors; we don’t crave that kind of brutal glory. America is inspired by a nobler cause and a purer spirit. She has taken up the sword for righteous defense; she courageously positions herself between Tyranny and Freedom, between a curse and a blessing, committed to driving out the former and safeguarding the latter.
It is the object only of war that makes it honorable. And if there was ever a just war since the world began, it is this in which America is now engaged. She invaded no land of yours. She hired no mercenaries to burn your towns, nor Indians to massacre their inhabitants. She wanted nothing from you, and was indebted for nothing to you: and thus circumstanced, her defence is honorable and her prosperity is certain.
The purpose of war is what makes it honorable. If there has ever been a just war in history, it's the one America is currently involved in. She has not invaded your land. She hasn't hired mercenaries to destroy your towns or Native Americans to kill your people. She seeks nothing from you and owes you nothing; given these circumstances, her defense is honorable and her success is assured.
Yet it is not on the justice only, but likewise on the importance of this cause that I ground my seeming enthusiastical confidence of our success. The vast extension of America makes her of too much value in the scale of Providence, to be cast like a pearl before swine, at the feet of an European island; and of much less consequence would it be that Britain were sunk in the sea than that America should miscarry. There has been such a chain of extraordinary events in the discovery of this country at first, in the peopling and planting it afterwards, in the rearing and nursing it to its present state, and in the protection of it through the present war, that no man can doubt, but Providence has some nobler end to accomplish than the gratification of the petty elector of Hanover, or the ignorant and insignificant king of Britain.
Yet my confidence in our success isn't just based on justice; it's also about the significance of this cause. America's vastness makes it too valuable in the eyes of Providence to be squandered like a pearl before swine at the feet of a European island. It would mean so much less for Britain to sink into the sea than for America to fail. There has been such an extraordinary series of events in the discovery of this country, in its settlement and development, in its growth to its current state, and in its protection during this war, that no one can doubt Providence has a grander purpose to fulfill than just satisfying the petty elector of Hanover or the ignorant, insignificant king of Britain.
As the blood of the martyrs has been the seed of the Christian church, so the political persecutions of England will and have already enriched America with industry, experience, union, and importance. Before the present era she was a mere chaos of uncemented colonies, individually exposed to the ravages of the Indians and the invasion of any power that Britain should be at war with. She had nothing that she could call her own. Her felicity depended upon accident. The convulsions of Europe might have thrown her from one conqueror to another, till she had been the slave of all, and ruined by every one; for until she had spirit enough to become her own master, there was no knowing to which master she should belong. That period, thank God, is past, and she is no longer the dependent, disunited colonies of Britain, but the independent and United States of America, knowing no master but heaven and herself. You, or your king, may call this "delusion," "rebellion," or what name you please. To us it is perfectly indifferent. The issue will determine the character, and time will give it a name as lasting as his own.
As the blood of martyrs has been the foundation of the Christian church, the political persecutions in England have enriched America with industry, experience, unity, and significance. Before this current era, America was just a disorganized collection of colonies, each vulnerable to attacks from Native Americans and any foreign power Britain was at war with. She had nothing she could claim as her own. Her happiness was left to chance. The upheavals in Europe could have switched her from one conqueror to another, potentially turning her into a slave to all and destroying her in the process; for until she found the strength to take control of her own destiny, it was uncertain which ruler she would end up under. That time, thank goodness, is over, and she is no longer the dependent, divided colonies of Britain, but the independent and United States of America, recognizing no authority but God and herself. You or your king may call this "delusion," "rebellion," or whatever term you like. To us, it doesn't matter. The outcome will shape its identity, and time will give it a name as enduring as its own.
You have now, sir, tried the fate of three campaigns, and can fully declare to England, that nothing is to be got on your part, but blows and broken bones, and nothing on hers but waste of trade and credit, and an increase of poverty and taxes. You are now only where you might have been two years ago, without the loss of a single ship, and yet not a step more forward towards the conquest of the continent; because, as I have already hinted, "an army in a city can never be a conquering army." The full amount of your losses, since the beginning of the war, exceeds twenty thousand men, besides millions of treasure, for which you have nothing in exchange. Our expenses, though great, are circulated within ourselves. Yours is a direct sinking of money, and that from both ends at once; first, in hiring troops out of the nation, and in paying them afterwards, because the money in neither case can return to Britain. We are already in possession of the prize, you only in pursuit of it. To us it is a real treasure, to you it would be only an empty triumph. Our expenses will repay themselves with tenfold interest, while yours entail upon you everlasting poverty.
You have now, sir, experienced the outcomes of three campaigns and can honestly tell England that all you have gained is injuries and broken bones, while all she has received is a loss of trade and credibility, along with increased poverty and taxes. You are now exactly where you could have been two years ago, without losing a single ship, yet you haven't made any progress toward conquering the continent; because, as I have already pointed out, "an army in a city can never be a conquering army." The total damage you’ve suffered since the war began exceeds twenty thousand men, in addition to millions of dollars in treasure, for which you have nothing to show. Our expenses, though significant, circulate within our own economy. Yours, however, represent a direct loss of money from both sides; first, by hiring troops from outside the nation, and then by paying them, since none of that money can come back to Britain. We already hold the prize; you are simply chasing it. For us, it is a true treasure, while for you, it would only be a hollow victory. Our expenses will come back to us with tenfold interest, while yours will lead you to endless poverty.
Take a review, sir, of the ground which you have gone over, and let it teach you policy, if it cannot honesty. You stand but on a very tottering foundation. A change of the ministry in England may probably bring your measures into question, and your head to the block. Clive, with all his successes, had some difficulty in escaping, and yours being all a war of losses, will afford you less pretensions, and your enemies more grounds for impeachment.
Take a moment to review the ground you've covered, and let it guide you in strategy, even if it can't teach you integrity. You're standing on a shaky foundation. A change in the English government could put your actions under scrutiny and lead to serious consequences for you. Clive, despite all his victories, had a tough time staying out of trouble, and since your achievements are all about losses, you'll have even less to defend yourself with and give your opponents more reasons to challenge you.
Go home, sir, and endeavor to save the remains of your ruined country, by a just representation of the madness of her measures. A few moments, well applied, may yet preserve her from political destruction. I am not one of those who wish to see Europe in a flame, because I am persuaded that such an event will not shorten the war. The rupture, at present, is confined between the two powers of America and England. England finds that she cannot conquer America, and America has no wish to conquer England. You are fighting for what you can never obtain, and we defending what we never mean to part with. A few words, therefore, settle the bargain. Let England mind her own business and we will mind ours. Govern yourselves, and we will govern ourselves. You may then trade where you please unmolested by us, and we will trade where we please unmolested by you; and such articles as we can purchase of each other better than elsewhere may be mutually done. If it were possible that you could carry on the war for twenty years you must still come to this point at last, or worse, and the sooner you think of it the better it will be for you.
Go home, sir, and try to save what's left of your damaged country by honestly showing the craziness of her actions. A little time, used wisely, could still keep her from political ruin. I'm not someone who wants to see Europe burning because I believe such an event won't end the war quicker. Right now, the conflict is just between America and England. England realizes it can't conquer America, and America has no desire to conquer England. You're fighting for something you can never achieve, while we're defending what we never intend to give up. So, a few words can settle this deal. Let England handle its own matters, and we’ll handle ours. You govern yourselves, and we’ll govern ourselves. Then you can trade wherever you want without interference from us, and we’ll trade wherever we want without interference from you. We can exchange goods that we can better buy from each other than anywhere else. Even if you could continue this war for twenty years, you'd eventually come to this same conclusion, or something worse, and the sooner you realize that, the better it will be for you.
My official situation enables me to know the repeated insults which Britain is obliged to put up with from foreign powers, and the wretched shifts that she is driven to, to gloss them over. Her reduced strength and exhausted coffers in a three years' war with America, has given a powerful superiority to France and Spain. She is not now a match for them. But if neither councils can prevail on her to think, nor sufferings awaken her to reason, she must e'en go on, till the honor of England becomes a proverb of contempt, and Europe dub her the Land of Fools.
My official position allows me to see the constant insults that Britain has to endure from foreign nations, as well as the desperate measures she takes to cover them up. Her weakened power and empty treasury after three years of war with America have given a strong advantage to France and Spain. She can't compete with them anymore. But if neither wise counsel can convince her to consider this, nor her hardships move her to reason, she will just continue until England's honor becomes a saying of disdain, and Europe calls her the Land of Fools.
I am, Sir, with every wish for an honorable peace,
I am, Sir, hoping for a respectful peace,
Your friend, rival, and fellow citizen, COMMON SENSE.
TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.
WITH all the pleasure with which a man exchanges bad company for good, I take my leave of Sir William and return to you. It is now nearly three years since the tyranny of Britain received its first repulse by the arms of America. A period which has given birth to a new world, and erected a monument to the folly of the old.
WITH all the joy of someone trading bad company for good, I say goodbye to Sir William and come back to you. It's been almost three years since America's fight pushed back against Britain's tyranny for the first time. This time has created a new world and highlighted the mistakes of the old one.
I cannot help being sometimes surprised at the complimentary references which I have seen and heard made to ancient histories and transactions. The wisdom, civil governments, and sense of honor of the states of Greece and Rome, are frequently held up as objects of excellence and imitation. Mankind have lived to very little purpose, if, at this period of the world, they must go two or three thousand years back for lessons and examples. We do great injustice to ourselves by placing them in such a superior line. We have no just authority for it, neither can we tell why it is that we should suppose ourselves inferior.
I can't help but be surprised by the flattering mentions I've heard about ancient histories and events. The wisdom, government systems, and sense of honor of the states of Greece and Rome are often held up as ideals to strive for. Humanity hasn't made much progress if, at this point in history, we have to look back two or three thousand years for lessons and examples. We do ourselves a disservice by placing them on such a pedestal. We have no solid reason for it, and we can't explain why we should think of ourselves as inferior.
Could the mist of antiquity be cleared away, and men and things be viewed as they really were, it is more than probable that they would admire us, rather than we them. America has surmounted a greater variety and combination of difficulties, than, I believe, ever fell to the share of any one people, in the same space of time, and has replenished the world with more useful knowledge and sounder maxims of civil government than were ever produced in any age before. Had it not been for America, there had been no such thing as freedom left throughout the whole universe. England has lost hers in a long chain of right reasoning from wrong principles, and it is from this country, now, that she must learn the resolution to redress herself, and the wisdom how to accomplish it.
If we could clear away the fog of the past and see people and things as they truly were, it’s likely that they would admire us more than we admire them. America has overcome a wider range of challenges than any other nation ever has in such a short time, and has contributed more useful knowledge and better principles of government to the world than were ever produced in any previous era. Without America, there would be no freedom left anywhere on the planet. England has lost its freedom through a long series of misguided reasoning based on flawed principles, and now it is from America that England must learn how to fix itself and how to do it wisely.
The Grecians and Romans were strongly possessed of the spirit of liberty but not the principle, for at the time that they were determined not to be slaves themselves, they employed their power to enslave the rest of mankind. But this distinguished era is blotted by no one misanthropical vice. In short, if the principle on which the cause is founded, the universal blessings that are to arise from it, the difficulties that accompanied it, the wisdom with which it has been debated, the fortitude by which it has been supported, the strength of the power which we had to oppose, and the condition in which we undertook it, be all taken in one view, we may justly style it the most virtuous and illustrious revolution that ever graced the history of mankind.
The Greeks and Romans had a strong desire for freedom, but they didn't embrace the true principle of it. While they were determined not to be slaves themselves, they used their power to enslave others. However, this remarkable period is not marred by any significant misanthropic vice. In summary, if we consider the foundational principle of the cause, the universal benefits that will come from it, the challenges it faced, the wisdom with which it was argued, the courage that supported it, the strength of the opposition we encountered, and the context in which we undertook it, we can rightly call it the most virtuous and remarkable revolution in the history of humanity.
A good opinion of ourselves is exceedingly necessary in private life, but absolutely necessary in public life, and of the utmost importance in supporting national character. I have no notion of yielding the palm of the United States to any Grecians or Romans that were ever born. We have equalled the bravest in times of danger, and excelled the wisest in construction of civil governments.
A positive view of ourselves is extremely important in our personal lives, but it's absolutely essential in public life and crucial for upholding our national identity. I can’t imagine giving the U.S. a lower status than any Greeks or Romans ever did. We have matched the bravest in times of crisis and surpassed the wisest in establishing civil governments.
From this agreeable eminence let us take a review of present affairs. The spirit of corruption is so inseparably interwoven with British politics, that their ministry suppose all mankind are governed by the same motives. They have no idea of a people submitting even to temporary inconvenience from an attachment to rights and privileges. Their plans of business are calculated by the hour and for the hour, and are uniform in nothing but the corruption which gives them birth. They never had, neither have they at this time, any regular plan for the conquest of America by arms. They know not how to go about it, neither have they power to effect it if they did know. The thing is not within the compass of human practicability, for America is too extensive either to be fully conquered or passively defended. But she may be actively defended by defeating or making prisoners of the army that invades her. And this is the only system of defence that can be effectual in a large country.
From this nice viewpoint, let’s take a look at the current situation. The spirit of corruption is so deeply embedded in British politics that their leaders assume everyone is motivated by the same interests. They can’t imagine that people would put up with any temporary discomfort out of loyalty to their rights and privileges. Their plans are only focused on the immediate moment, and the only thing they have in common is the corruption that fuels them. They’ve never had, and don’t currently have, a solid strategy for conquering America through military force. They don’t know how to approach it, and they lack the power to do so even if they did. It’s not something within the realm of possibility because America is too vast to be completely conquered or just passively defended. However, it can be actively defended by defeating or capturing the invading army. This is the only effective defense strategy for a large country.
There is something in a war carried on by invasion which makes it differ in circumstances from any other mode of war, because he who conducts it cannot tell whether the ground he gains be for him, or against him, when he first obtains it. In the winter of 1776, General Howe marched with an air of victory through the Jerseys, the consequence of which was his defeat; and General Burgoyne at Saratoga experienced the same fate from the same cause. The Spaniards, about two years ago, were defeated by the Algerines in the same manner, that is, their first triumphs became a trap in which they were totally routed. And whoever will attend to the circumstances and events of a war carried on by invasion, will find, that any invader, in order to be finally conquered must first begin to conquer.
There’s something about a war fought through invasion that makes it different from any other type of war. The person leading it can’t tell if the ground they gain will benefit them or hurt them at first. In the winter of 1776, General Howe marched through the Jerseys with a sense of victory, but this ultimately led to his defeat; similarly, General Burgoyne faced the same outcome at Saratoga for the same reasons. About two years ago, the Spaniards were defeated by the Algerines in the same way, where their initial successes turned into a trap that led to their total loss. Anyone who looks closely at the events of a war fought by invasion will see that any invader who is ultimately going to be defeated must first start off by winning.
I confess myself one of those who believe the loss of Philadelphia to be attended with more advantages than injuries. The case stood thus: The enemy imagined Philadelphia to be of more importance to us than it really was; for we all know that it had long ceased to be a port: not a cargo of goods had been brought into it for near a twelvemonth, nor any fixed manufactories, nor even ship-building, carried on in it; yet as the enemy believed the conquest of it to be practicable, and to that belief added the absurd idea that the soul of all America was centred there, and would be conquered there, it naturally follows that their possession of it, by not answering the end proposed, must break up the plans they had so foolishly gone upon, and either oblige them to form a new one, for which their present strength is not sufficient, or to give over the attempt.
I admit that I’m one of those who think losing Philadelphia brings more benefits than drawbacks. Here’s how it was: The enemy believed Philadelphia was more crucial to us than it actually was; we all know it had ceased to be a functioning port. No goods had been brought in for almost a year, and there were no established factories or even shipbuilding happening there. Yet, since the enemy thought taking it was possible and added to that the ridiculous notion that the heart of America was there and would be defeated there, it makes sense that their control of it, failing to achieve their goals, would disrupt their plans that they had foolishly pursued, forcing them either to come up with a new strategy, which their current strength couldn't handle, or simply give up.
We never had so small an army to fight against, nor so fair an opportunity of final success as now. The death wound is already given. The day is ours if we follow it up. The enemy, by his situation, is within our reach, and by his reduced strength is within our power. The ministers of Britain may rage as they please, but our part is to conquer their armies. Let them wrangle and welcome, but let, it not draw our attention from the one thing needful. Here, in this spot is our own business to be accomplished, our felicity secured. What we have now to do is as clear as light, and the way to do it is as straight as a line. It needs not to be commented upon, yet, in order to be perfectly understood I will put a case that cannot admit of a mistake.
We’ve never had such a small army to fight against, nor such a good chance for final victory as we do now. The critical blow has already been dealt. Today could be ours if we keep pushing forward. The enemy is vulnerable and within our reach, as their strength has been diminished. The British ministers can get as angry as they want, but our job is to defeat their forces. Let them argue among themselves, but we shouldn’t let that distract us from what really matters. Right here, we have our own goals to achieve and our success to secure. What we need to do is as clear as day, and the path to do it is straightforward. It doesn’t need explanation, yet to make sure it’s perfectly clear, I’ll present a scenario that leaves no room for misunderstanding.
Had the armies under Generals Howe and Burgoyne been united, and taken post at Germantown, and had the northern army under General Gates been joined to that under General Washington, at Whitemarsh, the consequence would have been a general action; and if in that action we had killed and taken the same number of officers and men, that is, between nine and ten thousand, with the same quantity of artillery, arms, stores, etc., as have been taken at the northward, and obliged General Howe with the remains of his army, that is, with the same number he now commands, to take shelter in Philadelphia, we should certainly have thought ourselves the greatest heroes in the world; and should, as soon as the season permitted, have collected together all the force of the continent and laid siege to the city, for it requires a much greater force to besiege an enemy in a town than to defeat him in the field. The case now is just the same as if it had been produced by the means I have here supposed. Between nine and ten thousand have been killed and taken, all their stores are in our possession, and General Howe, in consequence of that victory, has thrown himself for shelter into Philadelphia. He, or his trifling friend Galloway, may form what pretences they please, yet no just reason can be given for their going into winter quarters so early as the 19th of October, but their apprehensions of a defeat if they continued out, or their conscious inability of keeping the field with safety. I see no advantage which can arise to America by hunting the enemy from state to state. It is a triumph without a prize, and wholly unworthy the attention of a people determined to conquer. Neither can any state promise itself security while the enemy remains in a condition to transport themselves from one part of the continent to another. Howe, likewise, cannot conquer where we have no army to oppose, therefore any such removals in him are mean and cowardly, and reduces Britain to a common pilferer. If he retreats from Philadelphia, he will be despised; if he stays, he may be shut up and starved out, and the country, if he advances into it, may become his Saratoga. He has his choice of evils and we of opportunities. If he moves early, it is not only a sign but a proof that he expects no reinforcement, and his delay will prove that he either waits for the arrival of a plan to go upon, or force to execute it, or both; in which case our strength will increase more than his, therefore in any case we cannot be wrong if we do but proceed.
If the armies led by Generals Howe and Burgoyne had come together and taken position at Germantown, and if General Gates's northern army had joined forces with General Washington’s at Whitemarsh, it would have resulted in a major battle. If we had managed to kill and capture about nine to ten thousand officers and soldiers, along with the same amount of artillery, arms, supplies, etc., as what was seized up north, forcing General Howe and what was left of his army to take cover in Philadelphia, we would have definitely considered ourselves the greatest heroes. As soon as the season allowed, we would have gathered all the forces from the continent to lay siege to the city since it takes a much larger force to besiege an enemy in a town than to defeat them in an open battle. The situation now is essentially the same as if it had played out as I’ve described. We have killed and captured nine to ten thousand people, all their supplies are in our hands, and due to that victory, General Howe has sought refuge in Philadelphia. He or his insignificant friend Galloway can come up with whatever excuses they want, but there’s no good reason for them to go into winter quarters as early as October 19th, other than their fear of defeat if they stayed out or their awareness that they can’t safely keep their position in the field. I don’t see how America benefits from pushing the enemy state by state. It’s a hollow victory and not worth the attention of a nation determined to win. Moreover, no state can feel secure while the enemy is able to move around the continent. Howe also can’t conquer where there’s no army to oppose him, so any movements he makes are weak and cowardly, reducing Britain to a common thief. If he retreats from Philadelphia, he will be looked down upon; if he stays, he could be trapped and starved, and if he moves deeper into the country, it might lead to his Saratoga. He faces his own set of problems, while we face opportunities. If he moves quickly, it shows he expects no reinforcements, and if he delays, it means he’s either waiting for a plan to implement or forces to back it up—or both. In that case, our strength will grow faster than his, so in any situation, we can’t go wrong as long as we keep moving forward.
The particular condition of Pennsylvania deserves the attention of all the other States. Her military strength must not be estimated by the number of inhabitants. Here are men of all nations, characters, professions and interests. Here are the firmest Whigs, surviving, like sparks in the ocean, unquenched and uncooled in the midst of discouragement and disaffection. Here are men losing their all with cheerfulness, and collecting fire and fortitude from the flames of their own estates. Here are others skulking in secret, many making a market of the times, and numbers who are changing to Whig or Tory with the circumstances of every day.
The unique situation in Pennsylvania deserves the attention of all the other states. Its military strength shouldn't be gauged by the number of inhabitants. This place is home to people from all backgrounds, character types, professions, and interests. Here, you'll find the most steadfast Whigs, surviving like sparks in the ocean, unextinguished and unchilled amid discouragement and disloyalty. Some are losing everything but remain upbeat, drawing strength and resilience from the ashes of their own properties. Others are hiding in the shadows, many profiting from the situation, and numerous individuals who shift between Whig and Tory based on the circumstances of each day.
It is by a mere dint of fortitude and perseverance that the Whigs of this State have been able to maintain so good a countenance, and do even what they have done. We want help, and the sooner it can arrive the more effectual it will be. The invaded State, be it which it may, will always feel an additional burden upon its back, and be hard set to support its civil power with sufficient authority; and this difficulty will rise or fall, in proportion as the other states throw in their assistance to the common cause.
It’s only through sheer determination and perseverance that the Whigs in this state have managed to keep a positive outlook and achieve what they have. We need support, and the sooner it arrives, the more effective it will be. The affected state, no matter which one it is, will always feel an extra weight on its shoulders and will struggle to maintain its civil authority; this challenge will increase or decrease based on how much help the other states provide to the common cause.
The enemy will most probably make many manoeuvres at the opening of this campaign, to amuse and draw off the attention of the several States from the one thing needful. We may expect to hear of alarms and pretended expeditions to this place and that place, to the southward, the eastward, and the northward, all intended to prevent our forming into one formidable body. The less the enemy's strength is, the more subtleties of this kind will they make use of. Their existence depends upon it, because the force of America, when collected, is sufficient to swallow their present army up. It is therefore our business to make short work of it, by bending our whole attention to this one principal point, for the instant that the main body under General Howe is defeated, all the inferior alarms throughout the continent, like so many shadows, will follow his downfall.
The enemy will likely make many moves at the start of this campaign to distract and divert the attention of the various States from what's truly important. We can expect to hear about false alarms and fake missions to various places—south, east, and north—meant to prevent us from uniting into one strong force. The weaker the enemy's strength, the more tricks like this they will use. Their survival depends on it, because when the forces of America come together, they can easily defeat their current army. So, it's crucial for us to focus all our efforts on this one key objective, because once the main force under General Howe is defeated, all the other alarms across the continent will simply vanish like shadows after his defeat.
The only way to finish a war with the least possible bloodshed, or perhaps without any, is to collect an army, against the power of which the enemy shall have no chance. By not doing this, we prolong the war, and double both the calamities and expenses of it. What a rich and happy country would America be, were she, by a vigorous exertion, to reduce Howe as she has reduced Burgoyne. Her currency would rise to millions beyond its present value. Every man would be rich, and every man would have it in his power to be happy. And why not do these things? What is there to hinder? America is her own mistress and can do what she pleases.
The only way to end a war with the least amount of bloodshed, or maybe even without any, is to gather an army that the enemy can't compete with. By not doing this, we stretch out the war, doubling both the destruction and the costs. What a prosperous and joyful country America would be if she, through decisive action, could defeat Howe just as she did Burgoyne. Her currency would soar to millions beyond its current value. Every person would be wealthy, and everyone would have the chance to be happy. So why not take these actions? What's stopping us? America is in control of her own destiny and can do whatever she wants.
If we had not at this time a man in the field, we could, nevertheless, raise an army in a few weeks sufficient to overwhelm all the force which General Howe at present commands. Vigor and determination will do anything and everything. We began the war with this kind of spirit, why not end it with the same? Here, gentlemen, is the enemy. Here is the army. The interest, the happiness of all America, is centred in this half ruined spot. Come and help us. Here are laurels, come and share them. Here are Tories, come and help us to expel them. Here are Whigs that will make you welcome, and enemies that dread your coming.
If we didn’t have a man in the field right now, we could still gather an army in a few weeks that would be enough to defeat all the forces General Howe currently commands. Energy and commitment can achieve anything. We started this war with that spirit, so why not finish it the same way? Here, gentlemen, is the enemy. Here is the army. The interests and happiness of all America are focused on this half-destroyed place. Come and help us. Here are the rewards; come and share them. Here are Tories; help us drive them out. Here are Whigs who will welcome you, and enemies who fear your arrival.
The worst of all policies is that of doing things by halves. Penny-wise and pound-foolish, has been the ruin of thousands. The present spring, if rightly improved, will free us from our troubles, and save us the expense of millions. We have now only one army to cope with. No opportunity can be fairer; no prospect more promising. I shall conclude this paper with a few outlines of a plan, either for filling up the battalions with expedition, or for raising an additional force, for any limited time, on any sudden emergency.
The worst policy is doing things halfway. Being careful with small amounts of money while wasting large ones has ruined thousands. If we make the most of this spring, it will free us from our troubles and save us millions. We only have one army to deal with now. There’s no better opportunity; no more promising outlook. I’ll wrap up this paper with a few outlines of a plan, either for quickly filling the battalions or for raising an extra force for a short time in case of an emergency.
That in which every man is interested, is every man's duty to support. And any burden which falls equally on all men, and from which every man is to receive an equal benefit, is consistent with the most perfect ideas of liberty. I would wish to revive something of that virtuous ambition which first called America into the field. Then every man was eager to do his part, and perhaps the principal reason why we have in any degree fallen therefrom, is because we did not set a right value by it at first, but left it to blaze out of itself, instead of regulating and preserving it by just proportions of rest and service.
What interests everyone is something everyone should support. Any burden that is shared equally among all people, and from which everyone gets equal benefit, aligns with the best ideas of freedom. I want to bring back some of that noble ambition that initially inspired America. Back then, everyone was eager to do their part, and maybe the main reason we've strayed from that is because we didn't value it properly from the start but let it burn out on its own instead of managing and preserving it with the right balance of rest and effort.
Suppose any State whose number of effective inhabitants was 80,000, should be required to furnish 3,200 men towards the defence of the continent on any sudden emergency.
Suppose any state with a population of 80,000 residents had to provide 3,200 men for the defense of the continent in case of an unexpected emergency.
1st, Let the whole number of effective inhabitants be divided into hundreds; then if each of those hundreds turn out four men, the whole number of 3,200 will be had.
1st, Divide the total number of effective inhabitants into hundreds; then if each of those hundreds produces four men, the total number of 3,200 will be achieved.
2d, Let the name of each hundred men be entered in a book, and let four dollars be collected from each man, with as much more as any of the gentlemen, whose abilities can afford it, shall please to throw in, which gifts likewise shall be entered against the names of the donors.
2d, Let the name of each hundred men be entered in a book, and let four dollars be collected from each man, along with whatever additional amount any of the gentlemen, who are able to contribute more, wish to donate. These donations should also be recorded next to the names of the donors.
3d, Let the sums so collected be offered as a present, over and above the bounty of twenty dollars, to any four who may be inclined to propose themselves as volunteers: if more than four offer, the majority of the subscribers present shall determine which; if none offer, then four out of the hundred shall be taken by lot, who shall be entitled to the said sums, and shall either go, or provide others that will, in the space of six days.
3d, Let the sums collected be offered as a gift, in addition to the twenty-dollar bounty, to any four people willing to volunteer: if more than four come forward, a majority of the subscribers present will decide who it will be; if no one volunteers, then four out of the hundred will be chosen randomly to receive the sums and will either go themselves or find others who will within six days.
4th, As it will always happen that in the space of ground on which a hundred men shall live, there will be always a number of persons who, by age and infirmity, are incapable of doing personal service, and as such persons are generally possessed of the greatest part of property in any country, their portion of service, therefore, will be to furnish each man with a blanket, which will make a regimental coat, jacket, and breeches, or clothes in lieu thereof, and another for a watch cloak, and two pair of shoes; for however choice people may be of these things matters not in cases of this kind; those who live always in houses can find many ways to keep themselves warm, but it is a shame and a sin to suffer a soldier in the field to want a blanket while there is one in the country.
4th, It will always happen that in a community where a hundred people live, there will be some individuals who, due to age and illness, can’t provide personal service. Often, these individuals own a significant portion of the wealth in any country. Their contribution will be to supply each person with a blanket, which can be made into a regimental coat, jacket, and trousers, or similar clothing, plus another for a greatcoat, and two pairs of shoes. No matter how choosy people might be about these items, it doesn’t really matter in situations like this; those who live in homes have many ways to keep warm, but it is a shame and a sin to let a soldier in the field go without a blanket when one is available in the country.
Should the clothing not be wanted, the superannuated or infirm persons possessing property, may, in lieu thereof, throw in their money subscriptions towards increasing the bounty; for though age will naturally exempt a person from personal service, it cannot exempt him from his share of the charge, because the men are raised for the defence of property and liberty jointly.
If the clothing is not needed, elderly or disabled individuals who own property can instead contribute their money subscriptions to increase the bounty; because while age may naturally excuse someone from personal service, it doesn't exempt them from their share of the cost, since the men are raised to defend both property and freedom together.
There never was a scheme against which objections might not be raised. But this alone is not a sufficient reason for rejection. The only line to judge truly upon is to draw out and admit all the objections which can fairly be made, and place against them all the contrary qualities, conveniences and advantages, then by striking a balance you come at the true character of any scheme, principle or position.
There’s never a plan that doesn’t have its critics. But that alone isn't a good enough reason to dismiss it. The right approach is to consider all the valid objections, weigh them against all the positive aspects, benefits, and advantages, and then strike a balance to discover the true nature of any plan, principle, or stance.
The most material advantages of the plan here proposed are, ease, expedition, and cheapness; yet the men so raised get a much larger bounty than is any where at present given; because all the expenses, extravagance, and consequent idleness of recruiting are saved or prevented. The country incurs no new debt nor interest thereon; the whole matter being all settled at once and entirely done with. It is a subscription answering all the purposes of a tax, without either the charge or trouble of collecting. The men are ready for the field with the greatest possible expedition, because it becomes the duty of the inhabitants themselves, in every part of the country, to find their proportion of men instead of leaving it to a recruiting sergeant, who, be he ever so industrious, cannot know always where to apply.
The main benefits of the proposed plan are convenience, speed, and low cost; however, the recruits receive a much larger bonus than is currently offered anywhere else because all the costs, waste, and resulting inactivity of recruiting are avoided. The country takes on no new debt or interest since everything is settled at once and fully resolved. It functions as a subscription that serves the purpose of a tax, without the expense or hassle of collecting it. The recruits are ready for action as quickly as possible because it's the responsibility of the local residents in every area to provide their share of men, instead of relying on a recruiting sergeant who, no matter how dedicated, cannot always know the best places to find them.
I do not propose this as a regular digested plan, neither will the limits of this paper admit of any further remarks upon it. I believe it to be a hint capable of much improvement, and as such submit it to the public.
I’m not putting this forward as a standard plan, and the limits of this paper don’t allow for any further comments on it. I think it’s an idea that could be greatly improved, and so I’m sharing it with the public.
Common sense.
LANCASTER, March 21, 1778.
LANCASTER, March 21, 1778.
THE CRISIS VI. (TO THE EARL OF CARLISLE AND GENERAL CLINTON)
TO THE EARL OF CARLISLE, GENERAL CLINTON, AND WILLIAM EDEN, ESQ., BRITISH COMMISSIONERS AT NEW YORK.
THERE is a dignity in the warm passions of a Whig, which is never to be found in the cold malice of a Tory. In the one nature is only heated—in the other she is poisoned. The instant the former has it in his power to punish, he feels a disposition to forgive; but the canine venom of the latter knows no relief but revenge. This general distinction will, I believe, apply in all cases, and suits as well the meridian of England as America.
THERE is a dignity in the warm passions of a Whig that you won't find in the cold malice of a Tory. In one, nature is just heated—in the other, it’s poisoned. The moment the former has the power to punish, he tends to feel a desire to forgive; but the bitter spite of the latter finds no relief other than revenge. I believe this general distinction applies in all cases and fits both England and America equally well.
As I presume your last proclamation will undergo the strictures of other pens, I shall confine my remarks to only a few parts thereof. All that you have said might have been comprised in half the compass. It is tedious and unmeaning, and only a repetition of your former follies, with here and there an offensive aggravation. Your cargo of pardons will have no market. It is unfashionable to look at them—even speculation is at an end. They have become a perfect drug, and no way calculated for the climate.
Since I assume your last statement will be scrutinized by others, I’ll keep my comments to just a few points. Everything you’ve said could have been covered in half the length. It’s boring and pointless, and just a repeat of your earlier mistakes, with a few annoying additions. Your offers of forgiveness won’t sell. It’s no longer trendy to even consider them—any interest is gone. They’re as common as dirt and totally unsuitable for the current situation.
In the course of your proclamation you say, "The policy as well as the benevolence of Great Britain have thus far checked the extremes of war, when they tended to distress a people still considered as their fellow subjects, and to desolate a country shortly to become again a source of mutual advantage." What you mean by "the benevolence of Great Britain" is to me inconceivable. To put a plain question; do you consider yourselves men or devils? For until this point is settled, no determinate sense can be put upon the expression. You have already equalled and in many cases excelled, the savages of either Indies; and if you have yet a cruelty in store you must have imported it, unmixed with every human material, from the original warehouse of hell.
In your statement, you say, "The policy and goodwill of Great Britain have so far prevented the worst aspects of war, especially when they impact a people still seen as their fellow subjects, and devastate a country that will soon be a source of mutual benefit again." What you mean by "the goodwill of Great Britain" is beyond my understanding. Let me ask you directly; do you see yourselves as human beings or as monsters? Because until we figure that out, we can’t truly understand what you mean. You’ve already matched and often surpassed the savagery of any indigenous peoples; if you have any new cruelty in store, it must be something you’ve brought from the depths of hell itself.
To the interposition of Providence, and her blessings on our endeavors, and not to British benevolence are we indebted for the short chain that limits your ravages. Remember you do not, at this time, command a foot of land on the continent of America. Staten Island, York Island, a small part of Long Island, and Rhode Island, circumscribe your power; and even those you hold at the expense of the West Indies. To avoid a defeat, or prevent a desertion of your troops, you have taken up your quarters in holes and corners of inaccessible security; and in order to conceal what every one can perceive, you now endeavor to impose your weakness upon us for an act of mercy. If you think to succeed by such shadowy devices, you are but infants in the political world; you have the A, B, C, of stratagem yet to learn, and are wholly ignorant of the people you have to contend with. Like men in a state of intoxication, you forget that the rest of the world have eyes, and that the same stupidity which conceals you from yourselves exposes you to their satire and contempt.
To the involvement of Providence and her blessings on our efforts, and not to British goodwill, are we grateful for the limited reach of your destruction. Keep in mind that you currently don't control any land on the continent of America. Staten Island, York Island, a small part of Long Island, and Rhode Island are all that define your power; and even those you hold at the cost of the West Indies. To avoid defeat or prevent your soldiers from deserting, you’ve taken shelter in hidden, secure locations; and to hide what everyone can see, you now try to pass off your weakness as an act of mercy. If you think you can succeed with such flimsy tricks, you’re just beginners in the political game; you have the basics of strategy yet to grasp and know nothing about the people you’re up against. Like people in a drunken state, you forget that the rest of the world is watching, and that the same foolishness that blinds you to your reality exposes you to their ridicule and scorn.
The paragraph which I have quoted, stands as an introduction to the following: "But when that country [America] professes the unnatural design, not only of estranging herself from us, but of mortgaging herself and her resources to our enemies, the whole contest is changed: and the question is how far Great Britain may, by every means in her power, destroy or render useless, a connection contrived for her ruin, and the aggrandizement of France. Under such circumstances, the laws of self-preservation must direct the conduct of Britain, and, if the British colonies are to become an accession to France, will direct her to render that accession of as little avail as possible to her enemy."
The quoted paragraph serves as an introduction to the following: "But when that country [America] decides to distance itself from us and to put itself and its resources in debt to our enemies, the entire conflict changes: and the question is how far Great Britain can, by any means necessary, undermine or nullify a connection that was set up for its downfall and the benefit of France. In such circumstances, the laws of self-preservation must guide Britain's actions, and if the British colonies are going to become an asset for France, it will lead her to make that asset as ineffective as possible for her enemy."
I consider you in this declaration, like madmen biting in the hour of death. It contains likewise a fraudulent meanness; for, in order to justify a barbarous conclusion, you have advanced a false position. The treaty we have formed with France is open, noble, and generous. It is true policy, founded on sound philosophy, and neither a surrender or mortgage, as you would scandalously insinuate. I have seen every article, and speak from positive knowledge. In France, we have found an affectionate friend and faithful ally; in Britain, we have found nothing but tyranny, cruelty, and infidelity.
I see you in this statement as if you're like crazy people grasping at straws in their final moments. It also reveals a deceitful pettiness; to justify a cruel conclusion, you’ve presented a false premise. The treaty we've made with France is open, honorable, and generous. It represents true strategy based on solid reasoning, and is neither a surrender nor a mortgage, as you ridiculously suggest. I’ve reviewed every term and speak from direct knowledge. In France, we have discovered a supportive friend and loyal ally; in Britain, we’ve encountered nothing but oppression, cruelty, and betrayal.
But the happiness is, that the mischief you threaten, is not in your power to execute; and if it were, the punishment would return upon you in a ten-fold degree. The humanity of America has hitherto restrained her from acts of retaliation, and the affection she retains for many individuals in England, who have fed, clothed and comforted her prisoners, has, to the present day, warded off her resentment, and operated as a screen to the whole. But even these considerations must cease, when national objects interfere and oppose them. Repeated aggravations will provoke a retort, and policy justify the measure. We mean now to take you seriously up upon your own ground and principle, and as you do, so shall you be done by.
But the good news is that the harm you threaten is beyond your ability to carry out; and even if it were, the consequences would come back on you tenfold. America's compassion has thus far prevented her from taking retaliatory actions, and her affection for many individuals in England, who have provided care and support for her prisoners, has, to this day, kept her anger at bay and served as a buffer overall. However, even these factors will no longer matter when national interests come into play and oppose them. Ongoing provocations will lead to a response, and strategy will justify the action. We now intend to take you seriously on your own terms and principles, and as you act, so shall you be treated.
You ought to know, gentlemen, that England and Scotland, are far more exposed to incendiary desolation than America, in her present state, can possibly be. We occupy a country, with but few towns, and whose riches consist in land and annual produce. The two last can suffer but little, and that only within a very limited compass. In Britain it is otherwise. Her wealth lies chiefly in cities and large towns, the depositories of manufactures and fleets of merchantmen. There is not a nobleman's country seat but may be laid in ashes by a single person. Your own may probably contribute to the proof: in short, there is no evil which cannot be returned when you come to incendiary mischief. The ships in the Thames, may certainly be as easily set on fire, as the temporary bridge was a few years ago; yet of that affair no discovery was ever made; and the loss you would sustain by such an event, executed at a proper season, is infinitely greater than any you can inflict. The East India House and the Bank, neither are nor can be secure from this sort of destruction, and, as Dr. Price justly observes, a fire at the latter would bankrupt the nation. It has never been the custom of France and England when at war, to make those havocs on each other, because the ease with which they could retaliate rendered it as impolitic as if each had destroyed his own.
You should know, gentlemen, that England and Scotland are far more vulnerable to destructive fires than America is in its current state. We live in a country with only a few towns, where our wealth comes from land and crops, which are not easily damaged and only in a small area. In Britain, it’s a different story. Their wealth is mainly in cities and large towns, which hold their industries and merchant fleets. Any nobleman’s country estate could be burned down by a single person. Yours might even be a case in point: in short, there’s no disaster that can’t be retaliated against when it comes to destructive acts. The ships on the Thames could easily be set on fire, just like the temporary bridge was a few years ago; yet no one ever found out who did that. The losses you would suffer from such an event, done at the right time, would be far greater than any harm you could cause. The East India House and the Bank are both vulnerable to this kind of destruction, and as Dr. Price accurately notes, a fire at the Bank could bankrupt the nation. It has never been the practice of France and England to wreak such havoc on each other during war because the ease of retaliation makes it as foolish as if each country had destroyed its own resources.
But think not, gentlemen, that our distance secures you, or our invention fails us. We can much easier accomplish such a point than any nation in Europe. We talk the same language, dress in the same habit, and appear with the same manners as yourselves. We can pass from one part of England to another unsuspected; many of us are as well acquainted with the country as you are, and should you impolitically provoke us, you will most assuredly lament the effects of it. Mischiefs of this kind require no army to execute them. The means are obvious, and the opportunities unguardable. I hold up a warning to our senses, if you have any left, and "to the unhappy people likewise, whose affairs are committed to you."* I call not with the rancor of an enemy, but the earnestness of a friend, on the deluded people of England, lest, between your blunders and theirs, they sink beneath the evils contrived for us.
But don't think, guys, that our distance protects you, or that our creativity has run out. We can achieve what we want much more easily than any other nation in Europe. We speak the same language, wear the same clothes, and behave just like you do. We can move from one part of England to another without being noticed; many of us know the country just as well as you do, and if you foolishly provoke us, you will definitely regret it. Preventing these kinds of problems doesn't require an army. The methods are clear, and the chances are impossible to guard against. I'm raising a warning to get your attention, if you still have any left, and “to the unfortunate people as well, whose futures are in your hands.” I’m not speaking with the bitterness of an enemy, but with the concern of a friend, urging the misled people of England to be careful, or they might end up suffering from the troubles created by both your mistakes and theirs.
* General [Sir H.] Clinton's letter to Congress.
"He who lives in a glass house," says a Spanish proverb, "should never begin throwing stones." This, gentlemen, is exactly your case, and you must be the most ignorant of mankind, or suppose us so, not to see on which side the balance of accounts will fall. There are many other modes of retaliation, which, for several reasons, I choose not to mention. But be assured of this, that the instant you put your threat into execution, a counter-blow will follow it. If you openly profess yourselves savages, it is high time we should treat you as such, and if nothing but distress can recover you to reason, to punish will become an office of charity.
"He who lives in a glass house," says a Spanish proverb, "should never start throwing stones." This, gentlemen, is exactly your situation, and you must be the most ignorant people on the planet, or think we are, not to see where the weight of this situation will land. There are many other ways to get back at you, which, for various reasons, I won't mention. But know this: the moment you act on your threat, a counter-strike will come right after it. If you openly declare yourselves to be savages, it’s about time we treat you like one, and if only punishment can bring you back to your senses, then it will become an act of kindness.
While your fleet lay last winter in the Delaware, I offered my service to the Pennsylvania Navy Board then at Trenton, as one who would make a party with them, or any four or five gentlemen, on an expedition down the river to set fire to it, and though it was not then accepted, nor the thing personally attempted, it is more than probable that your own folly will provoke a much more ruinous act. Say not when mischief is done, that you had not warning, and remember that we do not begin it, but mean to repay it. Thus much for your savage and impolitic threat.
While your fleet was anchored in the Delaware last winter, I offered my services to the Pennsylvania Navy Board in Trenton, saying I would join them, or any four or five gentlemen, on a mission down the river to burn it. Even though my offer wasn't accepted and the plan wasn't attempted, it's likely that your own mistakes will lead to something much worse. Don’t say you weren’t warned when disaster strikes, and remember that we didn’t start it, but we intend to respond. That’s all I have to say about your brutal and foolish threat.
In another part of your proclamation you say, "But if the honors of a military life are become the object of the Americans, let them seek those honors under the banners of their rightful sovereign, and in fighting the battles of the united British Empire, against our late mutual and natural enemies." Surely! the union of absurdity with madness was never marked in more distinguishable lines than these. Your rightful sovereign, as you call him, may do well enough for you, who dare not inquire into the humble capacities of the man; but we, who estimate persons and things by their real worth, cannot suffer our judgments to be so imposed upon; and unless it is your wish to see him exposed, it ought to be your endeavor to keep him out of sight. The less you have to say about him the better. We have done with him, and that ought to be answer enough. You have been often told so. Strange! that the answer must be so often repeated. You go a-begging with your king as with a brat, or with some unsaleable commodity you were tired of; and though every body tells you no, no, still you keep hawking him about. But there is one that will have him in a little time, and as we have no inclination to disappoint you of a customer, we bid nothing for him.
In another part of your statement, you say, "But if the honors of a military life are what the Americans want, let them pursue those honors under the banners of their rightful sovereign, and in fighting the battles of the united British Empire, against our former mutual and natural enemies." Seriously? The mix of absurdity with madness has never been more clearly illustrated than in these lines. Your "rightful sovereign," as you call him, might be fine for you, who won’t question the true abilities of the man; but we, who judge people and things based on their actual value, won’t allow our opinions to be manipulated like that; and unless you want to see him ridiculed, you should be trying to keep him out of view. The less you mention him, the better. We’re done with him, and that should be enough of an answer. You've been told this repeatedly. It’s strange that this answer needs to be repeated so often. You go begging with your king like he’s a child or some item you can’t sell anymore; and even though everyone keeps telling you no, you still insist on pushing him on us. But soon, someone will take him off your hands, and since we don’t want to disappoint you in finding a buyer, we won't make any offers.
The impertinent folly of the paragraph that I have just quoted, deserves no other notice than to be laughed at and thrown by, but the principle on which it is founded is detestable. We are invited to submit to a man who has attempted by every cruelty to destroy us, and to join him in making war against France, who is already at war against him for our support.
The ridiculous nonsense of the paragraph I just quoted deserves nothing more than to be laughed off and discarded, but the principle behind it is terrible. We're being asked to bend to a man who has tried every cruel method to bring us down, and to team up with him to fight against France, which is already at war with him on our behalf.
Can Bedlam, in concert with Lucifer, form a more mad and devilish request? Were it possible a people could sink into such apostacy they would deserve to be swept from the earth like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. The proposition is an universal affront to the rank which man holds in the creation, and an indignity to him who placed him there. It supposes him made up without a spark of honor, and under no obligation to God or man.
Can Bedlam, along with Lucifer, create a more insane and wicked request? If it were possible for a people to fall into such betrayal that they would deserve to be wiped from the earth like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The idea is a complete insult to the position that humanity holds in creation, and a disrespect to the one who put him there. It assumes he is made without any sense of honor, and has no obligation to God or to others.
What sort of men or Christians must you suppose the Americans to be, who, after seeing their most humble petitions insultingly rejected; the most grievous laws passed to distress them in every quarter; an undeclared war let loose upon them, and Indians and negroes invited to the slaughter; who, after seeing their kinsmen murdered, their fellow citizens starved to death in prisons, and their houses and property destroyed and burned; who, after the most serious appeals to heaven, the most solemn abjuration by oath of all government connected with you, and the most heart-felt pledges and protestations of faith to each other; and who, after soliciting the friendship, and entering into alliances with other nations, should at last break through all these obligations, civil and divine, by complying with your horrid and infernal proposal. Ought we ever after to be considered as a part of the human race? Or ought we not rather to be blotted from the society of mankind, and become a spectacle of misery to the world? But there is something in corruption, which, like a jaundiced eye, transfers the color of itself to the object it looks upon, and sees every thing stained and impure; for unless you were capable of such conduct yourselves, you would never have supposed such a character in us. The offer fixes your infamy. It exhibits you as a nation without faith; with whom oaths and treaties are considered as trifles, and the breaking them as the breaking of a bubble. Regard to decency, or to rank, might have taught you better; or pride inspired you, though virtue could not. There is not left a step in the degradation of character to which you can now descend; you have put your foot on the ground floor, and the key of the dungeon is turned upon you.
What kind of men or Christians do you think Americans are, who, after their most humble petitions are insultingly rejected; after the harshest laws are passed to distress them at every turn; after an undeclared war is unleashed upon them, with Indians and blacks invited to join in the violence; after witnessing their relatives murdered, their fellow citizens starved to death in prisons, and their homes and belongings destroyed and burned; who, after the deepest prayers to heaven, the most serious renouncement of any government connected with you by oath, and the most heartfelt promises and commitments to one another; and who, after seeking friendship and forming alliances with other nations, would ultimately betray all these civil and divine obligations by going along with your horrific and wicked proposal? Should we ever be considered part of humanity again? Or should we instead be erased from society and become a symbol of suffering for the world? But there’s something in corruption that, like a jaundiced eye, colors everything it perceives, making it see everything as tainted and impure; for if you weren’t capable of such actions yourselves, you would never have imagined such a character in us. This offer seals your disgrace. It shows you as a nation without integrity, for whom oaths and treaties are mere trifles, and breaking them is as insignificant as popping a bubble. A sense of decency, or even pride, should have taught you better, even if virtue couldn’t. There isn’t a lower point in the degradation of character that you can now reach; you have reached the ground floor, and the dungeon door is locked behind you.
That the invitation may want nothing of being a complete monster, you have thought proper to finish it with an assertion which has no foundation, either in fact or philosophy; and as Mr. Ferguson, your secretary, is a man of letters, and has made civil society his study, and published a treatise on that subject, I address this part to him.
That the invitation might not come across as a total disaster, you’ve decided to end it with a claim that has no basis in reality or philosophy. Since Mr. Ferguson, your secretary, is well-read and has studied civil society, even publishing a treatise on the subject, I’m addressing this part to him.
In the close of the paragraph which I last quoted, France is styled the "natural enemy" of England, and by way of lugging us into some strange idea, she is styled "the late mutual and natural enemy" of both countries. I deny that she ever was the natural enemy of either; and that there does not exist in nature such a principle. The expression is an unmeaning barbarism, and wholly unphilosophical, when applied to beings of the same species, let their station in the creation be what it may. We have a perfect idea of a natural enemy when we think of the devil, because the enmity is perpetual, unalterable and unabateable. It admits, neither of peace, truce, or treaty; consequently the warfare is eternal, and therefore it is natural. But man with man cannot arrange in the same opposition. Their quarrels are accidental and equivocally created. They become friends or enemies as the change of temper, or the cast of interest inclines them. The Creator of man did not constitute them the natural enemy of each other. He has not made any one order of beings so. Even wolves may quarrel, still they herd together. If any two nations are so, then must all nations be so, otherwise it is not nature but custom, and the offence frequently originates with the accuser. England is as truly the natural enemy of France, as France is of England, and perhaps more so. Separated from the rest of Europe, she has contracted an unsocial habit of manners, and imagines in others the jealousy she creates in herself. Never long satisfied with peace, she supposes the discontent universal, and buoyed up with her own importance, conceives herself the only object pointed at. The expression has been often used, and always with a fraudulent design; for when the idea of a natural enemy is conceived, it prevents all other inquiries, and the real cause of the quarrel is hidden in the universality of the conceit. Men start at the notion of a natural enemy, and ask no other question. The cry obtains credit like the alarm of a mad dog, and is one of those kind of tricks, which, by operating on the common passions, secures their interest through their folly.
At the end of the last paragraph I quoted, France is referred to as the "natural enemy" of England, and in a strange twist, it's called "the late mutual and natural enemy" of both countries. I argue that France was never the natural enemy of either; such a principle doesn't exist in nature. The phrase is meaningless and completely unphilosophical when applied to beings of the same species, no matter their status in the world. We have a clear idea of a natural enemy when we think of the devil, because that enmity is constant, unchanging, and unending. There’s no room for peace, truce, or treaty; thus, the conflict is eternal, making it truly natural. But humans cannot maintain the same kind of opposition. Their disputes are random and ambiguous. They can shift between being friends or enemies based on their mood or interests. The Creator didn't make humans natural enemies of one another. No group of beings is designed that way. Even wolves can fight but still stick together. If two nations are natural enemies, then all nations must be, otherwise it’s not nature but habit, and the offense often stems from the accuser. England is just as much the natural enemy of France as France is of England, maybe even more so. Isolated from the rest of Europe, England has developed an unsociable attitude and projects its own jealousy onto others. Never completely satisfied with peace, it assumes everyone else feels the same discontent and, filled with its own sense of importance, thinks it’s the only target. This phrase has been used many times, always with a deceptive intent; once the idea of a natural enemy is accepted, it shuts down any further questions, hiding the real cause of conflict in that broad notion. People are startled by the idea of a natural enemy and don’t ask any other questions. This notion gains traction like the warning of a rabid dog, and it’s one of those tricks that, by appealing to common emotions, manipulates people for its own gain through their foolishness.
But we, sir, are not to be thus imposed upon. We live in a large world, and have extended our ideas beyond the limits and prejudices of an island. We hold out the right hand of friendship to all the universe, and we conceive that there is a sociality in the manners of France, which is much better disposed to peace and negotiation than that of England, and until the latter becomes more civilized, she cannot expect to live long at peace with any power. Her common language is vulgar and offensive, and children suck in with their milk the rudiments of insult—"The arm of Britain! The mighty arm of Britain! Britain that shakes the earth to its center and its poles! The scourge of France! The terror of the world! That governs with a nod, and pours down vengeance like a God." This language neither makes a nation great or little; but it shows a savageness of manners, and has a tendency to keep national animosity alive. The entertainments of the stage are calculated to the same end, and almost every public exhibition is tinctured with insult. Yet England is always in dread of France,—terrified at the apprehension of an invasion, suspicious of being outwitted in a treaty, and privately cringing though she is publicly offending. Let her, therefore, reform her manners and do justice, and she will find the idea of a natural enemy to be only a phantom of her own imagination.
But we, sir, shouldn't let ourselves be taken advantage of like this. We live in a vast world and have expanded our ideas beyond the limits and biases of an island. We extend the hand of friendship to everyone in the universe, and we believe that the social ways of France are much more inclined toward peace and negotiation than those of England. Until England becomes more civilized, it can't expect to enjoy lasting peace with anyone. Its common language is crude and offensive, and children absorb the basics of insult along with their milk—“The power of Britain! The mighty strength of Britain! Britain that shakes the earth to its core and its poles! The scourge of France! The terror of the world! That governs with a nod, and unleashes wrath like a God.” This language doesn’t make a nation great or small; it reveals a brutality in manners and tends to keep national hostility alive. The entertainments of the stage serve the same purpose, and nearly every public event is laced with insult. Yet England is always afraid of France—panicking at the thought of invasion, worried about being outwitted in a treaty, and privately cowering while publicly offending. Therefore, let it reform its manners and seek justice, and it will discover that the idea of a natural enemy is just a ghost of its own imagination.
Little did I think, at this period of the war, to see a proclamation which could promise you no one useful purpose whatever, and tend only to expose you. One would think that you were just awakened from a four years' dream, and knew nothing of what had passed in the interval. Is this a time to be offering pardons, or renewing the long forgotten subjects of charters and taxation? Is it worth your while, after every force has failed you, to retreat under the shelter of argument and persuasion? Or can you think that we, with nearly half your army prisoners, and in alliance with France, are to be begged or threatened into submission by a piece of paper? But as commissioners at a hundred pounds sterling a week each, you conceive yourselves bound to do something, and the genius of ill-fortune told you, that you must write.
I never expected, at this stage of the war, to see a proclamation that serves no useful purpose and only puts you at risk. It’s as if you just woke up from a four-year dream and have no idea what’s happened in the meantime. Is this really the time to be offering pardons or bringing up long-forgotten topics like charters and taxes? After every effort has failed you, is it really worth it to hide behind arguments and persuasion? Do you really believe that, with nearly half your army in captivity and allied with France, we can be persuaded or threatened into submission by a piece of paper? But as commissioners making a hundred pounds each per week, you feel obligated to produce something, and misfortune has compelled you to write.
For my own part, I have not put pen to paper these several months. Convinced of our superiority by the issue of every campaign, I was inclined to hope, that that which all the rest of the world now see, would become visible to you, and therefore felt unwilling to ruffle your temper by fretting you with repetitions and discoveries. There have been intervals of hesitation in your conduct, from which it seemed a pity to disturb you, and a charity to leave you to yourselves. You have often stopped, as if you intended to think, but your thoughts have ever been too early or too late.
I haven't written anything for the past few months. After seeing us win every campaign, I thought you might eventually realize what the rest of the world already sees, so I didn’t want to annoy you by repeating myself or pointing out things again. There have been times when you've seemed uncertain in your actions, and it felt wrong to interrupt you and better to let you handle things on your own. You've often paused, as if you were planning to reflect, but your thoughts have always come too soon or too late.
There was a time when Britain disdained to answer, or even hear a petition from America. That time is past and she in her turn is petitioning our acceptance. We now stand on higher ground, and offer her peace; and the time will come when she, perhaps in vain, will ask it from us. The latter case is as probable as the former ever was. She cannot refuse to acknowledge our independence with greater obstinacy than she before refused to repeal her laws; and if America alone could bring her to the one, united with France she will reduce her to the other. There is something in obstinacy which differs from every other passion; whenever it fails it never recovers, but either breaks like iron, or crumbles sulkily away like a fractured arch. Most other passions have their periods of fatigue and rest; their suffering and their cure; but obstinacy has no resource, and the first wound is mortal. You have already begun to give it up, and you will, from the natural construction of the vice, find yourselves both obliged and inclined to do so.
There was a time when Britain wouldn't even respond to or listen to a request from America. That time has passed, and now she is asking for our acceptance. We stand on stronger ground now and offer her peace; eventually, she may, perhaps in vain, seek it from us. That scenario is just as likely as the previous one ever was. She can't deny our independence with more stubbornness than she previously refused to repeal her laws; and if America alone could force her to acknowledge the first, united with France, we will compel her to accept the latter. There’s something about stubbornness that’s different from all other emotions; when it fails, it never bounces back, but either shatters like iron or sulks away like a broken arch. Most other emotions have their cycles of exhaustion and recovery; they experience pain and healing, but stubbornness has no escape, and the initial blow is fatal. You’ve already started to let go of it, and you’ll, due to the very nature of the flaw, find yourselves both forced and willing to do so.
If you look back you see nothing but loss and disgrace. If you look forward the same scene continues, and the close is an impenetrable gloom. You may plan and execute little mischiefs, but are they worth the expense they cost you, or will such partial evils have any effect on the general cause? Your expedition to Egg Harbor, will be felt at a distance like an attack upon a hen-roost, and expose you in Europe, with a sort of childish frenzy. Is it worth while to keep an army to protect you in writing proclamations, or to get once a year into winter quarters? Possessing yourselves of towns is not conquest, but convenience, and in which you will one day or other be trepanned. Your retreat from Philadelphia, was only a timely escape, and your next expedition may be less fortunate.
If you look back, all you see is loss and shame. If you look ahead, the same scene continues, and the end is a dark void. You might plan and carry out small acts of mischief, but are they really worth the trouble they cause you, or will these minor troubles have any impact on the bigger picture? Your mission to Egg Harbor will be felt like a petty raid on a chicken coop and will portray you in Europe with a sort of childish mania. Is it worth keeping an army just to support your proclamations or to settle down for winter once a year? Taking control of towns isn’t true conquest, but merely a convenience, and someday you’ll find yourselves trapped by it. Your retreat from Philadelphia was just a lucky getaway, and your next mission might not be as lucky.
It would puzzle all the politicians in the universe to conceive what you stay for, or why you should have stayed so long. You are prosecuting a war in which you confess you have neither object nor hope, and that conquest, could it be effected, would not repay the charges: in the mean while the rest of your affairs are running to ruin, and a European war kindling against you. In such a situation, there is neither doubt nor difficulty; the first rudiments of reason will determine the choice, for if peace can be procured with more advantages than even a conquest can be obtained, he must be an idiot indeed that hesitates.
It would baffle all the politicians in the world to understand why you stay or why you’ve stayed so long. You’re waging a war where you admit you have no goal or hope, and even if you could achieve victory, it wouldn’t be worth the cost. Meanwhile, your other affairs are falling apart, and a European war is brewing against you. In this situation, there’s no doubt or complexity; even the basics of logic would lead you to a decision. If peace can be secured with greater benefits than what you could gain from victory, only a fool would hesitate.
But you are probably buoyed up by a set of wretched mortals, who, having deceived themselves, are cringing, with the duplicity of a spaniel, for a little temporary bread. Those men will tell you just what you please. It is their interest to amuse, in order to lengthen out their protection. They study to keep you amongst them for that very purpose; and in proportion as you disregard their advice, and grow callous to their complaints, they will stretch into improbability, and season their flattery the higher. Characters like these are to be found in every country, and every country will despise them.
But you’re probably surrounded by a bunch of miserable people who, having tricked themselves, are groveling like a needy dog for a bit of temporary support. Those guys will tell you whatever you want to hear. It's in their interest to entertain you so they can keep enjoying your protection. They try to keep you close for that reason; and the more you ignore their advice and become indifferent to their whining, the more outlandish they’ll get, and the more they’ll sweeten their flattery. You can find characters like these in every country, and every country will look down on them.
Common sense.
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 20, 1778.
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 20, 1778.
THE CRISIS VII. TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.
THERE are stages in the business of serious life in which to amuse is cruel, but to deceive is to destroy; and it is of little consequence, in the conclusion, whether men deceive themselves, or submit, by a kind of mutual consent, to the impositions of each other. That England has long been under the influence of delusion or mistake, needs no other proof than the unexpected and wretched situation that she is now involved in: and so powerful has been the influence, that no provision was ever made or thought of against the misfortune, because the possibility of its happening was never conceived.
THERE are points in serious life where being entertaining is cruel, but misleading is destructive; and in the end, it doesn't really matter if people fool themselves or if they agree to go along with each other's deceptions. The fact that England has been under the sway of illusion or error is obvious from the unexpected and terrible situation it finds itself in now: and the influence has been so strong that no plans were ever made or even considered to prevent this misfortune, simply because the idea of it happening was never imagined.
The general and successful resistance of America, the conquest of Burgoyne, and a war in France, were treated in parliament as the dreams of a discontented opposition, or a distempered imagination. They were beheld as objects unworthy of a serious thought, and the bare intimation of them afforded the ministry a triumph of laughter. Short triumph indeed! For everything which has been predicted has happened, and all that was promised has failed. A long series of politics so remarkably distinguished by a succession of misfortunes, without one alleviating turn, must certainly have something in it systematically wrong. It is sufficient to awaken the most credulous into suspicion, and the most obstinate into thought. Either the means in your power are insufficient, or the measures ill planned; either the execution has been bad, or the thing attempted impracticable; or, to speak more emphatically, either you are not able or heaven is not willing. For, why is it that you have not conquered us? Who, or what has prevented you? You have had every opportunity that you could desire, and succeeded to your utmost wish in every preparatory means. Your fleets and armies have arrived in America without an accident. No uncommon fortune has intervened. No foreign nation has interfered until the time which you had allotted for victory was passed. The opposition, either in or out of parliament, neither disconcerted your measures, retarded or diminished your force. They only foretold your fate. Every ministerial scheme was carried with as high a hand as if the whole nation had been unanimous. Every thing wanted was asked for, and every thing asked for was granted.
The widespread and effective resistance from America, the defeat of Burgoyne, and a war in France were dismissed in parliament as the fantasies of an unhappy opposition or the wild imaginings of a troubled mind. They were seen as unworthy of serious consideration, and even the mere mention of them brought the government scornful laughter. A short-lived victory, indeed! Because everything that was predicted has come true, and all that was promised has fallen short. A long string of politics that stands out for its series of misfortunes, without a single moment of relief, must certainly indicate something fundamentally flawed. It’s enough to make even the most gullible suspicious, and the most stubborn reconsider. Either the resources at your disposal are not enough, or the plans are poorly designed; either the execution has been poor, or the goals are unrealistic; or, to put it more bluntly, either you lack the ability, or fate is against you. For why haven’t you defeated us? Who or what has held you back? You've had every opportunity you could want, and you've succeeded in all the preparations. Your fleets and armies have safely reached America without incident. No extraordinary fortune has disrupted your plans. No foreign nation intervened until the moment you designated for victory had passed. The opposition, whether in or out of parliament, did not disrupt your plans or weaken your forces. They only predicted your outcome. Every governmental scheme was executed with as much confidence as if the entire nation was in agreement. Everything you needed was requested, and everything requested was granted.
A greater force was not within the compass of your abilities to send, and the time you sent it was of all others the most favorable. You were then at rest with the whole world beside. You had the range of every court in Europe uncontradicted by us. You amused us with a tale of commissioners of peace, and under that disguise collected a numerous army and came almost unexpectedly upon us. The force was much greater than we looked for; and that which we had to oppose it with, was unequal in numbers, badly armed, and poorly disciplined; beside which, it was embodied only for a short time, and expired within a few months after your arrival. We had governments to form; measures to concert; an army to train, and every necessary article to import or to create. Our non-importation scheme had exhausted our stores, and your command by sea intercepted our supplies. We were a people unknown, and unconnected with the political world, and strangers to the disposition of foreign powers. Could you possibly wish for a more favorable conjunction of circumstances? Yet all these have happened and passed away, and, as it were, left you with a laugh. There are likewise, events of such an original nativity as can never happen again, unless a new world should arise from the ocean.
A greater force was beyond your ability to send, and the time you did so was the best of all. You were then at peace with the entire world around you. You had the freedom to operate in every court in Europe without any objections from us. You entertained us with stories of peace commissioners, and under that cover, you gathered a large army and nearly caught us by surprise. The force was much larger than we expected, and what we had to counter it was outnumbered, poorly equipped, and badly organized; plus, it was only assembled for a short time and fell apart a few months after you arrived. We had governments to establish, plans to organize, an army to train, and everything we needed to import or produce. Our non-importation agreement had depleted our resources, and your naval power blocked our supplies. We were a people unknown, disconnected from the political landscape, and ignorant of the intentions of foreign powers. Could you possibly want a more perfect set of circumstances? Yet all of this has happened and faded away, almost leaving you with a smile. There are also events so unique that they can never happen again unless a new world emerges from the ocean.
If any thing can be a lesson to presumption, surely the circumstances of this war will have their effect. Had Britain been defeated by any European power, her pride would have drawn consolation from the importance of her conquerors; but in the present case, she is excelled by those that she affected to despise, and her own opinions retorting upon herself, become an aggravation of her disgrace. Misfortune and experience are lost upon mankind, when they produce neither reflection nor reformation. Evils, like poisons, have their uses, and there are diseases which no other remedy can reach. It has been the crime and folly of England to suppose herself invincible, and that, without acknowledging or perceiving that a full third of her strength was drawn from the country she is now at war with. The arm of Britain has been spoken of as the arm of the Almighty, and she has lived of late as if she thought the whole world created for her diversion. Her politics, instead of civilizing, has tended to brutalize mankind, and under the vain, unmeaning title of "Defender of the Faith," she has made war like an Indian against the religion of humanity. Her cruelties in the East Indies will never be forgotten, and it is somewhat remarkable that the produce of that ruined country, transported to America, should there kindle up a war to punish the destroyer. The chain is continued, though with a mysterious kind of uniformity both in the crime and the punishment. The latter runs parallel with the former, and time and fate will give it a perfect illustration.
If anything serves as a lesson against arrogance, it’s surely the situation of this war. If Britain had been defeated by any European power, her pride would have found comfort in the significance of her conquerors; but now, she’s outdone by those she claimed to look down on, and her own beliefs come back to haunt her, worsening her shame. Misfortune and experience don’t teach humanity anything if they lead to neither reflection nor change. Problems, much like poisons, can have their uses, and there are illnesses that no other cure can touch. It has been England’s mistake and folly to believe she is unbeatable, all the while failing to acknowledge that a full third of her strength came from the very country she’s at war with now. Britain’s power has been touted as if it were divine, and recently she has acted as if the entire world was created for her amusement. Her policies, rather than civilizing, have led to the brutalization of people, and under the empty title of "Defender of the Faith," she has waged war in a savage manner against the principles of humanity. Her atrocities in the East Indies will never be forgotten, and it’s somewhat ironic that the products of that devastated land, brought to America, would ignite a war to punish the destroyer. The cycle continues, with a strange consistency in both the offense and the punishment. The latter runs parallel to the former, and time and destiny will provide a clear example of this.
When information is withheld, ignorance becomes a reasonable excuse; and one would charitably hope that the people of England do not encourage cruelty from choice but from mistake. Their recluse situation, surrounded by the sea, preserves them from the calamities of war, and keeps them in the dark as to the conduct of their own armies. They see not, therefore they feel not. They tell the tale that is told them and believe it, and accustomed to no other news than their own, they receive it, stripped of its horrors and prepared for the palate of the nation, through the channel of the London Gazette. They are made to believe that their generals and armies differ from those of other nations, and have nothing of rudeness or barbarity in them. They suppose them what they wish them to be. They feel a disgrace in thinking otherwise, and naturally encourage the belief from a partiality to themselves. There was a time when I felt the same prejudices, and reasoned from the same errors; but experience, sad and painful experience, has taught me better. What the conduct of former armies was, I know not, but what the conduct of the present is, I well know. It is low, cruel, indolent and profligate; and had the people of America no other cause for separation than what the army has occasioned, that alone is cause sufficient.
When information is kept from people, ignorance becomes a valid excuse; and one would hope that the people of England don’t choose cruelty out of preference, but rather out of misunderstanding. Their isolated situation, surrounded by the sea, protects them from the horrors of war and keeps them unaware of how their own armies operate. Since they don’t see it, they don’t feel it. They share the stories that they hear and believe them, and since they’re used to only their own news, they get it sanitized of its horrors and tailored for public consumption through the London Gazette. They're led to think that their generals and armies are different from those of other countries, and that they lack any rudeness or barbarity. They imagine them to be what they want them to be. They feel ashamed to think otherwise, which naturally causes them to support the belief out of favoritism towards themselves. There was a time when I held the same biases and made the same flawed reasoning; but sad and painful experience has taught me otherwise. I don’t know what the behavior of past armies was, but I do know how the current one acts. It’s low, cruel, lazy, and immoral; and if the people of America had no other reason to separate from England than what the army has caused, that alone is enough reason.
The field of politics in England is far more extensive than that of news. Men have a right to reason for themselves, and though they cannot contradict the intelligence in the London Gazette, they may frame upon it what sentiments they please. But the misfortune is, that a general ignorance has prevailed over the whole nation respecting America. The ministry and the minority have both been wrong. The former was always so, the latter only lately so. Politics, to be executively right, must have a unity of means and time, and a defect in either overthrows the whole. The ministry rejected the plans of the minority while they were practicable, and joined in them when they became impracticable. From wrong measures they got into wrong time, and have now completed the circle of absurdity by closing it upon themselves.
The political scene in England is much broader than just news. People have the right to think for themselves, and even though they can't contradict what they read in the London Gazette, they can form whatever opinions they want based on it. Unfortunately, there's been widespread ignorance throughout the nation about America. Both the government and the opposition have been mistaken. The government has always been wrong, while the opposition has only recently been wrong. For politics to be effectively correct, there needs to be alignment of means and timing; a failure in either one undermines everything. The government dismissed the opposition's plans when they were feasible and only went along with them when they were no longer workable. By taking the wrong actions, they ended up in the wrong timing, and they’ve now completed a ridiculous cycle that traps them.
I happened to come to America a few months before the breaking out of hostilities. I found the disposition of the people such, that they might have been led by a thread and governed by a reed. Their suspicion was quick and penetrating, but their attachment to Britain was obstinate, and it was at that time a kind of treason to speak against it. They disliked the ministry, but they esteemed the nation. Their idea of grievance operated without resentment, and their single object was reconciliation. Bad as I believed the ministry to be, I never conceived them capable of a measure so rash and wicked as the commencing of hostilities; much less did I imagine the nation would encourage it. I viewed the dispute as a kind of law-suit, in which I supposed the parties would find a way either to decide or settle it. I had no thoughts of independence or of arms. The world could not then have persuaded me that I should be either a soldier or an author. If I had any talents for either, they were buried in me, and might ever have continued so, had not the necessity of the times dragged and driven them into action. I had formed my plan of life, and conceiving myself happy, wished every body else so. But when the country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. Those who had been long settled had something to defend; those who had just come had something to pursue; and the call and the concern was equal and universal. For in a country where all men were once adventurers, the difference of a few years in their arrival could make none in their right.
I arrived in America a few months before the start of hostilities. I found that the people were so easily swayed that they could be led by a thread and ruled by a flimsy reed. Their suspicion was sharp and insightful, but their loyalty to Britain was strong, and at that time, it felt almost treasonous to speak against it. They didn’t like the government, but they respected the nation. Their sense of grievance was more about seeking resolution than harboring resentment, and their main goal was reconciliation. As bad as I thought the government was, I never imagined they would make such a reckless and evil decision to start hostilities; even less did I think the nation would support it. I viewed the conflict as a kind of legal dispute, where I figured the parties involved would find a way to resolve or settle it. I had no thoughts of independence or taking up arms. No one could have convinced me at the time that I would become either a soldier or a writer. If I had any skills for either, they were buried within me and might have stayed that way if the urgency of the times hadn’t pushed me into action. I had mapped out my life and felt happy, wishing the same for everyone else. But when the country I had just stepped into was set ablaze around me, it was time to take action. It was time for every man to act. Those who had been settled for a long time had something to protect; those who had just arrived had something to strive for; and the urgency and concern were shared by all. In a country where everyone had once been adventurers, a few years of difference in their arrival didn’t change their rights.
The breaking out of hostilities opened a new suspicion in the politics of America, which, though at that time very rare, has since been proved to be very right. What I allude to is, "a secret and fixed determination in the British Cabinet to annex America to the crown of England as a conquered country." If this be taken as the object, then the whole line of conduct pursued by the ministry, though rash in its origin and ruinous in its consequences, is nevertheless uniform and consistent in its parts. It applies to every case and resolves every difficulty. But if taxation, or any thing else, be taken in its room, there is no proportion between the object and the charge. Nothing but the whole soil and property of the country can be placed as a possible equivalent against the millions which the ministry expended. No taxes raised in America could possibly repay it. A revenue of two millions sterling a year would not discharge the sum and interest accumulated thereon, in twenty years.
The outbreak of conflict sparked a new suspicion in American politics, which, although quite rare at the time, has since been proven correct. I'm referring to "a secret and fixed determination in the British Cabinet to annex America to the crown of England as a conquered territory." If this is seen as the goal, then the entire approach taken by the government, though reckless in its origins and disastrous in its outcomes, is nonetheless consistent and coherent in its elements. It applies to every situation and resolves every challenge. However, if we consider taxation or anything else in its place, there's no correlation between the goal and the expense. Only the entire land and resources of the country could potentially match the millions that the government spent. No taxes collected in America could ever cover that. A revenue of two million pounds a year wouldn't pay off the total amount and interest accrued over twenty years.
Reconciliation never appears to have been the wish or the object of the administration; they looked on conquest as certain and infallible, and, under that persuasion, sought to drive the Americans into what they might style a general rebellion, and then, crushing them with arms in their hands, reap the rich harvest of a general confiscation, and silence them for ever. The dependents at court were too numerous to be provided for in England. The market for plunder in the East Indies was over; and the profligacy of government required that a new mine should be opened, and that mine could be no other than America, conquered and forfeited. They had no where else to go. Every other channel was drained; and extravagance, with the thirst of a drunkard, was gaping for supplies.
Reconciliation never seemed to be the goal of the administration; they viewed conquest as certain and inevitable, and believing that, they aimed to push the Americans into what they would call a widespread rebellion. Then, by defeating them with weapons in hand, they planned to take the significant rewards of a large-scale confiscation and silence them for good. The people at court were too many to support in England. The opportunity for plunder in the East Indies was gone; and the government’s extravagance required that a new source be found, which could only be America, once conquered and taken away. They had nowhere else to turn. Every other channel was exhausted; and their excess, like a drunkard’s thirst, was desperately looking for resources.
If the ministry deny this to have been their plan, it becomes them to explain what was their plan. For either they have abused us in coveting property they never labored for, or they have abused you in expending an amazing sum upon an incompetent object. Taxation, as I mentioned before, could never be worth the charge of obtaining it by arms; and any kind of formal obedience which America could have made, would have weighed with the lightness of a laugh against such a load of expense. It is therefore most probable that the ministry will at last justify their policy by their dishonesty, and openly declare, that their original design was conquest: and, in this case, it well becomes the people of England to consider how far the nation would have been benefited by the success.
If the government denies that this was their plan, they need to explain what their plan actually was. Either they deceived us into wanting property they never worked for, or they misled you into spending an enormous amount on something pointless. Taxation, as I mentioned before, could never justify the cost of obtaining it by force; and any kind of formal compliance that America could have shown would feel as light as a joke compared to such a heavy expense. Therefore, it’s likely that the government will eventually justify their actions through dishonesty and openly declare that their original goal was conquest. In that case, it’s important for the people of England to consider how much the nation would have benefited from such success.
In a general view, there are few conquests that repay the charge of making them, and mankind are pretty well convinced that it can never be worth their while to go to war for profit's sake. If they are made war upon, their country invaded, or their existence at stake, it is their duty to defend and preserve themselves, but in every other light, and from every other cause, is war inglorious and detestable. But to return to the case in question—
In general, there are few conquests that justify the effort put into achieving them, and people are largely convinced that it’s never worth going to war just for profit. If they are attacked, their country is invaded, or their existence is threatened, it’s their duty to defend and protect themselves, but in every other situation and for any other reason, war is shameful and horrible. But back to the case at hand—
When conquests are made of foreign countries, it is supposed that the commerce and dominion of the country which made them are extended. But this could neither be the object nor the consequence of the present war. You enjoyed the whole commerce before. It could receive no possible addition by a conquest, but on the contrary, must diminish as the inhabitants were reduced in numbers and wealth. You had the same dominion over the country which you used to have, and had no complaint to make against her for breach of any part of the contract between you or her, or contending against any established custom, commercial, political or territorial. The country and commerce were both your own when you began to conquer, in the same manner and form as they had been your own a hundred years before. Nations have sometimes been induced to make conquests for the sake of reducing the power of their enemies, or bringing it to a balance with their own. But this could be no part of your plan. No foreign authority was claimed here, neither was any such authority suspected by you, or acknowledged or imagined by us. What then, in the name of heaven, could you go to war for? Or what chance could you possibly have in the event, but either to hold the same country which you held before, and that in a much worse condition, or to lose, with an amazing expense, what you might have retained without a farthing of charges?
When countries conquer others, it's assumed that the trade and control of the conquering nation will increase. But that isn’t the goal or result of this war. You had full trade privileges before; gaining territory wouldn't add to them since you'd lose inhabitants and wealth. Your control over the territory remained unchanged, and you had no grievances against it for breaching any agreements or resisting established customs—be they commercial, political, or territorial. You owned the land and trade just as you did a hundred years ago. Sometimes nations conquer to weaken their enemies or balance power, but that wasn’t your aim. No foreign authority claimed here, nor was any such authority suspected by you or acknowledged by us. So, really, what was the point of going to war? What could you possibly gain but to maintain the same territory you already had, and in a much worse state, or to waste resources and potentially lose what you could have kept at no cost?
War never can be the interest of a trading nation, any more than quarrelling can be profitable to a man in business. But to make war with those who trade with us, is like setting a bull-dog upon a customer at the shop-door. The least degree of common sense shows the madness of the latter, and it will apply with the same force of conviction to the former. Piratical nations, having neither commerce or commodities of their own to lose, may make war upon all the world, and lucratively find their account in it; but it is quite otherwise with Britain: for, besides the stoppage of trade in time of war, she exposes more of her own property to be lost, than she has the chance of taking from others. Some ministerial gentlemen in parliament have mentioned the greatness of her trade as an apology for the greatness of her loss. This is miserable politics indeed! Because it ought to have been given as a reason for her not engaging in a war at first. The coast of America commands the West India trade almost as effectually as the coast of Africa does that of the Straits; and England can no more carry on the former without the consent of America, than she can the latter without a Mediterranean pass.
War can never be in the interest of a trading nation, just like fighting isn't profitable for someone running a business. Waging war against those who trade with us is like letting a bulldog loose on a customer at the shop door. Even a bit of common sense highlights the madness of that idea, and it applies just as strongly to war. Nations that engage in piracy, having no trade or goods of their own to lose, can go to war with anyone and find it profitable; but it’s completely different for Britain. In addition to halting trade during wartime, Britain risks losing more of its own property than it could ever take from others. Some politicians in parliament have claimed that the scale of her trade justifies her significant losses. This is truly poor reasoning! It should have been an argument against going to war in the first place. The coast of America controls the West India trade almost as effectively as the coast of Africa manages the Straits trade; England can’t continue the former without America’s permission, just as she can't manage the latter without access to the Mediterranean.
In whatever light the war with America is considered upon commercial principles, it is evidently the interest of the people of England not to support it; and why it has been supported so long, against the clearest demonstrations of truth and national advantage, is, to me, and must be to all the reasonable world, a matter of astonishment. Perhaps it may be said that I live in America, and write this from interest. To this I reply, that my principle is universal. My attachment is to all the world, and not to any particular part, and if what I advance is right, no matter where or who it comes from. We have given the proclamation of your commissioners a currency in our newspapers, and I have no doubt you will give this a place in yours. To oblige and be obliged is fair.
No matter how you look at the war with America from a commercial perspective, it's clear that it's not in the best interest of the people of England to support it. It’s astounding to me, and should be to anyone who thinks rationally, that this conflict has continued for so long despite obvious evidence showing that it’s not beneficial for the nation. Some might argue that I live in America and write this out of self-interest. In response, I assert that my principle is universal. I care about the whole world, not just a specific place, and if what I say is true, where it comes from or who says it shouldn’t matter. We have shared the announcement from your commissioners in our newspapers, and I’m sure you will share this in yours. Helping each other out is fair.
Before I dismiss this part of my address, I shall mention one more circumstance in which I think the people of England have been equally mistaken: and then proceed to other matters.
Before I finish this part of my speech, I want to mention one more thing that I believe the people of England have misunderstood: then I will move on to other topics.
There is such an idea existing in the world, as that of national honor, and this, falsely understood, is oftentimes the cause of war. In a Christian and philosophical sense, mankind seem to have stood still at individual civilization, and to retain as nations all the original rudeness of nature. Peace by treaty is only a cessation of violence for a reformation of sentiment. It is a substitute for a principle that is wanting and ever will be wanting till the idea of national honor be rightly understood. As individuals we profess ourselves Christians, but as nations we are heathens, Romans, and what not. I remember the late Admiral Saunders declaring in the House of Commons, and that in the time of peace, "That the city of Madrid laid in ashes was not a sufficient atonement for the Spaniards taking off the rudder of an English sloop of war." I do not ask whether this is Christianity or morality, I ask whether it is decency? whether it is proper language for a nation to use? In private life we call it by the plain name of bullying, and the elevation of rank cannot alter its character. It is, I think, exceedingly easy to define what ought to be understood by national honor; for that which is the best character for an individual is the best character for a nation; and wherever the latter exceeds or falls beneath the former, there is a departure from the line of true greatness.
There’s an idea in the world known as national honor, and when misunderstood, it often leads to war. In a Christian and philosophical sense, humanity seems stuck at a level of individual development while nations cling to the original harshness of nature. Peace through treaties is just a pause in violence aimed at changing attitudes. It’s a temporary fix for a principle that’s lacking and will always be lacking until we properly understand national honor. As individuals, we identify as Christians, but as nations, we act like heathens, Romans, or worse. I recall the late Admiral Saunders stating in the House of Commons, during peacetime, that “the city of Madrid in ashes wasn’t enough punishment for the Spaniards taking the rudder off an English warship.” I'm not questioning if this is Christianity or morality; I’m asking if it’s decent, or if it's respectable language for a nation. In private life, we call it bullying, and a title can’t change that. I believe it’s quite straightforward to define what national honor should mean; what represents the best character for an individual also represents the best character for a nation. Whenever one surpasses or falls short of the other, it’s a move away from genuine greatness.
I have thrown out this observation with a design of applying it to Great Britain. Her ideas of national honor seem devoid of that benevolence of heart, that universal expansion of philanthropy, and that triumph over the rage of vulgar prejudice, without which man is inferior to himself, and a companion of common animals. To know who she shall regard or dislike, she asks what country they are of, what religion they profess, and what property they enjoy. Her idea of national honor seems to consist in national insult, and that to be a great people, is to be neither a Christian, a philosopher, or a gentleman, but to threaten with the rudeness of a bear, and to devour with the ferocity of a lion. This perhaps may sound harsh and uncourtly, but it is too true, and the more is the pity.
I've shared this observation with the intention of applying it to Great Britain. Her notions of national honor appear to lack the kindness of spirit, the broadness of charitable intentions, and the ability to rise above petty prejudices. Without these qualities, humanity is diminished and becomes akin to mere animals. To determine who she will favor or reject, she inquires about their nationality, religion, and wealth. Her concept of national honor seems to hinge on national insults, believing that to be a great nation means to be neither a Christian, a thinker, nor a gentleman, but rather to intimidate with the boorishness of a bear and to consume with the brutality of a lion. This may come across as harsh and unrefined, but it is unfortunately too accurate, and that’s the real tragedy.
I mention this only as her general character. But towards America she has observed no character at all; and destroyed by her conduct what she assumed in her title. She set out with the title of parent, or mother country. The association of ideas which naturally accompany this expression, are filled with everything that is fond, tender and forbearing. They have an energy peculiar to themselves, and, overlooking the accidental attachment of common affections, apply with infinite softness to the first feelings of the heart. It is a political term which every mother can feel the force of, and every child can judge of. It needs no painting of mine to set it off, for nature only can do it justice.
I mention this just to highlight her overall character. But when it comes to America, she hasn’t shown any character at all; her actions have completely undermined her title. She started out calling herself the parent or mother country. The ideas that come to mind with this expression are filled with warmth, care, and patience. They have a unique energy that, disregarding the usual ties of common affection, resonate deeply with the most tender feelings we have. It’s a political term that every mother can relate to, and every child can understand. It doesn’t need my embellishment, as only nature can truly portray it.
But has any part of your conduct to America corresponded with the title you set up? If in your general national character you are unpolished and severe, in this you are inconsistent and unnatural, and you must have exceeding false notions of national honor to suppose that the world can admire a want of humanity or that national honor depends on the violence of resentment, the inflexibility of temper, or the vengeance of execution.
But has any part of how you act toward America matched the title you claimed? If your overall national character is rough and harsh, then in this case, you are inconsistent and unnatural. You must have a very distorted view of national honor to think that the world can admire a lack of compassion or that national honor relies on extreme resentment, stubbornness, or acts of revenge.
I would willingly convince you, and that with as much temper as the times will suffer me to do, that as you opposed your own interest by quarrelling with us, so likewise your national honor, rightly conceived and understood, was no ways called upon to enter into a war with America; had you studied true greatness of heart, the first and fairest ornament of mankind, you would have acted directly contrary to all that you have done, and the world would have ascribed it to a generous cause. Besides which, you had (though with the assistance of this country) secured a powerful name by the last war. You were known and dreaded abroad; and it would have been wise in you to have suffered the world to have slept undisturbed under that idea. It was to you a force existing without expense. It produced to you all the advantages of real power; and you were stronger through the universality of that charm, than any future fleets and armies may probably make you. Your greatness was so secured and interwoven with your silence that you ought never to have awakened mankind, and had nothing to do but to be quiet. Had you been true politicians you would have seen all this, and continued to draw from the magic of a name, the force and authority of a nation.
I would gladly convince you, and I'll do it as calmly as the times allow me, that by arguing with us, you are undermining your own interests. Your national honor, when properly understood, didn't need to lead you into a war with America. If you had truly understood the greatness of heart, which is the finest quality of humanity, you would have acted completely differently from what you have done, and the world would have recognized that as a noble act. Moreover, you had, with help from this country, established a strong reputation after the last war. You were known and feared abroad; it would have been smart to let the world remain undisturbed with that perception. That force was available to you without any cost. It provided you all the benefits of real power, and you were stronger because of that widespread impression than any future fleets and armies could probably make you. Your greatness was tied to your silence, and you should never have stirred the world but simply stayed quiet. If you had been shrewd politicians, you would have recognized all this and continued to draw from the power of a name, the strength and authority of a nation.
Unwise as you were in breaking the charm, you were still more unwise in the manner of doing it. Samson only told the secret, but you have performed the operation; you have shaven your own head, and wantonly thrown away the locks. America was the hair from which the charm was drawn that infatuated the world. You ought to have quarrelled with no power; but with her upon no account. You had nothing to fear from any condescension you might make. You might have humored her, even if there had been no justice in her claims, without any risk to your reputation; for Europe, fascinated by your fame, would have ascribed it to your benevolence, and America, intoxicated by the grant, would have slumbered in her fetters.
As foolish as you were to break the charm, you were even more foolish in how you did it. Samson only revealed the secret, but you took action; you shaved your own head and carelessly discarded your hair. America was the source of the charm that captivated the world. You shouldn’t have picked fights with anyone, especially not with her. You had nothing to fear from any compromises you might make. You could have appeased her, even if her claims weren’t just, without risking your reputation; because Europe, enchanted by your fame, would have seen it as a sign of your goodwill, and America, intoxicated by the favor, would have remained complacent in her chains.
But this method of studying the progress of the passions, in order to ascertain the probable conduct of mankind, is a philosophy in politics which those who preside at St. James's have no conception of. They know no other influence than corruption and reckon all their probabilities from precedent. A new case is to them a new world, and while they are seeking for a parallel they get lost. The talents of Lord Mansfield can be estimated at best no higher than those of a sophist. He understands the subtleties but not the elegance of nature; and by continually viewing mankind through the cold medium of the law, never thinks of penetrating into the warmer region of the mind. As for Lord North, it is his happiness to have in him more philosophy than sentiment, for he bears flogging like a top, and sleeps the better for it. His punishment becomes his support, for while he suffers the lash for his sins, he keeps himself up by twirling about. In politics, he is a good arithmetician, and in every thing else nothing at all.
But this way of studying how people feel to figure out how they're likely to act is a political philosophy that those in charge at St. James's just don’t understand. They only see corruption as the main influence and base all their expectations on what’s happened before. A new situation is like an entirely new world to them, and while they search for a similar example, they completely miss the mark. Lord Mansfield's skills can only be rated as high as those of a clever talker. He gets the complexities but not the beauty of human nature; and by always looking at people through the detached lens of the law, he never considers the deeper emotions at play. As for Lord North, he finds happiness in having more logic than feelings—he takes punishment like a pro and actually sleeps better for it. His suffering supports him, because even as he faces consequences for his actions, he keeps himself going by spinning around. In politics, he's a decent calculator, but in everything else, he’s just not much at all.
There is one circumstance which comes so much within Lord North's province as a financier, that I am surprised it should escape him, which is, the different abilities of the two countries in supporting the expense; for, strange as it may seem, England is not a match for America in this particular. By a curious kind of revolution in accounts, the people of England seem to mistake their poverty for their riches; that is, they reckon their national debt as a part of their national wealth. They make the same kind of error which a man would do, who after mortgaging his estate, should add the money borrowed, to the full value of the estate, in order to count up his worth, and in this case he would conceive that he got rich by running into debt. Just thus it is with England. The government owed at the beginning of this war one hundred and thirty-five millions sterling, and though the individuals to whom it was due had a right to reckon their shares as so much private property, yet to the nation collectively it was so much poverty. There are as effectual limits to public debts as to private ones, for when once the money borrowed is so great as to require the whole yearly revenue to discharge the interest thereon, there is an end to further borrowing; in the same manner as when the interest of a man's debts amounts to the yearly income of his estate, there is an end to his credit. This is nearly the case with England, the interest of her present debt being at least equal to one half of her yearly revenue, so that out of ten millions annually collected by taxes, she has but five that she can call her own.
There’s one thing that falls squarely within Lord North's role as a financier that I’m surprised he overlooks: the differing capabilities of the two countries to bear expenses. Odd as it may seem, England can't compete with America in this area. Interestingly, the people of England seem to confuse their poverty with wealth; they consider their national debt as part of their national assets. It's like someone who, after mortgaging their property, adds the borrowed money to the full value of their estate in order to calculate their worth, mistakenly thinking they’ve grown richer by going into debt. That’s exactly the situation with England. At the start of this war, the government owed one hundred and thirty-five million pounds, and while the individuals owed could count their shares as personal property, for the nation as a whole, it represented poverty. There are practical limits to public debts just like there are to personal ones; once borrowed money grows to the point where the entire annual revenue is needed just to cover the interest, that's the end of further borrowing. Similarly, when the interest on a person's debts equals their annual income, their credit is finished. This is nearly true for England, as the interest on its current debt is at least half of its yearly revenue, meaning that out of ten million collected in taxes each year, it only has five million that it can actually use.
The very reverse of this was the case with America; she began the war without any debt upon her, and in order to carry it on, she neither raised money by taxes, nor borrowed it upon interest, but created it; and her situation at this time continues so much the reverse of yours that taxing would make her rich, whereas it would make you poor. When we shall have sunk the sum which we have created, we shall then be out of debt, be just as rich as when we began, and all the while we are doing it shall feel no difference, because the value will rise as the quantity decreases.
The situation in America was completely different. She started the war without any debt, and to support it, she didn't raise money through taxes or borrow it with interest; instead, she created the money. Right now, her situation is so different from yours that taxing her would actually make her wealthier, while it would make you poorer. Once we have paid off the money we've created, we will be debt-free and just as wealthy as we were at the start, and throughout this process, we won’t notice any significant change because the value will increase as the amount decreases.
There was not a country in the world so capable of bearing the expense of a war as America; not only because she was not in debt when she began, but because the country is young and capable of infinite improvement, and has an almost boundless tract of new lands in store; whereas England has got to her extent of age and growth, and has not unoccupied land or property in reserve. The one is like a young heir coming to a large improvable estate; the other like an old man whose chances are over, and his estate mortgaged for half its worth.
There wasn't a country in the world better equipped to handle the costs of a war than America; not only because she started out without debt, but because the country is young and has limitless potential for growth, along with a vast amount of undeveloped land available. In contrast, England has reached its limit in terms of age and development, with no vacant land or assets left to leverage. One is like a young heir inheriting a large, improvable estate; the other is like an old man whose opportunities have passed and whose estate is mortgaged for half its value.
In the second number of the Crisis, which I find has been republished in England, I endeavored to set forth the impracticability of conquering America. I stated every case, that I conceived could possibly happen, and ventured to predict its consequences. As my conclusions were drawn not artfully, but naturally, they have all proved to be true. I was upon the spot; knew the politics of America, her strength and resources, and by a train of services, the best in my power to render, was honored with the friendship of the congress, the army and the people. I considered the cause a just one. I know and feel it a just one, and under that confidence never made my own profit or loss an object. My endeavor was to have the matter well understood on both sides, and I conceived myself tendering a general service, by setting forth to the one the impossibility of being conquered, and to the other the impossibility of conquering. Most of the arguments made use of by the ministry for supporting the war, are the very arguments that ought to have been used against supporting it; and the plans, by which they thought to conquer, are the very plans in which they were sure to be defeated. They have taken every thing up at the wrong end. Their ignorance is astonishing, and were you in my situation you would see it. They may, perhaps, have your confidence, but I am persuaded that they would make very indifferent members of Congress. I know what England is, and what America is, and from the compound of knowledge, am better enabled to judge of the issue than what the king or any of his ministers can be.
In the second issue of the Crisis, which I see has been republished in England, I tried to show that conquering America is unrealistic. I outlined every scenario I thought could happen and predicted the outcomes. Since my conclusions were derived naturally rather than artificially, they have all turned out to be correct. I was right there, aware of American politics, its strength and resources, and, through my best efforts, earned the friendship of Congress, the army, and the people. I believed the cause was just, and I still know it is just; with that confidence, I never let my own profits or losses take priority. My goal was to ensure both sides understood the situation well, offering a service by demonstrating to one side the impossibility of being conquered, and to the other side, the impossibility of conquering. Most of the arguments the government used to justify the war are actually the arguments that should have been used against it, and the plans they thought would lead to victory are the very ones that guarantee their defeat. They've approached everything from the wrong angle. Their ignorance is astounding, and if you were in my position, you would see it too. They may have your trust, but I’m convinced they would make very poor members of Congress. I know what England is like and what America is like, and with that knowledge, I can judge the outcome better than the king or any of his ministers.
In this number I have endeavored to show the ill policy and disadvantages of the war. I believe many of my remarks are new. Those which are not so, I have studied to improve and place in a manner that may be clear and striking. Your failure is, I am persuaded, as certain as fate. America is above your reach. She is at least your equal in the world, and her independence neither rests upon your consent, nor can it be prevented by your arms. In short, you spend your substance in vain, and impoverish yourselves without a hope.
In this issue, I've tried to highlight the poor strategy and drawbacks of the war. I believe many of my points are fresh. Those that aren't have been refined and organized in a way that’s clear and impactful. I’m convinced that your defeat is inevitable. America is beyond your grasp. She is at least your equal on the global stage, and her independence doesn't depend on your approval, nor can it be stopped by your military efforts. In short, you’re wasting your resources and making yourselves poorer without any hope.
But suppose you had conquered America, what advantages, collectively or individually, as merchants, manufacturers, or conquerors, could you have looked for? This is an object you seemed never to have attended to. Listening for the sound of victory, and led away by the frenzy of arms, you neglected to reckon either the cost or the consequences. You must all pay towards the expense; the poorest among you must bear his share, and it is both your right and your duty to weigh seriously the matter. Had America been conquered, she might have been parcelled out in grants to the favorites at court, but no share of it would have fallen to you. Your taxes would not have been lessened, because she would have been in no condition to have paid any towards your relief. We are rich by contrivance of our own, which would have ceased as soon as you became masters. Our paper money will be of no use in England, and silver and gold we have none. In the last war you made many conquests, but were any of your taxes lessened thereby? On the contrary, were you not taxed to pay for the charge of making them, and has not the same been the case in every war?
But let’s say you had taken over America. What benefits, either as a group or as individuals—merchants, manufacturers, or conquerors—could you have expected? This is something you never seemed to consider. In your eagerness for victory and caught up in the heat of battle, you failed to think about the costs and the outcomes. Everyone has to chip in for the expenses; even the poorest among you has to carry their part, and it’s both your right and your responsibility to think this through seriously. If America had been conquered, it might have been divided up as land grants to the king's favorites, but none of it would have gone to you. Your taxes wouldn't have gone down, because America wouldn’t have been able to contribute anything toward your relief. We are wealthy because of our own efforts, which would have stopped the moment you took control. Our paper money wouldn’t be useful in England, and we don’t have any silver or gold. In the last war, you gained a lot of territory, but did that lower your taxes? On the contrary, weren’t you taxed to cover the costs of those conquests? Hasn't this been true in every war?
To the Parliament I wish to address myself in a more particular manner. They appear to have supposed themselves partners in the chase, and to have hunted with the lion from an expectation of a right in the booty; but in this it is most probable they would, as legislators, have been disappointed. The case is quite a new one, and many unforeseen difficulties would have arisen thereon. The Parliament claimed a legislative right over America, and the war originated from that pretence. But the army is supposed to belong to the crown, and if America had been conquered through their means, the claim of the legislature would have been suffocated in the conquest. Ceded, or conquered, countries are supposed to be out of the authority of Parliament. Taxation is exercised over them by prerogative and not by law. It was attempted to be done in the Grenadas a few years ago, and the only reason why it was not done was because the crown had made a prior relinquishment of its claim. Therefore, Parliament have been all this while supporting measures for the establishment of their authority, in the issue of which, they would have been triumphed over by the prerogative. This might have opened a new and interesting opposition between the Parliament and the crown. The crown would have said that it conquered for itself, and that to conquer for Parliament was an unknown case. The Parliament might have replied, that America not being a foreign country, but a country in rebellion, could not be said to be conquered, but reduced; and thus continued their claim by disowning the term. The crown might have rejoined, that however America might be considered at first, she became foreign at last by a declaration of independence, and a treaty with France; and that her case being, by that treaty, put within the law of nations, was out of the law of Parliament, who might have maintained, that as their claim over America had never been surrendered, so neither could it be taken away. The crown might have insisted, that though the claim of Parliament could not be taken away, yet, being an inferior, it might be superseded; and that, whether the claim was withdrawn from the object, or the object taken from the claim, the same separation ensued; and that America being subdued after a treaty with France, was to all intents and purposes a regal conquest, and of course the sole property of the king. The Parliament, as the legal delegates of the people, might have contended against the term "inferior," and rested the case upon the antiquity of power, and this would have brought on a set of very interesting and rational questions.
I want to speak directly to Parliament. They seem to think they’re partners in the hunt, believing they have a right to the spoils. However, they would likely be disappointed as legislators. This situation is completely new, and many unexpected challenges would have come up. Parliament claimed legislative authority over America, which sparked the war. But the army is believed to belong to the crown, and if America had been conquered through their efforts, Parliament's claim would have been invalidated by the conquest. Territories that are ceded or conquered are thought to be outside of Parliament's authority. They are taxed by royal prerogative rather than by law. A few years ago, there was an attempt to do this in the Grenadas, but it didn’t happen because the crown had previously given up its claim. So, Parliament has been supporting measures to establish their authority while ultimately being overshadowed by royal prerogative. This could have created a new and engaging conflict between Parliament and the crown. The crown could argue that it conquered for itself, and that conquering for Parliament was a completely novel idea. Parliament might respond that since America was not a foreign nation, but rather a nation in rebellion, it couldn't truly be considered conquered, only subdued; and thus, they would maintain their claim by rejecting the term. The crown could counter that no matter how America was viewed at first, it became foreign by formally declaring independence and signing a treaty with France; and that, by that treaty, America fell under international law, placing it outside the jurisdiction of Parliament, which might argue that their claim over America had never been relinquished, and therefore could not be taken away. The crown could insist that while Parliament’s claim couldn’t be removed, it could be superseded; that whether the claim was removed from the object or the object taken from the claim, the separation still occurred. America, having been subdued following the treaty with France, would, in all respects, be a royal conquest, and thus the sole property of the king. As the legal representatives of the people, Parliament might dispute the term "inferior" and base their argument on the long-standing history of power, leading to a series of very interesting and rational debates.
1st, What is the true source of power and honor in any country? 2d, Does the power not actually belong to the people? 3d, Does the English constitution even exist? 4th, What purpose does the crown serve for the people? 5th, Was the person who came up with the idea of a crown not an enemy of humanity? 6th, Is it not disgraceful for someone to spend a million a year without doing any good, and could that money be used more wisely? 7th, Is someone like that not better off dead than alive? 8th, Is a Congress structured like America's not the happiest and most consistent form of government in the world?—Along with many other similar questions.
In short, the contention about the dividend might have distracted the nation; for nothing is more common than to agree in the conquest and quarrel for the prize; therefore it is, perhaps, a happy circumstance, that our successes have prevented the dispute.
In short, the debate over the dividend might have distracted the country; because it's typical for people to unite in winning and arguing over rewards. So, it’s maybe a good thing that our victories have stopped the argument.
If the Parliament had been thrown out in their claim, which it is most probable they would, the nation likewise would have been thrown out in their expectation; for as the taxes would have been laid on by the crown without the Parliament, the revenue arising therefrom, if any could have arisen, would not have gone into the exchequer, but into the privy purse, and so far from lessening the taxes, would not even have been added to them, but served only as pocket money to the crown. The more I reflect on this matter, the more I am satisfied at the blindness and ill policy of my countrymen, whose wisdom seems to operate without discernment, and their strength without an object.
If Parliament had been dismissed from their role, which is highly likely, the nation would have also lost hope. Without Parliament, any taxes imposed by the crown would not contribute to the treasury but would instead fill the king's personal funds. Instead of reducing taxes, this would not have even added to them but would simply have become extra money for the crown. The more I think about this, the more I see the foolishness and poor judgment of my compatriots, whose decisions seem to lack insight, and their strength lacks a purpose.
To the great bulwark of the nation, I mean the mercantile and manufacturing part thereof, I likewise present my address. It is your interest to see America an independent, and not a conquered country. If conquered, she is ruined; and if ruined, poor; consequently the trade will be a trifle, and her credit doubtful. If independent, she flourishes, and from her flourishing must your profits arise. It matters nothing to you who governs America, if your manufactures find a consumption there. Some articles will consequently be obtained from other places, and it is right that they should; but the demand for others will increase, by the great influx of inhabitants which a state of independence and peace will occasion, and in the final event you may be enriched. The commerce of America is perfectly free, and ever will be so. She will consign away no part of it to any nation. She has not to her friends, and certainly will not to her enemies; though it is probable that your narrow-minded politicians, thinking to please you thereby, may some time or other unnecessarily make such a proposal. Trade flourishes best when it is free, and it is weak policy to attempt to fetter it. Her treaty with France is on the most liberal and generous principles, and the French, in their conduct towards her, have proved themselves to be philosophers, politicians, and gentlemen.
To the strong foundation of the nation, meaning the business and manufacturing sector, I also present my address. It's in your best interest to see America as an independent country rather than a conquered one. If conquered, she is finished; if she’s finished, she becomes poor; as a result, trade will be minimal, and her credit will be questionable. If independent, she thrives, and your profits will come from that thriving. It doesn’t matter to you who runs America as long as your products find a market there. Some goods will naturally be sourced from other places, and that’s perfectly fine; but the demand for others will grow due to the surge of people that independence and peace will bring, which may ultimately enrich you. America’s commerce is completely free, and it will always remain so. She won’t give away any part of it to any nation. She won’t do so for her friends, and certainly not for her enemies; though it's likely that some short-sighted politicians, thinking it might please you, may at some point make such a suggestion. Trade thrives best when it's free, and trying to restrict it is poor policy. Her treaty with France is based on the most open and generous principles, and the French, in their dealings with her, have shown themselves to be wise, diplomatic, and honorable.
To the ministry I likewise address myself. You, gentlemen, have studied the ruin of your country, from which it is not within your abilities to rescue her. Your attempts to recover her are as ridiculous as your plans which involved her are detestable. The commissioners, being about to depart, will probably bring you this, and with it my sixth number, addressed to them; and in so doing they carry back more Common Sense than they brought, and you likewise will have more than when you sent them.
I’m also reaching out to the ministry. You, gentlemen, have examined the downfall of your country, which you cannot save. Your efforts to restore it are as absurd as the plans involving it are objectionable. The commissioners, who are about to leave, will probably bring you this, along with my sixth document addressed to them; by doing so, they’ll return with more Common Sense than they brought, and you will have more than what you had when you sent them off.
Having thus addressed you severally, I conclude by addressing you collectively. It is a long lane that has no turning. A period of sixteen years of misconduct and misfortune, is certainly long enough for any one nation to suffer under; and upon a supposition that war is not declared between France and you, I beg to place a line of conduct before you that will easily lead you out of all your troubles. It has been hinted before, and cannot be too much attended to.
Having addressed each of you individually, I now speak to all of you together. No path is so long that it doesn't have a turning point. Sixteen years of wrongdoing and bad luck is definitely long enough for any nation to endure. Assuming that war isn't declared between France and you, I want to suggest a course of action that will help you easily overcome all your troubles. This has been mentioned before and deserves your serious attention.
Suppose America had remained unknown to Europe till the present year, and that Mr. Banks and Dr. Solander, in another voyage round the world, had made the first discovery of her, in the same condition that she is now in, of arts, arms, numbers, and civilization. What, I ask, in that case, would have been your conduct towards her? For that will point out what it ought to be now. The problems and their solutions are equal, and the right line of the one is the parallel of the other. The question takes in every circumstance that can possibly arise. It reduces politics to a simple thought, and is moreover a mode of investigation, in which, while you are studying your interest the simplicity of the case will cheat you into good temper. You have nothing to do but to suppose that you have found America, and she appears found to your hand, and while in the joy of your heart you stand still to admire her, the path of politics rises straight before you.
Imagine if America had stayed unknown to Europe until this year, and Mr. Banks and Dr. Solander discovered her on another journey around the world, in the same state she is now, with her arts, military, population, and civilization. What, I ask, would you do in that situation? That would show what your attitude should be now. The issues and their solutions are the same, and the right approach to one mirrors the other. The question includes every possible circumstance. It simplifies politics to a straightforward idea, and it's also a way of exploration where, as you consider your interests, the clarity of the situation can lift your spirits. All you need to do is picture that you’ve found America, and there she is, ready for you, and while you pause in delight to admire her, the path of politics lies clear ahead of you.
Were I disposed to paint a contrast, I could easily set off what you have done in the present case, against what you would have done in that case, and by justly opposing them, conclude a picture that would make you blush. But, as, when any of the prouder passions are hurt, it is much better philosophy to let a man slip into a good temper than to attack him in a bad one, for that reason, therefore, I only state the case, and leave you to reflect upon it.
If I wanted to highlight a difference, I could easily compare what you’ve done here with what you would have done in that situation, and by contrasting them, I could create a picture that would make you feel embarrassed. However, when someone’s pride is wounded, it’s usually better to let them cool down than to confront them when they’re in a bad mood. So, for that reason, I’ll just present the situation and let you think about it.
To go a little back into politics, it will be found that the true interest of Britain lay in proposing and promoting the independence of America immediately after the last peace; for the expense which Britain had then incurred by defending America as her own dominions, ought to have shown her the policy and necessity of changing the style of the country, as the best probable method of preventing future wars and expense, and the only method by which she could hold the commerce without the charge of sovereignty. Besides which, the title which she assumed, of parent country, led to, and pointed out the propriety, wisdom and advantage of a separation; for, as in private life, children grow into men, and by setting up for themselves, extend and secure the interest of the whole family, so in the settlement of colonies large enough to admit of maturity, the same policy should be pursued, and the same consequences would follow. Nothing hurts the affections both of parents and children so much, as living too closely connected, and keeping up the distinction too long. Domineering will not do over those, who, by a progress in life, have become equal in rank to their parents, that is, when they have families of their own; and though they may conceive themselves the subjects of their advice, will not suppose them the objects of their government. I do not, by drawing this parallel, mean to admit the title of parent country, because, if it is due any where, it is due to Europe collectively, and the first settlers from England were driven here by persecution. I mean only to introduce the term for the sake of policy and to show from your title the line of your interest.
To revisit the political landscape, it's clear that Britain's real interest was in advocating for America's independence right after the last peace treaty. The expenses Britain had incurred defending America as if it were part of its own territories should have revealed the importance of shifting the country's approach. This change would have been the best way to avoid future wars and costs, and the only way to maintain commerce without the burdens of sovereignty. Furthermore, the title of "parent country" that Britain claimed highlighted the reasonableness and benefits of separation. Just as in personal relationships where children grow into adults and establish their own lives—which ultimately serves the interests of the entire family—similarly, in the case of colonies large enough to thrive, the same approach should apply, leading to similar outcomes. Nothing harms the bond between parents and children more than being too closely connected and maintaining distinctions for too long. Being overbearing won't work on those who have progressed in life and reached an equal status with their parents, such as when they start their own families. Even if they see themselves as subjects of advice, they won't consider themselves under direct control. I don’t mean to endorse the title of parent country by drawing this parallel, because if it belongs to anyone, it belongs to Europe as a whole, and the original settlers from England came here fleeing persecution. I only introduce this term to highlight policy and clarify your interests.
When you saw the state of strength and opulence, and that by her own industry, which America arrived at, you ought to have advised her to set up for herself, and proposed an alliance of interest with her, and in so doing you would have drawn, and that at her own expense, more real advantage, and more military supplies and assistance, both of ships and men, than from any weak and wrangling government that you could exercise over her. In short, had you studied only the domestic politics of a family, you would have learned how to govern the state; but, instead of this easy and natural line, you flew out into every thing which was wild and outrageous, till, by following the passion and stupidity of the pilot, you wrecked the vessel within sight of the shore.
When you saw how strong and wealthy America had become through its own hard work, you should have encouraged her to stand on her own and suggested a partnership based on mutual interests. By doing so, you would have gained more tangible benefits and received greater military support, both in ships and men, than from any weak and squabbling government you could impose on her. In short, if you had focused on the internal politics of a family, you would have figured out how to govern the state; instead, you went off into all sorts of wild and outrageous ideas, and by following the reckless and foolish decisions of your leader, you ended up sinking the ship just before reaching the shore.
Having shown what you ought to have done, I now proceed to show why it was not done. The caterpillar circle of the court had an interest to pursue, distinct from, and opposed to yours; for though by the independence of America and an alliance therewith, the trade would have continued, if not increased, as in many articles neither country can go to a better market, and though by defending and protecting herself, she would have been no expense to you, and consequently your national charges would have decreased, and your taxes might have been proportionably lessened thereby; yet the striking off so many places from the court calendar was put in opposition to the interest of the nation. The loss of thirteen government ships, with their appendages, here and in England, is a shocking sound in the ear of a hungry courtier. Your present king and ministry will be the ruin of you; and you had better risk a revolution and call a Congress, than be thus led on from madness to despair, and from despair to ruin. America has set you the example, and you may follow it and be free.
Now that I've explained what you should have done, I’ll explain why it didn’t happen. The inner circle of the court had its own interests to chase, which were different from and in conflict with yours. Even though America’s independence and alliance would have kept trade going—and even increased it, since neither country can find a better market for many goods—and even though if America had defended and protected itself, it would have cost you nothing, leading to lower national expenses and potentially reduced taxes; the removal of so many positions from the court calendar went against the nation’s interests. The loss of thirteen government ships and their related costs, both here and in England, sounds terrifying to a courtier who is always looking for advantage. Your current king and government are destined to lead you to ruin; it would be better to risk a revolution and call a Congress than to be dragged from madness to despair and finally to ruin. America has shown you the way, and you can follow it to achieve freedom.
I now come to the last part, a war with France. This is what no man in his senses will advise you to, and all good men would wish to prevent. Whether France will declare war against you, is not for me in this place to mention, or to hint, even if I knew it; but it must be madness in you to do it first. The matter is come now to a full crisis, and peace is easy if willingly set about. Whatever you may think, France has behaved handsomely to you. She would have been unjust to herself to have acted otherwise than she did; and having accepted our offer of alliance she gave you genteel notice of it. There was nothing in her conduct reserved or indelicate, and while she announced her determination to support her treaty, she left you to give the first offence. America, on her part, has exhibited a character of firmness to the world. Unprepared and unarmed, without form or government, she, singly opposed a nation that domineered over half the globe. The greatness of the deed demands respect; and though you may feel resentment, you are compelled both to wonder and admire.
I now come to the last part, a war with France. No sensible person would advise you to do this, and all decent people would want to prevent it. Whether France will declare war against you is not something I can comment on here, even if I knew; but it would be insane for you to strike first. The situation has reached a critical point, and achieving peace is easy if approached willingly. Whatever you might think, France has treated you fairly. She would have been unfair to herself to act any differently, and after accepting our alliance offer, she courteously notified you. There was nothing about her actions that was reserved or disrespectful, and while she made it clear she would uphold her treaty, she let you decide if you wanted to take the first shot. America, on the other hand, has shown a strong character to the world. Unprepared and unarmed, without a formal government, she stood alone against a nation that dominated over half the globe. The magnitude of this act deserves respect; and even if you feel anger, you must both marvel at and admire it.
Here I rest my arguments and finish my address. Such as it is, it is a gift, and you are welcome. It was always my design to dedicate a Crisis to you, when the time should come that would properly make it a Crisis; and when, likewise, I should catch myself in a temper to write it, and suppose you in a condition to read it. That time has now arrived, and with it the opportunity for conveyance. For the commissioners—poor commissioners! having proclaimed, that "yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown," have waited out the date, and, discontented with their God, are returning to their gourd. And all the harm I wish them is, that it may not wither about their ears, and that they may not make their exit in the belly of a whale.
Here I conclude my arguments and finish my speech. It is what it is, and you’re welcome. I always intended to dedicate a Crisis to you when the moment felt right, when I was in the right mood to write it, and when I thought you’d be ready to read it. That moment has now come, along with the chance to share it. The commissioners—poor commissioners!—who declared that "yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown," have let the deadline pass, and, unhappy with their God, are going back to their old ways. All I wish for them is that their gourd doesn’t wither around them and that they don’t end up inside a whale.
COMMON SENSE.
Common sense.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 21, 1778.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 21, 1778.
P.S.—Though in the tranquillity of my mind I have concluded with a laugh, yet I have something to mention to the commissioners, which, to them, is serious and worthy their attention. Their authority is derived from an Act of Parliament, which likewise describes and limits their official powers. Their commission, therefore, is only a recital, and personal investiture, of those powers, or a nomination and description of the persons who are to execute them. Had it contained any thing contrary to, or gone beyond the line of, the written law from which it is derived, and by which it is bound, it would, by the English constitution, have been treason in the crown, and the king been subject to an impeachment. He dared not, therefore, put in his commission what you have put in your proclamation, that is, he dared not have authorised you in that commission to burn and destroy any thing in America. You are both in the act and in the commission styled commissioners for restoring peace, and the methods for doing it are there pointed out. Your last proclamation is signed by you as commissioners under that act. You make Parliament the patron of its contents. Yet, in the body of it, you insert matters contrary both to the spirit and letter of the act, and what likewise your king dared not have put in his commission to you. The state of things in England, gentlemen, is too ticklish for you to run hazards. You are accountable to Parliament for the execution of that act according to the letter of it. Your heads may pay for breaking it, for you certainly have broke it by exceeding it. And as a friend, who would wish you to escape the paw of the lion, as well as the belly of the whale, I civilly hint to you, to keep within compass.
P.S.—Even though I’ve come to a lighthearted conclusion in my mind, I have something serious to bring to the commissioners' attention that deserves their focus. Their authority comes from an Act of Parliament, which also outlines and limits their official powers. Therefore, their commission is simply a restatement and personal appointment of those powers, or a nomination and description of the individuals responsible for carrying them out. If it had included anything contrary to, or gone beyond, the written law from which it originates, and by which it is governed, it would, according to the English constitution, have been considered treason against the crown, and the king would have faced impeachment. He would not have dared to include in his commission what you have included in your proclamation, meaning he couldn’t have authorized you to burn and destroy anything in America. You are both described as commissioners for restoring peace in the act, and the ways to achieve that are clearly outlined. Your last proclamation is signed by you as commissioners under that act. You make Parliament the supporter of its contents. Yet, in the body of it, you include things that contradict both the spirit and the letter of the act, as well as what your king wouldn’t have dared to include in his commission to you. The situation in England, gentlemen, is too precarious for you to take risks. You are accountable to Parliament for executing that act as it is written. You could face serious consequences for violating it, as you certainly have by overstepping it. And as a friend who wants you to avoid trouble, I politely suggest that you stay within the limits.
Sir Harry Clinton, strictly speaking, is as accountable as the rest; for though a general, he is likewise a commissioner, acting under a superior authority. His first obedience is due to the act; and his plea of being a general, will not and cannot clear him as a commissioner, for that would suppose the crown, in its single capacity, to have a power of dispensing with an Act of Parliament. Your situation, gentlemen, is nice and critical, and the more so because England is unsettled. Take heed! Remember the times of Charles the First! For Laud and Stafford fell by trusting to a hope like yours.
Sir Harry Clinton is just as responsible as everyone else; even though he’s a general, he’s also a commissioner acting under higher authority. His first obligation is to the law, and claiming he’s a general won’t excuse him from his duties as a commissioner, as that would imply the crown has the power to ignore an Act of Parliament. Your situation, gentlemen, is delicate and precarious, especially now that England is in turmoil. Be careful! Remember the times of Charles the First! Laud and Stafford fell because they relied on a hope similar to yours.
Having thus shown you the danger of your proclamation, I now show you the folly of it. The means contradict your design: you threaten to lay waste, in order to render America a useless acquisition of alliance to France. I reply, that the more destruction you commit (if you could do it) the more valuable to France you make that alliance. You can destroy only houses and goods; and by so doing you increase our demand upon her for materials and merchandise; for the wants of one nation, provided it has freedom and credit, naturally produce riches to the other; and, as you can neither ruin the land nor prevent the vegetation, you would increase the exportation of our produce in payment, which would be to her a new fund of wealth. In short, had you cast about for a plan on purpose to enrich your enemies, you could not have hit upon a better.
Having shown you the danger of your proclamation, I’m now going to point out its foolishness. Your methods contradict your intentions: you threaten to destroy things in order to make America a worthless ally to France. I respond that the more damage you cause (if you could actually do it), the more valuable that alliance becomes to France. You can only destroy buildings and possessions; by doing so, you increase our reliance on her for resources and goods. The needs of one nation, as long as it has freedom and credit, naturally create wealth for the other; and since you can neither ruin the land nor stop it from growing, you’ll actually boost the export of our products in payment, which for her would be a new source of wealth. In short, if you had tried to come up with a plan specifically to enrich your enemies, you couldn’t have done better.
C. S.
THE CRISIS VIII. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.
"TRUSTING (says the king of England in his speech of November last,) in the divine providence, and in the justice of my cause, I am firmly resolved to prosecute the war with vigor, and to make every exertion in order to compel our enemies to equitable terms of peace and accommodation." To this declaration the United States of America, and the confederated powers of Europe will reply, if Britain will have war, she shall have enough of it.
"TRUSTING (says the king of England in his speech from last November,) in the divine providence, and in the justice of my cause, I am firmly resolved to pursue the war vigorously and to make every effort to force our enemies into fair terms of peace and resolution." In response to this declaration, the United States of America, along with the allied powers of Europe, will say that if Britain wants war, she will get plenty of it.
Five years have nearly elapsed since the commencement of hostilities, and every campaign, by a gradual decay, has lessened your ability to conquer, without producing a serious thought on your condition or your fate. Like a prodigal lingering in an habitual consumption, you feel the relics of life, and mistake them for recovery. New schemes, like new medicines, have administered fresh hopes, and prolonged the disease instead of curing it. A change of generals, like a change of physicians, served only to keep the flattery alive, and furnish new pretences for new extravagance.
Five years have almost passed since the fighting began, and every campaign, through a slow decline, has weakened your ability to win, without sparking any serious reflection on your situation or your future. Like a spendthrift stuck in a cycle of habits, you sense the remnants of life and misinterpret them as a sign of recovery. New plans, like new medications, have given you fresh hopes but only prolonged the illness instead of curing it. A change of leaders, like a change of doctors, has only kept the flattery going and provided new excuses for more extravagance.
"Can Britain fail?"* has been proudly asked at the undertaking of every enterprise; and that "whatever she wills is fate,"*(2) has been given with the solemnity of prophetic confidence; and though the question has been constantly replied to by disappointment, and the prediction falsified by misfortune, yet still the insult continued, and your catalogue of national evils increased therewith. Eager to persuade the world of her power, she considered destruction as the minister of greatness, and conceived that the glory of a nation like that of an [American] Indian, lay in the number of its scalps and the miseries which it inflicts.
"Can Britain fail?" has been confidently asked at the start of every project; and that "whatever she wants is destiny," has been asserted with a sense of prophetic certainty; and even though the question has often been met with disappointment, and the prediction proven wrong by misfortune, the arrogance persisted, and your list of national problems grew as a result. Eager to convince the world of her strength, she viewed destruction as a pathway to greatness and believed that the honor of a nation, like that of a Native American, rested on the number of its victories and the suffering it causes.
* Whitehead's New Year's poem for 1776. *(2) Poem at the installation of Lord North, for Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
Fire, sword and want, as far as the arms of Britain could extend them, have been spread with wanton cruelty along the coast of America; and while you, remote from the scene of suffering, had nothing to lose and as little to dread, the information reached you like a tale of antiquity, in which the distance of time defaces the conception, and changes the severest sorrows into conversable amusement.
Fire, sword, and hunger, as far as Britain could push them, have been unleashed with reckless cruelty along the coast of America; and while you, far away from the scene of suffering, had nothing to lose and little to fear, the news reached you like an ancient story, where the passage of time dulls the perception and turns the deepest sorrows into topics for casual conversation.
This makes the second paper, addressed perhaps in vain, to the people of England. That advice should be taken wherever example has failed, or precept be regarded where warning is ridiculed, is like a picture of hope resting on despair: but when time shall stamp with universal currency the facts you have long encountered with a laugh, and the irresistible evidence of accumulated losses, like the handwriting on the wall, shall add terror to distress, you will then, in a conflict of suffering, learn to sympathize with others by feeling for yourselves.
This is the second paper, possibly addressed in vain, to the people of England. It’s like trying to offer advice when examples have failed or when warnings are mocked; it feels like hope sitting on despair. But when time makes undeniable the facts you've laughed off for so long, and the unarguable evidence of your mounting losses becomes as obvious as the writing on the wall, you will then, in your own suffering, learn to empathize with others by experiencing the pain for yourselves.
The triumphant appearance of the combined fleets in the channel and at your harbor's mouth, and the expedition of Captain Paul Jones, on the western and eastern coasts of England and Scotland, will, by placing you in the condition of an endangered country, read to you a stronger lecture on the calamities of invasion, and bring to your minds a truer picture of promiscuous distress, than the most finished rhetoric can describe or the keenest imagination conceive.
The impressive arrival of the combined fleets in the channel and at your harbor entrance, along with Captain Paul Jones's mission along the western and eastern coasts of England and Scotland, will make you feel like a threatened nation. This will give you a more vivid understanding of the horrors of invasion and create a clearer image of widespread suffering than the best speeches or wildest imaginations can capture.
Hitherto you have experienced the expenses, but nothing of the miseries of war. Your disappointments have been accompanied with no immediate suffering, and your losses came to you only by intelligence. Like fire at a distance you heard not even the cry; you felt not the danger, you saw not the confusion. To you every thing has been foreign but the taxes to support it. You knew not what it was to be alarmed at midnight with an armed enemy in the streets. You were strangers to the distressing scene of a family in flight, and to the thousand restless cares and tender sorrows that incessantly arose. To see women and children wandering in the severity of winter, with the broken remains of a well furnished house, and seeking shelter in every crib and hut, were matters that you had no conception of. You knew not what it was to stand by and see your goods chopped for fuel, and your beds ripped to pieces to make packages for plunder. The misery of others, like a tempestuous night, added to the pleasures of your own security. You even enjoyed the storm, by contemplating the difference of conditions, and that which carried sorrow into the breasts of thousands served but to heighten in you a species of tranquil pride. Yet these are but the fainter sufferings of war, when compared with carnage and slaughter, the miseries of a military hospital, or a town in flames.
Until now, you've dealt with the costs, but not the hardships of war. Your disappointments have come without immediate suffering, and you've only heard about your losses secondhand. Like distant fire, you didn't even hear the cries; you felt no danger, and you didn't witness the chaos. Everything has been foreign to you except for the taxes to fund it. You haven't experienced the panic of being awakened at midnight by an armed enemy in the streets. You've been strangers to the heart-wrenching sight of families fleeing and the countless worries and deep sorrows that arise constantly. To see women and children wandering in the harsh winter, clutching the remnants of a well-furnished home, searching for shelter in every small space and hut, is something you can't even imagine. You don't know what it's like to watch your belongings being chopped for firewood or your beds being torn apart to make bundles for looting. The suffering of others, like a stormy night, only made your own security feel more pleasurable. You even found enjoyment in the storm by reflecting on the differences in circumstances, and the sorrow that overwhelmed thousands only served to boost a kind of quiet pride within you. Yet these are just the lighter pains of war when compared to the bloodshed and slaughter, the horrors of a military hospital, or a city engulfed in flames.
The people of America, by anticipating distress, had fortified their minds against every species you could inflict. They had resolved to abandon their homes, to resign them to destruction, and to seek new settlements rather than submit. Thus familiarized to misfortune, before it arrived, they bore their portion with the less regret: the justness of their cause was a continual source of consolation, and the hope of final victory, which never left them, served to lighten the load and sweeten the cup allotted them to drink.
The people of America, aware of the challenges ahead, had strengthened their minds against any suffering that could come their way. They had decided to leave their homes, allowing them to be destroyed, and to search for new places to live rather than give in. By preparing for hardship before it hit, they faced their struggles with less regret. The righteousness of their cause provided constant comfort, and the hope for eventual victory, which never left them, helped ease their burden and made their challenges easier to bear.
But when their troubles shall become yours, and invasion be transferred upon the invaders, you will have neither their extended wilderness to fly to, their cause to comfort you, nor their hope to rest upon. Distress with them was sharpened by no self-reflection. They had not brought it on themselves. On the contrary, they had by every proceeding endeavored to avoid it, and had descended even below the mark of congressional character, to prevent a war. The national honor or the advantages of independence were matters which, at the commencement of the dispute, they had never studied, and it was only at the last moment that the measure was resolved on. Thus circumstanced, they naturally and conscientiously felt a dependence upon providence. They had a clear pretension to it, and had they failed therein, infidelity had gained a triumph.
But when their troubles become yours, and the invasion turns back on the invaders, you won’t have their vast wilderness to escape to, their cause to give you comfort, or their hope to lean on. Their distress wasn’t made worse by self-reflection. They didn’t bring it on themselves. In fact, they tried everything possible to avoid it and even lowered their standards to prevent a war. The national honor or the benefits of independence were things they hadn’t considered at the beginning of the dispute, and it was only at the last minute that they decided to take action. Given these circumstances, they naturally and sincerely felt a reliance on providence. They had every right to expect it, and if they had failed in that, it would have been a victory for disbelief.
But your condition is the reverse of theirs. Every thing you suffer you have sought: nay, had you created mischiefs on purpose to inherit them, you could not have secured your title by a firmer deed. The world awakens with no pity it your complaints. You felt none for others; you deserve none for yourselves. Nature does not interest herself in cases like yours, but, on the contrary, turns from them with dislike, and abandons them to punishment. You may now present memorials to what court you please, but so far as America is the object, none will listen. The policy of Europe, and the propensity there in every mind to curb insulting ambition, and bring cruelty to judgment, are unitedly against you; and where nature and interest reinforce with each other, the compact is too intimate to be dissolved.
But your situation is the opposite of theirs. Everything you’re suffering is something you’ve sought out: in fact, if you had caused trouble on purpose to earn this fate, you couldn’t have secured your claim more firmly. The world wakes up with no sympathy for your complaints. You felt none for others; you don’t deserve any for yourselves. Nature doesn’t care about cases like yours, but instead, turns away from them with disdain and leaves them to face the consequences. You can now submit petitions to whatever court you like, but as far as America is concerned, no one will pay attention. The policies of Europe, along with the tendency there to curb arrogant ambition and hold cruelty accountable, are all against you; and where nature and self-interest work together, that bond is too strong to be broken.
Make but the case of others your own, and your own theirs, and you will then have a clear idea of the whole. Had France acted towards her colonies as you have done, you would have branded her with every epithet of abhorrence; and had you, like her, stepped in to succor a struggling people, all Europe must have echoed with your own applauses. But entangled in the passion of dispute you see it not as you ought, and form opinions thereon which suit with no interest but your own. You wonder that America does not rise in union with you to impose on herself a portion of your taxes and reduce herself to unconditional submission. You are amazed that the southern powers of Europe do not assist you in conquering a country which is afterwards to be turned against themselves; and that the northern ones do not contribute to reinstate you in America who already enjoy the market for naval stores by the separation. You seem surprised that Holland does not pour in her succors to maintain you mistress of the seas, when her own commerce is suffering by your act of navigation; or that any country should study her own interest while yours is on the carpet.
Consider the situation of others as if it were your own, and your own as if it were theirs, and you'll gain a clear understanding of the entire picture. If France had treated her colonies the way you have treated yours, you would have condemned her with every word of disgust; and if you had, like her, stepped in to help a struggling people, all of Europe would have praised you. Yet, caught up in the heat of the argument, you don't see things as you should, forming opinions that only benefit you. You’re puzzled that America doesn’t unite with you to take on a share of your taxes and agree to total submission. You’re surprised that the southern powers of Europe aren’t helping you conquer a country that will later turn against them; and that the northern countries don’t support your reinstatement in America, where they already have the market for naval supplies due to the separation. You seem astonished that Holland isn’t rushing in to help keep you the dominant naval power, while her own trade suffers because of your navigation laws; or that any country would prioritize its own interests when yours are at stake.
Such excesses of passionate folly, and unjust as well as unwise resentment, have driven you on, like Pharaoh, to unpitied miseries, and while the importance of the quarrel shall perpetuate your disgrace, the flag of America will carry it round the world. The natural feelings of every rational being will be against you, and wherever the story shall be told, you will have neither excuse nor consolation left. With an unsparing hand, and an insatiable mind, you have desolated the world, to gain dominion and to lose it; and while, in a frenzy of avarice and ambition, the east and the west are doomed to tributary bondage, you rapidly earned destruction as the wages of a nation.
Such extreme and reckless behaviors, along with unfair and foolish anger, have led you to suffer greatly, just like Pharaoh, and while the significance of the conflict will keep your disgrace alive, America’s flag will spread the story worldwide. The natural feelings of every reasonable person will be against you, and wherever the tale is told, you won’t have any justification or comfort left. With ruthless determination and an insatiable desire, you have devastated the world to gain power only to lose it; and while in a frenzy of greed and ambition, both the east and the west are condemned to subservience, you have quickly earned destruction as the cost of a nation.
At the thoughts of a war at home, every man amongst you ought to tremble. The prospect is far more dreadful there than in America. Here the party that was against the measures of the continent were in general composed of a kind of neutrals, who added strength to neither army. There does not exist a being so devoid of sense and sentiment as to covet "unconditional submission," and therefore no man in America could be with you in principle. Several might from a cowardice of mind, prefer it to the hardships and dangers of opposing it; but the same disposition that gave them such a choice, unfitted them to act either for or against us. But England is rent into parties, with equal shares of resolution. The principle which produced the war divides the nation. Their animosities are in the highest state of fermentation, and both sides, by a call of the militia, are in arms. No human foresight can discern, no conclusion can be formed, what turn a war might take, if once set on foot by an invasion. She is not now in a fit disposition to make a common cause of her own affairs, and having no conquests to hope for abroad, and nothing but expenses arising at home, her everything is staked upon a defensive combat, and the further she goes the worse she is off.
At the thought of a war at home, every man among you should be afraid. The situation is much worse there than in America. Here, the group that opposed the continent's measures was mostly made up of neutrals who didn’t strengthen either side. There isn't anyone so lacking in sense and feeling that they would want "unconditional submission," and so no one in America could truly agree with you on that principle. Some might choose it out of fear, preferring it to the struggles and risks of fighting against it; however, that same mindset makes them unfit to act for or against us. But England is torn into factions, with both sides equally determined. The principle that led to the war splits the nation. Their animosities are at their peak, and both sides are armed, ready to call upon the militia. No human foresight can predict, and no conclusions can be drawn, about what direction a war might take if it starts with an invasion. She is not in a good position to unify her own issues, and with no hopes for conquests abroad and only expenses at home, everything is riding on a defensive fight, and the further she goes, the worse off she becomes.
There are situations that a nation may be in, in which peace or war, abstracted from every other consideration, may be politically right or wrong. When nothing can be lost by a war, but what must be lost without it, war is then the policy of that country; and such was the situation of America at the commencement of hostilities: but when no security can be gained by a war, but what may be accomplished by a peace, the case becomes reversed, and such now is the situation of England.
There are times when a nation finds itself in a position where choosing peace or war, without considering anything else, can be politically right or wrong. When going to war won't result in losing anything that wouldn't be lost anyway, then war is the right move for that country; this was the case for America at the start of hostilities. However, when a nation can't achieve any security through war that could be secured through peace, the situation changes, and that is where England stands now.
That America is beyond the reach of conquest, is a fact which experience has shown and time confirmed, and this admitted, what, I ask, is now the object of contention? If there be any honor in pursuing self-destruction with inflexible passion—if national suicide be the perfection of national glory, you may, with all the pride of criminal happiness, expire unenvied and unrivalled. But when the tumult of war shall cease, and the tempest of present passions be succeeded by calm reflection, or when those, who, surviving its fury, shall inherit from you a legacy of debts and misfortunes, when the yearly revenue scarcely be able to discharge the interest of the one, and no possible remedy be left for the other, ideas far different from the present will arise, and embitter the remembrance of former follies. A mind disarmed of its rage feels no pleasure in contemplating a frantic quarrel. Sickness of thought, the sure consequence of conduct like yours, leaves no ability for enjoyment, no relish for resentment; and though, like a man in a fit, you feel not the injury of the struggle, nor distinguish between strength and disease, the weakness will nevertheless be proportioned to the violence, and the sense of pain increase with the recovery.
That America cannot be conquered is a fact proven by experience and confirmed by time. Given that, what, I ask, is the point of fighting? If there's any honor in pursuing self-destruction with unwavering intensity—if national suicide is the pinnacle of national pride, then you can, with all the pride of delusional satisfaction, pass away unenvied and unmatched. But when the conflict of war ends, and the storm of current emotions gives way to calm reflection, or when those who survive its chaos inherit a burden of debts and misfortunes from you, when the annual revenue can barely cover the interest on one debt and no solution is left for the other, very different thoughts will emerge, and the memory of past mistakes will turn bitter. A mind stripped of its anger finds no joy in looking back at a frenzied dispute. The distress of thought—an inevitable result of actions like yours—leaves no capacity for enjoyment and no taste for anger. And though, like a person in a seizure, you may not feel the harm of the struggle or see the difference between strength and illness, the weakness will still match the intensity of the conflict, and the sense of pain will grow as you begin to heal.
To what persons or to whose system of politics you owe your present state of wretchedness, is a matter of total indifference to America. They have contributed, however unwillingly, to set her above themselves, and she, in the tranquillity of conquest, resigns the inquiry. The case now is not so properly who began the war, as who continues it. That there are men in all countries to whom a state of war is a mine of wealth, is a fact never to be doubted. Characters like these naturally breed in the putrefaction of distempered times, and after fattening on the disease, they perish with it, or, impregnated with the stench, retreat into obscurity.
To whom or to what political system you owe your current state of misery doesn't matter at all to America. They have, whether they liked it or not, helped to elevate her above themselves, and she, in the calm of victory, lets the question go. The issue now isn’t so much who started the war, but who keeps it going. It’s a certainty that there are people in every country for whom a state of war is a chance to make money. People like these naturally emerge during chaotic times, and after profiting from the turmoil, they either fade away with it or, tainted by the corruption, retreat into obscurity.
But there are several erroneous notions to which you likewise owe a share of your misfortunes, and which, if continued, will only increase your trouble and your losses. An opinion hangs about the gentlemen of the minority, that America would relish measures under their administration, which she would not from the present cabinet. On this rock Lord Chatham would have split had he gained the helm, and several of his survivors are steering the same course. Such distinctions in the infancy of the argument had some degree of foundation, but they now serve no other purpose than to lengthen out a war, in which the limits of a dispute, being fixed by the fate of arms, and guaranteed by treaties, are not to be changed or altered by trivial circumstances.
But there are several mistaken beliefs that you also contribute to your misfortunes, and if these continue, they will only add to your troubles and losses. Some people in the minority think that America would support measures under their leadership that she wouldn’t accept from the current administration. Lord Chatham would have run aground on this issue if he had taken charge, and several of his followers are heading in the same direction. While such distinctions had some basis when the argument was new, they now only serve to prolong a war where the boundaries of the dispute, determined by the outcome of battle and secured by treaties, cannot be changed or affected by trivial matters.
The ministry, and many of the minority, sacrifice their time in disputing on a question with which they have nothing to do, namely, whether America shall be independent or not. Whereas the only question that can come under their determination is, whether they will accede to it or not. They confound a military question with a political one, and undertake to supply by a vote what they lost by a battle. Say she shall not be independent, and it will signify as much as if they voted against a decree of fate, or say that she shall, and she will be no more independent than before. Questions which, when determined, cannot be executed, serve only to show the folly of dispute and the weakness of disputants.
The government, along with many from the minority, waste their time arguing about a question that doesn’t really concern them: whether America should be independent or not. The real question they should be addressing is whether they will agree to it or not. They mix up a military issue with a political one, trying to compensate with a vote for what they lost in battle. If they say she shouldn’t be independent, it will mean as much as if they were voting against fate. If they say she should be independent, she won’t be any more independent than she was before. Questions that can’t be acted upon once decided only highlight the foolishness of the argument and the weakness of those arguing.
From a long habit of calling America your own, you suppose her governed by the same prejudices and conceits which govern yourselves. Because you have set up a particular denomination of religion to the exclusion of all others, you imagine she must do the same, and because you, with an unsociable narrowness of mind, have cherished enmity against France and Spain, you suppose her alliance must be defective in friendship. Copying her notions of the world from you, she formerly thought as you instructed, but now feeling herself free, and the prejudice removed, she thinks and acts upon a different system. It frequently happens that in proportion as we are taught to dislike persons and countries, not knowing why, we feel an ardor of esteem upon the removal of the mistake: it seems as if something was to be made amends for, and we eagerly give in to every office of friendship, to atone for the injury of the error. But, perhaps, there is something in the extent of countries, which, among the generality of people, insensibly communicates extension of the mind. The soul of an islander, in its native state, seems bounded by the foggy confines of the water's edge, and all beyond affords to him matters only for profit or curiosity, not for friendship. His island is to him his world, and fixed to that, his every thing centers in it; while those who are inhabitants of a continent, by casting their eye over a larger field, take in likewise a larger intellectual circuit, and thus approaching nearer to an acquaintance with the universe, their atmosphere of thought is extended, and their liberality fills a wider space. In short, our minds seem to be measured by countries when we are men, as they are by places when we are children, and until something happens to disentangle us from the prejudice, we serve under it without perceiving it.
Due to a long habit of thinking of America as your own, you assume she is governed by the same biases and beliefs that you are. Because you have established a specific religion at the expense of others, you think she must do the same, and since you have embraced an unfriendly mindset towards France and Spain, you assume her relationships must lack true friendship. Once, she mirrored your views of the world because you taught her to do so, but now that she feels free and has shed those biases, she thinks and acts based on a different approach. Often, the more we are taught to dislike certain people and countries without knowing why, the more we feel a strong sense of appreciation when that misunderstanding is cleared up; it’s as if we owe something, and we readily engage in every gesture of friendship to make up for the past error. Perhaps there is something about the vastness of countries that, for most people, instinctively broadens their perspective. The spirit of someone from an island, in its natural state, seems limited by the foggy edges of the water, and everything beyond is only seen as a source of profit or curiosity, not friendship. Their island is their entire world, and everything revolves around it; meanwhile, those living on a continent, by looking over a larger expanse, also expand their intellectual horizons, thus getting closer to understanding the universe; their mental landscape broadens and their generosity reaches further. In summary, our minds appear to be shaped by the countries we inhabit as adults, just as they are shaped by our surroundings when we are children, and until something happens to free us from these biases, we operate under them without even realizing it.
In addition to this, it may be remarked, that men who study any universal science, the principles of which are universally known, or admitted, and applied without distinction to the common benefit of all countries, obtain thereby a larger share of philanthropy than those who only study national arts and improvements. Natural philosophy, mathematics and astronomy, carry the mind from the country to the creation, and give it a fitness suited to the extent. It was not Newton's honor, neither could it be his pride, that he was an Englishman, but that he was a philosopher, the heavens had liberated him from the prejudices of an island, and science had expanded his soul as boundless as his studies.
Additionally, it's worth noting that men who study any universal science, the principles of which are widely recognized or accepted, and applied equally for the benefit of all nations, gain a greater sense of philanthropy than those who focus only on national arts and advancements. Natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy take the mind beyond the confines of one's country and prepare it for a broader understanding. It wasn't Newton's honor, nor could it be his pride, that he was an Englishman; rather, it was that he was a philosopher. The heavens freed him from the biases of an island, and science expanded his spirit as far-reaching as his studies.
Common sense.
PHILADELPHIA, March, 1780.
PHILADELPHIA, March 1780.
THE CRISIS IX. (HAD AMERICA PURSUED HER ADVANTAGES)
HAD America pursued her advantages with half the spirit that she resisted her misfortunes, she would, before now, have been a conquering and a peaceful people; but lulled in the lap of soft tranquillity, she rested on her hopes, and adversity only has convulsed her into action. Whether subtlety or sincerity at the close of the last year induced the enemy to an appearance for peace, is a point not material to know; it is sufficient that we see the effects it has had on our politics, and that we sternly rise to resent the delusion.
IF America had chased her advantages with even half the determination she used to fight her misfortunes, she would have become a victorious and peaceful nation by now. However, comfortably nestled in soft tranquility, she rested on her hopes, and it was only adversity that stirred her into action. Whether it was cleverness or genuine intent that led the enemy to seek peace at the end of last year is not important to determine; what matters is that we recognize the effects it has had on our politics and that we firmly stand up to reject the illusion.
The war, on the part of America, has been a war of natural feelings. Brave in distress; serene in conquest; drowsy while at rest; and in every situation generously disposed to peace; a dangerous calm, and a most heightened zeal have, as circumstances varied, succeeded each other. Every passion but that of despair has been called to a tour of duty; and so mistaken has been the enemy, of our abilities and disposition, that when she supposed us conquered, we rose the conquerors. The extensiveness of the United States, and the variety of their resources; the universality of their cause, the quick operation of their feelings, and the similarity of their sentiments, have, in every trying situation, produced a something, which, favored by providence, and pursued with ardor, has accomplished in an instant the business of a campaign. We have never deliberately sought victory, but snatched it; and bravely undone in an hour the blotted operations of a season.
The war for America has been driven by natural emotions. Brave in tough times; calm during victories; sleepy when resting; and generous towards peace in every situation; a risky calm, along with intense enthusiasm, have alternated as circumstances changed. Every feeling except despair has been put to the test; and the enemy has misjudged our strength and intentions so badly that when they thought they had defeated us, we emerged victorious. The vastness of the United States, its diverse resources, the universal appeal of our cause, the speed of our emotions, and the similarity of our beliefs have all, in every challenging moment, created something that, with fortune on our side and pursued passionately, has achieved in an instant what usually takes a campaign. We have never actively sought victory; instead, we’ve grabbed it and bravely undone in an hour what had taken a season to mess up.
The reported fate of Charleston, like the misfortunes of 1776, has at last called forth a spirit, and kindled up a flame, which perhaps no other event could have produced. If the enemy has circulated a falsehood, they have unwisely aggravated us into life, and if they have told us the truth, they have unintentionally done us a service. We were returning with folded arms from the fatigues of war, and thinking and sitting leisurely down to enjoy repose. The dependence that has been put upon Charleston threw a drowsiness over America. We looked on the business done—the conflict over—the matter settled—or that all which remained unfinished would follow of itself. In this state of dangerous relaxation, exposed to the poisonous infusions of the enemy, and having no common danger to attract our attention, we were extinguishing, by stages, the ardor we began with, and surrendering by piece-meal the virtue that defended us.
The fate of Charleston, like the troubles of 1776, has finally sparked a spirit and ignited a fire that perhaps no other event could have done. If the enemy spread a lie, they’ve mistakenly stirred us into action, and if they’ve spoken the truth, they’ve unintentionally helped us. We were returning with our arms crossed from the struggles of war, thinking we could take it easy and relax. The reliance placed on Charleston put America in a state of drowsiness. We thought the work was done—the fight over—the issue settled—or that everything left unfinished would resolve itself. In this dangerous state of complacency, exposed to the enemy's toxic influence, and lacking a common threat to grab our focus, we were gradually losing the passion we started with and giving up the strength that protected us.
Afflicting as the loss of Charleston may be, yet if it universally rouse us from the slumber of twelve months past, and renew in us the spirit of former days, it will produce an advantage more important than its loss. America ever is what she thinks herself to be. Governed by sentiment, and acting her own mind, she becomes, as she pleases, the victor or the victim.
As painful as losing Charleston is, if it wakes us up from the slumber of the past twelve months and brings back the spirit of our earlier days, it will create a benefit greater than the loss itself. America is always what she believes herself to be. Driven by sentiment and following her own judgment, she can become either the victor or the victim, depending on her choice.
It is not the conquest of towns, nor the accidental capture of garrisons, that can reduce a country so extensive as this. The sufferings of one part can never be relieved by the exertions of another, and there is no situation the enemy can be placed in that does not afford to us the same advantages which he seeks himself. By dividing his force, he leaves every post attackable. It is a mode of war that carries with it a confession of weakness, and goes on the principle of distress rather than conquest.
It’s not just taking towns or randomly capturing military outposts that can diminish a country as vast as this. The struggles of one area can’t be eased by the efforts of another, and there’s no position the enemy can find themselves in that doesn’t give us the same opportunities they’re looking for. By splitting their forces, they make every position vulnerable to attack. It’s a way of waging war that reveals weakness and operates on the principle of struggling rather than winning.
The decline of the enemy is visible, not only in their operations, but in their plans; Charleston originally made but a secondary object in the system of attack, and it is now become their principal one, because they have not been able to succeed elsewhere. It would have carried a cowardly appearance in Europe had they formed their grand expedition, in 1776, against a part of the continent where there was no army, or not a sufficient one to oppose them; but failing year after year in their impressions here, and to the eastward and northward, they deserted their capital design, and prudently contenting themselves with what they can get, give a flourish of honor to conceal disgrace.
The enemy's decline is clear, not just in their actions but also in their strategies. Charleston was initially a secondary target in their plan of attack, but it's now their main focus because they haven't been able to succeed anywhere else. It would have looked cowardly in Europe if they had launched their major expedition in 1776 against a part of the continent where there was either no army or not enough to oppose them. However, after failing year after year in their attempts here, as well as to the east and north, they abandoned their main goal and instead settled for whatever they could manage, putting on a show of honor to hide their disgrace.
But this piece-meal work is not conquering the continent. It is a discredit in them to attempt it, and in us to suffer it. It is now full time to put an end to a war of aggravations, which, on one side, has no possible object, and on the other has every inducement which honor, interest, safety and happiness can inspire. If we suffer them much longer to remain among us, we shall become as bad as themselves. An association of vice will reduce us more than the sword. A nation hardened in the practice of iniquity knows better how to profit by it, than a young country newly corrupted. We are not a match for them in the line of advantageous guilt, nor they for us on the principles which we bravely set out with. Our first days were our days of honor. They have marked the character of America wherever the story of her wars are told; and convinced of this, we have nothing to do but wisely and unitedly to tread the well known track. The progress of a war is often as ruinous to individuals, as the issue of it is to a nation; and it is not only necessary that our forces be such that we be conquerors in the end, but that by timely exertions we be secure in the interim. The present campaign will afford an opportunity which has never presented itself before, and the preparations for it are equally necessary, whether Charleston stand or fall. Suppose the first, it is in that case only a failure of the enemy, not a defeat. All the conquest that a besieged town can hope for, is, not to be conquered; and compelling an enemy to raise the siege, is to the besieged a victory. But there must be a probability amounting almost to a certainty, that would justify a garrison marching out to attack a retreat. Therefore should Charleston not be taken, and the enemy abandon the siege, every other part of the continent should prepare to meet them; and, on the contrary, should it be taken, the same preparations are necessary to balance the loss, and put ourselves in a position to co-operate with our allies, immediately on their arrival.
But this piecemeal approach isn't going to conquer the continent. It's shameful for them to try it and disgraceful for us to let it happen. It's definitely time to end a war of frustrations that, on one side, has no real purpose, and on the other has every incentive that honor, interest, safety, and happiness can offer. If we allow them to stay among us much longer, we'll become just as bad as they are. A community of vice will ruin us more than the sword. A nation experienced in wrongdoing knows better how to take advantage of it than a young, newly corrupted country. We can’t compete with them when it comes to opportunistic wrongdoing, nor can they match us on the principles we boldly started with. Our early days were our days of honor. They have defined America’s character wherever the story of her wars is told; and with this in mind, all we need to do is wisely and unitedly follow the well-known path. The cost of war is often just as devastating to individuals as the outcome is to the nation, and it’s crucial that our forces are strong enough to ensure we come out on top in the end, but also that we act timely to stay secure in the meantime. The current campaign presents an opportunity that hasn't come before, and preparations for it are essential, whether Charleston stands or falls. If it stands, then it's just a failure on the enemy’s part, not a defeat for us. The only victory a besieged city can aim for is to not be conquered; forcing an enemy to lift the siege is a victory for the besieged. However, there has to be a high probability—almost a certainty—that would justify sending a garrison out to attack a retreat. So, if Charleston is not taken and the enemy withdraws the siege, every other area of the continent should get ready to confront them; conversely, if it is taken, similar preparations are necessary to compensate for the loss and to position ourselves to cooperate with our allies as soon as they arrive.
We are not now fighting our battles alone, as we were in 1776; England, from a malicious disposition to America, has not only not declared war against France and Spain, but, the better to prosecute her passions here, has afforded those powers no military object, and avoids them, to distress us. She will suffer her West India islands to be overrun by France, and her southern settlements to be taken by Spain, rather than quit the object that gratifies her revenge. This conduct, on the part of Britain, has pointed out the propriety of France sending a naval and land force to co-operate with America on the spot. Their arrival cannot be very distant, nor the ravages of the enemy long. The recruiting the army, and procuring the supplies, are the two things most necessary to be accomplished, and a capture of either of the enemy's divisions will restore to America peace and plenty.
We’re not fighting our battles alone anymore like we were in 1776; England, driven by its hostility towards America, has not declared war on France and Spain. Instead, to better pursue its interests here, it has given those countries nothing to attack and avoids engaging them to make things harder for us. England would rather let its West Indian islands be taken over by France and its southern territories captured by Spain than give up on its desire for revenge. This behavior from Britain shows that it's a good idea for France to send military forces to work with America directly. They can’t be far away, and the enemy won’t be able to do damage for long. Recruiting more soldiers and getting supplies are the two most important things we need to do, and capturing any of the enemy’s groups will bring peace and prosperity back to America.
At a crisis, big, like the present, with expectation and events, the whole country is called to unanimity and exertion. Not an ability ought now to sleep, that can produce but a mite to the general good, nor even a whisper to pass that militates against it. The necessity of the case, and the importance of the consequences, admit no delay from a friend, no apology from an enemy. To spare now, would be the height of extravagance, and to consult present ease, would be to sacrifice it perhaps forever.
In a major crisis like the one we’re facing now, with so much at stake, the entire country needs to come together and work hard. No talent should lie dormant that can contribute even a little to the common good, and no negative talk should get through. The urgency of the situation and the significance of the outcomes leave no room for delay from supporters or excuses from opponents. Being stingy now would be extremely irresponsible, and prioritizing comfort could mean losing it for good.
America, rich in patriotism and produce, can want neither men nor supplies, when a serious necessity calls them forth. The slow operation of taxes, owing to the extensiveness of collection, and their depreciated value before they arrived in the treasury, have, in many instances, thrown a burden upon government, which has been artfully interpreted by the enemy into a general decline throughout the country. Yet this, inconvenient as it may at first appear, is not only remediable, but may be turned to an immediate advantage; for it makes no real difference, whether a certain number of men, or company of militia (and in this country every man is a militia-man), are directed by law to send a recruit at their own expense, or whether a tax is laid on them for that purpose, and the man hired by government afterwards. The first, if there is any difference, is both cheapest and best, because it saves the expense which would attend collecting it as a tax, and brings the man sooner into the field than the modes of recruiting formerly used; and, on this principle, a law has been passed in this state, for recruiting two men from each company of militia, which will add upwards of a thousand to the force of the country.
America, full of patriotism and resources, doesn't lack for either people or supplies when a serious need arises. The slow process of collecting taxes, due to the extensive collection methods and their diminished value by the time they reach the treasury, has often placed a burden on the government. This situation has been skillfully interpreted by the enemy as a general decline throughout the country. However, while this may seem inconvenient at first, it is not only fixable but can also be turned into an immediate advantage. It really doesn't matter whether a certain number of men or a militia group (and in this country, every man is part of the militia) is required by law to recruit at their own expense or if a tax is imposed on them for that purpose, with the government hiring someone later. If there is any difference, the first option is both cheaper and better since it avoids the costs associated with tax collection and gets recruits into the field faster than the previous methods of recruitment. Based on this idea, a law has been passed in this state requiring each militia company to recruit two men, which will increase the country's forces by over a thousand.
But the flame which has broken forth in this city since the report from New York, of the loss of Charleston, not only does honor to the place, but, like the blaze of 1776, will kindle into action the scattered sparks throughout America. The valor of a country may be learned by the bravery of its soldiery, and the general cast of its inhabitants, but confidence of success is best discovered by the active measures pursued by men of property; and when the spirit of enterprise becomes so universal as to act at once on all ranks of men, a war may then, and not till then, be styled truly popular.
But the excitement that has erupted in this city since the news from New York about the loss of Charleston not only honors the place but, like the fire of 1776, will ignite action among the scattered sparks across America. The bravery of a country can be seen in the courage of its soldiers and the general nature of its people, but the confidence in success is best reflected in the proactive steps taken by those with means. When the spirit of initiative becomes so widespread that it impacts all classes of people, only then can a war be called truly popular.
In 1776, the ardor of the enterprising part was considerably checked by the real revolt of some, and the coolness of others. But in the present case, there is a firmness in the substance and property of the country to the public cause. An association has been entered into by the merchants, tradesmen, and principal inhabitants of the city [Philadelphia], to receive and support the new state money at the value of gold and silver; a measure which, while it does them honor, will likewise contribute to their interest, by rendering the operations of the campaign convenient and effectual.
In 1776, the enthusiasm of the ambitious people was significantly dampened by the actual rebellion of some and the indifference of others. However, in this case, there is a strong commitment from the citizens and resources of the country to support the public cause. An alliance has been formed among the merchants, tradespeople, and leading residents of the city [Philadelphia] to accept and support the new state money at the value of gold and silver; a decision that not only honors them but will also benefit their interests by making the campaign operations easier and more effective.
Nor has the spirit of exertion stopped here. A voluntary subscription is likewise begun, to raise a fund of hard money, to be given as bounties, to fill up the full quota of the Pennsylvania line. It has been the remark of the enemy, that every thing in America has been done by the force of government; but when she sees individuals throwing in their voluntary aid, and facilitating the public measures in concert with the established powers of the country, it will convince her that the cause of America stands not on the will of a few but on the broad foundation of property and popularity.
The spirit of effort hasn't stopped here. A voluntary fundraising campaign has also started to create a fund of cash to offer as rewards to meet the full quota for the Pennsylvania line. The enemy has noted that everything in America has been driven by government force; however, when they see individuals contributing their voluntary support and working together with the established authorities, it will show them that America's cause relies not on the will of a few but on a strong base of resources and public support.
Thus aided and thus supported, disaffection will decline, and the withered head of tyranny expire in America. The ravages of the enemy will be short and limited, and like all their former ones, will produce a victory over themselves.
With this help and support, discontent will fade, and the decaying head of tyranny will perish in America. The enemy's destruction will be brief and contained, and like all their previous attempts, will lead to a victory over themselves.
Common sense.
PHILADELPHIA, June 9, 1780.
PHILADELPHIA, June 9, 1780.
P. S. At the time of writing this number of the Crisis, the loss of Charleston, though believed by some, was more confidently disbelieved by others. But there ought to be no longer a doubt upon the matter. Charleston is gone, and I believe for the want of a sufficient supply of provisions. The man that does not now feel for the honor of the best and noblest cause that ever a country engaged in, and exert himself accordingly, is no longer worthy of a peaceable residence among a people determined to be free.
P.S. As I write this issue of the Crisis, some people think Charleston has fallen, while others are more sure it hasn't. But there should be no doubt about it now. Charleston is lost, and I believe it was due to a lack of enough supplies. Anyone who doesn’t feel for the honor of the greatest and noblest cause a country has ever fought for, and who doesn’t act on that feeling, is no longer deserving of a peaceful place among people who are committed to being free.
C. S. THE CRISIS EXTRAORDINARY ON THE SUBJECT OF TAXATION.
IT IS impossible to sit down and think seriously on the affairs of America, but the original principles upon which she resisted, and the glow and ardor which they inspired, will occur like the undefaced remembrance of a lovely scene. To trace over in imagination the purity of the cause, the voluntary sacrifices that were made to support it, and all the various turnings of the war in its defence, is at once both paying and receiving respect. The principles deserve to be remembered, and to remember them rightly is repossessing them. In this indulgence of generous recollection, we become gainers by what we seem to give, and the more we bestow the richer we become.
IT'S impossible to sit down and seriously think about America's situation without recalling the original principles that fueled her resistance, which still shine brightly like an unforgettable memory of a beautiful scene. Imagining the purity of the cause, the sacrifices made to support it, and all the different twists and turns of the war in its defense allows us to both honor and receive respect. These principles deserve to be remembered, and remembering them correctly means reclaiming them. In this heartfelt reflection, we benefit from what we seem to give; the more we share, the richer we become.
So extensively right was the ground on which America proceeded, that it not only took in every just and liberal sentiment which could impress the heart, but made it the direct interest of every class and order of men to defend the country. The war, on the part of Britain, was originally a war of covetousness. The sordid and not the splendid passions gave it being. The fertile fields and prosperous infancy of America appeared to her as mines for tributary wealth. She viewed the hive, and disregarding the industry that had enriched it, thirsted for the honey. But in the present stage of her affairs, the violence of temper is added to the rage of avarice; and therefore, that which at the first setting out proceeded from purity of principle and public interest, is now heightened by all the obligations of necessity; for it requires but little knowledge of human nature to discern what would be the consequence, were America again reduced to the subjection of Britain. Uncontrolled power, in the hands of an incensed, imperious, and rapacious conqueror, is an engine of dreadful execution, and woe be to that country over which it can be exercised. The names of Whig and Tory would then be sunk in the general term of rebel, and the oppression, whatever it might be, would, with very few instances of exception, light equally on all.
The foundation on which America stood was so solid that it not only embraced every just and fair idea that could touch the heart, but also made it in the best interest of every class and group of people to defend the country. At first, Britain's war was driven by greed. It was the selfish rather than noble emotions that fueled it. America’s rich lands and promising future seemed to Britain like a treasure trove for profit. They saw the hive and, ignoring the hard work it took to build, craved the honey. Now, in the current phase of events, anger has been added to the greed, meaning that what started out as a matter of principle and public good is now intensified by necessity. It doesn’t take much understanding of human nature to see the consequences if America were to once again fall under British control. Unrestrained power in the hands of an angry, domineering, and greedy conqueror is a terrible weapon, and that country would suffer greatly under it. The labels of Whig and Tory would fade away, replaced by the single term "rebel," and any oppression, no matter its form, would generally affect everyone, with very few exceptions.
Britain did not go to war with America for the sake of dominion, because she was then in possession; neither was it for the extension of trade and commerce, because she had monopolized the whole, and the country had yielded to it; neither was it to extinguish what she might call rebellion, because before she began no resistance existed. It could then be from no other motive than avarice, or a design of establishing, in the first instance, the same taxes in America as are paid in England (which, as I shall presently show, are above eleven times heavier than the taxes we now pay for the present year, 1780) or, in the second instance, to confiscate the whole property of America, in case of resistance and conquest of the latter, of which she had then no doubt.
Britain didn't go to war with America for the sake of control, since she already held it; nor was it to expand trade and commerce, as she had a monopoly and the country had accepted it; nor was it to suppress what she might call rebellion, because there was no resistance before she started. The only other motives could be greed, or an intention to impose the same taxes in America as those paid in England (which, as I will soon demonstrate, are more than eleven times heavier than the taxes we currently pay for the year 1780), or, on the other hand, to seize all of America's property if there was resistance and she succeeded in conquering it, which she was confident she would.
I shall now proceed to show what the taxes in England are, and what the yearly expense of the present war is to her—what the taxes of this country amount to, and what the annual expense of defending it effectually will be to us; and shall endeavor concisely to point out the cause of our difficulties, and the advantages on one side, and the consequences on the other, in case we do, or do not, put ourselves in an effectual state of defence. I mean to be open, candid, and sincere. I see a universal wish to expel the enemy from the country, a murmuring because the war is not carried on with more vigor, and my intention is to show, as shortly as possible, both the reason and the remedy.
I will now explain what the taxes in England are and how much the current war costs us each year—what the total taxes in this country are and what the annual cost will be for us to defend it effectively. I'll also briefly outline the reasons for our challenges, the benefits on one side, and the consequences on the other, depending on whether we decide to fully prepare for defense or not. I aim to be straightforward, honest, and sincere. There’s a widespread desire to drive the enemy out of the country, with some frustration about the lack of more aggressive action in the war. My goal is to quickly present both the reasons and the solutions.
The number of souls in England (exclusive of Scotland and Ireland) is seven millions,* and the number of souls in America is three millions.
The population in England (not including Scotland and Ireland) is seven million, and the population in America is three million.
* This is taking the highest number that the people of England have been or can be rated at.
The amount of taxes in England (exclusive of Scotland and Ireland) was, before the present war commenced, eleven millions six hundred and forty-two thousand six hundred and fifty-three pounds sterling; which, on an average, is no less a sum than one pound thirteen shillings and three-pence sterling per head per annum, men, women, and children; besides county taxes, taxes for the support of the poor, and a tenth of all the produce of the earth for the support of the bishops and clergy.* Nearly five millions of this sum went annually to pay the interest of the national debt, contracted by former wars, and the remaining sum of six millions six hundred and forty-two thousand six hundred pounds was applied to defray the yearly expense of government, the peace establishment of the army and navy, placemen, pensioners, etc.; consequently the whole of the enormous taxes being thus appropriated, she had nothing to spare out of them towards defraying the expenses of the present war or any other. Yet had she not been in debt at the beginning of the war, as we were not, and, like us, had only a land and not a naval war to carry on, her then revenue of eleven millions and a half pounds sterling would have defrayed all her annual expenses of war and government within each year. * The following is taken from Dr. Price's state of the taxes of England.
The total amount of taxes in England (not including Scotland and Ireland) was, before the current war began, £11,642,653. On average, this amounts to about £1.13.3 per person each year, including men, women, and children; this does not account for county taxes, taxes to support the poor, and a tenth of all agricultural production for the support of bishops and clergy.* Almost £5 million of this total went each year to pay the interest on the national debt from previous wars, and the remaining £6,642,600 was used to cover the annual costs of government, the peacetime maintenance of the army and navy, salaries for public officials, pensioners, etc. Therefore, all of these huge taxes were already assigned, leaving nothing for the expenses of the current war or any other. However, if she hadn't been in debt at the start of the war, as we were not, and if she, like us, only had to manage a land war and not a naval one, her revenue of about £11.5 million would have fully covered all her annual war and government expenses. * The following is taken from Dr. Price's report on the taxes of England.
An account of the money drawn from the public by taxes, annually, being the medium of three years before the year 1776.
An account of the money collected from the public through taxes each year, covering the three years leading up to 1776.
```html Amount of customs in England 2,528,275 £ Amount of the excise in England 4,649,892 £ Land tax at 3s. 1,300,000 £ Land tax at 1s. in the pound 450,000 £ Salt duties 218,739 £ Duties on stamps, cards, dice, advertisements, bonds, leases, indentures, newspapers, almanacs, etc. 280,788 £ Duties on houses and windows 385,369 £ Post office, seizures, wine licenses, taxi services, etc. 250,000 £ Annual profits from lotteries 150,000 £ Expense of collecting the excise in England 297,887 £ Expense of collecting the customs in England 468,703 £ Interest of loans on the land tax at 4s. expenses of collection, militia, etc. 250,000 £ Perks, etc. for customs officials, etc. estimated 250,000 £ Expense of collecting the salt duties in England 10 1/2 percent. 27,000 £ Bounties on fish exported 18,000 £ Expense of collecting the duties on stamps, cards, advertisements, etc. at 5 and 1/4 percent. 18,000 £ Total 11,642,653 £ ```
But this not being the case with her, she is obliged to borrow about ten millions pounds sterling, yearly, to prosecute the war that she is now engaged in, (this year she borrowed twelve) and lay on new taxes to discharge the interest; allowing that the present war has cost her only fifty millions sterling, the interest thereon, at five per cent., will be two millions and an half; therefore the amount of her taxes now must be fourteen millions, which on an average is no less than forty shillings sterling, per head, men, women and children, throughout the nation. Now as this expense of fifty millions was borrowed on the hopes of conquering America, and as it was avarice which first induced her to commence the war, how truly wretched and deplorable would the condition of this country be, were she, by her own remissness, to suffer an enemy of such a disposition, and so circumstanced, to reduce her to subjection.
But this isn't the case for her, so she has to borrow about ten million pounds each year to continue the war she's currently involved in (this year she borrowed twelve million) and impose new taxes to pay the interest. Assuming the current war has only cost her fifty million pounds, the interest on that, at five percent, will be two and a half million. Therefore, her taxes now have to be fourteen million, which averages out to about forty shillings per person—men, women, and children—across the nation. Now, since this expense of fifty million was borrowed with the hope of conquering America, and it was greed that first pushed her to start the war, how truly miserable and unfortunate would this country be if she were, due to her own negligence, to allow an enemy of such character and situation to bring her under control.
I now proceed to the revenues of America.
I will now discuss the revenues of America.
I have already stated the number of souls in America to be three millions, and by a calculation that I have made, which I have every reason to believe is sufficiently correct, the whole expense of the war, and the support of the several governments, may be defrayed for two million pounds sterling annually; which, on an average, is thirteen shillings and four pence per head, men, women, and children, and the peace establishment at the end of the war will be but three quarters of a million, or five shillings sterling per head. Now, throwing out of the question everything of honor, principle, happiness, freedom, and reputation in the world, and taking it up on the simple ground of interest, I put the following case:
I’ve already mentioned that the population of America is three million. Based on my calculations, which I believe are quite accurate, the total cost of the war and the support for various governments could be covered by two million pounds a year. This averages out to thirteen shillings and four pence per person, including men, women, and children. After the war, the peace expenses would only be about three quarters of a million, or five shillings per person. Now, setting aside all considerations of honor, principles, happiness, freedom, and global reputation, let’s look at this from a purely financial perspective. Here’s my argument:
Suppose Britain was to conquer America, and, as a conqueror, was to lay her under no other conditions than to pay the same proportion towards her annual revenue which the people of England pay: our share, in that case, would be six million pounds sterling yearly. Can it then be a question, whether it is best to raise two millions to defend the country, and govern it ourselves, and only three quarters of a million afterwards, or pay six millions to have it conquered, and let the enemy govern it?
Imagine if Britain conquered America and, as a conqueror, required nothing more than for us to pay the same percentage towards its annual revenue that the people of England pay: in that scenario, our share would be six million pounds yearly. So, is there really any question about whether it's better to raise two million to defend the country and govern it ourselves, with only three quarters of a million needed afterward, or to pay six million to have it conquered and let the enemy control it?
Can it be supposed that conquerors would choose to put themselves in a worse condition than what they granted to the conquered? In England, the tax on rum is five shillings and one penny sterling per gallon, which is one silver dollar and fourteen coppers. Now would it not be laughable to imagine, that after the expense they have been at, they would let either Whig or Tory drink it cheaper than themselves? Coffee, which is so inconsiderable an article of consumption and support here, is there loaded with a duty which makes the price between five and six shillings per pound, and a penalty of fifty pounds sterling on any person detected in roasting it in his own house. There is scarcely a necessary of life that you can eat, drink, wear, or enjoy, that is not there loaded with a tax; even the light from heaven is only permitted to shine into their dwellings by paying eighteen pence sterling per window annually; and the humblest drink of life, small beer, cannot there be purchased without a tax of nearly two coppers per gallon, besides a heavy tax upon the malt, and another on the hops before it is brewed, exclusive of a land-tax on the earth which produces them. In short, the condition of that country, in point of taxation, is so oppressive, the number of her poor so great, and the extravagance and rapaciousness of the court so enormous, that, were they to effect a conquest of America, it is then only that the distresses of America would begin. Neither would it signify anything to a man whether he be Whig or Tory. The people of England, and the ministry of that country, know us by no such distinctions. What they want is clear, solid revenue, and the modes which they would take to procure it, would operate alike on all. Their manner of reasoning would be short, because they would naturally infer, that if we were able to carry on a war of five or six years against them, we were able to pay the same taxes which they do.
Can we really think that conquerors would choose to put themselves in a worse situation than what they imposed on the conquered? In England, the tax on rum is five shillings and one penny sterling per gallon, which equals one silver dollar and fourteen cents. Isn’t it ridiculous to imagine that after all their expenses, they would allow either Whig or Tory to drink it for less than they do? Coffee, which is a minor item of consumption and sustenance here, is taxed there, resulting in a price between five and six shillings per pound, plus a penalty of fifty pounds sterling for anyone caught roasting it in their own home. There’s hardly a necessity for life that you can eat, drink, wear, or enjoy that isn’t taxed; even the sunlight coming into their homes is only allowed if they pay eighteen pence sterling per window each year. The most basic drink, small beer, can't be bought there without a tax of nearly two cents per gallon, along with a heavy tax on malt and another on hops before brewing, not to mention a land tax on the soil that produces them. In short, the state of that country regarding taxation is so burdensome, the number of its poor so high, and the extravagance and greed of the court so overwhelming, that if they were to conquer America, that would only mark the beginning of America’s troubles. It wouldn’t matter to a person whether they are Whig or Tory. The people of England, and the government of that country, don't recognize us by those divisions. What they want is clear, steady revenue, and the ways they would use to get it would affect everyone the same. Their reasoning would be straightforward; they would naturally conclude that if we can sustain a war against them for five or six years, we can also pay the same taxes they do.
I have already stated that the expense of conducting the present war, and the government of the several states, may be done for two millions sterling, and the establishment in the time of peace, for three quarters of a million.*
I’ve already mentioned that the cost of carrying out the current war and the administration of the different states can be managed for two million pounds, and the setup in peacetime for three quarters of a million.*
* I calculated everything in pounds sterling because it's a rate that's widely recognized across all the states, and it also allows for an easy comparison between our war expenses and those of the enemy. Four and a half silver dollars is equivalent to one pound sterling, plus three pence.
As to navy matters, they flourish so well, and are so well attended to by individuals, that I think it consistent on every principle of real use and economy, to turn the navy into hard money (keeping only three or four packets) and apply it to the service of the army. We shall not have a ship the less; the use of them, and the benefit from them, will be greatly increased, and their expense saved. We are now allied with a formidable naval power, from whom we derive the assistance of a navy. And the line in which we can prosecute the war, so as to reduce the common enemy and benefit the alliance most effectually, will be by attending closely to the land service.
Regarding navy matters, they’re doing so well, and are so well managed by individuals, that I believe it's practical on every level of usefulness and cost-effectiveness to convert the navy into cash (keeping only three or four packets) and use it to support the army. We won’t lose any ships; their utility and the benefits we gain from them will actually increase, and we’ll save on their costs. We are now allied with a strong naval power, from which we receive naval support. The best way for us to fight and effectively weaken our common enemy, while also benefiting our alliance, is to focus closely on the land operations.
I estimate the charge of keeping up and maintaining an army, officering them, and all expenses included, sufficient for the defence of the country, to be equal to the expense of forty thousand men at thirty pounds sterling per head, which is one million two hundred thousand pounds.
I estimate that the cost of maintaining and supporting an army, including officers and all other expenses needed for the country's defense, would be equivalent to the expense of forty thousand men at thirty pounds per person, totaling one million two hundred thousand pounds.
I likewise allow four hundred thousand pounds for continental expenses at home and abroad.
I also set aside four hundred thousand pounds for expenses both at home and overseas.
And four hundred thousand pounds for the support of the several state governments—the amount will then be:
And four hundred thousand pounds to support the various state governments—the total will then be:
For the army 1,200,000 L. Continental expenses at home and abroad 400,000 Government of the several states 400,000 Total 2,000,000 L.
I take the proportion of this state, Pennsylvania, to be an eighth part of the thirteen United States; the quota then for us to raise will be two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling; two hundred thousand of which will be our share for the support and pay of the army, and continental expenses at home and abroad, and fifty thousand pounds for the support of the state government.
I consider Pennsylvania to be one-eighth of the thirteen United States. Therefore, our share to raise will be two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling; two hundred thousand of that will go towards supporting and paying the army, as well as other national expenses both at home and overseas, and fifty thousand pounds will be for the support of the state government.
In order to gain an idea of the proportion in which the raising such a sum will fall, I make the following calculation:
To get an idea of how the raising of such an amount will break down, I do the following calculation:
Pennsylvania contains three hundred and seventy-five thousand inhabitants, men, women and children; which is likewise an eighth of the number of inhabitants of the whole United States: therefore, two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling to be raised among three hundred and seventy-five thousand persons, is, on an average, thirteen shillings and four pence per head, per annum, or something more than one shilling sterling per month. And our proportion of three quarters of a million for the government of the country, in time of peace, will be ninety-three thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds sterling; fifty thousand of which will be for the government expenses of the state, and forty-three thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds for continental expenses at home and abroad.
Pennsylvania has 375,000 residents, including men, women, and children, which is about one-eighth of the total population of the United States. Therefore, raising £250,000 among 375,000 people averages to roughly 13 shillings and 4 pence per person per year, or just over 1 shilling per month. Our share of £750,000 for the government's expenses during peacetime will be £93,750; £50,000 will go to state government expenses, and £43,750 will cover continental expenses both at home and overseas.
The peace establishment then will, on an average, be five shillings sterling per head. Whereas, was England now to stop, and the war cease, her peace establishment would continue the same as it is now, viz. forty shillings per head; therefore was our taxes necessary for carrying on the war, as much per head as hers now is, and the difference to be only whether we should, at the end of the war, pay at the rate of five shillings per head, or forty shillings per head, the case needs no thinking of. But as we can securely defend and keep the country for one third less than what our burden would be if it was conquered, and support the governments afterwards for one eighth of what Britain would levy on us, and could I find a miser whose heart never felt the emotion of a spark of principle, even that man, uninfluenced by every love but the love of money, and capable of no attachment but to his interest, would and must, from the frugality which governs him, contribute to the defence of the country, or he ceases to be a miser and becomes an idiot. But when we take in with it every thing that can ornament mankind; when the line of our interest becomes the line of our happiness; when all that can cheer and animate the heart, when a sense of honor, fame, character, at home and abroad, are interwoven not only with the security but the increase of property, there exists not a man in America, unless he be an hired emissary, who does not see that his good is connected with keeping up a sufficient defence.
The peace spending will average five shillings per person. If England were to stop now and the war ended, their peace spending would remain at forty shillings per person. So, our taxes are just as necessary for funding the war as theirs are now, and the only difference is whether we'll pay five shillings per person or forty after the war ends—it's clear which is better. Since we can defend and maintain the country for a third less than what we’d have to pay if it were conquered, and manage the government afterwards for an eighth of what Britain would impose on us, even a miserly person, who only cares about money and has no principles, would have to contribute to the defense of the country, or he would stop being a miser and look foolish. However, when we consider everything that enriches our lives; when our interests align with our happiness; when things that uplift our spirits—like honor, reputation, and character, both at home and abroad—are connected not just to our security but also to our prosperity, there isn't a person in America, unless they're a paid agent, who doesn’t realize that their wellbeing depends on maintaining a strong defense.
I do not imagine that an instance can be produced in the world, of a country putting herself to such an amazing charge to conquer and enslave another, as Britain has done. The sum is too great for her to think of with any tolerable degree of temper; and when we consider the burden she sustains, as well as the disposition she has shown, it would be the height of folly in us to suppose that she would not reimburse herself by the most rapid means, had she America once more within her power. With such an oppression of expense, what would an empty conquest be to her! What relief under such circumstances could she derive from a victory without a prize? It was money, it was revenue she first went to war for, and nothing but that would satisfy her. It is not the nature of avarice to be satisfied with any thing else. Every passion that acts upon mankind has a peculiar mode of operation. Many of them are temporary and fluctuating; they admit of cessation and variety. But avarice is a fixed, uniform passion. It neither abates of its vigor nor changes its object; and the reason why it does not, is founded in the nature of things, for wealth has not a rival where avarice is a ruling passion. One beauty may excel another, and extinguish from the mind of man the pictured remembrance of a former one: but wealth is the phoenix of avarice, and therefore it cannot seek a new object, because there is not another in the world.
I can't think of any example in the world where a country has spent so much to conquer and enslave another as Britain has. The cost is too high for her to consider it calmly; and when we look at the burden she carries and the attitude she's shown, it would be complete foolishness for us to think she wouldn’t try to make up for it in the quickest way possible if she had America under her control again. With such a huge expense, what would an empty victory even mean to her? What benefit could she get from a win without any reward? It was money, it was revenue that she went to war for in the first place, and nothing else would satisfy her. Avarice isn’t satisfied with anything else. Every human passion has its own way of functioning. Many are temporary and changeable; they can stop and shift. But avarice is a constant, uniform passion. It doesn’t lose its intensity or change its target; and the reason it doesn’t is based on the nature of things, because wealth has no rival where avarice rules. One beauty may outshine another and erase from someone's mind the memory of the previous one: but wealth is the ultimate goal of avarice, so it can’t look for something new, because there isn’t anything else like it in the world.
I now pass on to show the value of the present taxes, and compare them with the annual expense; but this I shall preface with a few explanatory remarks.
I will now discuss the significance of the current taxes and compare them to the yearly expenses, but I’ll start with a few explanatory comments.
There are two distinct things which make the payment of taxes difficult; the one is the large and real value of the sum to be paid, and the other is the scarcity of the thing in which the payment is to be made; and although these appear to be one and the same, they are in several instances riot only different, but the difficulty springs from different causes.
There are two main reasons why paying taxes is challenging; one is the significant and real amount that needs to be paid, and the other is the lack of the currency needed for the payment. While these might seem similar, they are actually different in many cases, and the difficulties arise from separate causes.
Suppose a tax to be laid equal to one half of what a man's yearly income is, such a tax could not be paid, because the property could not be spared; and on the other hand, suppose a very trifling tax was laid, to be collected in pearls, such a tax likewise could not be paid, because they could not be had. Now any person may see that these are distinct cases, and the latter of them is a representation of our own.
Imagine a tax that's equal to half of a person's yearly income. This tax couldn't be paid because the property couldn't be sacrificed. Conversely, if there was a very small tax that had to be paid in pearls, that couldn't be paid either, because they wouldn't be available. Anyone can see that these are different situations, and the second one reflects our own.
That the difficulty cannot proceed from the former, that is, from the real value or weight of the tax, is evident at the first view to any person who will consider it.
That the difficulty cannot come from the first aspect, which is the actual value or burden of the tax, is obvious at first glance to anyone who takes a moment to think about it.
The amount of the quota of taxes for this State for the year, 1780, (and so in proportion for every other State,) is twenty millions of dollars, which at seventy for one, is but sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty pounds three shillings sterling, and on an average, is no more than three shillings and five pence sterling per head, per annum, per man, woman and child, or threepence two-fifths per head per month. Now here is a clear, positive fact, that cannot be contradicted, and which proves that the difficulty cannot be in the weight of the tax, for in itself it is a trifle, and far from being adequate to our quota of the expense of the war. The quit-rents of one penny sterling per acre on only one half of the state, come to upwards of fifty thousand pounds, which is almost as much as all the taxes of the present year, and as those quit-rents made no part of the taxes then paid, and are now discontinued, the quantity of money drawn for public-service this year, exclusive of the militia fines, which I shall take notice of in the process of this work, is less than what was paid and payable in any year preceding the revolution, and since the last war; what I mean is, that the quit-rents and taxes taken together came to a larger sum then, than the present taxes without the quit-rents do now.
The tax quota for this State in 1780 (and similarly for every other State) is twenty million dollars, which at seventy to one conversion is only sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty-three pounds sterling. On average, this amounts to just three shillings and five pence sterling per person, per year, for every man, woman, and child, or threepence two-fifths per person per month. This is a clear, undeniable fact that proves the problem isn’t the burden of the tax itself, as it’s a small amount and far from covering our share of the war expenses. The quit-rents of one penny sterling per acre for just half the state total over fifty thousand pounds, nearly equal to all the taxes collected this year. Since those quit-rents weren’t part of the taxes paid and are now halted, the total amount of money raised for public service this year, excluding militia fines—which I will address in this work—is less than what was collected in any year before the revolution and since the last war. In other words, when you combine the quit-rents and taxes, the total back then was greater than what the current taxes amount to without the quit-rents.
My intention by these arguments and calculations is to place the difficulty to the right cause, and show that it does not proceed from the weight or worth of the tax, but from the scarcity of the medium in which it is paid; and to illustrate this point still further, I shall now show, that if the tax of twenty millions of dollars was of four times the real value it now is, or nearly so, which would be about two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling, and would be our full quota, this sum would have been raised with more ease, and have been less felt, than the present sum of only sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty pounds.
My goal with these arguments and calculations is to identify the real cause of the difficulty, showing that it doesn’t come from the size or importance of the tax, but from the lack of the resources needed to pay it. To further illustrate this point, I will now demonstrate that if the tax of twenty million dollars were worth four times its current value, or nearly so—which would be about two hundred fifty thousand pounds sterling—this amount would have been raised more easily and would have been less burdensome than the present amount of just sixty-four thousand two hundred eighty pounds.
The convenience or inconvenience of paying a tax in money arises from the quantity of money that can be spared out of trade.
The ease or difficulty of paying a tax in cash depends on how much money can be set aside from business dealings.
When the emissions stopped, the continent was left in possession of two hundred millions of dollars, perhaps as equally dispersed as it was possible for trade to do it. And as no more was to be issued, the rise or fall of prices could neither increase nor diminish the quantity. It therefore remained the same through all the fluctuations of trade and exchange.
When the emissions stopped, the continent ended up with two hundred million dollars, probably spread out as much as trade could allow. Since no more money would be issued, the rise or fall of prices couldn’t change the amount. So, it stayed the same despite all the ups and downs of trade and exchange.
Now had the exchange stood at twenty for one, which was the rate Congress calculated upon when they arranged the quota of the several states, the latter end of last year, trade would have been carried on for nearly four times less money than it is now, and consequently the twenty millions would have been spared with much greater ease, and when collected would have been of almost four times the value that they now are. And on the other hand, was the depreciation to be ninety or one hundred for one, the quantity required for trade would be more than at sixty or seventy for one, and though the value of them would be less, the difficulty of sparing the money out of trade would be greater. And on these facts and arguments I rest the matter, to prove that it is not the want of property, but the scarcity of the medium by which the proportion of property for taxation is to be measured out, that makes the embarrassment which we lie under. There is not money enough, and, what is equally as true, the people will not let there be money enough.
Now, if the exchange rate had been twenty for one, which is what Congress expected when they set the quotas for the states at the end of last year, trade would have required nearly four times less money than it does now. As a result, the twenty million would have been saved much more easily and, when collected, would have been worth almost four times what it is now. On the other hand, if the depreciation were to go to ninety or one hundred for one, the amount needed for trade would be more than at sixty or seventy for one. Even though their value would be lower, it would be harder to spare the money from trade. Based on these facts and arguments, I conclude that the issue is not a lack of property, but rather the scarcity of the means by which the amount of property for taxation is determined that causes our current difficulties. There simply isn't enough money, and equally true, the people won't allow there to be enough money.
While I am on the subject of the currency, I shall offer one remark which will appear true to everybody, and can be accounted for by nobody, which is, that the better the times were, the worse the money grew; and the worse the times were, the better the money stood. It never depreciated by any advantage obtained by the enemy. The troubles of 1776, and the loss of Philadelphia in 1777, made no sensible impression on it, and every one knows that the surrender of Charleston did not produce the least alteration in the rate of exchange, which, for long before, and for more than three months after, stood at sixty for one. It seems as if the certainty of its being our own, made us careless of its value, and that the most distant thoughts of losing it made us hug it the closer, like something we were loth to part with; or that we depreciate it for our pastime, which, when called to seriousness by the enemy, we leave off to renew again at our leisure. In short, our good luck seems to break us, and our bad makes us whole.
While I'm on the topic of money, I want to make a point that everyone will agree with, but nobody can truly explain: when times were better, the money seemed worse, and when times were worse, the money seemed better. It never lost value because of any advantage taken by the enemy. The troubles of 1776 and the loss of Philadelphia in 1777 didn’t really impact it, and everyone knows that the surrender of Charleston didn’t affect the exchange rate at all, which, for a long time before and more than three months after, was stuck at sixty to one. It feels like the certainty that it's ours makes us careless about its worth, and when we think about possibly losing it, we hold onto it tighter, like something we don't want to let go of; or maybe we devalue it just for fun, but when the enemy calls us to take it seriously, we stop to get back to it later. In short, our good fortune seems to break us, and our bad luck helps us come together.
Passing on from this digression, I shall now endeavor to bring into one view the several parts which I have already stated, and form thereon some propositions, and conclude.
Moving on from this aside, I will now try to bring together the various points I've already mentioned, create some conclusions from them, and wrap things up.
I have placed before the reader, the average tax per head, paid by the people of England; which is forty shillings sterling.
I have presented to the reader the average tax per person paid by the people of England, which is forty shillings sterling.
And I have shown the rate on an average per head, which will defray all the expenses of the war to us, and support the several governments without running the country into debt, which is thirteen shillings and four pence.
And I've calculated the average cost per person, which will cover all our war expenses and support the various governments without putting the country in debt, which is thirteen shillings and four pence.
I have shown what the peace establishment may be conducted for, viz., an eighth part of what it would be, if under the government of Britain.
I have shown what the peace agreement could be for, which is one-eighth of what it would be under British rule.
And I have likewise shown what the average per head of the present taxes is, namely, three shillings and fivepence sterling, or threepence two-fifths per month; and that their whole yearly value, in sterling, is only sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty pounds. Whereas our quota, to keep the payments equal with the expenses, is two hundred and fifty thousand pounds. Consequently, there is a deficiency of one hundred and eighty-five thousand seven hundred and twenty pounds, and the same proportion of defect, according to the several quotas, happens in every other state. And this defect is the cause why the army has been so indifferently fed, clothed and paid. It is the cause, likewise, of the nerveless state of the campaign, and the insecurity of the country. Now, if a tax equal to thirteen and fourpence per head, will remove all these difficulties, and make people secure in their homes, leave them to follow the business of their stores and farms unmolested, and not only drive out but keep out the enemy from the country; and if the neglect of raising this sum will let them in, and produce the evils which might be prevented—on which side, I ask, does the wisdom, interest and policy lie? Or, rather, would it not be an insult to reason, to put the question? The sum, when proportioned out according to the several abilities of the people, can hurt no one, but an inroad from the enemy ruins hundreds of families.
And I've also shown what the average tax per person is right now, which is three shillings and fivepence sterling, or threepence two-fifths each month; and that the total yearly value in sterling is only sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty pounds. Meanwhile, our share to keep the payments in line with the expenses is two hundred and fifty thousand pounds. This results in a shortfall of one hundred and eighty-five thousand seven hundred and twenty pounds, and the same kind of shortage occurs in every other state based on their respective shares. This shortfall is why the army has been poorly fed, clothed, and paid. It also leads to the weak state of the campaign and the country's insecurity. Now, if a tax of thirteen and fourpence per person would solve all these issues and ensure people feel safe in their homes—allowing them to run their businesses and farms without interruption, and not only drive out but keep the enemy out of the country—then if failing to raise this amount allows the enemy to invade and causes preventable problems, I ask, where does wisdom, interest, and policy lie? Or rather, would it not be foolish to even ask the question? The amount, when distributed according to the abilities of the people, won't harm anyone, but an invasion from the enemy devastates hundreds of families.
Look at the destruction done in this city [Philadelphia]. The many houses totally destroyed, and others damaged; the waste of fences in the country round it, besides the plunder of furniture, forage, and provisions. I do not suppose that half a million sterling would reinstate the sufferers; and, does this, I ask, bear any proportion to the expense that would make us secure? The damage, on an average, is at least ten pounds sterling per head, which is as much as thirteen shillings and fourpence per head comes to for fifteen years. The same has happened on the frontiers, and in the Jerseys, New York, and other places where the enemy has been—Carolina and Georgia are likewise suffering the same fate.
Look at the destruction in this city [Philadelphia]. Many houses are completely destroyed, and others are damaged; fences around the area are in ruins, plus there has been theft of furniture, supplies, and food. I don’t think half a million pounds would be enough to help those who’ve suffered; and does this, I ask, even compare to the cost of ensuring our security? On average, the damage is at least ten pounds per person, which totals about thirteen shillings and fourpence per person over fifteen years. The same situation has occurred on the frontiers, and in New Jersey, New York, and other places the enemy has invaded—Carolina and Georgia are facing the same issues.
That the people generally do not understand the insufficiency of the taxes to carry on the war, is evident, not only from common observation, but from the construction of several petitions which were presented to the Assembly of this state, against the recommendation of Congress of the 18th of March last, for taking up and funding the present currency at forty to one, and issuing new money in its stead. The prayer of the petition was, that the currency might be appreciated by taxes (meaning the present taxes) and that part of the taxes be applied to the support of the army, if the army could not be otherwise supported. Now it could not have been possible for such a petition to have been presented, had the petitioners known, that so far from part of the taxes being sufficient for the support of the whole of them falls three-fourths short of the year's expenses.
That most people don’t realize that the taxes aren’t enough to fund the war is clear, not only from general observation but also from several petitions submitted to the state Assembly against Congress's recommendation from March 18th of last year to convert and fund the current currency at forty to one and to issue new money instead. The petition requested that the currency be strengthened by taxes (referring to the current taxes) and that some of the taxes be used to support the army if it couldn’t be supported in any other way. It wouldn’t have been possible for such a petition to be presented if the petitioners had known that, far from part of the taxes being enough to support them, it actually falls three-fourths short of covering the year's expenses.
Before I proceed to propose methods by which a sufficiency of money may be raised, I shall take a short view of the general state of the country.
Before I suggest ways to raise enough money, I will take a brief look at the overall situation in the country.
Notwithstanding the weight of the war, the ravages of the enemy, and the obstructions she has thrown in the way of trade and commerce, so soon does a young country outgrow misfortune, that America has already surmounted many that heavily oppressed her. For the first year or two of the war, we were shut up within our ports, scarce venturing to look towards the ocean. Now our rivers are beautified with large and valuable vessels, our stores filled with merchandise, and the produce of the country has a ready market, and an advantageous price. Gold and silver, that for a while seemed to have retreated again within the bowels of the earth, have once more risen into circulation, and every day adds new strength to trade, commerce and agriculture. In a pamphlet, written by Sir John Dalrymple, and dispersed in America in the year 1775, he asserted that two twenty-gun ships, nay, says he, tenders of those ships, stationed between Albermarle sound and Chesapeake bay, would shut up the trade of America for 600 miles. How little did Sir John Dalrymple know of the abilities of America!
Despite the challenges of war, the destruction by the enemy, and the obstacles posed to trade and commerce, a young country like America swiftly moves past its troubles. It has already overcome many that weighed heavily on her. During the first year or two of the war, we were confined to our ports, barely daring to look out at the ocean. Now, our rivers are adorned with large, valuable ships, our stores are filled with goods, and the country's produce has a thriving market with good prices. Gold and silver, which seemed to have disappeared back into the earth for a while, are now circulating again, and each day brings more strength to trade, commerce, and agriculture. In a pamphlet written by Sir John Dalrymple and circulated in America in 1775, he claimed that two twenty-gun ships, or even tenders of those ships, stationed between Albemarle Sound and Chesapeake Bay, could block America’s trade for 600 miles. How little did Sir John Dalrymple understand America’s capabilities!
While under the government of Britain, the trade of this country was loaded with restrictions. It was only a few foreign ports which we were allowed to sail to. Now it is otherwise; and allowing that the quantity of trade is but half what it was before the war, the case must show the vast advantage of an open trade, because the present quantity under her restrictions could not support itself; from which I infer, that if half the quantity without the restrictions can bear itself up nearly, if not quite, as well as the whole when subject to them, how prosperous must the condition of America be when the whole shall return open with all the world. By the trade I do not mean the employment of a merchant only, but the whole interest and business of the country taken collectively.
While under British rule, this country’s trade was burdened with restrictions. We could only sail to a few foreign ports. Now things are different; even if the amount of trade is only half of what it was before the war, the situation highlights the significant benefits of open trade, because the current volume under these restrictions can’t sustain itself. From this, I conclude that if even half the volume without restrictions can nearly hold up as well as the entire volume when restricted, imagine how prosperous America will be when trade is fully open to the whole world. When I refer to trade, I don’t just mean the work of a merchant, but the collective interest and business of the entire country.
It is not so much my intention, by this publication, to propose particular plans for raising money, as it is to show the necessity and the advantages to be derived from it. My principal design is to form the disposition of the people to the measures which I am fully persuaded it is their interest and duty to adopt, and which need no other force to accomplish them than the force of being felt. But as every hint may be useful, I shall throw out a sketch, and leave others to make such improvements upon it as to them may appear reasonable.
My goal with this publication isn’t to suggest specific ways to raise money, but to illustrate the importance and benefits of doing so. I mainly aim to encourage people to adopt the measures that I truly believe are in their best interest and duty to follow, which only need the power of awareness to be realized. However, since any suggestion may be helpful, I’ll provide an outline and let others make any improvements they find reasonable.
The annual sum wanted is two millions, and the average rate in which it falls, is thirteen shillings and fourpence per head.
The total amount needed each year is two million, and the average rate at which it is distributed is thirteen shillings and four pence per person.
Suppose, then, that we raise half the sum and sixty thousand pounds over. The average rate thereof will be seven shillings per head.
Suppose we raise half the amount and sixty thousand pounds more. The average cost will be seven shillings per person.
In this case we shall have half the supply that we want, and an annual fund of sixty thousand pounds whereon to borrow the other million; because sixty thousand pounds is the interest of a million at six per cent.; and if at the end of another year we should be obliged, by the continuance of the war, to borrow another million, the taxes will be increased to seven shillings and sixpence; and thus for every million borrowed, an additional tax, equal to sixpence per head, must be levied.
In this situation, we will have half the supply we need, along with an annual fund of sixty thousand pounds to borrow the other million; because sixty thousand pounds is the interest on a million at six percent. If, at the end of another year, we find that we need to borrow another million due to the ongoing war, the taxes will go up to seven shillings and sixpence. This means that for every million borrowed, there will be an extra tax of sixpence per person.
The sum to be raised next year will be one million and sixty thousand pounds: one half of which I would propose should be raised by duties on imported goods, and prize goods, and the other half by a tax on landed property and houses, or such other means as each state may devise.
The total to be raised next year will be one million sixty thousand pounds: half of which I suggest should come from duties on imported goods and prize goods, and the other half from a tax on land and properties, or any other methods that each state might come up with.
But as the duties on imports and prize goods must be the same in all the states, therefore the rate per cent., or what other form the duty shall be laid, must be ascertained and regulated by Congress, and ingrafted in that form into the law of each state; and the monies arising therefrom carried into the treasury of each state. The duties to be paid in gold or silver.
But since the duties on imports and prize goods have to be the same across all states, the percentage rate, or however the duty is structured, must be determined and set by Congress, and included in the laws of each state. The revenue generated from this must be sent to the treasury of each state. The duties are to be paid in gold or silver.
There are many reasons why a duty on imports is the most convenient duty or tax that can be collected; one of which is, because the whole is payable in a few places in a country, and it likewise operates with the greatest ease and equality, because as every one pays in proportion to what he consumes, so people in general consume in proportion to what they can afford; and therefore the tax is regulated by the abilities which every man supposes himself to have, or in other words, every man becomes his own assessor, and pays by a little at a time, when it suits him to buy. Besides, it is a tax which people may pay or let alone by not consuming the articles; and though the alternative may have no influence on their conduct, the power of choosing is an agreeable thing to the mind. For my own part, it would be a satisfaction to me was there a duty on all sorts of liquors during the war, as in my idea of things it would be an addition to the pleasures of society to know, that when the health of the army goes round, a few drops, from every glass becomes theirs. How often have I heard an emphatical wish, almost accompanied by a tear, "Oh, that our poor fellows in the field had some of this!" Why then need we suffer under a fruitless sympathy, when there is a way to enjoy both the wish and the entertainment at once.
There are many reasons why an import tax is the easiest tax to collect. One reason is that it can be paid in just a few locations across the country. It also works with the greatest simplicity and fairness because everyone pays based on what they consume, and people usually consume in line with what they can afford. This means the tax is determined by what each person thinks they can manage, essentially making everyone their own tax assessor, allowing them to pay a little at a time whenever they choose to buy. Additionally, it's a tax that people can either pay or avoid by not purchasing certain items. While this choice may not significantly change their behavior, having the option is a pleasing idea. Personally, I would find it satisfying if there were a tax on all types of alcohol during the war because I believe it would heighten the social enjoyment, knowing that as the health of the army is toasted, a small amount from every glass contributes to it. How many times have I heard someone wish, almost tearfully, "Oh, that our brave soldiers in the field could have some of this!" So why should we suffer from a fruitless sympathy when there's a way to enjoy both the wish and the enjoyment simultaneously?
But the great national policy of putting a duty upon imports is, that it either keeps the foreign trade in our own hands, or draws something for the defence of the country from every foreigner who participates in it with us.
But the main national strategy of imposing a duty on imports is that it either keeps foreign trade under our control or ensures that we get something for the defense of our country from every foreigner who engages in trade with us.
Thus much for the first half of the taxes, and as each state will best devise means to raise the other half, I shall confine my remarks to the resources of this state.
So that's the first half of the taxes, and since each state will figure out how to raise the other half in its own way, I'll limit my comments to the resources of this state.
The quota, then, of this state, of one million and sixty thousand pounds, will be one hundred and thirty-three thousand two hundred and fifty pounds, the half of which is sixty-six thousand six hundred and twenty-five pounds; and supposing one fourth part of Pennsylvania inhabited, then a tax of one bushel of wheat on every twenty acres of land, one with another, would produce the sum, and all the present taxes to cease. Whereas, the tithes of the bishops and clergy in England, exclusive of the taxes, are upwards of half a bushel of wheat on every single acre of land, good and bad, throughout the nation.
The quota for this state, which is one million sixty thousand pounds, will be one hundred thirty-three thousand two hundred fifty pounds. Half of that is sixty-six thousand six hundred twenty-five pounds. If we assume that one-fourth of Pennsylvania is inhabited, then a tax of one bushel of wheat for every twenty acres of land could cover that amount, and all current taxes would come to an end. In contrast, the tithes collected by bishops and clergy in England, not counting other taxes, amount to more than half a bushel of wheat per acre, whether the land is good or bad, across the entire country.
In the former part of this paper, I mentioned the militia fines, but reserved speaking of the matter, which I shall now do. The ground I shall put it upon is, that two millions sterling a year will support a sufficient army, and all the expenses of war and government, without having recourse to the inconvenient method of continually calling men from their employments, which, of all others, is the most expensive and the least substantial. I consider the revenues created by taxes as the first and principal thing, and fines only as secondary and accidental things. It was not the intention of the militia law to apply the fines to anything else but the support of the militia, neither do they produce any revenue to the state, yet these fines amount to more than all the taxes: for taking the muster-roll to be sixty thousand men, the fine on forty thousand who may not attend, will be sixty thousand pounds sterling, and those who muster, will give up a portion of time equal to half that sum, and if the eight classes should be called within the year, and one third turn out, the fine on the remaining forty thousand would amount to seventy-two millions of dollars, besides the fifteen shillings on every hundred pounds of property, and the charge of seven and a half per cent. for collecting, in certain instances which, on the whole, would be upwards of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling.
In the earlier part of this paper, I mentioned the militia fines but held off on discussing it, which I will do now. The point I want to make is that two million pounds a year would fund a sufficient army and cover all the costs of war and government, without resorting to the costly and inefficient practice of constantly pulling people away from their jobs. I believe that tax revenues are the most important source of funding, while fines are secondary and incidental. The militia law was not meant to use fines for anything other than supporting the militia, and they don’t generate any real revenue for the state. Still, these fines total more than all the taxes: considering the muster-roll includes sixty thousand men, the fine for forty thousand absentees would be sixty thousand pounds, and those who do show up would contribute an amount equal to half that sum. If all eight groups are called within the year and one third show up, the fines for the remaining forty thousand would add up to around seventy-two million dollars, plus the fifteen shillings for every hundred pounds of property, and an additional seven and a half percent for collection in some cases, which would total over two hundred fifty thousand pounds.
Now if those very fines disable the country from raising a sufficient revenue without producing an equivalent advantage, would it not be for the ease and interest of all parties to increase the revenue, in the manner I have proposed, or any better, if a better can be devised, and cease the operation of the fines? I would still keep the militia as an organized body of men, and should there be a real necessity to call them forth, pay them out of the proper revenues of the state, and increase the taxes a third or fourth per cent. on those who do not attend. My limits will not allow me to go further into this matter, which I shall therefore close with this remark; that fines are, of all modes of revenue, the most unsuited to the minds of a free country. When a man pays a tax, he knows that the public necessity requires it, and therefore feels a pride in discharging his duty; but a fine seems an atonement for neglect of duty, and of consequence is paid with discredit, and frequently levied with severity.
If those fines are preventing the country from raising enough revenue without offering a corresponding benefit, wouldn't it be better for everyone involved to boost the revenue in the way I've suggested, or in any better way if one can be found, and eliminate the fines? I would still maintain the militia as a structured group of men, and if there's a real need to call them up, I would pay them from the state's proper revenues and increase the taxes by a third or fourth percent on those who don’t participate. My limits won't allow me to delve deeper into this issue, so I will conclude with this thought: fines are, among all forms of revenue, the least suitable for a free country. When someone pays a tax, they understand that it’s necessary for the public good, which gives them a sense of pride in fulfilling their responsibility. In contrast, a fine feels like a penalty for failing to meet that responsibility, which is paid with shame and is often enforced harshly.
I have now only one subject more to speak of, with which I shall conclude, which is, the resolve of Congress of the 18th of March last, for taking up and funding the present currency at forty for one, and issuing new money in its stead.
I have just one more topic to discuss before I wrap up, which is the decision made by Congress on March 18th of last year to take and fund the current currency at forty to one, and to issue new money in its place.
Every one knows that I am not the flatterer of Congress, but in this instance they are right; and if that measure is supported, the currency will acquire a value, which, without it, it will not. But this is not all: it will give relief to the finances until such time as they can be properly arranged, and save the country from being immediately doubled taxed under the present mode. In short, support that measure, and it will support you.
Everyone knows that I'm not one to flatter Congress, but in this case, they're correct; and if that measure is backed, the currency will gain a value that it won't otherwise have. But that's not all: it will provide relief to the finances until they can be properly organized, and it will prevent the country from facing immediate double taxation under the current system. In short, back that measure, and it will back you.
I have now waded through a tedious course of difficult business, and over an untrodden path. The subject, on every point in which it could be viewed, was entangled with perplexities, and enveloped in obscurity, yet such are the resources of America, that she wants nothing but system to secure success.
I have now gone through a tiring series of challenging tasks, taking a path that hasn't been explored. The topic, from every angle, was complicated and shrouded in uncertainty, yet America has so many resources that it just needs a solid plan to ensure success.
Common sense.
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 4, 1780.
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 4, 1780.
THE CRISIS X. ON THE KING OF ENGLAND'S SPEECH.
OF all the innocent passions which actuate the human mind there is none more universally prevalent than curiosity. It reaches all mankind, and in matters which concern us, or concern us not, it alike provokes in us a desire to know them.
Of all the innocent feelings that drive the human mind, none is more common than curiosity. It affects everyone, sparking a desire to know about things that are relevant to us and even those that are not.
Although the situation of America, superior to every effort to enslave her, and daily rising to importance and opulence, has placed her above the region of anxiety, it has still left her within the circle of curiosity; and her fancy to see the speech of a man who had proudly threatened to bring her to his feet, was visibly marked with that tranquil confidence which cared nothing about its contents. It was inquired after with a smile, read with a laugh, and dismissed with disdain.
Although America's situation, which has triumphed over every attempt to enslave her and is continually growing in importance and wealth, has lifted her beyond worry, it has still kept her in the realm of curiosity; and her desire to witness the words of a man who had boldly claimed he would bring her to his feet was evident in her calm confidence, which was indifferent to what he had to say. It was asked about with a smile, read with a laugh, and dismissed with disdain.
But, as justice is due, even to an enemy, it is right to say, that the speech is as well managed as the embarrassed condition of their affairs could well admit of; and though hardly a line of it is true, except the mournful story of Cornwallis, it may serve to amuse the deluded commons and people of England, for whom it was calculated.
But, as justice requires even towards an enemy, it’s fair to say that the speech is managed as well as the difficult state of their situation allowed. And although barely any part of it is true, except for the sad tale of Cornwallis, it might entertain the misled common people of England for whom it was intended.
"The war," says the speech, "is still unhappily prolonged by that restless ambition which first excited our enemies to commence it, and which still continues to disappoint my earnest wishes and diligent exertions to restore the public tranquillity."
"The war," the speech says, "is sadly dragged out by that constant ambition that initially pushed our enemies to start it, and which still keeps disappointing my sincere hopes and hard work to bring back peace to the public."
How easy it is to abuse truth and language, when men, by habitual wickedness, have learned to set justice at defiance. That the very man who began the war, who with the most sullen insolence refused to answer, and even to hear the humblest of all petitions, who has encouraged his officers and his army in the most savage cruelties, and the most scandalous plunderings, who has stirred up the Indians on one side, and the negroes on the other, and invoked every aid of hell in his behalf, should now, with an affected air of pity, turn the tables from himself, and charge to another the wickedness that is his own, can only be equalled by the baseness of the heart that spoke it.
How easy it is to twist the truth and language when people, through constant wrongdoing, have learned to mock justice. The very person who started the war, who with the most rude arrogance refused to respond and even to listen to the simplest of requests, who has encouraged his officers and his army in the most brutal acts and the most disgraceful thefts, who has incited the Native Americans on one side and the enslaved people on the other, and has called upon all kinds of evil to support him, should now, with a feigned sense of compassion, deflect blame onto someone else and charge another with the wickedness that is his own. This can only be matched by the darkness of the heart that uttered such words.
To be nobly wrong is more manly than to be meanly right, is an expression I once used on a former occasion, and it is equally applicable now. We feel something like respect for consistency even in error. We lament the virtue that is debauched into a vice, but the vice that affects a virtue becomes the more detestable: and amongst the various assumptions of character, which hypocrisy has taught, and men have practised, there is none that raises a higher relish of disgust, than to see disappointed inveteracy twisting itself, by the most visible falsehoods, into an appearance of piety which it has no pretensions to.
Being nobly wrong is braver than being meanly right, and this thought I shared before still holds true. We have some respect for consistency, even when it’s mistaken. We mourn the good that gets corrupted into bad, but the bad that pretends to be good is even more despicable: among the many roles that hypocrisy has crafted and that people have adopted, none is more revolting than watching a stubborn disappointment contort itself, using the most obvious lies, into a façade of piety that it doesn’t actually possess.
"But I should not," continues the speech, "answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, nor make a suitable return to my subjects for their constant, zealous, and affectionate attachment to my person, family and government, if I consented to sacrifice, either to my own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which, the future strength and security of this country must principally depend."
"But I shouldn’t," the speech goes on, "fulfill the trust given to the leader of a free people, nor properly repay my citizens for their constant, passionate, and loyal support for me, my family, and my government, if I agreed to sacrifice, either for my own desire for peace or their short-term comfort and relief, those fundamental rights and lasting interests on which the future strength and security of this country largely depend."
That the man whose ignorance and obstinacy first involved and still continues the nation in the most hopeless and expensive of all wars, should now meanly flatter them with the name of a free people, and make a merit of his crime, under the disguise of their essential rights and permanent interests, is something which disgraces even the character of perverseness. Is he afraid they will send him to Hanover, or what does he fear? Why is the sycophant thus added to the hypocrite, and the man who pretends to govern, sunk into the humble and submissive memorialist?
That the man whose ignorance and stubbornness first dragged the nation into this endless and costly war, and continues to do so, should now deceitfully flatter them by calling them a free people, while trying to make his wrongdoing seem like a virtue under the pretense of their essential rights and lasting interests, is something that even makes the idea of wrongdoing look bad. Is he afraid they’ll send him to Hanover, or what is he scared of? Why does the flatterer need to be mixed in with the hypocrite, and why has the person who pretends to lead become a meek and submissive petitioner?
What those essential rights and permanent interests are, on which the future strength and security of England must principally depend, are not so much as alluded to. They are words which impress nothing but the ear, and are calculated only for the sound.
What those essential rights and permanent interests are, on which the future strength and security of England must mainly rely, are barely mentioned. They are words that mean nothing beyond their sound and are intended only for how they sound.
But if they have any reference to America, then do they amount to the disgraceful confession, that England, who once assumed to be her protectress, has now become her dependant. The British king and ministry are constantly holding up the vast importance which America is of to England, in order to allure the nation to carry on the war: now, whatever ground there is for this idea, it ought to have operated as a reason for not beginning it; and, therefore, they support their present measures to their own disgrace, because the arguments which they now use, are a direct reflection on their former policy.
But if they mention America at all, then it essentially shows the shameful truth that England, which once claimed to be her protector, has now become dependent on her. The British king and government are always emphasizing how crucial America is to England to convince the nation to continue the war. Regardless of the validity of this idea, it should have been a reason not to start it in the first place. Therefore, their current actions only bring them shame because the reasons they are using now directly criticize their past decisions.
"The favorable appearance of affairs," continues the speech, "in the East Indies, and the safe arrival of the numerous commercial fleets of my kingdom, must have given you satisfaction."
"The positive situation in the East Indies and the safe arrival of the many commercial fleets from my kingdom must have made you happy."
That things are not quite so bad every where as in America may be some cause of consolation, but can be none for triumph. One broken leg is better than two, but still it is not a source of joy: and let the appearance of affairs in the East Indies be ever so favorable, they are nevertheless worse than at first, without a prospect of their ever being better. But the mournful story of Cornwallis was yet to be told, and it was necessary to give it the softest introduction possible.
That things aren’t as bad everywhere as they are in America might bring some comfort, but it can't be a reason to celebrate. One broken leg is better than two, but it’s still not a cause for happiness; and even if things seem positive in the East Indies, they are still worse than before, with no hope of improvement. But the sad tale of Cornwallis still needed to be shared, and it was important to present it in the gentlest way possible.
"But in the course of this year," continues the speech, "my assiduous endeavors to guard the extensive dominions of my crown have not been attended with success equal to the justice and uprightness of my views."—What justice and uprightness there was in beginning a war with America, the world will judge of, and the unequalled barbarity with which it has been conducted, is not to be worn from the memory by the cant of snivelling hypocrisy.
"But during this year," the speech continues, "my diligent efforts to protect the vast territories of my crown haven't achieved results that match the fairness and integrity of my intentions."—The world will assess what fairness and integrity there was in starting a war with America, and the unmatched cruelty with which it has been carried out won't be erased from memory by the false claims of self-pitying hypocrisy.
"And it is with great concern that I inform you that the events of war have been very unfortunate to my arms in Virginia, having ended in the loss of my forces in that province."—And our great concern is that they are not all served in the same manner.
"And it is with great concern that I inform you that the events of war have been very unfortunate for my troops in Virginia, resulting in the loss of my forces in that region."—And our major worry is that they are not all treated the same way.
"No endeavors have been wanted on my part," says the speech, "to extinguish that spirit of rebellion which our enemies have found means to foment and maintain in the colonies; and to restore to my deluded subjects in America that happy and prosperous condition which they formerly derived from a due obedience to the laws."
"No efforts have been spared on my part," says the speech, "to put an end to that spirit of rebellion which our enemies have managed to encourage and sustain in the colonies; and to restore to my misguided subjects in America the happy and prosperous state they once enjoyed from properly following the laws."
The expression of deluded subjects is become so hacknied and contemptible, and the more so when we see them making prisoners of whole armies at a time, that the pride of not being laughed at would induce a man of common sense to leave it off. But the most offensive falsehood in the paragraph is the attributing the prosperity of America to a wrong cause. It was the unremitted industry of the settlers and their descendants, the hard labor and toil of persevering fortitude, that were the true causes of the prosperity of America. The former tyranny of England served to people it, and the virtue of the adventurers to improve it. Ask the man, who, with his axe, has cleared a way in the wilderness, and now possesses an estate, what made him rich, and he will tell you the labor of his hands, the sweat of his brow, and the blessing of heaven. Let Britain but leave America to herself and she asks no more. She has risen into greatness without the knowledge and against the will of England, and has a right to the unmolested enjoyment of her own created wealth.
The expression of misled individuals has become so clichéd and ridiculous, especially when we see them capturing entire armies at once, that any sensible person would want to stop to avoid being laughed at. But the most frustrating lie in the paragraph is claiming that America's success is due to the wrong reasons. It was the constant hard work of the settlers and their descendants, the diligent labor and determination, that truly drove America's prosperity. The former tyranny of England helped populate it, and the integrity of the adventurers improved it. Ask a man who, with his axe, has cleared a path in the wilderness and now owns land what made him successful, and he'll tell you it's the labor of his hands, the sweat of his brow, and the blessing of heaven. If Britain would just let America be, she wouldn't ask for anything more. She has grown into greatness without England's knowledge and against its wishes, and she has the right to fully enjoy the wealth she has created.
"I will order," says the speech, "the estimates of the ensuing year to be laid before you. I rely on your wisdom and public spirit for such supplies as the circumstances of our affairs shall be found to require. Among the many ill consequences which attend the continuation of the present war, I most sincerely regret the additional burdens which it must unavoidably bring upon my faithful subjects."
"I will make arrangements," says the speech, "for the budget for the upcoming year to be presented to you. I trust in your wisdom and commitment to the community for the resources that our situation will need. Among the many negative effects of continuing the current war, I truly regret the extra burdens it will inevitably place on my loyal subjects."
It is strange that a nation must run through such a labyrinth of trouble, and expend such a mass of wealth to gain the wisdom which an hour's reflection might have taught. The final superiority of America over every attempt that an island might make to conquer her, was as naturally marked in the constitution of things, as the future ability of a giant over a dwarf is delineated in his features while an infant. How far providence, to accomplish purposes which no human wisdom could foresee, permitted such extraordinary errors, is still a secret in the womb of time, and must remain so till futurity shall give it birth.
It's odd that a nation has to go through such a maze of troubles and spend so much money just to learn what could have been figured out in an hour of thinking. America's ultimate advantage over any island's attempts to conquer her was as clearly defined in the world as a giant's future strength over a dwarf, visible even in his infant features. How much fate allowed such incredible mistakes to happen, for purposes that no one could have predicted, remains a mystery locked away in time and will stay that way until the future reveals it.
"In the prosecution of this great and important contest," says the speech, "in which we are engaged, I retain a firm confidence in the protection of divine providence, and a perfect conviction in the justice of my cause, and I have no doubt, but, that by the concurrence and support of my Parliament, by the valour of my fleets and armies, and by a vigorous, animated, and united exertion of the faculties and resources of my people, I shall be enabled to restore the blessings of a safe and honorable peace to all my dominions."
"In the pursuit of this significant and vital struggle," says the speech, "in which we are involved, I have complete faith in the protection of divine providence, and I firmly believe in the justice of my cause. I have no doubt that, with the support and collaboration of my Parliament, the courage of my fleets and armies, and a strong, energetic, and unified effort from my people, I will be able to bring back the benefits of a safe and honorable peace to all my territories."
The King of England is one of the readiest believers in the world. In the beginning of the contest he passed an act to put America out of the protection of the crown of England, and though providence, for seven years together, has put him out of her protection, still the man has no doubt. Like Pharaoh on the edge of the Red Sea, he sees not the plunge he is making, and precipitately drives across the flood that is closing over his head.
The King of England is one of the most eager believers in the world. At the start of the conflict, he passed a law to remove America from the protection of the English crown, and even though for seven years now it has shown him no protection, he still has no doubts. Like Pharaoh at the edge of the Red Sea, he doesn't see the danger he is rushing into and recklessly pushes ahead into the flood that is closing in on him.
I think it is a reasonable supposition, that this part of the speech was composed before the arrival of the news of the capture of Cornwallis: for it certainly has no relation to their condition at the time it was spoken. But, be this as it may, it is nothing to us. Our line is fixed. Our lot is cast; and America, the child of fate, is arriving at maturity. We have nothing to do but by a spirited and quick exertion, to stand prepared for war or peace. Too great to yield, and too noble to insult; superior to misfortune, and generous in success, let us untaintedly preserve the character which we have gained, and show to future ages an example of unequalled magnanimity. There is something in the cause and consequence of America that has drawn on her the attention of all mankind. The world has seen her brave. Her love of liberty; her ardour in supporting it; the justice of her claims, and the constancy of her fortitude have won her the esteem of Europe, and attached to her interest the first power in that country.
I believe it's fair to say that this part of the speech was written before the news of Cornwallis's capture arrived because it clearly doesn’t relate to their situation at the time it was delivered. However, that doesn't matter to us. Our path is set. Our fate is determined; America, the child of destiny, is coming into her own. We only need to act decisively and quickly, being ready for either war or peace. Too great to give in, and too honorable to insult; resilient in the face of hardship, and gracious in victory, let’s maintain the integrity we've earned, setting an example of unmatched nobility for future generations. There's something about the cause and results of America that has garnered the attention of the entire world. The world has witnessed her bravery. Her passion for freedom, her eagerness to defend it, the fairness of her claims, and her unwavering courage have earned her the respect of Europe and aligned the leading power there with her interests.
Her situation now is such, that to whatever point, past, present or to come, she casts her eyes, new matter rises to convince her that she is right. In her conduct towards her enemy, no reproachful sentiment lurks in secret. No sense of injustice is left upon the mind. Untainted with ambition, and a stranger to revenge, her progress has been marked by providence, and she, in every stage of the conflict, has blest her with success.
Her situation now is such that no matter where she looks—whether it's the past, present, or future—new reasons come up that confirm she's in the right. In dealing with her enemy, she harbors no negative feelings. There’s no lingering sense of injustice. Free from ambition and unfamiliar with revenge, her journey has been guided by fate, and at every stage of the conflict, she has been rewarded with success.
But let not America wrap herself up in delusive hope and suppose the business done. The least remissness in preparation, the least relaxation in execution, will only serve to prolong the war, and increase expenses. If our enemies can draw consolation from misfortune, and exert themselves upon despair, how much more ought we, who are to win a continent by the conquest, and have already an earnest of success?
But let’s not let America get lost in false hope and think the job is done. Even the slightest negligence in preparation or any relaxation in execution will only drag the war out longer and raise costs. If our enemies can find comfort in their misfortune and push through their despair, how much more should we, who are about to win a continent through conquest and already have a taste of success?
Having, in the preceding part, made my remarks on the several matters which the speech contains, I shall now make my remarks on what it does not contain.
Having discussed various points that the speech covers earlier, I will now comment on what it doesn't cover.
There is not a syllable in its respecting alliances. Either the injustice of Britain is too glaring, or her condition too desperate, or both, for any neighboring power to come to her support. In the beginning of the contest, when she had only America to contend with, she hired assistance from Hesse, and other smaller states of Germany, and for nearly three years did America, young, raw, undisciplined and unprovided, stand against the power of Britain, aided by twenty thousand foreign troops, and made a complete conquest of one entire army. The remembrance of those things ought to inspire us with confidence and greatness of mind, and carry us through every remaining difficulty with content and cheerfulness. What are the little sufferings of the present day, compared with the hardships that are past? There was a time, when we had neither house nor home in safety; when every hour was the hour of alarm and danger; when the mind, tortured with anxiety, knew no repose, and every thing, but hope and fortitude, was bidding us farewell.
There isn’t a word in its respecting alliances. Either Britain’s injustice is too obvious, or her situation is too dire, or maybe both, for any neighboring power to come to her aid. At the start of the conflict, when she was only dealing with America, she brought in help from Hesse and other smaller German states, and for nearly three years, America—young, inexperienced, untrained, and unprepared—held its ground against Britain’s power, bolstered by twenty thousand foreign troops, and managed to completely defeat one entire army. Remembering those things should inspire us with confidence and greatness of spirit, helping us face any remaining challenges with acceptance and positivity. What are the small struggles of today compared to the hardships we’ve already faced? There was a time when we didn’t have a safe house or home; when every moment was filled with alarm and danger; when the mind, tormented by worry, found no peace, and everything except hope and courage seemed to be saying goodbye.
It is of use to look back upon these things; to call to mind the times of trouble and the scenes of complicated anguish that are past and gone. Then every expense was cheap, compared with the dread of conquest and the misery of submission. We did not stand debating upon trifles, or contending about the necessary and unavoidable charges of defence. Every one bore his lot of suffering, and looked forward to happier days, and scenes of rest.
It’s helpful to reflect on these things; to remember the difficult times and the complicated pain that we’ve left behind. Back then, every cost seemed small next to the fear of defeat and the pain of giving in. We didn’t waste time arguing over minor details or disputing the necessary expenses for our defense. Everyone carried their share of suffering and hoped for better days and moments of peace.
Perhaps one of the greatest dangers which any country can be exposed to, arises from a kind of trifling which sometimes steals upon the mind, when it supposes the danger past; and this unsafe situation marks at this time the peculiar crisis of America. What would she once have given to have known that her condition at this day should be what it now is? And yet we do not seem to place a proper value upon it, nor vigorously pursue the necessary measures to secure it. We know that we cannot be defended, nor yet defend ourselves, without trouble and expense. We have no right to expect it; neither ought we to look for it. We are a people, who, in our situation, differ from all the world. We form one common floor of public good, and, whatever is our charge, it is paid for our own interest and upon our own account.
One of the biggest dangers any country can face comes from a kind of carelessness that creeps into our minds when we think the danger has passed; this is the uncertain situation America is in right now. What would she have given to know that her current state would be what it is today? Yet, we don’t seem to appreciate it properly or actively take the necessary steps to secure it. We understand that we can't be protected or protect ourselves without effort and cost. We have no right to expect it, nor should we look for it. We are a people who, given our circumstances, are different from everyone else. We create a foundation of public good, and whatever is our burden, it is for our own benefit and on our own account.
Misfortune and experience have now taught us system and method; and the arrangements for carrying on the war are reduced to rule and order. The quotas of the several states are ascertained, and I intend in a future publication to show what they are, and the necessity as well as the advantages of vigorously providing for them.
Bad luck and experience have now taught us about organization and method; the plans for conducting the war are now systematic and orderly. The contributions from each state are determined, and I plan to reveal what they are in a future publication, along with the need and benefits of effectively preparing for them.
In the mean time, I shall conclude this paper with an instance of British clemency, from Smollett's History of England, vol. xi., printed in London. It will serve to show how dismal the situation of a conquered people is, and that the only security is an effectual defence.
In the meantime, I will wrap up this paper with an example of British kindness, from Smollett's History of England, vol. xi., printed in London. It illustrates how bleak the circumstances of a conquered people can be, and that the only real protection is a strong defense.
We all know that the Stuart family and the house of Hanover opposed each other for the crown of England. The Stuart family stood first in the line of succession, but the other was the most successful.
We all know that the Stuart family and the House of Hanover were rivals for the crown of England. The Stuart family was first in line for succession, but the Hanoverians were the most successful.
In July, 1745, Charles, the son of the exiled king, landed in Scotland, collected a small force, at no time exceeding five or six thousand men, and made some attempts to re-establish his claim. The late Duke of Cumberland, uncle to the present King of England, was sent against him, and on the 16th of April following, Charles was totally defeated at Culloden, in Scotland. Success and power are the only situations in which clemency can be shown, and those who are cruel, because they are victorious, can with the same facility act any other degenerate character.
In July 1745, Charles, the son of the exiled king, landed in Scotland, gathered a small army that never exceeded five or six thousand men, and attempted to re-establish his claim. The late Duke of Cumberland, uncle to the current King of England, was sent to confront him, and on April 16th of the following year, Charles was completely defeated at Culloden, in Scotland. Success and power are the only situations where mercy can be shown, and those who are cruel simply because they are victorious can easily take on any other degenerate role.
"Immediately after the decisive action at Culloden, the Duke of Cumberland took possession of Inverness; where six and thirty deserters, convicted by a court martial, were ordered to be executed: then he detached several parties to ravage the country. One of these apprehended The Lady Mackintosh, who was sent prisoner to Inverness, plundered her house, and drove away her cattle, though her husband was actually in the service of the government. The castle of Lord Lovat was destroyed. The French prisoners were sent to Carlisle and Penrith: Kilmarnock, Balmerino, Cromartie, and his son, The Lord Macleod, were conveyed by sea to London; and those of an inferior rank were confined in different prisons. The Marquis of Tullibardine, together with a brother of the Earl of Dunmore, and Murray, the pretender's secretary, were seized and transported to the Tower of London, to which the Earl of Traquaire had been committed on suspicion; and the eldest son of Lord Lovat was imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh. In a word, all the jails in Great Britain, from the capital, northwards, were filled with those unfortunate captives; and great numbers of them were crowded together in the holds of ships, where they perished in the most deplorable manner, for want of air and exercise. Some rebel chiefs escaped in two French frigates that arrived on the coast of Lochaber about the end of April, and engaged three vessels belonging to his Britannic majesty, which they obliged to retire. Others embarked on board a ship on the coast of Buchan, and were conveyed to Norway, from whence they travelled to Sweden. In the month of May, the Duke of Cumberland advanced with the army into the Highlands, as far as Fort Augustus, where he encamped; and sent off detachments on all hands, to hunt down the fugitives, and lay waste the country with fire and sword. The castles of Glengary and Lochiel were plundered and burned; every house, hut, or habitation, met with the same fate, without distinction; and all the cattle and provision were carried off; the men were either shot upon the mountains, like wild beasts, or put to death in cold blood, without form of trial; the women, after having seen their husbands and fathers murdered, were subjected to brutal violation, and then turned out naked, with their children, to starve on the barren heaths. One whole family was enclosed in a barn, and consumed to ashes. Those ministers of vengeance were so alert in the execution of their office, that in a few days there was neither house, cottage, man, nor beast, to be seen within the compass of fifty miles; all was ruin, silence, and desolation."
"Right after the decisive battle at Culloden, the Duke of Cumberland took control of Inverness, where thirty-six deserters, found guilty by a court martial, were ordered to be executed. He then sent out several teams to devastate the countryside. One of these teams captured The Lady Mackintosh, who was taken prisoner to Inverness; they looted her house and drove away her livestock, even though her husband was actually serving the government. Lord Lovat’s castle was destroyed. The French prisoners were sent to Carlisle and Penrith. Kilmarnock, Balmerino, Cromartie, and his son, The Lord Macleod, were transported by sea to London, while those of lower rank were imprisoned in various jails. The Marquis of Tullibardine, along with a brother of the Earl of Dunmore and Murray, the pretender's secretary, were captured and taken to the Tower of London, where the Earl of Traquaire had been locked up on suspicion. The eldest son of Lord Lovat was imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle. In short, all the prisons in Great Britain, from the capital northward, were filled with those unfortunate captives; many were crammed together in the holds of ships, where they died in dreadful conditions due to lack of air and exercise. Some rebel leaders escaped in two French frigates that arrived on the coast of Lochaber around the end of April, engaging three ships of his Britannic Majesty, which they forced to retreat. Others boarded a ship on the coast of Buchan and were taken to Norway, from where they traveled to Sweden. In May, the Duke of Cumberland advanced with the army into the Highlands, as far as Fort Augustus, where he set up camp and sent out detachments in every direction to hunt down the escapees and lay waste to the country with fire and sword. The castles of Glengarry and Lochiel were looted and burned; every house, hut, or dwelling met the same fate, without exception; all the livestock and supplies were taken; the men were either shot on the mountains like wild animals or executed without trial; and the women, forced to witness their husbands and fathers being murdered, faced brutal assault and were then turned out naked with their children to starve on the barren moors. One entire family was locked in a barn and burned alive. Those agents of vengeance were so quick in carrying out their tasks that in just a few days there was neither house, cottage, man, nor beast left within fifty miles; everything was ruin, silence, and desolation."
I have here presented the reader with one of the most shocking instances of cruelty ever practised, and I leave it, to rest on his mind, that he may be fully impressed with a sense of the destruction he has escaped, in case Britain had conquered America; and likewise, that he may see and feel the necessity, as well for his own personal safety, as for the honor, the interest, and happiness of the whole community, to omit or delay no one preparation necessary to secure the ground which we so happily stand upon.
I’ve presented the reader with one of the most shocking examples of cruelty ever committed, and I leave it for him to ponder, so he can truly appreciate the destruction he avoided if Britain had conquered America. Also, I want him to recognize the importance—both for his own safety and for the honor, interest, and happiness of the entire community—of not skipping or delaying any necessary preparations to protect the ground we’re fortunate to stand on.
TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA Regarding the costs, plans, and payments for conducting the war, and concluding it with honor and benefit
WHEN any necessity or occasion has pointed out the convenience of addressing the public, I have never made it a consideration whether the subject was popular or unpopular, but whether it was right or wrong; for that which is right will become popular, and that which is wrong, though by mistake it may obtain the cry or fashion of the day, will soon lose the power of delusion, and sink into disesteem.
WHEN any necessity or occasion has highlighted the importance of addressing the public, I have never thought about whether the subject was popular or unpopular, but whether it was the right thing to do; because what is right will eventually become popular, and what is wrong, even if it temporarily gains popularity or trends, will quickly lose its misleading power and fall out of favor.
A remarkable instance of this happened in the case of Silas Deane; and I mention this circumstance with the greater ease, because the poison of his hypocrisy spread over the whole country, and every man, almost without exception, thought me wrong in opposing him. The best friends I then had, except Mr. [Henry] Laurens, stood at a distance, and this tribute, which is due to his constancy, I pay to him with respect, and that the readier, because he is not here to hear it. If it reaches him in his imprisonment, it will afford him an agreeable reflection.
A notable example of this occurred in the case of Silas Deane, and I mention this easily because the influence of his deceit spread throughout the entire country, and almost everyone thought I was wrong for opposing him. The best friends I had at the time, except for Mr. [Henry] Laurens, kept their distance, and I pay this tribute to him out of respect for his loyalty, especially since he isn’t here to hear it. If this reaches him while he’s in prison, it should bring him some comfort.
"As he rose like a rocket, he would fall like a stick," is a metaphor which I applied to Mr. Deane, in the first piece which I published respecting him, and he has exactly fulfilled the description. The credit he so unjustly obtained from the public, he lost in almost as short a time. The delusion perished as it fell, and he soon saw himself stripped of popular support. His more intimate acquaintances began to doubt, and to desert him long before he left America, and at his departure, he saw himself the object of general suspicion. When he arrived in France, he endeavored to effect by treason what he had failed to accomplish by fraud. His plans, schemes and projects, together with his expectation of being sent to Holland to negotiate a loan of money, had all miscarried. He then began traducing and accusing America of every crime, which could injure her reputation. "That she was a ruined country; that she only meant to make a tool of France, to get what money she could out of her, and then to leave her and accommodate with Britain." Of all which and much more, Colonel Laurens and myself, when in France, informed Dr. Franklin, who had not before heard of it. And to complete the character of traitor, he has, by letters to his country since, some of which, in his own handwriting, are now in the possession of Congress, used every expression and argument in his power, to injure the reputation of France, and to advise America to renounce her alliance, and surrender up her independence.* Thus in France he abuses America, and in his letters to America he abuses France; and is endeavoring to create disunion between two countries, by the same arts of double-dealing by which he caused dissensions among the commissioners in Paris, and distractions in America. But his life has been fraud, and his character has been that of a plodding, plotting, cringing mercenary, capable of any disguise that suited his purpose. His final detection has very happily cleared up those mistakes, and removed that uneasiness, which his unprincipled conduct occasioned. Every one now sees him in the same light; for towards friends or enemies he acted with the same deception and injustice, and his name, like that of Arnold, ought now to be forgotten among us. As this is the first time that I have mentioned him since my return from France, it is my intention that it shall be the last. From this digression, which for several reasons I thought necessary to give, I now proceed to the purport of my address.
"As he rose like a rocket, he fell like a stick," is a metaphor I applied to Mr. Deane in the first article I published about him, and he has perfectly matched that description. The praise he undeservedly earned from the public faded in almost no time. The illusion disappeared as quickly as it rose, and he soon found himself without popular support. His closer friends began to doubt him and leave long before he left America, and by the time he departed, he was the target of widespread suspicion. When he got to France, he tried to achieve through betrayal what he had failed to do through deceit. His plans, schemes, and hopes of being sent to Holland to negotiate a loan had all fallen apart. He then began slandering America, accusing it of every wrongdoing that could harm its reputation, claiming "she was a ruined country, that she only intended to use France to get as much money as possible before abandoning her and making peace with Britain." Colonel Laurens and I informed Dr. Franklin of all this and more when we were in France, and he had not heard of it before. To fully embody the role of a traitor, he has, through letters to his country—some of them in his own handwriting, now held by Congress—used every expression and argument available to damage France's reputation and urged America to break her alliance and give up her independence. So, in France, he disparages America, and in his letters to America, he disparages France; he is trying to sow discord between the two countries using the same double-dealing tactics that caused rifts among the commissioners in Paris and turmoil in America. His life has been a series of lies, and his character has been that of a scheming, plotting, opportunistic mercenary, able to adopt any disguise that suited his goals. His ultimate exposure has thankfully clarified those misconceptions and relieved the discomfort caused by his unethical actions. Everyone now sees him the same way; he acted with the same deceit and injustice toward both friends and foes, and his name, like that of Arnold, should now be forgotten among us. Since this is the first time I have mentioned him since returning from France, I intend for it to be the last. Having made this digression, which I felt necessary for several reasons, I will now return to the main point of my address.
* Mr. William Marshall, from this city [Philadelphia], who used to be a pilot, was captured at sea and taken to England. He managed to get from there to France and brought letters from Mr. Deane to America, one of which was addressed to "Robert Morris, Esq." Mr. Morris sent it to Congress without opening it and told Mr. Marshall to deliver the other letters there, which he did. The letters contained the same information as those already published under the name S. Deane, to which they often referred.
I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property. It is not the war of Congress, the war of the assemblies, or the war of government in any line whatever. The country first, by mutual compact, resolved to defend their rights and maintain their independence, at the hazard of their lives and fortunes; they elected their representatives, by whom they appointed their members of Congress, and said, act you for us, and we will support you. This is the true ground and principle of the war on the part of America, and, consequently, there remains nothing to do, but for every one to fulfil his obligation.
I see the war of America against Britain as the war of the country, the war of the public, or the war of the people fighting for themselves, to protect their natural rights and their property. It’s not the war of Congress, the war of the assemblies, or the war of any government. The country united to defend their rights and maintain their independence, risking their lives and fortunes; they chose their representatives, who then appointed their members of Congress, and said, “You act for us, and we’ll support you.” This is the true basis and principle of America’s war, so now everyone just needs to fulfill their obligation.
It was next to impossible that a new country, engaged in a new undertaking, could set off systematically right at first. She saw not the extent of the struggle that she was involved in, neither could she avoid the beginning. She supposed every step that she took, and every resolution which she formed, would bring her enemy to reason and close the contest. Those failing, she was forced into new measures; and these, like the former, being fitted to her expectations, and failing in their turn, left her continually unprovided, and without system. The enemy, likewise, was induced to prosecute the war, from the temporary expedients we adopted for carrying it on. We were continually expecting to see their credit exhausted, and they were looking to see our currency fail; and thus, between their watching us, and we them, the hopes of both have been deceived, and the childishness of the expectation has served to increase the expense.
It was almost impossible for a new country, starting a new venture, to get everything right from the beginning. She didn't realize the extent of the struggle she was involved in, nor could she avoid the initial challenges. She believed that every move she made and every decision she made would lead her opponent to reason and end the conflict. When those plans failed, she had to come up with new strategies; however, like the previous ones, these strategies met her expectations but ultimately fell short, leaving her unprepared and without a clear plan. The enemy, too, was encouraged to continue the fight because of the temporary solutions we used to sustain the war. We were always expecting their resources to run out, while they were waiting for our currency to collapse; thus, as we kept an eye on each other, both sides were left disappointed, and the naïveté of those expectations only increased the costs.
Yet who, through this wilderness of error, has been to blame? Where is the man who can say the fault, in part, has not been his? They were the natural, unavoidable errors of the day. They were the errors of a whole country, which nothing but experience could detect and time remove. Neither could the circumstances of America admit of system, till either the paper currency was fixed or laid aside. No calculation of a finance could be made on a medium failing without reason, and fluctuating without rule.
Yet who, amidst this chaos of mistakes, can be held accountable? Where is the person who can claim that at least some of the fault isn't theirs? These were the natural, unavoidable errors of the time. They were the mistakes of an entire nation, which could only be recognized through experience and resolved over time. The situation in America couldn't even support a proper system until either the paper currency was stabilized or done away with. No financial calculations could be made on a medium that was unreliable and constantly changing.
But there is one error which might have been prevented and was not; and as it is not my custom to flatter, but to serve mankind, I will speak it freely. It certainly was the duty of every assembly on the continent to have known, at all times, what was the condition of its treasury, and to have ascertained at every period of depreciation, how much the real worth of the taxes fell short of their nominal value. This knowledge, which might have been easily gained, in the time of it, would have enabled them to have kept their constituents well informed, and this is one of the greatest duties of representation. They ought to have studied and calculated the expenses of the war, the quota of each state, and the consequent proportion that would fall on each man's property for his defence; and this must have easily shown to them, that a tax of one hundred pounds could not be paid by a bushel of apples or an hundred of flour, which was often the case two or three years ago. But instead of this, which would have been plain and upright dealing, the little line of temporary popularity, the feather of an hour's duration, was too much pursued; and in this involved condition of things, every state, for the want of a little thinking, or a little information, supposed that it supported the whole expenses of the war, when in fact it fell, by the time the tax was levied and collected, above three-fourths short of its own quota.
But there’s one mistake that could have been avoided and wasn’t; and since I don’t flatter but aim to serve people, I’ll speak my mind. It was definitely the responsibility of every assembly on the continent to always be aware of its treasury's status and to find out at each point of depreciation how much the actual value of the taxes fell short of their stated value. This information, which could have been easily obtained at the time, would have allowed them to keep their constituents well-informed, which is one of the most important duties of representation. They should have studied and calculated the costs of the war, the share of each state, and how much each person would need to contribute to his defense; this would have clearly shown them that a tax of one hundred pounds couldn’t be paid with a bushel of apples or a hundred pounds of flour, as often happened two or three years ago. Instead of taking this straightforward and honest approach, they chased after a little bit of temporary popularity that only lasted an hour, and in this complicated situation, every state, due to a lack of thinking or information, believed it was covering the entire expense of the war, when in reality, by the time the tax was imposed and collected, it was more than three-fourths short of its own share.
Impressed with a sense of the danger to which the country was exposed by this lax method of doing business, and the prevailing errors of the day, I published, last October was a twelvemonth, the Crisis Extraordinary, on the revenues of America, and the yearly expense of carrying on the war. My estimation of the latter, together with the civil list of Congress, and the civil list of the several states, was two million pounds sterling, which is very nearly nine millions of dollars.
Impressed by the dangers the country faced due to this careless way of doing business and the common mistakes of the time, I published, last October a year ago, the Crisis Extraordinary, about America's revenues and the annual cost of continuing the war. I estimated that, along with Congress's expenses and the expenses of the various states, the total came to two million pounds sterling, which is almost nine million dollars.
Since that time, Congress have gone into a calculation, and have estimated the expenses of the War Department and the civil list of Congress (exclusive of the civil list of the several governments) at eight millions of dollars; and as the remaining million will be fully sufficient for the civil list of the several states, the two calculations are exceedingly near each other.
Since then, Congress has done some calculations and estimated the expenses of the War Department and Congress's civil list (excluding the civil list of the various governments) at eight million dollars. With the remaining million being enough for the civil list of the individual states, the two estimates are quite close to each other.
The sum of eight millions of dollars have called upon the states to furnish, and their quotas are as follows, which I shall preface with the resolution itself.
The total of eight million dollars has prompted the states to provide their contributions, which are as follows, and I will begin with the resolution itself.
"By the United States in Congress assembled. "October 30, 1781.
"Resolved, That the respective states be called upon to furnish the treasury of the United States with their quotas of eight millions of dollars, for the War Department and civil list for the ensuing year, to be paid quarterly, in equal proportions, the first payment to be made on the first day of April next.
"Resolved, That the individual states are requested to provide the treasury of the United States with their share of eight million dollars for the War Department and civil budget for the upcoming year, to be paid quarterly in equal amounts, with the first payment due on April 1st."
"Resolved, That a committee, consisting of a member from each state, be appointed to apportion to the several states the quota of the above sum.
"Resolved, That a committee, made up of one member from each state, be appointed to divide the total amount among the states."
"November 2d. The committee appointed to ascertain the proportions of the several states of the monies to be raised for the expenses of the ensuing year, report the following resolutions:
"November 2nd. The committee assigned to determine the contributions from each state for the expenses of the upcoming year reports the following resolutions:"
"That the sum of eight millions of dollars, as required to be raised by the resolutions of the 30th of October last, be paid by the states in the following proportion:
"That the total of eight million dollars, as required to be raised by the resolutions of October 30th, be paid by the states in the following proportions:"
New Hampshire....... $373,598 Massachusetts....... $1,307,596 Rhode Island........ $216,684 Connecticut......... $747,196 New York............ $373,598 New Jersey.......... $485,679 Pennsylvania........ $1,120,794 Delaware............ $112,085 Maryland............ $933,996 Virginia............ $1,307,594 North Carolina...... $622,677 South Carolina...... $373,598 Georgia............. $24,905 $8,000,000
"Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, to lay taxes for raising their quotas of money for the United States, separate from those laid for their own particular use."
"Resolved, That it is recommended to the various states to impose taxes to raise their share of funds for the United States, separate from those imposed for their own specific purposes."
On these resolutions I shall offer several remarks.
On these resolutions, I have a few comments to make.
1st, On the total amount itself and the country's capability. 2d, On the various shares and the essence of a union. And, 3d, On the approach to collecting and spending.
1st, On the sum itself, and the ability of the country. As I know my own calculation is as low as possible, and as the sum called for by congress, according to their calculation, agrees very nearly therewith, I am sensible it cannot possibly be lower. Neither can it be done for that, unless there is ready money to go to market with; and even in that case, it is only by the utmost management and economy that it can be made to do.
1st, Regarding the total amount and the country's capacity. From what I see, my calculation is as low as it can get, and since the amount requested by Congress is pretty much the same, I realize it can't be any lower. It can't be done for that amount unless there's cash available to trade; and even then, it would only be possible through careful management and budgeting.
By the accounts which were laid before the British Parliament last spring, it appeared that the charge of only subsisting, that is, feeding their army in America, cost annually four million pounds sterling, which is very nearly eighteen millions of dollars. Now if, for eight millions, we can feed, clothe, arm, provide for, and pay an army sufficient for our defence, the very comparison shows that the money must be well laid out.
According to the reports presented to the British Parliament last spring, it seems that the cost of only feeding their army in America was around four million pounds, which is almost eighteen million dollars. Now, if we can support, equip, arm, and pay an army sufficient for our defense for eight million, the comparison clearly shows that the money is being spent wisely.
It may be of some use, either in debate or conversation, to attend to the progress of the expenses of an army, because it will enable us to see on what part any deficiency will fall.
It might be helpful, whether in discussion or conversation, to pay attention to the army's expenses, because this will allow us to understand where any shortfall will impact.
The first thing is, to feed them and prepare for the sick.
The first thing is to feed them and get ready for the sick.
Second, to dress them. Third, to equip and supply them. Fourth, to provide transportation for them. And, Fifth, to compensate them.
The first and second are absolutely necessary to them as men. The third and fourth are equally as necessary to them as an army. And the fifth is their just due. Now if the sum which shall be raised should fall short, either by the several acts of the states for raising it, or by the manner of collecting it, the deficiency will fall on the fifth head, the soldiers' pay, which would be defrauding them, and eternally disgracing ourselves. It would be a blot on the councils, the country, and the revolution of America, and a man would hereafter be ashamed to own that he had any hand in it.
The first two are absolutely essential for them as individuals. The third and fourth are just as crucial for them as a military force. And the fifth is what they rightfully deserve. If the total amount that needs to be raised falls short, either due to the various actions of the states to raise it or how it's collected, the shortfall will affect the fifth item, the soldiers' pay, which would be cheating them and bringing shame upon us. It would tarnish the councils, the nation, and the American revolution, and in the future, people would be embarrassed to admit they were involved in it.
But if the deficiency should be still shorter, it would next fall on the fourth head, the means of removing the army from place to place; and, in this case, the army must either stand still where it can be of no use, or seize on horses, carts, wagons, or any means of transportation which it can lay hold of; and in this instance the country suffers. In short, every attempt to do a thing for less than it can he done for, is sure to become at last both a loss and a dishonor.
But if the shortage is even smaller, it would then relate to the fourth point, which is about moving the army from one place to another. In this situation, the army would either have to stay put, where it won’t be helpful, or take horses, carts, wagons, or any available means of transportation. In this case, the country suffers. In short, any attempt to do something for less than its true value will ultimately result in both a loss and a disgrace.
But the country cannot bear it, say some. This has been the most expensive doctrine that ever was held out, and cost America millions of money for nothing. Can the country bear to be overrun, ravaged, and ruined by an enemy? This will immediately follow where defence is wanting, and defence will ever be wanting, where sufficient revenues are not provided. But this is only one part of the folly. The second is, that when the danger comes, invited in part by our not preparing against it, we have been obliged, in a number of instances, to expend double the sums to do that which at first might have been done for half the money. But this is not all. A third mischief has been, that grain of all sorts, flour, beef fodder, horses, carts, wagons, or whatever was absolutely or immediately wanted, have been taken without pay. Now, I ask, why was all this done, but from that extremely weak and expensive doctrine, that the country could not bear it? That is, that she could not bear, in the first instance, that which would have saved her twice as much at last; or, in proverbial language, that she could not bear to pay a penny to save a pound; the consequence of which has been, that she has paid a pound for a penny. Why are there so many unpaid certificates in almost every man's hands, but from the parsimony of not providing sufficient revenues? Besides, the doctrine contradicts itself; because, if the whole country cannot bear it, how is it possible that a part should? And yet this has been the case: for those things have been had; and they must be had; but the misfortune is, that they have been obtained in a very unequal manner, and upon expensive credit, whereas, with ready money, they might have been purchased for half the price, and nobody distressed.
But some say the country can't handle it. This has been the costliest belief ever promoted, costing America millions for nothing. Can the country really endure being invaded, devastated, and destroyed by an enemy? That's what will happen when there's no defense, and defense will always be lacking if enough revenue isn't provided. But that's just one part of the problem. The second issue is that when danger comes, partly because we failed to prepare, we've often had to spend twice as much to accomplish things that could have been initially done for half the price. But that's not all. A third problem is that grain of all kinds, flour, livestock feed, horses, carts, wagons, or anything that was urgently needed has been taken without payment. Now, I ask, why was all this done, if not because of that incredibly weak and costly belief that the country couldn't handle it? In other words, that it couldn't handle, at first, what would ultimately save it twice as much; or, in common terms, that it couldn't spend a penny to save a pound—resulting in paying a pound for a penny instead. Why are there so many unpaid certificates in nearly every person's possession? It's all due to the stinginess of not providing sufficient revenue. Furthermore, this belief contradicts itself; if the whole country can't manage it, how could a part of it? And yet that has been the case: those things have been gotten, and they must be obtained; but unfortunately, they have been acquired in a very uneven way and on expensive credit, whereas, with cash, they could have been bought for half the cost, with no one in distress.
But there is another thought which ought to strike us, which is, how is the army to bear the want of food, clothing and other necessaries? The man who is at home, can turn himself a thousand ways, and find as many means of ease, convenience or relief: but a soldier's life admits of none of those: their wants cannot be supplied from themselves: for an army, though it is the defence of a state, is at the same time the child of a country, or must be provided for in every thing.
But there’s another thought that should hit us: how is the army supposed to cope without enough food, clothing, and other necessities? Someone at home can adapt in countless ways and find many forms of comfort, convenience, or help. But a soldier’s life doesn’t allow for any of that; they can’t meet their needs themselves. An army, while it protects a nation, is also dependent on the country and must be supported in every way.
And lastly, the doctrine is false. There are not three millions of people in any part of the universe, who live so well, or have such a fund of ability, as in America. The income of a common laborer, who is industrious, is equal to that of the generality of tradesmen in England. In the mercantile line, I have not heard of one who could be said to be a bankrupt since the war began, and in England they have been without number. In America almost every farmer lives on his own lands, and in England not one in a hundred does. In short, it seems as if the poverty of that country had made them furious, and they were determined to risk all to recover all.
And finally, the idea is wrong. There aren't three million people anywhere in the world who live as well or have as much talent as those in America. The income of a hardworking laborer here is comparable to that of most tradespeople in England. I haven’t heard of a single person in the business sector going bankrupt since the war started, while in England, there have been countless bankruptcies. In America, almost every farmer owns their land, whereas in England, not even one in a hundred does. In short, it seems like the poverty in that country has driven them to desperation, and they are willing to risk everything to regain what they've lost.
Yet, notwithstanding those advantages on the part of America, true it is, that had it not been for the operation of taxes for our necessary defence, we had sunk into a state of sloth and poverty: for there was more wealth lost by neglecting to till the earth in the years 1776, '77, and '78, than the quota of taxes amounts to. That which is lost by neglect of this kind, is lost for ever: whereas that which is paid, and continues in the country, returns to us again; and at the same time that it provides us with defence, it operates not only as a spur, but as a premium to our industry.
Yet, despite those advantages for America, it's true that if it hadn't been for the taxes needed for our defense, we would have fallen into laziness and poverty. More wealth was lost by failing to farm the land in the years 1776, '77, and '78 than the amount of taxes collected. What is lost through neglect like this is lost forever; however, what we pay in taxes stays in the country and comes back to us. At the same time it provides us with defense, it also motivates and rewards our hard work.
I shall now proceed to the second head, viz., on the several quotas, and the nature of a union.
I will now move on to the second topic, specifically regarding the various quotas and the nature of a union.
There was a time when America had no other bond of union, than that of common interest and affection. The whole country flew to the relief of Boston, and, making her cause, their own, participated in her cares and administered to her wants. The fate of war, since that day, has carried the calamity in a ten-fold proportion to the southward; but in the mean time the union has been strengthened by a legal compact of the states, jointly and severally ratified, and that which before was choice, or the duty of affection, is now likewise the duty of legal obligation.
There was a time when America was united only by shared interests and feelings. The entire nation rallied to support Boston, adopting her struggles as their own, participating in her challenges and helping with her needs. Since then, the hardships of war have impacted the South even more severely; however, during this time, the union has been reinforced by a legal agreement among the states, which has been ratified by all of them. What was once a matter of choice or a duty of affection has now also become a legal obligation.
The union of America is the foundation-stone of her independence; the rock on which it is built; and is something so sacred in her constitution, that we ought to watch every word we speak, and every thought we think, that we injure it not, even by mistake. When a multitude, extended, or rather scattered, over a continent in the manner we were, mutually agree to form one common centre whereon the whole shall move to accomplish a particular purpose, all parts must act together and alike, or act not at all, and a stoppage in any one is a stoppage of the whole, at least for a time.
The unity of America is the cornerstone of her independence; it's the solid foundation it's built on, and it's something so sacred in her constitution that we need to be careful with every word we speak and every thought we have, so we don't harm it, even unintentionally. When a large group, spread out, or rather scattered, across a continent like we are, agrees to come together and form one central point to achieve a common goal, all parts must work together and in the same way, or not at all. A delay in any single part affects the whole system, at least temporarily.
Thus the several states have sent representatives to assemble together in Congress, and they have empowered that body, which thus becomes their centre, and are no other than themselves in representation, to conduct and manage the war, while their constituents at home attend to the domestic cares of the country, their internal legislation, their farms, professions or employments, for it is only by reducing complicated things to method and orderly connection that they can be understood with advantage, or pursued with success. Congress, by virtue of this delegation, estimates the expense, and apportions it out to the several parts of the empire according to their several abilities; and here the debate must end, because each state has already had its voice, and the matter has undergone its whole portion of argument, and can no more be altered by any particular state, than a law of any state, after it has passed, can be altered by any individual. For with respect to those things which immediately concern the union, and for which the union was purposely established, and is intended to secure, each state is to the United States what each individual is to the state he lives in. And it is on this grand point, this movement upon one centre, that our existence as a nation, our happiness as a people, and our safety as individuals, depend.
So, the various states have sent representatives to meet in Congress, which has become their central authority. This body acts as their representatives to manage the war, while the people at home focus on their local issues, legislation, farms, careers, or jobs. It's only by organizing complex issues methodically that they can be understood and tackled effectively. Congress, with this authority, estimates costs and distributes them among the different parts of the nation based on their respective capabilities. This debate must conclude here, as each state has had its say, and the issue has been fully discussed; it can't be changed by any single state any more than an individual can change a law once it's passed. Regarding matters that directly affect the union, for which the union was specifically created and is meant to protect, each state is to the United States what an individual is to the state they reside in. Our existence as a nation, our happiness as a people, and our safety as individuals rely on this fundamental principle, this movement toward a common center.
It may happen that some state or other may be somewhat over or under rated, but this cannot be much. The experience which has been had upon the matter, has nearly ascertained their several abilities. But even in this case, it can only admit of an appeal to the United States, but cannot authorise any state to make the alteration itself, any more than our internal government can admit an individual to do so in the case of an act of assembly; for if one state can do it, then may another do the same, and the instant this is done the whole is undone.
Some states might be slightly over or undervalued, but it's not by much. The experience we've gained on the subject has nearly determined their various capabilities. However, even in this case, it can only be appealed to the United States, and no state can make changes on its own—similar to how our internal government doesn't allow an individual to change a law arbitrarily. If one state can do it, then another can too, and once that happens, everything falls apart.
Neither is it supposable that any single state can be a judge of all the comparative reasons which may influence the collective body in arranging the quotas of the continent. The circumstances of the several states are frequently varying, occasioned by the accidents of war and commerce, and it will often fall upon some to help others, rather beyond what their exact proportion at another time might be; but even this assistance is as naturally and politically included in the idea of a union as that of any particular assigned proportion; because we know not whose turn it may be next to want assistance, for which reason that state is the wisest which sets the best example.
It's not realistic to think that any one state can judge all the different reasons that might influence the collective group in deciding the quotas for the continent. The situations of the various states frequently change due to the circumstances of war and trade, and sometimes it will be necessary for some states to assist others, going beyond what their specific share might be at another time. However, this support is just as naturally and politically part of the idea of a union as any specific assigned proportion; because we don’t know whose turn it might be to need help next, the wisest state is the one that sets the best example.
Though in matters of bounden duty and reciprocal affection, it is rather a degeneracy from the honesty and ardor of the heart to admit any thing selfish to partake in the government of our conduct, yet in cases where our duty, our affections, and our interest all coincide, it may be of some use to observe their union. The United States will become heir to an extensive quantity of vacant land, and their several titles to shares and quotas thereof, will naturally be adjusted according to their relative quotas, during the war, exclusive of that inability which may unfortunately arise to any state by the enemy's holding possession of a part; but as this is a cold matter of interest, I pass it by, and proceed to my third head, viz., on the manner of collection and expenditure.
Although when it comes to our duties and mutual affection, it's quite a decline from genuine honesty and warmth to let anything selfish guide our behavior, it can be helpful to recognize when our duties, feelings, and interests align. The United States will inherit a large amount of vacant land, and the various claims to parts of it will naturally be adjusted according to each state’s share during the war, not counting any challenges that might arise if an enemy takes control of a portion. Since this is a rather impersonal matter of interest, I'll skip over it and move on to my third point, which is about how we should collect and spend.
It has been our error, as well as our misfortune, to blend the affairs of each state, especially in money matters, with those of the United States; whereas it is our case, convenience and interest, to keep them separate. The expenses of the United States for carrying on the war, and the expenses of each state for its own domestic government, are distinct things, and to involve them is a source of perplexity and a cloak for fraud. I love method, because I see and am convinced of its beauty and advantage. It is that which makes all business easy and understood, and without which, everything becomes embarrassed and difficult.
It has been both our mistake and our misfortune to mix the affairs of each state, especially financial matters, with those of the United States; meanwhile, it is in our case, convenience, and interest to keep them separate. The expenses of the United States for waging war and the expenses of each state for its own local government are separate issues, and mixing them only leads to confusion and opens the door for fraud. I appreciate organization because I recognize its beauty and benefits. It is what makes all business straightforward and clear, and without it, everything becomes complicated and hard to manage.
There are certain powers which the people of each state have delegated to their legislative and executive bodies, and there are other powers which the people of every state have delegated to Congress, among which is that of conducting the war, and, consequently, of managing the expenses attending it; for how else can that be managed, which concerns every state, but by a delegation from each? When a state has furnished its quota, it has an undoubted right to know how it has been applied, and it is as much the duty of Congress to inform the state of the one, as it is the duty of the state to provide the other.
There are certain powers that the people of each state have given to their legislative and executive bodies, and there are other powers that the people of every state have given to Congress, including the power to conduct war and manage the associated expenses. After all, how can something that affects every state be managed without a delegation from each? When a state has provided its share, it has every right to know how it has been used, and it's just as much Congress's responsibility to inform the state about that, as it is the state's duty to provide its share.
In the resolution of Congress already recited, it is recommended to the several states to lay taxes for raising their quotas of money for the United States, separate from those laid for their own particular use.
In the resolution of Congress already mentioned, it is suggested that the individual states impose taxes to raise their share of money for the United States, separate from the taxes they collect for their own specific needs.
This is a most necessary point to be observed, and the distinction should follow all the way through. They should be levied, paid and collected, separately, and kept separate in every instance. Neither have the civil officers of any state, nor the government of that state, the least right to touch that money which the people pay for the support of their army and the war, any more than Congress has to touch that which each state raises for its own use.
This is an essential point to keep in mind, and the distinction should be maintained throughout. They should be imposed, paid, and collected separately, and kept separate in every case. Neither the civil officers of any state nor the state's government have any right to access the money that people pay for the support of their army and the war, just as Congress has no right to access what each state raises for its own needs.
This distinction will naturally be followed by another. It will occasion every state to examine nicely into the expenses of its civil list, and to regulate, reduce, and bring it into better order than it has hitherto been; because the money for that purpose must be raised apart, and accounted for to the public separately. But while the, monies of both were blended, the necessary nicety was not observed, and the poor soldier, who ought to have been the first, was the last who was thought of.
This distinction will naturally lead to another. It will cause every state to carefully look into the expenses of its civil list, and to manage, reduce, and organize it better than it has been so far; because the money for that purpose must be raised separately and accounted for to the public individually. However, while the funds from both were mixed, the necessary attention was not given, and the poor soldier, who should have been the priority, was the last one considered.
Another convenience will be, that the people, by paying the taxes separately, will know what they are for; and will likewise know that those which are for the defence of the country will cease with the war, or soon after. For although, as I have before observed, the war is their own, and for the support of their own rights and the protection of their own property, yet they have the same right to know, that they have to pay, and it is the want of not knowing that is often the cause of dissatisfaction.
Another convenience will be that people, by paying their taxes separately, will understand what those taxes are for, and they will also know that the ones for the country's defense will end with the war or shortly after. Even though, as I mentioned before, the war is their own and is about supporting their own rights and protecting their own property, they have the same right to know what they're paying for as they have to pay, and it's the lack of understanding that often leads to frustration.
This regulation of keeping the taxes separate has given rise to a regulation in the office of finance, by which it is directed:
This rule about keeping the taxes separate has led to a regulation in the finance office, which states:
"That the receivers shall, at the end of every month, make out an exact account of the monies received by them respectively, during such month, specifying therein the names of the persons from whom the same shall have been received, the dates and the sums; which account they shall respectively cause to be published in one of the newspapers of the state; to the end that every citizen may know how much of the monies collected from him, in taxes, is transmitted to the treasury of the United States for the support of the war; and also, that it may be known what monies have been at the order of the superintendent of finance. It being proper and necessary, that, in a free country, the people should be as fully informed of the administration of their affairs as the nature of things will admit."
"At the end of every month, the receivers must create a detailed account of the money they received during that month. This account should include the names of the individuals from whom the money was received, the dates, and the amounts. They are required to publish this account in one of the state newspapers so that every citizen can see how much of their tax money is sent to the U.S. treasury to support the war. Additionally, it should be clear what funds have been available to the superintendent of finance. It is important and necessary for the people in a free country to be fully informed about the management of their affairs as much as possible."
It is an agreeable thing to see a spirit of order and economy taking place, after such a series of errors and difficulties. A government or an administration, who means and acts honestly, has nothing to fear, and consequently has nothing to conceal; and it would be of use if a monthly or quarterly account was to be published, as well of the expenditures as of the receipts. Eight millions of dollars must be husbanded with an exceeding deal of care to make it do, and, therefore, as the management must be reputable, the publication would be serviceable.
It's great to see a sense of order and careful spending taking shape after so many mistakes and challenges. A government or administration that is honest in its intentions and actions has nothing to worry about and, therefore, nothing to hide. It would be helpful to publish a monthly or quarterly report detailing both the expenditures and the income. Eight million dollars needs to be managed very carefully to make it work, so having a trustworthy management system in place would make the publication valuable.
I have heard of petitions which have been presented to the assembly of this state (and probably the same may have happened in other states) praying to have the taxes lowered. Now the only way to keep taxes low is, for the United States to have ready money to go to market with: and though the taxes to be raised for the present year will fall heavy, and there will naturally be some difficulty in paying them, yet the difficulty, in proportion as money spreads about the country, will every day grow less, and in the end we shall save some millions of dollars by it. We see what a bitter, revengeful enemy we have to deal with, and any expense is cheap compared to their merciless paw. We have seen the unfortunate Carolineans hunted like partridges on the mountains, and it is only by providing means for our defence, that we shall be kept from the same condition. When we think or talk about taxes, we ought to recollect that we lie down in peace and sleep in safety; that we can follow our farms or stores or other occupations, in prosperous tranquillity; and that these inestimable blessings are procured to us by the taxes that we pay. In this view, our taxes are properly our insurance money; they are what we pay to be made safe, and, in strict policy, are the best money we can lay out.
I’ve heard about petitions that have been submitted to the assembly of this state (and probably similar ones in other states) asking for tax reductions. The only way to keep taxes low is for the United States to have cash available for trade: and while the taxes raised this year will be burdensome and we’ll naturally face some challenges in paying them, the difficulties will lessen as more money circulates in the country, and ultimately we’ll save millions because of it. We can see what a bitter and vengeful enemy we are up against, and any expense is worth it compared to their relentless grip. We’ve witnessed how the unfortunate residents of Carolina have been hunted like game in the mountains, and the only way to avoid a similar fate is by ensuring we have the means for our defense. When we think or talk about taxes, we should remember that we can lie down in peace and sleep safely; that we can work our farms, run our stores, or engage in other trades, all in a state of prosperity and calm; and that these invaluable blessings come to us through the taxes we pay. In this sense, our taxes are essentially our insurance premiums; they’re what we pay to ensure our safety, and in reality, they’re the best investment we can make.
It was my intention to offer some remarks on the impost law of five per cent. recommended by Congress, and to be established as a fund for the payment of the loan-office certificates, and other debts of the United States; but I have already extended my piece beyond my intention. And as this fund will make our system of finance complete, and is strictly just, and consequently requires nothing but honesty to do it, there needs but little to be said upon it.
I wanted to share some thoughts on the five percent impost law recommended by Congress, which is set to create a fund for paying off loan-office certificates and other debts of the United States. However, I've already written more than I planned. Since this fund will complete our financial system and is entirely fair, requiring just honesty to implement, there's not much more to add.
Common sense.
PHILADELPHIA, March 5, 1782.
PHILADELPHIA, March 5, 1782.
THE CRISIS. XI. ON THE PRESENT STATE OF NEWS.
SINCE the arrival of two, if not three packets in quick succession, at New York, from England, a variety of unconnected news has circulated through the country, and afforded as great a variety of speculation.
SINCE the arrival of two, if not three packets in quick succession, at New York, from England, a variety of unconnected news has circulated through the country, and afforded as great a variety of speculation.
That something is the matter in the cabinet and councils of our enemies, on the other side of the water, is certain—that they have run their length of madness, and are under the necessity of changing their measures may easily be seen into; but to what this change of measures may amount, or how far it may correspond with our interest, happiness and duty, is yet uncertain; and from what we have hitherto experienced, we have too much reason to suspect them in every thing. I do not address this publication so much to the people of America as to the British ministry, whoever they may be, for if it is their intention to promote any kind of negotiation, it is proper they should know beforehand, that the United States have as much honor as bravery; and that they are no more to be seduced from their alliance than their allegiance; that their line of politics is formed and not dependent, like that of their enemy, on chance and accident. On our part, in order to know, at any time, what the British government will do, we have only to find out what they ought not to do, and this last will be their conduct. Forever changing and forever wrong; too distant from America to improve in circumstances, and too unwise to foresee them; scheming without principle, and executing without probability, their whole line of management has hitherto been blunder and baseness. Every campaign has added to their loss, and every year to their disgrace; till unable to go on, and ashamed to go back, their politics have come to a halt, and all their fine prospects to a halter.
It’s clear that something is wrong within the cabinets and councils of our enemies across the ocean. They’ve reached their limit of insanity and need to change their strategies, which is obvious. However, what these changes will mean or how they align with our interests, happiness, and responsibilities remains uncertain. Based on what we’ve experienced so far, we have plenty of reasons to distrust them in everything. I’m addressing this piece not so much to the people of America as to the British government, whoever that might be. If they intend to pursue any kind of negotiation, they should understand beforehand that the United States holds as much honor as courage; they cannot be seduced from their alliances any more than from their loyalty. Their political stance is established and not reliant, like their enemy’s, on luck and randomness. To predict what the British government will do, we just need to determine what they shouldn’t do, and that is likely to be their course of action. They’re constantly changing and consistently making mistakes; too far from America to adapt to circumstances and too short-sighted to anticipate them; planning without principles and acting without credibility, their entire approach has been marked by errors and shame. Every campaign has increased their losses, and each year has added to their disgrace, until now, unable to move forward and too embarrassed to retreat, their politics have stalled, and all their grand prospects have come crashing down.
Could our affections forgive, or humanity forget the wounds of an injured country—we might, under the influence of a momentary oblivion, stand still and laugh. But they are engraven where no amusement can conceal them, and of a kind for which there is no recompense. Can ye restore to us the beloved dead? Can ye say to the grave, give up the murdered? Can ye obliterate from our memories those who are no more? Think not then to tamper with our feelings by an insidious contrivance, nor suffocate our humanity by seducing us to dishonor.
If our feelings could forgive, or if humanity could forget the wounds of a hurt country, we might, in a moment of forgetfulness, pause and laugh. But those scars are engraved where no joy can hide them, and they are of a kind for which there is no compensation. Can you bring back the loved ones we've lost? Can you tell the grave to return the murdered? Can you erase from our memories those who are gone? So don’t think you can manipulate our emotions with a sneaky trick, nor stifle our humanity by luring us into dishonor.
In March 1780, I published part of the Crisis, No. VIII., in the newspapers, but did not conclude it in the following papers, and the remainder has lain by me till the present day. There appeared about that time some disposition in the British cabinet to cease the further prosecution of the war, and as I had formed my opinion that whenever such a design should take place, it would be accompanied by a dishonorable proposition to America, respecting France, I had suppressed the remainder of that number, not to expose the baseness of any such proposition. But the arrival of the next news from England, declared her determination to go on with the war, and consequently as the political object I had then in view was not become a subject, it was unnecessary in me to bring it forward, which is the reason it was never published. The matter which I allude to in the unpublished part, I shall now make a quotation of, and apply it as the more enlarged state of things, at this day, shall make convenient or necessary. It was as follows:
In March 1780, I published part of Crisis, No. VIII., in the newspapers, but I didn’t finish it in the following editions, and the rest has been set aside until now. Around that time, there seemed to be some willingness in the British government to stop the war, and since I believed that whenever such a decision happened, it would come with an dishonorable proposal to America concerning France, I held back the rest of that issue to avoid exposing the disgrace of any such proposal. However, the next news from England confirmed her intention to continue the war, and since the political aim I had in mind was no longer relevant, I found it unnecessary to bring it up, which is why it was never published. The content I’m referring to in the unpublished part, I will now quote and adapt as the current situation demands. It was as follows:
"By the speeches which have appeared from the British Parliament, it is easy to perceive to what impolitic and imprudent excesses their passions and prejudices have, in every instance, carried them during the present war. Provoked at the upright and honorable treaty between America and France, they imagined that nothing more was necessary to be done to prevent its final ratification, than to promise, through the agency of their commissioners (Carlisle, Eden, and Johnstone) a repeal of their once offensive acts of Parliament. The vanity of the conceit, was as unpardonable as the experiment was impolitic. And so convinced am I of their wrong ideas of America, that I shall not wonder, if, in their last stage of political frenzy, they propose to her to break her alliance with France, and enter into one with them. Such a proposition, should it ever be made, and it has been already more than once hinted at in Parliament, would discover such a disposition to perfidiousness, and such disregard of honor and morals, as would add the finishing vice to national corruption.—I do not mention this to put America on the watch, but to put England on her guard, that she do not, in the looseness of her heart, envelop in disgrace every fragment of reputation."—Thus far the quotation.
"From the speeches coming out of the British Parliament, it's clear to see the unwise and reckless extremes their emotions and biases have driven them to during this war. Upset by the fair and honorable treaty between America and France, they thought all they needed to do to stop its final ratification was to promise, through their commissioners (Carlisle, Eden, and Johnstone), to repeal their previously offensive acts of Parliament. The foolishness of this idea was as unforgivable as the approach was unwise. I am so convinced of their misguided views about America that I wouldn't be surprised if, in their final bout of political madness, they suggest that America break her alliance with France and instead ally with them. Should such a suggestion ever be made—it's already been hinted at in Parliament—it would show a level of treachery and a complete disregard for honor and ethics that would mark the ultimate decay of national integrity. I mention this not to put America on alert but to warn England not to recklessly tarnish what little reputation it has left."
By the complection of some part of the news which has transpired through the New York papers, it seems probable that this insidious era in the British politics is beginning to make its appearance. I wish it may not; for that which is a disgrace to human nature, throws something of a shade over all the human character, and each individual feels his share of the wound that is given to the whole. The policy of Britain has ever been to divide America in some way or other. In the beginning of the dispute, she practised every art to prevent or destroy the union of the states, well knowing that could she once get them to stand singly, she could conquer them unconditionally. Failing in this project in America, she renewed it in Europe; and, after the alliance had taken place, she made secret offers to France to induce her to give up America; and what is still more extraordinary, she at the same time made propositions to Dr. Franklin, then in Paris, the very court to which she was secretly applying, to draw off America from France. But this is not all. On the 14th of September, 1778, the British court, through their secretary, Lord Weymouth, made application to the Marquis d'Almadovar, the Spanish ambassador at London, to "ask the mediation," for these were the words, of the court of Spain, for the purpose of negotiating a peace with France, leaving America (as I shall hereafter show) out of the question. Spain readily offered her mediation, and likewise the city of Madrid as the place of conference, but withal, proposed, that the United States of America should be invited to the treaty, and considered as independent during the time the business was negotiating. But this was not the view of England. She wanted to draw France from the war, that she might uninterruptedly pour out all her force and fury upon America; and being disappointed in this plan, as well through the open and generous conduct of Spain, as the determination of France, she refused the mediation which she had solicited. I shall now give some extracts from the justifying memorial of the Spanish court, in which she has set the conduct and character of Britain, with respect to America, in a clear and striking point of light.
Based on some of the news that has come out through the New York papers, it looks like this troubling time in British politics is starting to show up. I hope it doesn’t; because what shames humanity casts a shadow over everyone’s character, and each person feels the sting of the wound inflicted on the whole. Britain has always aimed to divide America in some way. At the start of the conflict, she used every tactic to prevent or break the union of the states, fully aware that if she could get them to stand alone, she could conquer them easily. After failing in this plan in America, she tried again in Europe; and once the alliance was formed, she secretly reached out to France to persuade her to abandon America. Even more remarkably, at the same time, she made proposals to Dr. Franklin, who was in Paris, the very court she was secretly contacting, to pull America away from France. But that’s not all. On September 14, 1778, the British court, through their secretary, Lord Weymouth, approached the Marquis d'Almadovar, the Spanish ambassador in London, to "ask for the mediation," as these were the exact words, of the Spanish court to negotiate peace with France while leaving America (as I will explain later) out of the conversation. Spain quickly offered her mediation and suggested Madrid as the place for discussions, but also proposed that the United States of America should be invited to the treaty and recognized as independent during the negotiations. However, this was not England’s intention. She wanted France out of the war so she could focus all her resources and anger on America; and when her plan failed, thanks to Spain’s open and generous approach as well as France’s determination, she turned down the mediation she had requested. Now, I will share some excerpts from the Spanish court's justification memorial, where they highlight Britain’s actions and character regarding America clearly and powerfully.
The memorial, speaking of the refusal of the British court to meet in conference with commissioners from the United States, who were to be considered as independent during the time of the conference, says,
The memorial, discussing the British court's refusal to hold a meeting with commissioners from the United States, who were to be recognized as independent during the conference, states,
"It is a thing very extraordinary and even ridiculous, that the court of London, who treats the colonies as independent, not only in acting, but of right, during the war, should have a repugnance to treat them as such only in acting during a truce, or suspension of hostilities. The convention of Saratoga; the reputing General Burgoyne as a lawful prisoner, in order to suspend his trial; the exchange and liberation of other prisoners made from the colonies; the having named commissioners to go and supplicate the Americans, at their own doors, request peace of them, and treat with them and the Congress: and, finally, by a thousand other acts of this sort, authorized by the court of London, which have been, and are true signs of the acknowledgment of their independence.
"It's truly strange and even ridiculous that the court in London, which treats the colonies as independent—not just in action but in rights—during the war, should refuse to recognize them as such only in action during a truce or pause in fighting. The convention of Saratoga; considering General Burgoyne a lawful prisoner to delay his trial; the exchange and release of other prisoners from the colonies; appointing commissioners to go and ask the Americans for peace at their own doorsteps, negotiating with them and Congress; and countless other actions like these, authorized by the court in London, have been and are clear signs of acknowledging their independence."
"In aggravation of all the foregoing, at the same time the British cabinet answered the King of Spain in the terms already mentioned, they were insinuating themselves at the court of France by means of secret emissaries, and making very great offers to her, to abandon the colonies and make peace with England. But there is yet more; for at this same time the English ministry were treating, by means of another certain emissary, with Dr. Franklin, minister plenipotentiary from the colonies, residing at Paris, to whom they made various proposals to disunite them from France, and accommodate matters with England.
At the same time the British cabinet responded to the King of Spain as already mentioned, they were also trying to get in good with the court of France through secret messengers, offering significant incentives for France to abandon the colonies and make peace with England. But that’s not all; during this same period, the English government was negotiating through another messenger with Dr. Franklin, the minister plenipotentiary from the colonies living in Paris, making various proposals to separate them from France and settle things with England.
"From what has been observed, it evidently follows, that the whole of the British politics was, to disunite the two courts of Paris and Madrid, by means of the suggestions and offers which she separately made to them; and also to separate the colonies from their treaties and engagements entered into with France, and induce them to arm against the house of Bourbon, or more probably to oppress them when they found, from breaking their engagements, that they stood alone and without protection.
"From what has been seen, it's clear that British politics aimed to weaken the ties between the courts of Paris and Madrid by making separate suggestions and offers to each. It also sought to detach the colonies from their treaties and commitments with France, encouraging them to take up arms against the Bourbon family, or more likely to crush them when they realized, by breaking their commitments, that they were isolated and unprotected."
"This, therefore, is the net they laid for the American states; that is to say, to tempt them with flattering and very magnificent promises to come to an accommodation with them, exclusive of any intervention of Spain or France, that the British ministry might always remain the arbiters of the fate of the colonies. But the Catholic king (the King of Spain) faithful on the one part of the engagements which bind him to the Most Christian king (the King of France) his nephew; just and upright on the other, to his own subjects, whom he ought to protect and guard against so many insults; and finally, full of humanity and compassion for the Americans and other individuals who suffer in the present war; he is determined to pursue and prosecute it, and to make all the efforts in his power, until he can obtain a solid and permanent peace, with full and satisfactory securities that it shall be observed."
"This is the trap they set for the American states, aiming to lure them in with flattering and grand promises to negotiate with them, without any involvement from Spain or France, so that the British government could always control the fate of the colonies. However, the Catholic king (the King of Spain), who is committed to the agreements he has with the Most Christian king (the King of France), his nephew, is also just and fair to his own subjects, whom he should protect from numerous insults; and, filled with humanity and compassion for the Americans and others suffering in the current war, he is determined to sustain and intensify the effort, until he can achieve a stable and lasting peace, with full and satisfactory guarantees that it will be upheld."
Thus far the memorial; a translation of which into English, may be seen in full, under the head of State Papers, in the Annual Register, for 1779.
Thus far the memorial; a translation of which into English can be found in full under the State Papers section in the Annual Register for 1779.
The extracts I have here given, serve to show the various endeavors and contrivances of the enemy, to draw France from her connection with America, and to prevail on her to make a separate peace with England, leaving America totally out of the question, and at the mercy of a merciless, unprincipled enemy. The opinion, likewise, which Spain has formed of the British cabinet's character for meanness and perfidiousness, is so exactly the opinion of America respecting it, that the memorial, in this instance, contains our own statements and language; for people, however remote, who think alike, will unavoidably speak alike.
The excerpts I've provided show the various attempts and schemes of the enemy to pull France away from its alliance with America and convince it to make a separate peace with England, completely leaving America out of the picture and vulnerable to a ruthless, unprincipled foe. Spain’s view of the British government's reputation for deceitfulness and treachery aligns perfectly with America’s perspective on the matter, making this memorial reflect our own statements and language; because people, no matter how distant, who share the same thoughts will inevitably express them similarly.
Thus we see the insidious use which Britain endeavored to make of the propositions of peace under the mediation of Spain. I shall now proceed to the second proposition under the mediation of the Emperor of Germany and the Empress of Russia; the general outline of which was, that a congress of the several powers at war should meet at Vienna, in 1781, to settle preliminaries of peace. I could wish myself at liberty to make use of all the information which I am possessed of on this subject, but as there is a delicacy in the matter, I do not conceive it prudent, at least at present, to make references and quotations in the same manner as I have done with respect to the mediation of Spain, who published the whole proceedings herself; and therefore, what comes from me, on this part of the business, must rest on my own credit with the public, assuring them, that when the whole proceedings, relative to the proposed Congress of Vienna shall appear, they will find my account not only true, but studiously moderate.
So, we can see how Britain tried to manipulate the peace proposals under Spain's mediation. Now, I will move on to the second proposal with the help of the Emperor of Germany and the Empress of Russia. The general idea was for a congress of the warring powers to meet in Vienna in 1781 to discuss the terms of peace. I wish I could share all the information I have on this topic, but since it's a sensitive issue, I don’t think it’s wise to reference or quote sources in the same way I did with Spain's mediation, which published all the proceedings itself. Therefore, what I present here regarding this part of the matter must be taken at face value, and I assure the public that when the complete details about the proposed Congress of Vienna are revealed, they will find my account not only accurate but also carefully measured.
We know at the time this mediation was on the carpet, the expectation of the British king and ministry ran high with respect to the conquest of America. The English packet which was taken with the mail on board, and carried into l'Orient, in France, contained letters from Lord G. Germaine to Sir Henry Clinton, which expressed in the fullest terms the ministerial idea of a total conquest. Copies of those letters were sent to congress and published in the newspapers of last year. Colonel [John] Laurens brought over the originals, some of which, signed in the handwriting of the then secretary, Germaine, are now in my possession.
We know that at the time this mediation was being discussed, the British king and government had high expectations for conquering America. The English mail packet that was captured, which included the mail on board, was taken to l'Orient, France, and contained letters from Lord G. Germaine to Sir Henry Clinton, clearly expressing the government's belief in a complete conquest. Copies of those letters were sent to Congress and published in last year's newspapers. Colonel [John] Laurens brought over the originals, some of which, signed in the handwriting of the then-secretary Germaine, are now in my possession.
Filled with these high ideas, nothing could be more insolent towards America than the language of the British court on the proposed mediation. A peace with France and Spain she anxiously solicited; but America, as before, was to be left to her mercy, neither would she hear any proposition for admitting an agent from the United States into the congress of Vienna.
Filled with these lofty ideas, nothing could be more disrespectful towards America than the language of the British court regarding the proposed mediation. A peace with France and Spain was something she desperately sought; however, America, as before, was to be left to her mercy, and she wouldn’t consider any proposal to admit an agent from the United States into the Congress of Vienna.
On the other hand, France, with an open, noble and manly determination, and a fidelity of a good ally, would hear no proposition for a separate peace, nor even meet in congress at Vienna, without an agent from America: and likewise that the independent character of the United States, represented by the agent, should be fully and unequivocally defined and settled before any conference should be entered on. The reasoning of the court of France on the several propositions of the two imperial courts, which relate to us, is rather in the style of an American than an ally, and she advocated the cause of America as if she had been America herself.—Thus the second mediation, like the first, proved ineffectual. But since that time, a reverse of fortune has overtaken the British arms, and all their high expectations are dashed to the ground. The noble exertions to the southward under General [Nathaniel] Greene; the successful operations of the allied arms in the Chesapeake; the loss of most of their islands in the West Indies, and Minorca in the Mediterranean; the persevering spirit of Spain against Gibraltar; the expected capture of Jamaica; the failure of making a separate peace with Holland, and the expense of an hundred millions sterling, by which all these fine losses were obtained, have read them a loud lesson of disgraceful misfortune and necessity has called on them to change their ground.
On the other hand, France, with a bold, noble, and determined spirit, and the loyalty of a true ally, refused to consider any offer for a separate peace or even attend the congress in Vienna without a representative from America. Moreover, they insisted that the independent status of the United States, as represented by that agent, should be clearly and firmly established before any discussions took place. The reasoning from the French court regarding the various proposals from the two imperial courts that involve us is more in line with an American perspective than an ally's, as they championed the American cause as if they were America itself. Consequently, the second mediation, like the first, was ineffective. However, since then, a shift in fortune has struck the British forces, and all their lofty expectations have crumbled. The courageous efforts to the south under General [Nathaniel] Greene; the successful campaigns of the allied forces in the Chesapeake; the loss of most of their Caribbean islands and Minorca in the Mediterranean; Spain's relentless resistance against Gibraltar; the anticipated capture of Jamaica; the unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a separate peace with Holland; and the expense of one hundred million pounds, which led to all these significant losses, have given them a harsh lesson in disgraceful misfortune and compelled them to reassess their position.
In this situation of confusion and despair, their present councils have no fixed character. It is now the hurricane months of British politics. Every day seems to have a storm of its own, and they are scudding under the bare poles of hope. Beaten, but not humble; condemned, but not penitent; they act like men trembling at fate and catching at a straw. From this convulsion, in the entrails of their politics, it is more than probable, that the mountain groaning in labor, will bring forth a mouse, as to its size, and a monster in its make. They will try on America the same insidious arts they tried on France and Spain.
In this confusing and desperate situation, their current decisions lack consistency. It's the stormy season of British politics. Each day feels like its own upheaval, and they're clinging to slim hope. They're defeated, but not cowed; condemned, but not remorseful; they behave like men who are afraid of their fate and grasping at straws. From this turmoil within their politics, it's likely that what will emerge, after much turmoil, is something small in size but monstrous in nature. They will attempt the same deceitful tactics on America that they used on France and Spain.
We sometimes experience sensations to which language is not equal. The conception is too bulky to be born alive, and in the torture of thinking, we stand dumb. Our feelings, imprisoned by their magnitude, find no way out—and, in the struggle of expression, every finger tries to be a tongue. The machinery of the body seems too little for the mind, and we look about for helps to show our thoughts by. Such must be the sensation of America, whenever Britain, teeming with corruption, shall propose to her to sacrifice her faith.
We sometimes feel things that words can't capture. The idea is too big to be born, and in the pain of trying to think, we find ourselves speechless. Our feelings, trapped by their weight, can't escape—and in the effort to express ourselves, every finger tries to speak. The body's abilities seem inadequate for the mind, and we search for ways to convey our thoughts. That must be how America feels whenever Britain, overflowing with corruption, suggests that she should betray her principles.
But, exclusive of the wickedness, there is a personal offence contained in every such attempt. It is calling us villains: for no man asks the other to act the villain unless he believes him inclined to be one. No man attempts to seduce the truly honest woman. It is the supposed looseness of her mind that starts the thoughts of seduction, and he who offers it calls her a prostitute. Our pride is always hurt by the same propositions which offend our principles; for when we are shocked at the crime, we are wounded by the suspicion of our compliance.
But aside from the wrongdoing, there's a personal insult in every such attempt. It’s accusing us of being villains: no one asks another to act like a villain unless they believe that person is capable of it. No one tries to seduce a truly honest woman. It's the perceived looseness of her mind that sparks thoughts of seduction, and the one who makes that offer is calling her a prostitute. Our pride feels hurt by the same proposals that go against our principles; when we are appalled by the crime, we’re also stung by the suspicion that we might go along with it.
Could I convey a thought that might serve to regulate the public mind, I would not make the interest of the alliance the basis of defending it. All the world are moved by interest, and it affords them nothing to boast of. But I would go a step higher, and defend it on the ground of honor and principle. That our public affairs have flourished under the alliance—that it was wisely made, and has been nobly executed—that by its assistance we are enabled to preserve our country from conquest, and expel those who sought our destruction—that it is our true interest to maintain it unimpaired, and that while we do so no enemy can conquer us, are matters which experience has taught us, and the common good of ourselves, abstracted from principles of faith and honor, would lead us to maintain the connection.
If I could share an idea that might help shape public opinion, I wouldn’t base the defense of the alliance solely on our interests. Everyone is motivated by their own interests, and there's little to brag about in that. Instead, I would elevate the conversation and defend it on the grounds of honor and principle. Our public matters have thrived thanks to the alliance—it was formed wisely and has been carried out with integrity. Its support allows us to protect our country from being conquered and to drive away those who wish to see us destroyed. It's clearly in our best interest to keep this alliance strong, and as long as we do, no enemy can defeat us. Experience has taught us these truths, and the common good for all of us, beyond just having faith and honor, compels us to uphold this connection.
But over and above the mere letter of the alliance, we have been nobly and generously treated, and have had the same respect and attention paid to us, as if we had been an old established country. To oblige and be obliged is fair work among mankind, and we want an opportunity of showing to the world that we are a people sensible of kindness and worthy of confidence. Character is to us, in our present circumstances, of more importance than interest. We are a young nation, just stepping upon the stage of public life, and the eye of the world is upon us to see how we act. We have an enemy who is watching to destroy our reputation, and who will go any length to gain some evidence against us, that may serve to render our conduct suspected, and our character odious; because, could she accomplish this, wicked as it is, the world would withdraw from us, as from a people not to be trusted, and our task would then become difficult. There is nothing which sets the character of a nation in a higher or lower light with others, than the faithfully fulfilling, or perfidiously breaking, of treaties. They are things not to be tampered with: and should Britain, which seems very probable, propose to seduce America into such an act of baseness, it would merit from her some mark of unusual detestation. It is one of those extraordinary instances in which we ought not to be contented with the bare negative of Congress, because it is an affront on the multitude as well as on the government. It goes on the supposition that the public are not honest men, and that they may be managed by contrivance, though they cannot be conquered by arms. But, let the world and Britain know, that we are neither to be bought nor sold; that our mind is great and fixed; our prospect clear; and that we will support our character as firmly as our independence.
But beyond just the words of the alliance, we have been treated with great respect and generosity, as if we were an established country. Helping each other out is a fair practice among people, and we want the chance to show the world that we are a nation that appreciates kindness and is deserving of trust. Right now, our character matters more to us than our self-interest. We are a young nation, just stepping onto the world stage, and everyone is watching to see how we act. We have an enemy that’s eager to ruin our reputation, willing to do anything to find evidence against us that would make our actions look suspicious and our character untrustworthy. If they succeed, as wicked as that would be, the world might turn away from us, seeing us as untrustworthy, making our work much more difficult. Nothing shapes a nation’s reputation more than either keeping or breaking treaties with integrity. These matters shouldn’t be handled lightly; and if Britain, which seems likely, tries to lead America into such a disgraceful act, it would deserve our strong condemnation. This is one of those rare situations where we shouldn’t be satisfied with simply Congress saying no, because it’s an insult both to the public and the government. It implies that the people aren’t honest and can be manipulated, even if they can’t be defeated in battle. But let the world and Britain understand that we cannot be bought or sold; our resolve is strong and unwavering; our vision is clear; and we will uphold our character just as firmly as we defend our independence.
But I will go still further; General Conway, who made the motion, in the British Parliament, for discontinuing offensive war in America, is a gentleman of an amiable character. We have no personal quarrel with him. But he feels not as we feel; he is not in our situation, and that alone, without any other explanation, is enough. The British Parliament suppose they have many friends in America, and that, when all chance of conquest is over, they will be able to draw her from her alliance with France. Now, if I have any conception of the human heart, they will fail in this more than in any thing that they have yet tried.
But I will go even further; General Conway, who proposed in the British Parliament to end the offensive war in America, is a decent guy. We have no personal conflict with him. But he doesn't feel what we feel; he’s not in our position, and that alone, without any further explanation, is enough. The British Parliament thinks they have many friends in America and that, once all chances of victory are gone, they will be able to pull us away from our alliance with France. Now, if I understand anything about human nature, they will fail at this more than any other attempt they have made.
This part of the business is not a question of policy only, but of honor and honesty; and the proposition will have in it something so visibly low and base, that their partisans, if they have any, will be ashamed of it. Men are often hurt by a mean action who are not startled at a wicked one, and this will be such a confession of inability, such a declaration of servile thinking, that the scandal of it will ruin all their hopes.
This aspect of the business isn't just about policy; it's about honor and honesty. The proposal will be so obviously low and shameful that even their supporters, if they have any, will be embarrassed by it. People can often be offended by a petty action even if they aren't shocked by an immoral one, and this will be such an admission of weakness, such a sign of submissive thinking, that the disgrace of it will destroy all their hopes.
In short, we have nothing to do but to go on with vigor and determination. The enemy is yet in our country. They hold New York, Charleston, and Savannah, and the very being in those places is an offence, and a part of offensive war, and until they can be driven from them, or captured in them, it would be folly in us to listen to an idle tale. I take it for granted that the British ministry are sinking under the impossibility of carrying on the war. Let them then come to a fair and open peace with France, Spain, Holland and America, in the manner they ought to do; but until then, we can have nothing to say to them.
In short, we have no choice but to move forward with energy and determination. The enemy is still in our country. They control New York, Charleston, and Savannah, and just their presence in those places is an offense and part of an aggressive war. Until they can be driven out or captured there, it would be foolish for us to pay attention to empty stories. I'm assuming the British government is struggling with the impossibility of maintaining the war. They should then seek a fair and open peace with France, Spain, Holland, and America, as they should; but until that happens, we have nothing to discuss with them.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, May 22, 1782.
A SUPERNUMERARY CRISIS TO SIR GUY CARLETON.
IT is the nature of compassion to associate with misfortune; and I address this to you in behalf even of an enemy, a captain in the British service, now on his way to the headquarters of the American army, and unfortunately doomed to death for a crime not his own. A sentence so extraordinary, an execution so repugnant to every human sensation, ought never to be told without the circumstances which produced it: and as the destined victim is yet in existence, and in your hands rests his life or death, I shall briefly state the case, and the melancholy consequence.
It’s in the nature of compassion to connect with misfortune; and I’m writing this for you on behalf of even an enemy, a captain in the British army, who is currently on his way to the headquarters of the American army, and unfortunately facing death for a crime he didn't commit. A sentence so unusual, an execution so against all human feelings, should never be shared without the circumstances that led to it: and since the intended victim is still alive, and his life or death is in your hands, I will briefly outline the situation and its tragic outcome.
Captain Huddy, of the Jersey militia, was attacked in a small fort on Tom's River, by a party of refugees in the British pay and service, was made prisoner, together with his company, carried to New York and lodged in the provost of that city: about three weeks after which, he was taken out of the provost down to the water-side, put into a boat, and brought again upon the Jersey shore, and there, contrary to the practice of all nations but savages, was hung up on a tree, and left hanging till found by our people who took him down and buried him. The inhabitants of that part of the country where the murder was committed, sent a deputation to General Washington with a full and certified statement of the fact. Struck, as every human breast must be, with such brutish outrage, and determined both to punish and prevent it for the future, the General represented the case to General Clinton, who then commanded, and demanded that the refugee officer who ordered and attended the execution, and whose name is Lippencott, should be delivered up as a murderer; and in case of refusal, that the person of some British officer should suffer in his stead. The demand, though not refused, has not been complied with; and the melancholy lot (not by selection, but by casting lots) has fallen upon Captain Asgill, of the Guards, who, as I have already mentioned, is on his way from Lancaster to camp, a martyr to the general wickedness of the cause he engaged in, and the ingratitude of those whom he served.
Captain Huddy, of the Jersey militia, was attacked in a small fort on Tom's River by a group of refugees working for the British. He was taken prisoner along with his company, brought to New York, and held in the city’s provost. About three weeks later, he was taken out of the provost to the waterfront, put in a boat, and brought back to the Jersey shore. There, in a brutal act contrary to how civilized nations behave, he was hanged from a tree and left there until our people found him, took him down, and buried him. The residents of that area where the murder happened sent a delegation to General Washington with a full statement of the events. Deeply affected, as anyone would be by such a savage crime, and determined to punish and prevent it in the future, the General reported the situation to General Clinton, who was in command at the time, and demanded that the refugee officer who ordered and carried out the execution, named Lippencott, be handed over as a murderer. He also insisted that if this demand was refused, a British officer should be held accountable in his place. Although the demand was not outright denied, it has not been fulfilled; and the unfortunate fate, decided by drawing lots rather than selection, has fallen upon Captain Asgill of the Guards, who, as I mentioned earlier, is on his way from Lancaster to the camp, a victim of the overall wickedness of the cause he served and the ingratitude of those he assisted.
The first reflection which arises on this black business is, what sort of men must Englishmen be, and what sort of order and discipline do they preserve in their army, when in the immediate place of their headquarters, and under the eye and nose of their commander-in-chief, a prisoner can be taken at pleasure from his confinement, and his death made a matter of sport.
The first thought that comes to mind about this dark situation is, what kind of people must the English be, and what kind of order and discipline do they maintain in their army, when right at their headquarters, and under the watchful gaze of their commander-in-chief, a prisoner can be casually taken from his confinement, and his death treated as entertainment.
The history of the most savage Indians does not produce instances exactly of this kind. They, at least, have a formality in their punishments. With them it is the horridness of revenge, but with your army it is a still greater crime, the horridness of diversion. The British generals who have succeeded each other, from the time of General Gage to yourself, have all affected to speak in language that they have no right to. In their proclamations, their addresses, their letters to General Washington, and their supplications to Congress (for they deserve no other name) they talk of British honor, British generosity, and British clemency, as if those things were matters of fact; whereas, we whose eyes are open, who speak the same language with yourselves, many of whom were born on the same spot with you, and who can no more be mistaken in your words than in your actions, can declare to all the world, that so far as our knowledge goes, there is not a more detestable character, nor a meaner or more barbarous enemy, than the present British one. With us, you have forfeited all pretensions to reputation, and it is only by holding you like a wild beast, afraid of your keepers, that you can be made manageable. But to return to the point in question.
The history of the most brutal Native Americans doesn’t provide examples exactly like this. They at least have a formality in their punishments. For them, it’s the horror of revenge, but for your army, it’s an even bigger crime, the horror of entertainment. The British generals who have come one after another, from General Gage to you, have all pretended to speak in terms they have no right to. In their proclamations, their addresses, their letters to General Washington, and their pleas to Congress (since they deserve no other name), they talk about British honor, British generosity, and British clemency as if those things were real; meanwhile, we who can see clearly, who speak the same language as you, many of whom were born in the same place as you, and who can’t be fooled by your words any more than by your actions, can tell the whole world that as far as we know, there is no more contemptible character nor a more cowardly or savage enemy than the current British one. With us, you have lost all claims to a good reputation, and it’s only by treating you like a wild animal, scared of your handlers, that you can be controlled. But let’s get back to the issue at hand.
Though I can think no man innocent who has lent his hand to destroy the country which he did not plant, and to ruin those that he could not enslave, yet, abstracted from all ideas of right and wrong on the original question, Captain Asgill, in the present case, is not the guilty man. The villain and the victim are here separated characters. You hold the one and we the other. You disown, or affect to disown and reprobate the conduct of Lippincut, yet you give him a sanctuary; and by so doing you as effectually become the executioner of Asgill, as if you had put the rope on his neck, and dismissed him from the world. Whatever your feelings on this interesting occasion may be are best known to yourself. Within the grave of your own mind lies buried the fate of Asgill. He becomes the corpse of your will, or the survivor of your justice. Deliver up the one, and you save the other; withhold the one, and the other dies by your choice.
Though I can't see any man as innocent who has contributed to destroying the country he didn't establish, and to ruining those he couldn't enslave, I believe that, setting aside all notions of right and wrong on the original issue, Captain Asgill isn't the guilty party in this situation. The villain and the victim are distinctly different individuals here. You have one, and we have the other. You deny, or pretend to deny and condemn the actions of Lippincut, yet you offer him protection; by doing so, you are just as much the executioner of Asgill as if you had placed the noose around his neck and sent him off from this world. Whatever your feelings on this significant occasion may be, only you truly know. The fate of Asgill lies buried in the depths of your own mind. He is either the victim of your will or the remnant of your justice. Hand over one, and you save the other; hold on to one, and the other perishes by your choice.
On our part the case is exceeding plain; an officer has been taken from his confinement and murdered, and the murderer is within your lines. Your army has been guilty of a thousand instances of equal cruelty, but they have been rendered equivocal, and sheltered from personal detection. Here the crime is fixed; and is one of those extraordinary cases which can neither be denied nor palliated, and to which the custom of war does not apply; for it never could be supposed that such a brutal outrage would ever be committed. It is an original in the history of civilized barbarians, and is truly British. On your part you are accountable to us for the personal safety of the prisoners within your walls. Here can be no mistake; they can neither be spies nor suspected as such; your security is not endangered, nor your operations subjected to miscarriage, by men immured within a dungeon. They differ in every circumstance from men in the field, and leave no pretence for severity of punishment. But if to the dismal condition of captivity with you must be added the constant apprehensions of death; if to be imprisoned is so nearly to be entombed; and if, after all, the murderers are to be protected, and thereby the crime encouraged, wherein do you differ from [American] Indians either in conduct or character?
From our perspective, the situation is very clear: an officer has been taken from his confinement and killed, and the murderer is within your lines. Your army has committed countless acts of cruelty, but they have been masked and protected from being personally identified. In this case, the crime is undeniable; it is one of those rare instances that cannot be dismissed or excused, and the rules of war do not apply here, as it was never conceivable that such a brutal act would occur. This is unprecedented in the history of civilized savagery, and is distinctly British. You are responsible for ensuring the personal safety of the prisoners within your walls. There can be no misunderstanding; they cannot be spies or suspected as such; your security is not at risk, nor are your operations likely to fail, due to men confined within a dungeon. They are completely different from men in the field, and there is no justification for harsh punishment. But if the grim reality of captivity with you is coupled with the constant fear of death; if being imprisoned feels almost like being buried alive; and if, in the end, the murderers are to be protected, thus encouraging the crime, how are you any different from [American] Indians in terms of behavior or character?
We can have no idea of your honor, or your justice, in any future transaction, of what nature it may be, while you shelter within your lines an outrageous murderer, and sacrifice in his stead an officer of your own. If you have no regard to us, at least spare the blood which it is your duty to save. Whether the punishment will be greater on him, who, in this case, innocently dies, or on him whom sad necessity forces to retaliate, is, in the nicety of sensation, an undecided question? It rests with you to prevent the sufferings of both. You have nothing to do but to give up the murderer, and the matter ends.
We can't trust your honor or your sense of justice in any future dealings, no matter what they involve, as long as you protect an outrageous murderer and sacrifice one of your own officers instead. If you don’t care about us, at least spare the blood that you should be saving. Whether the punishment is worse for the one who dies unjustly or for the one who is forced to take revenge is a complicated question. The choice is in your hands to stop the suffering of both. All you have to do is hand over the murderer, and this situation will be resolved.
But to protect him, be he who he may, is to patronize his crime, and to trifle it off by frivolous and unmeaning inquiries, is to promote it. There is no declaration you can make, nor promise you can give that will obtain credit. It is the man and not the apology that is demanded.
But protecting him, whoever he is, means supporting his crime, and dismissing it with silly and pointless questions only encourages it. There's no statement you can make or promise you can give that will be taken seriously. It's the person, not the excuse, that is being sought.
You see yourself pressed on all sides to spare the life of your own officer, for die he will if you withhold justice. The murder of Captain Huddy is an offence not to be borne with, and there is no security which we can have, that such actions or similar ones shall not be repeated, but by making the punishment fall upon yourselves. To destroy the last security of captivity, and to take the unarmed, the unresisting prisoner to private and sportive execution, is carrying barbarity too high for silence. The evil must be put an end to; and the choice of persons rests with you. But if your attachment to the guilty is stronger than to the innocent, you invent a crime that must destroy your character, and if the cause of your king needs to be so supported, for ever cease, sir, to torture our remembrance with the wretched phrases of British honor, British generosity and British clemency.
You find yourself pressured from all sides to save your own officer’s life, because he will die if you deny him justice. The murder of Captain Huddy is an offense we can’t tolerate, and we have no guarantee that such actions, or similar ones, won’t happen again unless the punishment falls on you. To eliminate the last safeguard of captivity and to take the unarmed, defenseless prisoner for private and cruel execution is a level of barbarity that demands a response. This evil must be stopped, and the choice of who to hold accountable is yours. But if your loyalty to the guilty is stronger than to the innocent, you create a crime that will ruin your reputation. And if you feel your king’s cause needs to be upheld in this way, then please stop torturing us with the miserable claims of British honor, British generosity, and British clemency.
From this melancholy circumstance, learn, sir, a lesson of morality. The refugees are men whom your predecessors have instructed in wickedness, the better to fit them to their master's purpose. To make them useful, they have made them vile, and the consequence of their tutored villany is now descending on the heads of their encouragers. They have been trained like hounds to the scent of blood, and cherished in every species of dissolute barbarity. Their ideas of right and wrong are worn away in the constant habitude of repeated infamy, till, like men practised in execution, they feel not the value of another's life.
From this sad situation, take a lesson in morality, sir. The refugees are people whom your predecessors have taught to be wicked, just to serve their master's agenda. To make them useful, they have been made corrupt, and the result of their manipulated wrongdoing is now falling back on those who encouraged it. They have been trained like hunting dogs to the scent of blood and nurtured in every kind of immoral behavior. Their understanding of right and wrong has eroded through constant exposure to shameful actions, until, like those skilled in executions, they no longer value another person's life.
The task before you, though painful, is not difficult; give up the murderer, and save your officer, as the first outset of a necessary reformation. COMMON SENSE.
The task ahead of you, although tough, isn’t hard; turn in the murderer and save your officer as the first step towards a needed change. COMMON SENSE.
PHILADELPHIA May 31, 1782.
PHILADELPHIA May 31, 1782.
THE CRISIS. XII. TO THE EARL OF SHELBURNE.
MY LORD,—A speech, which has been printed in several of the British and New York newspapers, as coming from your lordship, in answer to one from the Duke of Richmond, of the 10th of July last, contains expressions and opinions so new and singular, and so enveloped in mysterious reasoning, that I address this publication to you, for the purpose of giving them a free and candid examination. The speech I allude to is in these words:
MY LORD,—A speech that has been published in several British and New York newspapers, supposedly from you in response to the Duke of Richmond's statement from July 10th, includes expressions and opinions that are quite new and unusual, and wrapped in puzzling reasoning. I am writing this to you to offer a thorough and honest examination of these statements. The speech I’m referring to goes as follows:
"His lordship said, it had been mentioned in another place, that he had been guilty of inconsistency. To clear himself of this, he asserted that he still held the same principles in respect to American independence which he at first imbibed. He had been, and yet was of opinion, whenever the Parliament of Great Britain acknowledges that point, the sun of England's glory is set forever. Such were the sentiments he possessed on a former day, and such the sentiments he continued to hold at this hour. It was the opinion of Lord Chatham, as well as many other able statesmen. Other noble lords, however, think differently, and as the majority of the cabinet support them, he acquiesced in the measure, dissenting from the idea; and the point is settled for bringing the matter into the full discussion of Parliament, where it will be candidly, fairly, and impartially debated. The independence of America would end in the ruin of England; and that a peace patched up with France, would give that proud enemy the means of yet trampling on this country. The sun of England's glory he wished not to see set forever; he looked for a spark at least to be left, which might in time light us up to a new day. But if independence was to be granted, if Parliament deemed that measure prudent, he foresaw, in his own mind, that England was undone. He wished to God that he had been deputed to Congress, that be might plead the cause of that country as well as of this, and that he might exercise whatever powers he possessed as an orator, to save both from ruin, in a conviction to Congress, that, if their independence was signed, their liberties were gone forever.
His lordship mentioned that it had been pointed out elsewhere that he had been inconsistent. To defend himself against this claim, he insisted that he still held the same views about American independence that he initially embraced. He believed, and still believes, that once the Parliament of Great Britain acknowledges that point, England's glory will be forever extinguished. Such were his thoughts previously, and they remain unchanged now. This opinion was shared by Lord Chatham and many other capable statesmen. However, other noble lords hold a different view, and since the majority of the cabinet supports them, he went along with the decision while disagreeing with it; the matter will be fully discussed in Parliament, where it will be openly and fairly debated. He argued that America’s independence would lead to England’s downfall and that a peace hastily agreed upon with France would give that arrogant enemy the opportunity to further oppress this country. He did not want to see the sun of England's glory set for good; he hoped for at least a spark to remain that could eventually lead us to a new dawn. Yet, if independence were to be granted, if Parliament considered that approach wise, he anticipated that England would be doomed. He wished he had been sent to Congress to advocate for both America and this country, using whatever skills he had as an orator to save both from disaster, believing that if their independence were declared, their freedoms would be lost forever.
"Peace, his lordship added, was a desirable object, but it must be an honorable peace, and not an humiliating one, dictated by France, or insisted on by America. It was very true, that this kingdom was not in a flourishing state, it was impoverished by war. But if we were not rich, it was evident that France was poor. If we were straitened in our finances, the enemy were exhausted in their resources. This was a great empire; it abounded with brave men, who were able and willing to fight in a common cause; the language of humiliation should not, therefore, be the language of Great Britain. His lordship said, that he was not afraid nor ashamed of those expressions going to America. There were numbers, great numbers there, who were of the same way of thinking, in respect to that country being dependent on this, and who, with his lordship, perceived ruin and independence Blinked together."
"Peace, his lordship added, was a desirable goal, but it had to be an honorable peace, not a humiliating one dictated by France or insisted upon by America. It was true that this kingdom was not doing well; it was suffering due to war. But if we weren't rich, it was clear that France was struggling too. If we were tight on finances, the enemy was drained of their resources. This was a great empire, filled with brave people who were ready and willing to fight for a common cause; therefore, the language of humiliation should not be the language of Great Britain. His lordship said that he wasn’t afraid or ashamed of those words reaching America. There were many, a significant number, who shared the belief that that country depended on this one, and who, like his lordship, saw ruin and independence intertwined."
Thus far the speech; on which I remark—That his lordship is a total stranger to the mind and sentiments of America; that he has wrapped himself up in fond delusion, that something less than independence, may, under his administration, be accepted; and he wishes himself sent to Congress, to prove the most extraordinary of all doctrines, which is, that independence, the sublimest of all human conditions, is loss of liberty.
So far, the speech; to which I note—That he is completely unaware of the thoughts and feelings of America; that he is caught up in a misguided belief that anything less than independence can, under his leadership, be accepted; and he hopes to be sent to Congress to promote the most absurd idea, which is that independence, the highest state of being for humans, is actually a loss of freedom.
In answer to which we may say, that in order to know what the contrary word dependence means, we have only to look back to those years of severe humiliation, when the mildest of all petitions could obtain no other notice than the haughtiest of all insults; and when the base terms of unconditional submission were demanded, or undistinguishable destruction threatened. It is nothing to us that the ministry have been changed, for they may be changed again. The guilt of a government is the crime of a whole country; and the nation that can, though but for a moment, think and act as England has done, can never afterwards be believed or trusted. There are cases in which it is as impossible to restore character to life, as it is to recover the dead. It is a phoenix that can expire but once, and from whose ashes there is no resurrection. Some offences are of such a slight composition, that they reach no further than the temper, and are created or cured by a thought. But the sin of England has struck the heart of America, and nature has not left in our power to say we can forgive.
In response, we can say that to understand what the opposite of dependence means, we only need to reflect on those years of intense humiliation, when even the simplest requests received nothing but the most condescending insults; and when we were faced with demands for complete submission or threats of total destruction. It doesn’t matter that the government has changed, because it can change again. The wrongdoing of a government reflects the failings of an entire nation; and a country that can, even for a moment, think and act as England has done can never again be believed or trusted. There are situations where it is just as impossible to restore a reputation as it is to bring the dead back to life. It’s like a phoenix that can only die once, and from whose ashes there is no rebirth. Some offenses are so trivial that they only affect someone's mood and can be altered by a single thought. But the sin of England has wounded the heart of America, and nature has not given us the ability to say we can forgive.
Your lordship wishes for an opportunity to plead before Congress the cause of England and America, and to save, as you say, both from ruin.
Your lordship wants a chance to advocate before Congress for the interests of England and America, and to save, as you put it, both from disaster.
That the country, which, for more than seven years has sought our destruction, should now cringe to solicit our protection, is adding the wretchedness of disgrace to the misery of disappointment; and if England has the least spark of supposed honor left, that spark must be darkened by asking, and extinguished by receiving, the smallest favor from America; for the criminal who owes his life to the grace and mercy of the injured, is more executed by living, than he who dies.
That the country that has tried to destroy us for over seven years is now begging for our protection adds a layer of disgrace to its disappointment; if England has even a small bit of so-called honor left, that honor must be tarnished by asking for and completely lost by accepting any favor from America; because the criminal who owes his life to the grace and mercy of those he's wronged suffers more by living than the one who dies.
But a thousand pleadings, even from your lordship, can have no effect. Honor, interest, and every sensation of the heart, would plead against you. We are a people who think not as you think; and what is equally true, you cannot feel as we feel. The situations of the two countries are exceedingly different. Ours has been the seat of war; yours has seen nothing of it. The most wanton destruction has been committed in our sight; the most insolent barbarity has been acted on our feelings. We can look round and see the remains of burnt and destroyed houses, once the fair fruit of hard industry, and now the striking monuments of British brutality. We walk over the dead whom we loved, in every part of America, and remember by whom they fell. There is scarcely a village but brings to life some melancholy thought, and reminds us of what we have suffered, and of those we have lost by the inhumanity of Britain. A thousand images arise to us, which, from situation, you cannot see, and are accompanied by as many ideas which you cannot know; and therefore your supposed system of reasoning would apply to nothing, and all your expectations die of themselves.
But a thousand pleas, even from you, won’t make a difference. Honor, self-interest, and every feeling in our hearts argue against you. We don’t think the same way you do, and just as true, you can’t feel what we feel. The situations in our two countries are vastly different. Ours has been the battleground; yours hasn’t seen any of it. We've witnessed wanton destruction before our eyes; the most outrageous cruelty has affected us deeply. We look around and see the remnants of burnt and destroyed homes, once the proud result of hard work, now the stark reminders of British brutality. We walk over the graves of those we loved, scattered across America, and remember who caused their deaths. There’s hardly a village that doesn’t stir up some sad memory, reminding us of what we’ve endured and those we’ve lost to Britain’s inhumanity. A thousand images come to mind that you, due to your distance, cannot see, accompanied by countless ideas that you can’t comprehend; therefore, your reasoning doesn’t apply to anything, and all your expectations fall flat.
The question whether England shall accede to the independence of America, and which your lordship says is to undergo a parliamentary discussion, is so very simple, and composed of so few cases, that it scarcely needs a debate.
The question of whether England should agree to America's independence, which you mentioned is going to be discussed in Parliament, is quite straightforward and involves so few situations that it hardly requires a debate.
It is the only way out of an expensive and ruinous war, which has no object, and without which acknowledgment there can be no peace.
It’s the only way to escape an expensive and destructive war that has no purpose, and without recognizing this, there can be no peace.
But your lordship says, the sun of Great Britain will set whenever she acknowledges the independence of America.—Whereas the metaphor would have been strictly just, to have left the sun wholly out of the figure, and have ascribed her not acknowledging it to the influence of the moon.
But your lordship says that the sun of Great Britain will set whenever she recognizes America's independence. —While it would have been more accurate to leave the sun out of the metaphor entirely and attribute her failure to recognize it to the influence of the moon.
But the expression, if true, is the greatest confession of disgrace that could be made, and furnishes America with the highest notions of sovereign independent importance. Mr. Wedderburne, about the year 1776, made use of an idea of much the same kind,—Relinquish America! says he—What is it but to desire a giant to shrink spontaneously into a dwarf.
But if that statement is true, it’s the biggest admission of shame that could ever be made, and it gives America the highest ideas of its own independent significance. Mr. Wedderburne, around 1776, expressed a similar idea—“Give up America!” he says—“What is that but asking a giant to suddenly shrink into a dwarf?”
Alas! are those people who call themselves Englishmen, of so little internal consequence, that when America is gone, or shuts her eyes upon them, their sun is set, they can shine no more, but grope about in obscurity, and contract into insignificant animals? Was America, then, the giant of the empire, and England only her dwarf in waiting! Is the case so strangely altered, that those who once thought we could not live without them, are now brought to declare that they cannot exist without us? Will they tell to the world, and that from their first minister of state, that America is their all in all; that it is by her importance only that they can live, and breathe, and have a being? Will they, who long since threatened to bring us to their feet, bow themselves to ours, and own that without us they are not a nation? Are they become so unqualified to debate on independence, that they have lost all idea of it themselves, and are calling to the rocks and mountains of America to cover their insignificance? Or, if America is lost, is it manly to sob over it like a child for its rattle, and invite the laughter of the world by declarations of disgrace? Surely, a more consistent line of conduct would be to bear it without complaint; and to show that England, without America, can preserve her independence, and a suitable rank with other European powers. You were not contented while you had her, and to weep for her now is childish.
Unfortunately, are those people who call themselves Englishmen so lacking in significance that when America is gone or turns its back on them, their sun sets, and they can no longer shine but wander in obscurity, shrinking into something insignificant? Was America the true giant of the empire, while England was merely her waiting dwarf? Has the situation changed so much that those who once thought we couldn’t survive without them are now the ones declaring they can’t exist without us? Will they admit to the world, starting from their top official, that America is their everything; that it’s only through her importance that they can live, breathe, and have purpose? Will those who once threatened to bring us to our knees now bow to us and acknowledge that without us, they aren’t a nation? Have they become so unqualified to discuss independence that they’ve lost all understanding of it and are calling out to the rocks and mountains of America to hide their shame? Or, if America is lost, is it manly to cry over it like a child over a toy and invite the world’s laughter with declarations of disgrace? Surely, a more sensible approach would be to accept it without complaint and demonstrate that England, without America, can maintain her independence and a respectable standing among other European powers. You weren’t satisfied while you had her, and crying for her now is childish.
But Lord Shelburne thinks something may yet be done. What that something is, or how it is to be accomplished, is a matter in obscurity. By arms there is no hope. The experience of nearly eight years, with the expense of an hundred million pounds sterling, and the loss of two armies, must positively decide that point. Besides, the British have lost their interest in America with the disaffected. Every part of it has been tried. There is no new scene left for delusion: and the thousands who have been ruined by adhering to them, and have now to quit the settlements which they had acquired, and be conveyed like transports to cultivate the deserts of Augustine and Nova Scotia, has put an end to all further expectations of aid.
But Lord Shelburne believes something might still be possible. What that something is or how it could be achieved is unclear. There's no hope through military means. After nearly eight years, spending over a hundred million pounds, and losing two armies, that point is settled. Furthermore, the British have lost interest in America among the discontented. Every option has been tried. There's no new strategy left to deceive people, and the thousands who have been ruined for sticking with them, now forced to leave the settlements they had established and shipped like goods to labor in the barren lands of Augustine and Nova Scotia, have dashed any remaining hopes for support.
If you cast your eyes on the people of England, what have they to console themselves with for the millions expended? Or, what encouragement is there left to continue throwing good money after bad? America can carry on the war for ten years longer, and all the charges of government included, for less than you can defray the charges of war and government for one year. And I, who know both countries, know well, that the people of America can afford to pay their share of the expense much better than the people of England can. Besides, it is their own estates and property, their own rights, liberties and government, that they are defending; and were they not to do it, they would deserve to lose all, and none would pity them. The fault would be their own, and their punishment just.
If you look at the people of England, what do they have to comfort themselves for the millions spent? Or, what motivation is left to keep putting good money after bad? America can continue the war for another ten years, and when you include all government costs, it would still be less than what you spend on war and government in just one year. And I, who know both countries, understand well that the people of America can afford to pay their share of the costs much better than the people of England can. Plus, they are defending their own land and property, their rights, freedoms, and government; if they didn’t do it, they would deserve to lose everything, and no one would feel sorry for them. The fault would be their own, and their punishment would be fair.
The British army in America care not how long the war lasts. They enjoy an easy and indolent life. They fatten on the folly of one country and the spoils of another; and, between their plunder and their prey, may go home rich. But the case is very different with the laboring farmer, the working tradesman, and the necessitous poor in England, the sweat of whose brow goes day after day to feed, in prodigality and sloth, the army that is robbing both them and us. Removed from the eye of that country that supports them, and distant from the government that employs them, they cut and carve for themselves, and there is none to call them to account.
The British army in America doesn't care how long the war goes on. They’re living a comfortable and lazy life. They thrive on the foolishness of one country and the spoils of another; between their thefts and their captures, they could return home wealthy. But it’s a completely different story for the hardworking farmer, the tradespeople, and the needy poor in England, whose labor every day feeds, in extravagance and laziness, the army that is stealing from both them and us. Far from the watchful eyes of the country that supports them, and distant from the government that hires them, they do as they please, and no one holds them accountable.
But England will be ruined, says Lord Shelburne, if America is independent.
But England will be ruined, says Lord Shelburne, if America is independent.
Then I say, is England already ruined, for America is already independent: and if Lord Shelburne will not allow this, he immediately denies the fact which he infers. Besides, to make England the mere creature of America, is paying too great a compliment to us, and too little to himself.
Then I ask, is England already finished, since America is already independent? And if Lord Shelburne won’t accept this, he’s basically denying the very fact he’s suggesting. Furthermore, making England just a puppet of America is giving us way too much credit and him way too little.
But the declaration is a rhapsody of inconsistency. For to say, as Lord Shelburne has numberless times said, that the war against America is ruinous, and yet to continue the prosecution of that ruinous war for the purpose of avoiding ruin, is a language which cannot be understood. Neither is it possible to see how the independence of America is to accomplish the ruin of England after the war is over, and yet not affect it before. America cannot be more independent of her, nor a greater enemy to her, hereafter than she now is; nor can England derive less advantages from her than at present: why then is ruin to follow in the best state of the case, and not in the worst? And if not in the worst, why is it to follow at all?
But the declaration is a mess of contradictions. To say, as Lord Shelburne has repeatedly claimed, that the war against America is disastrous and yet to keep fighting that disastrous war to avoid disaster is language that makes no sense. It's also hard to see how America's independence will lead to England's ruin after the war is over but won't affect it beforehand. America can't be more independent of her or a bigger enemy in the future than she is now, nor can England gain fewer benefits from her than it does right now. So why would ruin come in the best-case scenario and not in the worst? And if it's not going to come in the worst case, why would it come at all?
That a nation is to be ruined by peace and commerce, and fourteen or fifteen millions a-year less expenses than before, is a new doctrine in politics. We have heard much clamor of national savings and economy; but surely the true economy would be, to save the whole charge of a silly, foolish, and headstrong war; because, compared with this, all other retrenchments are baubles and trifles.
The idea that a country can be destroyed by peace and trade, while spending fourteen or fifteen million less per year than before, is a new political theory. We've heard a lot about national savings and frugality, but the real savings would come from avoiding the total cost of a foolish and reckless war; because next to that, all other cuts are just small change.
But is it possible that Lord Shelburne can be serious in supposing that the least advantage can be obtained by arms, or that any advantage can be equal to the expense or the danger of attempting it? Will not the capture of one army after another satisfy him, must all become prisoners? Must England ever be the sport of hope, and the victim of delusion? Sometimes our currency was to fail; another time our army was to disband; then whole provinces were to revolt. Such a general said this and that; another wrote so and so; Lord Chatham was of this opinion; and lord somebody else of another. To-day 20,000 Russians and 20 Russian ships of the line were to come; to-morrow the empress was abused without mercy or decency. Then the Emperor of Germany was to be bribed with a million of money, and the King of Prussia was to do wonderful things. At one time it was, Lo here! and then it was, Lo there! Sometimes this power, and sometimes that power, was to engage in the war, just as if the whole world was mad and foolish like Britain. And thus, from year to year, has every straw been catched at, and every Will-with-a-wisp led them a new dance.
But can Lord Shelburne really believe that any benefit can be gained from fighting, or that the benefits could ever outweigh the costs and risks involved? Is capturing one army after another really not enough for him? Do we have to see every last person become a prisoner? Will England always be a playground for false hopes and a target for delusions? Sometimes people claimed our currency would collapse; other times, they said our army would fall apart; then there were predictions of entire provinces rebelling. One general said this, another wrote that; Lord Chatham had one view, and some other lord had a different one. Today, we were told that 20,000 Russians and 20 Russian ships were coming; tomorrow, the empress would be criticized without mercy or respect. Then there were claims that the Emperor of Germany could be bribed with a million dollars, and the King of Prussia would perform miraculous deeds. At one moment, it was "over here!" and then it was "over there!" Sometimes one power would supposedly join the war, and sometimes another, as if the whole world was as crazy and foolish as Britain. And so, year after year, every flimsy hope has been grasped at, leading them in a fresh and futile dance.
This year a still newer folly is to take place. Lord Shelburne wishes to be sent to Congress, and he thinks that something may be done.
This year, there’s an even newer absurdity on the horizon. Lord Shelburne wants to be sent to Congress, and he believes something might actually happen.
Are not the repeated declarations of Congress, and which all America supports, that they will not even hear any proposals whatever, until the unconditional and unequivocal independence of America is recognised; are not, I say, these declarations answer enough?
Aren't the repeated statements from Congress, which all of America supports, that they won’t even consider any proposals until America’s independence is recognized unconditionally and unequivocally; aren’t, I say, these statements answer enough?
But for England to receive any thing from America now, after so many insults, injuries and outrages, acted towards us, would show such a spirit of meanness in her, that we could not but despise her for accepting it. And so far from Lord Shelburne's coming here to solicit it, it would be the greatest disgrace we could do them to offer it. England would appear a wretch indeed, at this time of day, to ask or owe any thing to the bounty of America. Has not the name of Englishman blots enough upon it, without inventing more? Even Lucifer would scorn to reign in heaven by permission, and yet an Englishman can creep for only an entrance into America. Or, has a land of liberty so many charms, that to be a doorkeeper in it is better than to be an English minister of state?
But for England to get anything from America now, after so many insults, injuries, and outrages directed at us, would show such a spirit of meanness on her part that we couldn't help but look down on her for accepting it. And far from Lord Shelburne coming here to ask for it, offering it would be the greatest disgrace we could impose on them. England would indeed seem pathetic at this time, to ask for or be in debt to America's generosity. Doesn’t the title of Englishman already carry enough stains without making more? Even Lucifer would scoff at reigning in heaven by permission, yet an Englishman can only beg for an entry into America. Or does a land of liberty have so many attractions that being a doorkeeper there is better than being an English state minister?
But what can this expected something be? Or, if obtained, what can it amount to, but new disgraces, contentions and quarrels? The people of America have for years accustomed themselves to think and speak so freely and contemptuously of English authority, and the inveteracy is so deeply rooted, that a person invested with any authority from that country, and attempting to exercise it here, would have the life of a toad under a harrow. They would look on him as an interloper, to whom their compassion permitted a residence. He would be no more than the Mungo of a farce; and if he disliked that, he must set off. It would be a station of degradation, debased by our pity, and despised by our pride, and would place England in a more contemptible situation than any she has yet been in during the war. We have too high an opinion of ourselves, even to think of yielding again the least obedience to outlandish authority; and for a thousand reasons, England would be the last country in the world to yield it to. She has been treacherous, and we know it. Her character is gone, and we have seen the funeral.
But what could this expected something be? Or, if we actually get it, what will it lead to, other than more shame, conflicts, and arguments? The people of America have been thinking and talking so freely and harshly about English authority for years, and that mindset is so ingrained that anyone with authority from that country trying to exert it here would have a really hard time. They’d see him as an outsider, someone their sympathy allows to stick around. He would be no more than the punchline in a comedy, and if he didn’t like that, he’d better leave. It would be a position of humiliation, diminished by our pity and looked down upon by our pride, putting England in a more shameful position than it has been in during the war. We think too highly of ourselves to even consider submitting to foreign authority again; and for countless reasons, England would be the last country in the world to try and impose it. She has been deceitful, and we know it. Her reputation is gone, and we have witnessed its downfall.
Surely she loves to fish in troubled waters, and drink the cup of contention, or she would not now think of mingling her affairs with those of America. It would be like a foolish dotard taking to his arms the bride that despises him, or who has placed on his head the ensigns of her disgust. It is kissing the hand that boxes his ears, and proposing to renew the exchange. The thought is as servile as the war is wicked, and shows the last scene of the drama to be as inconsistent as the first.
Surely she loves to stir up trouble and enjoy the conflict, or she wouldn't even consider mixing her issues with America's. It would be like a foolish old man embracing the bride who looks down on him or who has shown her disdain for him. It's like kissing the hand that slaps his face and suggesting to start the cycle all over again. This idea is as submissive as the war is wrong, and it makes the final act of the drama as inconsistent as the beginning.
As America is gone, the only act of manhood is to let her go. Your lordship had no hand in the separation, and you will gain no honor by temporising politics. Besides, there is something so exceedingly whimsical, unsteady, and even insincere in the present conduct of England, that she exhibits herself in the most dishonorable colors. On the second of August last, General Carleton and Admiral Digby wrote to General Washington in these words:
As America is no longer part of us, the only act of manhood is to let her go. Your lordship had no role in the separation, and you won’t gain any honor by playing political games. Moreover, there’s something incredibly whimsical, inconsistent, and even insincere about England’s current behavior, making her appear in the most dishonorable light. On August 2nd, General Carleton and Admiral Digby wrote to General Washington with the following words:
"The resolution of the House of Commons, of the 27th of February last, has been placed in Your Excellency's hands, and intimations given at the same time that further pacific measures were likely to follow. Since which, until the present time, we have had no direct communications with England; but a mail is now arrived, which brings us very important information. We are acquainted, sir, by authority, that negotiations for a general peace have already commenced at Paris, and that Mr. Grenville is invested with full powers to treat with all the parties at war, and is now at Paris in execution of his commission. And we are further, sir, made acquainted, that His Majesty, in order to remove any obstacles to this peace which he so ardently wishes to restore, has commanded his ministers to direct Mr. Grenville, that the independence of the Thirteen United Provinces, should be proposed by him in the first instance, instead of making it a condition of a general treaty."
"The resolution of the House of Commons from February 27th has been handed to Your Excellency, and at the same time, we were informed that more peaceful measures are likely to follow. Since then, we haven't had any direct communication with England; however, a mail has just arrived with very important information. We are informed, sir, through official channels, that negotiations for a general peace have already started in Paris, and that Mr. Grenville has been given full authority to negotiate with all the warring parties and is currently in Paris carrying out his mission. Furthermore, sir, we have been told that His Majesty, in order to eliminate any obstacles to the peace he so desperately wants to achieve, has instructed his ministers to direct Mr. Grenville to propose the independence of the Thirteen United Provinces as a primary point instead of making it a condition of the general treaty."
Now, taking your present measures into view, and comparing them with the declaration in this letter, pray what is the word of your king, or his ministers, or the Parliament, good for? Must we not look upon you as a confederated body of faithless, treacherous men, whose assurances are fraud, and their language deceit? What opinion can we possibly form of you, but that you are a lost, abandoned, profligate nation, who sport even with your own character, and are to be held by nothing but the bayonet or the halter?
Now, considering your current actions and comparing them to what’s stated in this letter, what good are the words of your king, or his ministers, or Parliament? Should we not see you as a group of untrustworthy, treacherous individuals whose promises are lies and whose words are misleading? What opinion can we form of you except that you are a chaotic, reckless nation that even jokes about its own reputation, relying only on force or punishment to be kept in line?
To say, after this, that the sun of Great Britain will be set whenever she acknowledges the independence of America, when the not doing it is the unqualified lie of government, can be no other than the language of ridicule, the jargon of inconsistency. There were thousands in America who predicted the delusion, and looked upon it as a trick of treachery, to take us from our guard, and draw off our attention from the only system of finance, by which we can be called, or deserve to be called, a sovereign, independent people. The fraud, on your part, might be worth attempting, but the sacrifice to obtain it is too high.
To say that Great Britain's sun will set whenever she acknowledges America's independence, when not doing so is just a blatant government lie, sounds nothing more than mockery and a display of inconsistency. There were thousands in America who foresaw this deception and saw it as a treacherous trick to catch us off guard and distract us from the sole financial system that defines us as a sovereign, independent nation. Your attempt at this deceit may be worth considering, but the cost to achieve it is too great.
There are others who credited the assurance, because they thought it impossible that men who had their characters to establish, would begin with a lie. The prosecution of the war by the former ministry was savage and horrid; since which it has been mean, trickish, and delusive. The one went greedily into the passion of revenge, the other into the subtleties of low contrivance; till, between the crimes of both, there is scarcely left a man in America, be he Whig or Tory, who does not despise or detest the conduct of Britain.
There are others who believed the promise because they thought it was impossible for people trying to build their reputations to start with a lie. The previous government's approach to the war was brutal and terrible; since then, it has become petty, deceitful, and misleading. One group rushed into a desire for revenge, while the other sunk into the tricks of low schemes; as a result, there's hardly anyone left in America, whether Whig or Tory, who doesn't look down on or hate Britain's actions.
The management of Lord Shelburne, whatever may be his views, is a caution to us, and must be to the world, never to regard British assurances. A perfidy so notorious cannot be hid. It stands even in the public papers of New York, with the names of Carleton and Digby affixed to it. It is a proclamation that the king of England is not to be believed; that the spirit of lying is the governing principle of the ministry. It is holding up the character of the House of Commons to public infamy, and warning all men not to credit them. Such are the consequences which Lord Shelburne's management has brought upon his country.
The way Lord Shelburne is managing things, no matter his intentions, serves as a warning to us and to the world not to trust British promises. Such blatant dishonesty cannot be hidden. It's even reported in the newspapers of New York, with the names of Carleton and Digby attached. This shows that the king of England can't be trusted; deceit seems to be the main principle of this government. It's tarnishing the reputation of the House of Commons in the public eye and advising everyone not to take them at their word. These are the repercussions of Lord Shelburne's management on his country.
After the authorized declarations contained in Carleton and Digby's letter, you ought, from every motive of honor, policy and prudence, to have fulfilled them, whatever might have been the event. It was the least atonement that you could possibly make to America, and the greatest kindness you could do to yourselves; for you will save millions by a general peace, and you will lose as many by continuing the war.
After the official statements in Carleton and Digby's letter, you should have honored them for reasons of honor, strategy, and common sense, no matter what the outcome. It was the least you could do to make amends to America and the best thing for yourselves; by achieving a general peace, you will save millions, while continuing the war will cost you just as much.
COMMON SENSE.
Common sense.
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 29, 1782.
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 29, 1782.
P. S. The manuscript copy of this letter is sent your lordship, by the way of our head-quarters, to New York, inclosing a late pamphlet of mine, addressed to the Abbe Raynal, which will serve to give your lordship some idea of the principles and sentiments of America.
P.S. The manuscript copy of this letter is being sent to you, my lord, via our headquarters in New York, along with a recent pamphlet of mine addressed to Abbe Raynal, which will give you some insight into the principles and feelings of America.
C. S.
THE CRISIS. XIII. THOUGHTS ON THE PEACE, AND PROBABLE ADVANTAGES
THEREOF.
THAT.
"THE times that tried men's souls,"* are over—and the greatest and completest revolution the world ever knew, gloriously and happily accomplished.
"THE times that tested people's spirits,"* are over—and the greatest and most complete revolution the world has ever seen is successfully and joyfully accomplished.
* "These are the times that test people's resolve," The Crisis No. I. published December, 1776.
But to pass from the extremes of danger to safety—from the tumult of war to the tranquillity of peace, though sweet in contemplation, requires a gradual composure of the senses to receive it. Even calmness has the power of stunning, when it opens too instantly upon us. The long and raging hurricane that should cease in a moment, would leave us in a state rather of wonder than enjoyment; and some moments of recollection must pass, before we could be capable of tasting the felicity of repose. There are but few instances, in which the mind is fitted for sudden transitions: it takes in its pleasures by reflection and comparison and those must have time to act, before the relish for new scenes is complete.
But moving from extreme danger to safety—from the chaos of war to the calm of peace, while it seems wonderful to think about, needs a gradual settling of the senses to accept it. Even calmness can overwhelm us if it hits us too suddenly. A long, fierce storm that stops abruptly would leave us more in shock than enjoying the stillness, and we need some time to reflect before we can truly appreciate the happiness of rest. There are only a few times when the mind can handle sudden changes; it enjoys things through reflection and comparison, and those need time to work before we can fully appreciate new experiences.
In the present case—the mighty magnitude of the object—the various uncertainties of fate it has undergone—the numerous and complicated dangers we have suffered or escaped—the eminence we now stand on, and the vast prospect before us, must all conspire to impress us with contemplation.
In this situation—the great size of the object—the different uncertainties it has faced—the many complex dangers we have experienced or avoided—the high ground we now occupy, and the wide view ahead of us, all come together to make us reflect deeply.
To see it in our power to make a world happy—to teach mankind the art of being so—to exhibit, on the theatre of the universe a character hitherto unknown—and to have, as it were, a new creation intrusted to our hands, are honors that command reflection, and can neither be too highly estimated, nor too gratefully received.
To realize that we have the ability to create a happy world—to show humanity how to achieve that happiness—to showcase, on the stage of the universe, a character never seen before—and to have, in a sense, a new creation entrusted to us are honors that deserve deep thought and can neither be valued too highly nor appreciated too much.
In this pause then of recollection—while the storm is ceasing, and the long agitated mind vibrating to a rest, let us look back on the scenes we have passed, and learn from experience what is yet to be done.
In this moment of reflection—while the storm is dying down and the long troubled mind settling into calm, let’s look back on the experiences we’ve had and learn from them what still needs to be done.
Never, I say, had a country so many openings to happiness as this. Her setting out in life, like the rising of a fair morning, was unclouded and promising. Her cause was good. Her principles just and liberal. Her temper serene and firm. Her conduct regulated by the nicest steps, and everything about her wore the mark of honor. It is not every country (perhaps there is not another in the world) that can boast so fair an origin. Even the first settlement of America corresponds with the character of the revolution. Rome, once the proud mistress of the universe, was originally a band of ruffians. Plunder and rapine made her rich, and her oppression of millions made her great. But America need never be ashamed to tell her birth, nor relate the stages by which she rose to empire.
Never, I say, has a country had so many chances for happiness as this one. Its start in life, like a beautiful morning, was clear and full of promise. Its cause was good. Its principles were fair and progressive. Its mood was calm and strong. Its actions were guided by the strictest standards, and everything about it reflected honor. Not every country (in fact, perhaps none other in the world) can boast such a noble beginning. Even the first settlement of America aligns with the spirit of the revolution. Rome, once the proud ruler of the world, began as a group of outlaws. Looting and plundering made it wealthy, and its domination of millions made it powerful. But America will never have to feel ashamed of its origins, nor the path it took to become an empire.
The remembrance, then, of what is past, if it operates rightly, must inspire her with the most laudable of all ambition, that of adding to the fair fame she began with. The world has seen her great in adversity; struggling, without a thought of yielding, beneath accumulated difficulties, bravely, nay proudly, encountering distress, and rising in resolution as the storm increased. All this is justly due to her, for her fortitude has merited the character. Let, then, the world see that she can bear prosperity: and that her honest virtue in time of peace, is equal to the bravest virtue in time of war.
The memory of the past, when reflected on correctly, should inspire her with the highest form of ambition—adding to the good reputation she started with. The world has witnessed her strength in tough times; she faced many challenges without ever thinking of giving up, bravely and proudly confronting hardships and becoming even more resolute as the difficulties grew. She deserves recognition for this, as her courage has earned her that reputation. Let the world see that she can handle success just as well, and that her genuine goodness in peaceful times is just as strong as her bravery in times of conflict.
She is now descending to the scenes of quiet and domestic life. Not beneath the cypress shade of disappointment, but to enjoy in her own land, and under her own vine, the sweet of her labors, and the reward of her toil.—In this situation, may she never forget that a fair national reputation is of as much importance as independence. That it possesses a charm that wins upon the world, and makes even enemies civil. That it gives a dignity which is often superior to power, and commands reverence where pomp and splendor fail.
She is now returning to the peacefulness of home and everyday life. Not under the gloomy shade of disappointment, but to enjoy the fruits of her labor in her own land, beneath her own vine. In this situation, may she always remember that a good national reputation is as important as independence. It has a charm that influences others and can even make enemies behave politely. It carries a dignity that can sometimes outweigh power and earns respect where grand displays fall short.
It would be a circumstance ever to be lamented and never to be forgotten, were a single blot, from any cause whatever, suffered to fall on a revolution, which to the end of time must be an honor to the age that accomplished it: and which has contributed more to enlighten the world, and diffuse a spirit of freedom and liberality among mankind, than any human event (if this may be called one) that ever preceded it.
It would be a situation to always regret and never forget if a single flaw, for any reason, were allowed to tarnish a revolution that will forever be a source of pride for the era that achieved it. This revolution has done more to illuminate the world and spread a sense of freedom and openness among humanity than any other event in history that came before it.
It is not among the least of the calamities of a long continued war, that it unhinges the mind from those nice sensations which at other times appear so amiable. The continual spectacle of woe blunts the finer feelings, and the necessity of bearing with the sight, renders it familiar. In like manner, are many of the moral obligations of society weakened, till the custom of acting by necessity becomes an apology, where it is truly a crime. Yet let but a nation conceive rightly of its character, and it will be chastely just in protecting it. None ever began with a fairer than America and none can be under a greater obligation to preserve it.
One of the biggest tragedies of a prolonged war is that it disconnects people from the sensitive feelings that usually seem so beautiful. The constant exposure to suffering dulls our deeper emotions, and having to look at it all makes it feel normal. Similarly, many of society's moral duties are weakened until the habit of acting out of necessity becomes an excuse, even when it’s genuinely wrong. However, if a nation truly understands its identity, it will be honorably committed to protecting it. No other nation started with a better reputation than America, and none has a greater responsibility to maintain it.
The debt which America has contracted, compared with the cause she has gained, and the advantages to flow from it, ought scarcely to be mentioned. She has it in her choice to do, and to live as happily as she pleases. The world is in her hands. She has no foreign power to monopolize her commerce, perplex her legislation, or control her prosperity. The struggle is over, which must one day have happened, and, perhaps, never could have happened at a better time.* And instead of a domineering master, she has gained an ally whose exemplary greatness, and universal liberality, have extorted a confession even from her enemies.
The debt that America has taken on, compared to what she has gained and the benefits that will come from it, is hardly worth mentioning. She has the power to choose her path and live as happily as she wants. The world is hers for the taking. She isn't under any foreign power that could control her trade, confuse her laws, or limit her prosperity. The battle is over, which had to happen eventually, and maybe it couldn't have happened at a better time. Instead of having a harsh ruler, she has gained an ally whose remarkable strength and broad generosity have even won acknowledgment from her opponents.
* The revolution started at the perfect moment for its purpose, and the outcome proves this. The key factor that made everything work was the Union of the States. This union naturally formed because no single state could defend itself against a foreign enemy without help from the others. If the states had been less capable than they were at the onset of the war, their combined strength wouldn't have been enough to succeed, and they likely would have failed. Conversely, if they had been more capable, they might not have recognized, or even felt, the need to unite. Attempting to go it alone or form smaller alliances would have led to individual defeats. Given that we cannot foresee a time—many years away—when a single state, or even several together, can match the strength of the current United States, and considering how difficult it has been to successfully conduct the war and maintain our national stature, we should recognize, based on our experience and understanding, the importance of reinforcing that beneficial union which has been our salvation. Without it, we would be a lost people. As I was writing this note, I noticed the pamphlet, Common Sense, from which I will quote because it perfectly fits the situation. It says: "I have never met a person, whether in England or America, who hasn’t agreed that separation between the countries would happen eventually; and we have shown the least judgment in trying to predict when the continent was ready for independence. Everyone agrees on the need for independence, but they differ on timing. To clarify, let’s take a broad look at the situation and see if we can pinpoint the right moment. Fortunately, we don’t need to search far; the moment has come. The unity among us proves this. Our strength lies not in numbers, but in our union. The continent has reached a level of strength where no single colony can stand alone, but together, we can achieve great things; anything less or more than this could be disastrous."
With the blessings of peace, independence, and an universal commerce, the states, individually and collectively, will have leisure and opportunity to regulate and establish their domestic concerns, and to put it beyond the power of calumny to throw the least reflection on their honor. Character is much easier kept than recovered, and that man, if any such there be, who, from sinister views, or littleness of soul, lends unseen his hand to injure it, contrives a wound it will never be in his power to heal.
With the blessings of peace, independence, and free trade, the states, both individually and together, will have the time and opportunity to manage their own affairs and protect their honor from any slander. It's much easier to maintain one's character than to regain it, and that person, if they exist, who secretly tries to harm it out of selfish motives or small-mindedness, inflicts a wound that they will never be able to heal.
As we have established an inheritance for posterity, let that inheritance descend, with every mark of an honorable conveyance. The little it will cost, compared with the worth of the states, the greatness of the object, and the value of the national character, will be a profitable exchange.
As we've set up an inheritance for future generations, let that inheritance be passed down with all due honors. The small cost involved, when balanced against the value of the states, the significance of the goal, and the importance of our national reputation, will be a worthwhile investment.
But that which must more forcibly strike a thoughtful, penetrating mind, and which includes and renders easy all inferior concerns, is the UNION OF THE STATES. On this our great national character depends. It is this which must give us importance abroad and security at home. It is through this only that we are, or can be, nationally known in the world; it is the flag of the United States which renders our ships and commerce safe on the seas, or in a foreign port. Our Mediterranean passes must be obtained under the same style. All our treaties, whether of alliance, peace, or commerce, are formed under the sovereignty of the United States, and Europe knows us by no other name or title.
But what should really grab the attention of a thoughtful, insightful person, and what encompasses and simplifies all lesser issues, is the UNION OF THE STATES. Our great national identity relies on this. It’s what gives us significance internationally and safety at home. It’s through this union that we are, or can be, recognized as a nation in the world; it’s the flag of the United States that makes our ships and trade safe on the seas or in foreign ports. Our Mediterranean routes must be secured under the same banner. All our treaties, whether for alliances, peace, or trade, are made under the authority of the United States, and Europe knows us by no other name or title.
The division of the empire into states is for our own convenience, but abroad this distinction ceases. The affairs of each state are local. They can go no further than to itself. And were the whole worth of even the richest of them expended in revenue, it would not be sufficient to support sovereignty against a foreign attack. In short, we have no other national sovereignty than as United States. It would even be fatal for us if we had—too expensive to be maintained, and impossible to be supported. Individuals, or individual states, may call themselves what they please; but the world, and especially the world of enemies, is not to be held in awe by the whistling of a name. Sovereignty must have power to protect all the parts that compose and constitute it: and as UNITED STATES we are equal to the importance of the title, but otherwise we are not. Our union, well and wisely regulated and cemented, is the cheapest way of being great—the easiest way of being powerful, and the happiest invention in government which the circumstances of America can admit of.—Because it collects from each state, that which, by being inadequate, can be of no use to it, and forms an aggregate that serves for all.
The division of the empire into states is for our convenience, but overseas, this distinction disappears. The issues of each state are local. They can't extend beyond their own borders. Even if the richest state poured all its resources into revenue, it wouldn't be enough to defend against a foreign attack. In short, our only national sovereignty comes from being the United States. It would be disastrous for us to have more—too costly to maintain and impossible to support. Individuals or individual states can call themselves whatever they want, but the world, especially our enemies, won't be impressed by a name alone. Sovereignty needs the power to protect all the parts that make it up: as UNITED STATES, we're worthy of the title, but otherwise, we're not. Our union, well-regulated and strong, is the most cost-effective way to achieve greatness—the easiest path to power and the best form of government we can have in America. It collects what each state contributes, which on its own isn't enough, and creates a whole that benefits everyone.
The states of Holland are an unfortunate instance of the effects of individual sovereignty. Their disjointed condition exposes them to numerous intrigues, losses, calamities, and enemies; and the almost impossibility of bringing their measures to a decision, and that decision into execution, is to them, and would be to us, a source of endless misfortune.
The states of Holland are an unfortunate example of the consequences of individual sovereignty. Their fragmented situation makes them vulnerable to many schemes, losses, disasters, and foes; the nearly impossible task of reaching a decision and implementing that decision brings them, and would bring us, a constant source of misfortune.
It is with confederated states as with individuals in society; something must be yielded up to make the whole secure. In this view of things we gain by what we give, and draw an annual interest greater than the capital.—I ever feel myself hurt when I hear the union, that great palladium of our liberty and safety, the least irreverently spoken of. It is the most sacred thing in the constitution of America, and that which every man should be most proud and tender of. Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS—our inferior one varies with the place.
It’s the same with united states as it is with individuals in a society; something has to be given up to ensure the whole is secure. From this perspective, we benefit from what we give and receive an annual interest that's greater than the initial investment. I always feel hurt when I hear the union, that great protector of our liberty and safety, being spoken of disrespectfully. It is the most sacred aspect of the American constitution, and it’s something every person should take pride in and protect. Our citizenship in the United States defines our national identity. Our citizenship in any specific state is just our local distinction. By the latter, we are recognized at home, but by the former, we are known to the world. Our main title is AMERICANS — our lesser title changes depending on where we are.
So far as my endeavors could go, they have all been directed to conciliate the affections, unite the interests, and draw and keep the mind of the country together; and the better to assist in this foundation work of the revolution, I have avoided all places of profit or office, either in the state I live in, or in the United States; kept myself at a distance from all parties and party connections, and even disregarded all private and inferior concerns: and when we take into view the great work which we have gone through, and feel, as we ought to feel, the just importance of it, we shall then see, that the little wranglings and indecent contentions of personal parley, are as dishonorable to our characters, as they are injurious to our repose.
As far as my efforts go, they have all been aimed at winning people’s affection, uniting our interests, and keeping the nation’s focus together. To better support this foundational work of the revolution, I have stayed away from all profitable positions or roles, whether in the state I live in or in the United States; I’ve distanced myself from all political parties and connections, and even set aside all personal and trivial matters. When we look at the significant work we’ve accomplished and recognize, as we should, its true importance, we will see that the petty arguments and disrespectful disputes of personal exchanges are as damaging to our reputation as they are harmful to our peace of mind.
It was the cause of America that made me an author. The force with which it struck my mind and the dangerous condition the country appeared to me in, by courting an impossible and an unnatural reconciliation with those who were determined to reduce her, instead of striking out into the only line that could cement and save her, A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, made it impossible for me, feeling as I did, to be silent: and if, in the course of more than seven years, I have rendered her any service, I have likewise added something to the reputation of literature, by freely and disinterestedly employing it in the great cause of mankind, and showing that there may be genius without prostitution.
It was America’s cause that inspired me to become a writer. The way it hit me and the precarious situation the country seemed to be in, trying to achieve an impossible and unnatural peace with those who wanted to bring her down instead of boldly pursuing the only path that could unite and save her, A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, made it impossible for me, given my feelings, to remain silent. And if, over the course of more than seven years, I have been able to help her in any way, I have also contributed to the world of literature by using it freely and selflessly for the crucial cause of humanity, and by demonstrating that genius can exist without compromising oneself.
Independence always appeared to me practicable and probable, provided the sentiment of the country could be formed and held to the object: and there is no instance in the world, where a people so extended, and wedded to former habits of thinking, and under such a variety of circumstances, were so instantly and effectually pervaded, by a turn in politics, as in the case of independence; and who supported their opinion, undiminished, through such a succession of good and ill fortune, till they crowned it with success.
Independence always seemed achievable and likely to me, as long as the country's sentiment could be shaped and focused on that goal. There’s no example in the world of a people so widespread, attached to their old ways of thinking, and facing such diverse circumstances, being so quickly and completely influenced by a political shift as in the case of independence; and they maintained their stance, unwavering, through a mix of prosperous and challenging times until they ultimately succeeded.
But as the scenes of war are closed, and every man preparing for home and happier times, I therefore take my leave of the subject. I have most sincerely followed it from beginning to end, and through all its turns and windings: and whatever country I may hereafter be in, I shall always feel an honest pride at the part I have taken and acted, and a gratitude to nature and providence for putting it in my power to be of some use to mankind.
But as the war scenes come to an end and everyone gets ready to go home and enjoy better times, I’ll say goodbye to this topic. I have truly followed it from start to finish, through all its twists and turns. No matter where I go next, I will always feel a genuine pride in the role I’ve played and gratitude to nature and fate for giving me the chance to be of some help to humanity.
Common sense.
PHILADELPHIA, April 19, 1783.
PHILADELPHIA, April 19, 1783.
A SUPERNUMERARY CRISIS: TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.
IN "Rivington's New York Gazette," of December 6th, is a publication, under the appearance of a letter from London, dated September 30th; and is on a subject which demands the attention of the United States.
IN "Rivington's New York Gazette," from December 6th, there's a publication that looks like a letter from London, dated September 30th; it addresses a matter that requires the attention of the United States.
The public will remember that a treaty of commerce between the United States and England was set on foot last spring, and that until the said treaty could be completed, a bill was brought into the British Parliament by the then chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Pitt, to admit and legalize (as the case then required) the commerce of the United States into the British ports and dominions. But neither the one nor the other has been completed. The commercial treaty is either broken off, or remains as it began; and the bill in Parliament has been thrown aside. And in lieu thereof, a selfish system of English politics has started up, calculated to fetter the commerce of America, by engrossing to England the carrying trade of the American produce to the West India islands.
The public will remember that a trade agreement between the United States and England was initiated last spring, and that until that agreement could be finalized, a bill was introduced in the British Parliament by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Pitt, to allow and legitimize (as needed) the trade of the United States in British ports and territories. However, neither has been completed. The trade agreement has either fallen through or remains at a standstill, and the bill in Parliament has been discarded. Instead, a self-serving system of English politics has emerged, aiming to restrict American trade by monopolizing the shipping of American products to the West Indies.
Among the advocates for this last measure is Lord Sheffield, a member of the British Parliament, who has published a pamphlet entitled "Observations on the Commerce of the American States." The pamphlet has two objects; the one is to allure the Americans to purchase British manufactures; and the other to spirit up the British Parliament to prohibit the citizens of the United States from trading to the West India islands.
Among the supporters of this final measure is Lord Sheffield, a member of the British Parliament, who has released a pamphlet titled "Observations on the Commerce of the American States." The pamphlet has two purposes: one is to encourage Americans to buy British products, and the other is to urge the British Parliament to stop the citizens of the United States from trading with the West Indies.
Viewed in this light, the pamphlet, though in some parts dexterously written, is an absurdity. It offends, in the very act of endeavoring to ingratiate; and his lordship, as a politician, ought not to have suffered the two objects to have appeared together. The latter alluded to, contains extracts from the pamphlet, with high encomiums on Lord Sheffield, for laboriously endeavoring (as the letter styles it) "to show the mighty advantages of retaining the carrying trade."
Seen this way, the pamphlet, while skillfully written in some areas, is ridiculous. It is offensive, even while trying to win people over; and as a politician, his lordship shouldn’t have allowed these two things to be presented together. The latter refers to an excerpt from the pamphlet, praising Lord Sheffield for his dedicated efforts (as the letter puts it) "to demonstrate the huge benefits of keeping the carrying trade."
Since the publication of this pamphlet in England, the commerce of the United States to the West Indies, in American vessels, has been prohibited; and all intercourse, except in British bottoms, the property of and navigated by British subjects, cut off.
Since this pamphlet was published in England, the trade between the United States and the West Indies using American ships has been banned; and all trade, except in British ships owned and operated by British subjects, has been blocked.
That a country has a right to be as foolish as it pleases, has been proved by the practice of England for many years past: in her island situation, sequestered from the world, she forgets that her whispers are heard by other nations; and in her plans of politics and commerce she seems not to know, that other votes are necessary besides her own. America would be equally as foolish as Britain, were she to suffer so great a degradation on her flag, and such a stroke on the freedom of her commerce, to pass without a balance.
A country has the right to act as foolishly as it wants, as demonstrated by England's behavior over the years: in her isolated position as an island, she seems to forget that other nations can hear her whispers; and in her political and commercial strategies, she appears unaware that she needs more than just her own vote. America would be just as foolish as Britain if it allowed such a serious insult to its flag and such a blow to its commercial freedom to go unchallenged.
We admit the right of any nation to prohibit the commerce of another into its own dominions, where there are no treaties to the contrary; but as this right belongs to one side as well as the other, there is always a way left to bring avarice and insolence to reason.
We acknowledge that any country has the right to block another country's trade within its borders, especially when there are no agreements saying otherwise. However, since this right applies to both sides, there's always a way to bring greed and arrogance to account.
But the ground of security which Lord Sheffield has chosen to erect his policy upon, is of a nature which ought, and I think must, awaken in every American a just and strong sense of national dignity. Lord Sheffield appears to be sensible, that in advising the British nation and Parliament to engross to themselves so great a part of the carrying trade of America, he is attempting a measure which cannot succeed, if the politics of the United States be properly directed to counteract the assumption.
But the foundation of security that Lord Sheffield has chosen for his policy is one that should, and I believe must, stir a genuine and strong sense of national dignity in every American. Lord Sheffield seems to understand that by advising the British nation and Parliament to take over such a significant portion of America's trade, he is trying something that will fail if the politics of the United States are effectively aligned to counter his assumption.
But, says he, in his pamphlet, "It will be a long time before the American states can be brought to act as a nation, neither are they to be feared as such by us."
But, he says in his pamphlet, "It will take a long time before the American states can come together as a nation, nor should we fear them as such."
What is this more or less than to tell us, that while we have no national system of commerce, the British will govern our trade by their own laws and proclamations as they please. The quotation discloses a truth too serious to be overlooked, and too mischievous not to be remedied.
What does this really mean if not to say that since we don’t have a national system of trade, the British will control our commerce however they want with their own rules and announcements? This statement reveals a truth that is too serious to ignore and too harmful not to fix.
Among other circumstances which led them to this discovery none could operate so effectually as the injudicious, uncandid and indecent opposition made by sundry persons in a certain state, to the recommendations of Congress last winter, for an import duty of five per cent. It could not but explain to the British a weakness in the national power of America, and encourage them to attempt restrictions on her trade, which otherwise they would not have dared to hazard. Neither is there any state in the union, whose policy was more misdirected to its interest than the state I allude to, because her principal support is the carrying trade, which Britain, induced by the want of a well-centred power in the United States to protect and secure, is now attempting to take away. It fortunately happened (and to no state in the union more than the state in question) that the terms of peace were agreed on before the opposition appeared, otherwise, there cannot be a doubt, that if the same idea of the diminished authority of America had occurred to them at that time as has occurred to them since, but they would have made the same grasp at the fisheries, as they have done at the carrying trade.
Among other factors that led to this discovery, none were as impactful as the misguided, dishonest, and inappropriate opposition from some individuals in a certain state to Congress's recommendations last winter for a 5% import duty. This surely highlighted a weakness in America's national power to the British and encouraged them to attempt restrictions on U.S. trade, which they wouldn't have dared to try otherwise. No state in the union mismanaged its interests more than the one I'm referring to, since its main support comes from the carrying trade, which Britain, lacking a strong power in the United States to protect and secure it, is now trying to take away. Fortunately for that state, the peace terms were agreed upon before the opposition emerged; otherwise, there’s little doubt that if they had realized America's decreased authority at that time, as they have since, they would have made a similar grab for the fisheries, as they have for the carrying trade.
It is surprising that an authority which can be supported with so much ease, and so little expense, and capable of such extensive advantages to the country, should be cavilled at by those whose duty it is to watch over it, and whose existence as a people depends upon it. But this, perhaps, will ever be the case, till some misfortune awakens us into reason, and the instance now before us is but a gentle beginning of what America must expect, unless she guards her union with nicer care and stricter honor. United, she is formidable, and that with the least possible charge a nation can be so; separated, she is a medley of individual nothings, subject to the sport of foreign nations.
It's surprising that an authority that can be easily supported and at such little cost, and that offers so many benefits to the country, is criticized by those whose job it is to oversee it, and whose very existence as a people depends on it. But this may always be the case until some misfortune brings us to our senses, and the situation we face now is just a gentle reminder of what America can expect unless she carefully protects her union with more diligence and honor. United, she is powerful, and that with the least possible expenditure a nation can manage; divided, she is a jumble of individual nothingness, at the mercy of foreign nations.
It is very probable that the ingenuity of commerce may have found out a method to evade and supersede the intentions of the British, in interdicting the trade with the West India islands. The language of both being the same, and their customs well understood, the vessels of one country may, by deception, pass for those of another. But this would be a practice too debasing for a sovereign people to stoop to, and too profligate not to be discountenanced. An illicit trade, under any shape it can be placed, cannot be carried on without a violation of truth. America is now sovereign and independent, and ought to conduct her affairs in a regular style of character. She has the same right to say that no British vessel shall enter ports, or that no British manufactures shall be imported, but in American bottoms, the property of, and navigated by American subjects, as Britain has to say the same thing respecting the West Indies. Or she may lay a duty of ten, fifteen, or twenty shillings per ton (exclusive of other duties) on every British vessel coming from any port of the West Indies, where she is not admitted to trade, the said tonnage to continue as long on her side as the prohibition continues on the other.
It’s very likely that clever businesspeople have found a way to get around and undermine the British efforts to block trade with the West Indies. Since both countries speak the same language and share similar customs, ships from one country might trick officials into being seen as ships from another. However, such a deceitful practice is beneath a sovereign nation and morally unacceptable. Engaging in illegal trade in any form inevitably involves dishonesty. America is now sovereign and independent and should manage its affairs with integrity. It has the same right to declare that no British ship can enter its ports or that no British goods can be imported except on American ships owned and operated by American citizens, just as Britain claims that right regarding the West Indies. Alternatively, it could impose a fee of ten, fifteen, or twenty shillings per ton (not including other fees) on every British ship arriving from any port in the West Indies where American trade is not allowed, maintaining that fee as long as the ban remains in place on the other side.
But it is only by acting in union, that the usurpations of foreign nations on the freedom of trade can be counteracted, and security extended to the commerce of America. And when we view a flag, which to the eye is beautiful, and to contemplate its rise and origin inspires a sensation of sublime delight, our national honor must unite with our interest to prevent injury to the one, or insult to the other.
But it’s only by coming together that we can counteract the foreign nations’ takeovers of our trade freedom and provide security for America’s commerce. And when we see a flag that is beautiful to look at, and thinking about its rise and origin brings us a deep sense of joy, we must combine our national pride with our interests to prevent harm to one or insult to the other.
Common sense.
NEW YORK, December 9, 1783.
NEW YORK, December 9, 1783.
THE WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE
Common Sense |
Volume One |
Volume Two |
Volume Three |
Volume Four |
THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE
VOLUME II.
By Thomas Paine
Collected And Edited By Moncure Daniel Conway
1779 - 1792
[Redactor's Note: Reprinted from the "The Writings of Thomas Paine Volume I" (1894 - 1896). The author's notes are preceded by a "*". A Table of Contents has been added for each part for the convenience of the reader which is not included in the printed edition. Notes are at the end of Part II. ]
[Redactor's Note: Reprinted from "The Writings of Thomas Paine Volume I" (1894 - 1896). The author's notes are marked with a "*". A Table of Contents has been included for each part for the reader's convenience, which is not in the printed edition. Notes are located at the end of Part II.]
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
XIII. RIGHTS OF MAN.
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION.
WHEN Thomas Paine sailed from America for France, in April, 1787, he was perhaps as happy a man as any in the world. His most intimate friend, Jefferson, was Minister at Paris, and his friend Lafayette was the idol of France. His fame had preceded him, and he at once became, in Paris, the centre of the same circle of savants and philosophers that had surrounded Franklin. His main reason for proceeding at once to Paris was that he might submit to the Academy of Sciences his invention of an iron bridge, and with its favorable verdict he came to England, in September. He at once went to his aged mother at Thetford, leaving with a publisher (Ridgway), his "Prospects on the Rubicon." He next made arrangements to patent his bridge, and to construct at Rotherham the large model of it exhibited on Paddington Green, London. He was welcomed in England by leading statesmen, such as Lansdowne and Fox, and above all by Edmund Burke, who for some time had him as a guest at Beaconsfield, and drove him about in various parts of the country. He had not the slightest revolutionary purpose, either as regarded England or France. Towards Louis XVI. he felt only gratitude for the services he had rendered America, and towards George III. he felt no animosity whatever. His four months' sojourn in Paris had convinced him that there was approaching a reform of that country after the American model, except that the Crown would be preserved, a compromise he approved, provided the throne should not be hereditary. Events in France travelled more swiftly than he had anticipated, and Paine was summoned by Lafayette, Condorcet, and others, as an adviser in the formation of a new constitution.
WHEN Thomas Paine sailed from America to France in April 1787, he was probably one of the happiest men in the world. His close friend, Jefferson, was the Minister in Paris, and his friend Lafayette was a hero in France. His reputation had preceded him, and he quickly became the center of the same group of scholars and philosophers that had surrounded Franklin. His main reason for heading to Paris was to present his invention of an iron bridge to the Academy of Sciences, and after receiving their approval, he traveled to England in September. He immediately visited his elderly mother in Thetford, leaving his "Prospects on the Rubicon" with a publisher (Ridgway). He then arranged to patent his bridge and to build the large model that was displayed on Paddington Green in London. He was welcomed in England by prominent politicians like Lansdowne and Fox, and especially by Edmund Burke, who hosted him at Beaconsfield and drove him around various parts of the country. He had no revolutionary intentions regarding either England or France. He felt only gratitude toward Louis XVI for the help he had given America and held no resentment toward George III. His four-month stay in Paris had convinced him that a reform similar to America's was coming for France, but with the Crown still in place—a compromise he supported, as long as the throne wasn't hereditary. Developments in France moved faster than he had expected, and Paine was called upon by Lafayette, Condorcet, and others for advice on forming a new constitution.
Such was the situation immediately preceding the political and literary duel between Paine and Burke, which in the event turned out a tremendous war between Royalism and Republicanism in Europe. Paine was, both in France and in England, the inspirer of moderate counsels. Samuel Rogers relates that in early life he dined at a friend's house in London with Thomas Paine, when one of the toasts given was the "memory of Joshua,"—in allusion to the Hebrew leader's conquest of the kings of Canaan, and execution of them. Paine observed that he would not treat kings like Joshua. "I 'm of the Scotch parson's opinion," he said, "when he prayed against Louis XIV.—`Lord, shake him over the mouth of hell, but don't let him drop!'" Paine then gave as his toast, "The Republic of the World,"—which Samuel Rogers, aged twenty-nine, noted as a sublime idea. This was Paine's faith and hope, and with it he confronted the revolutionary storms which presently burst over France and England.
This was the situation just before the political and literary clash between Paine and Burke, which ultimately became a huge conflict between Royalism and Republicanism in Europe. Paine was the one inspiring moderate ideas in both France and England. Samuel Rogers recounts that in his youth, he had dinner at a friend’s house in London with Thomas Paine, where one of the toasts was to the "memory of Joshua," referring to the Hebrew leader's victories over the kings of Canaan. Paine remarked that he wouldn't treat kings like Joshua. "I'm with the Scotch parson's opinion," he said, "when he prayed against Louis XIV.—`Lord, shake him over the mouth of hell, but don’t let him drop!'" Paine then raised his toast to "The Republic of the World," which Samuel Rogers, at twenty-nine, recognized as a brilliant idea. This was Paine's belief and hope, and it was with this mindset that he faced the revolutionary upheavals that soon erupted in France and England.
Until Burke's arraignment of France in his parliamentary speech (February 9, 1790), Paine had no doubt whatever that he would sympathize with the movement in France, and wrote to him from that country as if conveying glad tidings. Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" appeared November 1, 1790, and Paine at once set himself to answer it. He was then staying at the Angel Inn, Islington. The inn has been twice rebuilt since that time, and from its contents there is preserved only a small image, which perhaps was meant to represent "Liberty,"—possibly brought from Paris by Paine as an ornament for his study. From the Angel he removed to a house in Harding Street, Fetter Lane. Rickman says Part First of "Rights of Man" was finished at Versailles, but probably this has reference to the preface only, as I cannot find Paine in France that year until April 8. The book had been printed by Johnson, in time for the opening of Parliament, in February; but this publisher became frightened after a few copies were out (there is one in the British Museum), and the work was transferred to J. S. Jordan, 166 Fleet Street, with a preface sent from Paris (not contained in Johnson's edition, nor in the American editions). The pamphlet, though sold at the same price as Burke's, three shillings, had a vast circulation, and Paine gave the proceeds to the Constitutional Societies which sprang up under his teachings in various parts of the country.
Until Burke's critique of France in his parliamentary speech on February 9, 1790, Paine was completely certain that he would align with the movement in France, and he wrote to him from that country as if sharing joyful news. Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" was published on November 1, 1790, and Paine immediately set out to respond to it. At that time, he was staying at the Angel Inn in Islington. The inn has been rebuilt twice since then, and the only thing preserved from its original decor is a small image that may have represented "Liberty," possibly brought back from Paris by Paine as a decoration for his study. From the Angel, he moved to a house on Harding Street, Fetter Lane. Rickman claims that Part One of "Rights of Man" was completed at Versailles, but this likely refers only to the preface, as I can't find any record of Paine in France that year until April 8. The book had been printed by Johnson in time for the opening of Parliament in February, but after a few copies were released (one of which is in the British Museum), the publisher got scared and transferred the work to J. S. Jordan at 166 Fleet Street, along with a preface sent from Paris (which isn't included in Johnson's edition or in the American editions). Although the pamphlet was sold at the same price as Burke's, three shillings, it circulated widely, and Paine donated the proceeds to the Constitutional Societies that emerged under his teachings in various parts of the country.
Soon after appeared Burke's "Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs." In this Burke quoted a good deal from "Rights of Man," but replied to it only with exclamation points, saying that the only answer such ideas merited was "criminal justice." Paine's Part Second followed, published February 17, 1792. In Part First Paine had mentioned a rumor that Burke was a masked pensioner (a charge that will be noticed in connection with its detailed statement in a further publication); and as Burke had been formerly arraigned in Parliament, while Paymaster, for a very questionable proceeding, this charge no doubt hurt a good deal. Although the government did not follow Burke's suggestion of a prosecution at that time, there is little doubt that it was he who induced the prosecution of Part Second. Before the trial came on, December 18, 1792, Paine was occupying his seat in the French Convention, and could only be outlawed.
Soon after, Burke published "Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs." In this work, he quoted extensively from "Rights of Man," but he responded only with exclamation points, claiming that the only response such ideas deserved was "criminal justice." Paine's Part Second followed, published on February 17, 1792. In Part First, Paine had mentioned a rumor that Burke was a masked pensioner (a charge that will be addressed in detail in a later publication); and since Burke had previously been criticized in Parliament while serving as Paymaster for a very questionable action, this accusation likely stung quite a bit. Although the government didn’t act on Burke’s suggestion for a prosecution at that time, it's clear that he was the one who prompted the prosecution of Part Second. Before the trial began on December 18, 1792, Paine was serving as a member of the French Convention and could only be declared an outlaw.
Burke humorously remarked to a friend of Paine and himself, "We hunt in pairs." The severally representative character and influence of these two men in the revolutionary era, in France and England, deserve more adequate study than they have received. While Paine maintained freedom of discussion, Burke first proposed criminal prosecution for sentiments by no means libellous (such as Paine's Part First). While Paine was endeavoring to make the movement in France peaceful, Burke fomented the league of monarchs against France which maddened its people, and brought on the Reign of Terror. While Paine was endeavoring to preserve the French throne ("phantom" though he believed it), to prevent bloodshed, Burke was secretly writing to the Queen of France, entreating her not to compromise, and to "trust to the support of foreign armies" ("Histoire de France depuis 1789." Henri Martin, i., 151). While Burke thus helped to bring the King and Queen to the guillotine, Paine pleaded for their lives to the last moment. While Paine maintained the right of mankind to improve their condition, Burke held that "the awful Author of our being is the author of our place in the order of existence; and that, having disposed and marshalled us by a divine tactick, not according to our will, but according to his, he has, in and by that disposition, virtually subjected us to act the part which belongs to the place assigned us." Paine was a religious believer in eternal principles; Burke held that "political problems do not primarily concern truth or falsehood. They relate to good or evil. What in the result is likely to produce evil is politically false, that which is productive of good politically is true." Assuming thus the visionary's right to decide before the result what was "likely to produce evil," Burke vigorously sought to kindle war against the French Republic which might have developed itself peacefully, while Paine was striving for an international Congress in Europe in the interest of peace. Paine had faith in the people, and believed that, if allowed to choose representatives, they would select their best and wisest men; and that while reforming government the people would remain orderly, as they had generally remained in America during the transition from British rule to selfgovernment. Burke maintained that if the existing political order were broken up there would be no longer a people, but "a number of vague, loose individuals, and nothing more." "Alas!" he exclaims, "they little know how many a weary step is to be taken before they can form themselves into a mass, which has a true personality." For the sake of peace Paine wished the revolution to be peaceful as the advance of summer; he used every endeavor to reconcile English radicals to some modus vivendi with the existing order, as he was willing to retain Louis XVI. as head of the executive in France: Burke resisted every tendency of English statesmanship to reform at home, or to negotiate with the French Republic, and was mainly responsible for the King's death and the war that followed between England and France in February, 1793. Burke became a royal favorite, Paine was outlawed by a prosecution originally proposed by Burke. While Paine was demanding religious liberty, Burke was opposing the removal of penal statutes from Unitarians, on the ground that but for those statutes Paine might some day set up a church in England. When Burke was retiring on a large royal pension, Paine was in prison, through the devices of Burke's confederate, the American Minister in Paris. So the two men, as Burke said, "hunted in pairs."
Burke jokingly told a friend of both Paine and himself, "We hunt in pairs." The unique roles and impacts of these two men during the revolutionary period in France and England warrant much more attention than they have received. While Paine championed freedom of discussion, Burke was the first to suggest criminal charges for expressions that were by no means defamatory (like Paine's Part First). As Paine worked to make the movement in France non-violent, Burke stirred up a coalition of monarchs against France, which enraged its people and led to the Reign of Terror. While Paine tried to protect the French throne (which he considered a "phantom") to avoid bloodshed, Burke was secretly writing to the Queen of France, urging her not to compromise and to "rely on the support of foreign armies" ("Histoire de France depuis 1789." Henri Martin, i., 151). In helping to send the King and Queen to the guillotine, Burke acted against Paine, who pleaded for their lives until the very end. While Paine advocated for humanity's right to improve their situation, Burke asserted that "the awful Author of our being is the author of our place in the order of existence; and that, having disposed and marshalled us by a divine tactic, not according to our will, but according to his, he has, in and by that disposition, virtually subjected us to act the part which belongs to the place assigned us." Paine believed in eternal principles, but Burke claimed that "political issues do not primarily concern truth or falsehood. They relate to good or evil. What is likely to result in evil is politically false, and what is likely to produce good is politically true." Assuming the visionary's right to determine beforehand what was "likely to produce evil," Burke actively pushed for war against the French Republic that could have emerged peacefully, while Paine worked toward an international Congress in Europe focused on peace. Paine had faith in the people and believed that, if given the chance to choose representatives, they would pick their best and smartest individuals; he thought that while reforming the government, the people would remain orderly, as they had largely stayed in America during the shift from British rule to self-governance. Burke believed that if the current political system was dismantled, there would be no true people left, just "a number of vague, loose individuals, and nothing more." "Alas!" he exclaimed, "they little know how many weary steps it will take before they can come together as a group with a real personality." For the sake of peace, Paine wanted the revolution to unfold as smoothly as summer; he did everything he could to bring English radicals to some kind of agreement with the current system, even being willing to keep Louis XVI as the head of the executive in France. Burke opposed every effort of English leadership to reform at home or to negotiate with the French Republic and played a major role in the King's death and the war that erupted between England and France in February 1793. Burke became a favorite of the royals, while Paine was exiled due to a prosecution initially suggested by Burke. When Paine demanded religious freedom, Burke fought against lifting the penal laws on Unitarians, arguing that without those laws, Paine could potentially establish a church in England. As Burke retired on a large royal pension, Paine was in prison, due to the machinations of Burke's ally, the American Minister in Paris. So, as Burke said, "we hunted in pairs."
So far as Burke attempts to affirm any principle he is fairly quoted in Paine's work, and nowhere misrepresented. As for Paine's own ideas, the reader should remember that "Rights of Man" was the earliest complete statement of republican principles. They were pronounced to be the fundamental principles of the American Republic by Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson,-the three Presidents who above all others represented the republican idea which Paine first allied with American Independence. Those who suppose that Paine did but reproduce the principles of Rousseau and Locke will find by careful study of his well-weighed language that such is not the case. Paine's political principles were evolved out of his early Quakerism. He was potential in George Fox. The belief that every human soul was the child of God, and capable of direct inspiration from the Father of all, without mediator or priestly intervention, or sacramental instrumentality, was fatal to all privilege and rank. The universal Fatherhood implied universal Brotherhood, or human equality. But the fate of the Quakers proved the necessity of protecting the individual spirit from oppression by the majority as well as by privileged classes. For this purpose Paine insisted on surrounding the individual right with the security of the Declaration of Rights, not to be invaded by any government; and would reduce government to an association limited in its operations to the defence of those rights which the individual is unable, alone, to maintain.
As far as Burke's attempts to affirm any principle, he is accurately quoted in Paine's work and is never misrepresented. Regarding Paine's own ideas, the reader should keep in mind that "Rights of Man" was the first complete statement of republican principles. These were declared to be the fundamental principles of the American Republic by Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson—three presidents who, more than anyone else, represented the republican idea that Paine first associated with American Independence. Those who think that Paine merely replicated the principles of Rousseau and Locke will discover, with careful study of his thoughtful language, that this is not true. Paine's political principles grew out of his early Quaker beliefs. He was influenced by George Fox. The conviction that every human soul is a child of God and capable of direct inspiration from the Father of all, without the need for a mediator, priestly intervention, or sacramental means, was detrimental to any form of privilege or hierarchy. The universal Fatherhood suggested universal Brotherhood, or human equality. However, the experience of the Quakers highlighted the need to protect the individual spirit from oppression by both the majority and privileged classes. To address this, Paine insisted on surrounding individual rights with the security of the Declaration of Rights, which should not be violated by any government; he believed government should be an association limited in its functions to defending those rights that individuals cannot uphold on their own.
From the preceding chapter it will be seen that Part Second of "Rights of Man" was begun by Paine in the spring of 1791. At the close of that year, or early in 1792, he took up his abode with his friend Thomas "Clio" Rickman, at No. 7 Upper Marylebone Street. Rickman was a radical publisher; the house remains still a book-binding establishment, and seems little changed since Paine therein revised the proofs of Part Second on a table which Rickman marked with a plate, and which is now in possession of Mr. Edward Truelove. As the plate states, Paine wrote on the same table other works which appeared in England in 1792.
From the previous chapter, you can see that Part Two of "Rights of Man" was started by Paine in the spring of 1791. By the end of that year or early in 1792, he moved in with his friend Thomas "Clio" Rickman at No. 7 Upper Marylebone Street. Rickman was a progressive publisher; the house is still a bookbinding business and looks pretty much the same since Paine revised the proofs of Part Two on a table that Rickman labeled with a plate, which is now owned by Mr. Edward Truelove. As the plate indicates, Paine worked on other writings at that same table that were published in England in 1792.
In 1795 D. I. Eaton published an edition of "Rights of Man," with a preface purporting to have been written by Paine while in Luxembourg prison. It is manifestly spurious. The genuine English and French prefaces are given.
In 1795, D. I. Eaton published a version of "Rights of Man," featuring a preface that claimed to be written by Paine while he was in Luxembourg prison. This preface is clearly fake. The authentic English and French prefaces are provided.
RIGHTS OF MAN
Being An Answer To Mr. Burke's Attack On The French Revoloution
By Thomas Paine
By Thomas Paine
Secretary For Foreign Affairs To Congress In The American War, And Author Of The Works Entitled "Common Sense" And "A Letter To Abbi Raynal"
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Congress During the American War, and Author of the Works Titled "Common Sense" and "A Letter to Abbi Raynal"
DEDICATION George Washington President Of The United States Of America Sir, I’m presenting you a brief essay defending the principles of freedom that your outstanding virtues have significantly helped establish. May the Rights of Man become as universal as your kindness desires, and may you experience the joy of seeing the New World revitalize the Old, is the wish of Sir, Your deeply grateful and Respectfully devoted Servant, Thomas Paine
PAINE'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION
From the part Mr. Burke took in the American Revolution, it was natural that I should consider him a friend to mankind; and as our acquaintance commenced on that ground, it would have been more agreeable to me to have had cause to continue in that opinion than to change it.
Given Mr. Burke's involvement in the American Revolution, it was only natural for me to see him as a friend of humanity; and since our relationship started on that basis, I would have preferred to find reasons to keep that belief rather than to change it.
At the time Mr. Burke made his violent speech last winter in the English Parliament against the French Revolution and the National Assembly, I was in Paris, and had written to him but a short time before to inform him how prosperously matters were going on. Soon after this I saw his advertisement of the Pamphlet he intended to publish: As the attack was to be made in a language but little studied, and less understood in France, and as everything suffers by translation, I promised some of the friends of the Revolution in that country that whenever Mr. Burke's Pamphlet came forth, I would answer it. This appeared to me the more necessary to be done, when I saw the flagrant misrepresentations which Mr. Burke's Pamphlet contains; and that while it is an outrageous abuse on the French Revolution, and the principles of Liberty, it is an imposition on the rest of the world.
When Mr. Burke gave his forceful speech last winter in the English Parliament against the French Revolution and the National Assembly, I was in Paris and had recently written to him to share how well things were progressing. Shortly after that, I saw his advertisement about the pamphlet he planned to publish. Since the attack was going to be made in a language that was not widely studied or understood in France, and because everything gets lost in translation, I assured some friends of the Revolution in that country that I would respond to Mr. Burke's pamphlet as soon as it was released. It seemed even more important to me to do this when I noticed the blatant misrepresentations in Mr. Burke's pamphlet; while it is a harsh attack on the French Revolution and the principles of liberty, it also misleads the rest of the world.
I am the more astonished and disappointed at this conduct in Mr. Burke, as (from the circumstances I am going to mention) I had formed other expectations.
I am even more surprised and disappointed by Mr. Burke's behavior, as I had set different expectations based on the circumstances I'm about to mention.
I had seen enough of the miseries of war, to wish it might never more have existence in the world, and that some other mode might be found out to settle the differences that should occasionally arise in the neighbourhood of nations. This certainly might be done if Courts were disposed to set honesty about it, or if countries were enlightened enough not to be made the dupes of Courts. The people of America had been bred up in the same prejudices against France, which at that time characterised the people of England; but experience and an acquaintance with the French Nation have most effectually shown to the Americans the falsehood of those prejudices; and I do not believe that a more cordial and confidential intercourse exists between any two countries than between America and France.
I had seen enough of the horrors of war to hope it would never happen again in the world, and that some other way could be found to resolve the disputes that occasionally arise between nations. This could definitely happen if governments chose to prioritize honesty, or if countries were informed enough not to be fooled by their leaders. The people of America had been raised with the same biases against France that characterized the people of England at that time; however, experience and familiarity with the French nation have effectively shown Americans the falsehood of those biases. I truly believe there is no more friendly and trusting relationship between any two countries than that between America and France.
When I came to France, in the spring of 1787, the Archbishop of Thoulouse was then Minister, and at that time highly esteemed. I became much acquainted with the private Secretary of that Minister, a man of an enlarged benevolent heart; and found that his sentiments and my own perfectly agreed with respect to the madness of war, and the wretched impolicy of two nations, like England and France, continually worrying each other, to no other end than that of a mutual increase of burdens and taxes. That I might be assured I had not misunderstood him, nor he me, I put the substance of our opinions into writing and sent it to him; subjoining a request, that if I should see among the people of England, any disposition to cultivate a better understanding between the two nations than had hitherto prevailed, how far I might be authorised to say that the same disposition prevailed on the part of France? He answered me by letter in the most unreserved manner, and that not for himself only, but for the Minister, with whose knowledge the letter was declared to be written.
When I arrived in France in the spring of 1787, the Archbishop of Toulouse was the Minister and was highly respected at that time. I got to know the Minister’s private Secretary well; he was a kind-hearted person, and I found that our views completely aligned regarding the insanity of war and the foolishness of two nations, like England and France, constantly fighting each other, resulting only in increased burdens and taxes for both. To ensure I hadn’t misunderstood him or vice versa, I put our main ideas in writing and sent it to him. I also asked if I would be authorized to communicate that if I saw any willingness among the English people to foster better relations between the two nations than had existed before, the same willingness was also present in France. He replied to me in a very open manner, stating that he was speaking not just for himself but also for the Minister, who was aware that the letter was being written.
I put this letter into the hands of Mr. Burke almost three years ago, and left it with him, where it still remains; hoping, and at the same time naturally expecting, from the opinion I had conceived of him, that he would find some opportunity of making good use of it, for the purpose of removing those errors and prejudices which two neighbouring nations, from the want of knowing each other, had entertained, to the injury of both.
I gave this letter to Mr. Burke almost three years ago and left it with him, where it still is. I hoped—and naturally expected, based on my opinion of him—that he would find a way to use it to help correct the misunderstandings and biases that two neighboring nations had developed due to their lack of knowledge about each other, which harmed both of them.
When the French Revolution broke out, it certainly afforded to Mr. Burke an opportunity of doing some good, had he been disposed to it; instead of which, no sooner did he see the old prejudices wearing away, than he immediately began sowing the seeds of a new inveteracy, as if he were afraid that England and France would cease to be enemies. That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of Nations, is as shocking as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord and cultivate prejudices between Nations, it becomes the more unpardonable.
When the French Revolution started, it definitely gave Mr. Burke a chance to do some good, if he had been inclined to do so; instead, as soon as he noticed the old biases fading away, he immediately began planting the seeds of a new hatred, as if he feared that England and France might stop being enemies. It's shocking but true that there are people in all countries who earn a living through war and by maintaining conflicts between nations; however, when those in power make it their mission to create discord and nurture prejudices between nations, it becomes even more unacceptable.
With respect to a paragraph in this work alluding to Mr. Burke's having a pension, the report has been some time in circulation, at least two months; and as a person is often the last to hear what concerns him the most to know, I have mentioned it, that Mr. Burke may have an opportunity of contradicting the rumour, if he thinks proper.
Regarding a section in this work that refers to Mr. Burke having a pension, this rumor has been going around for at least two months. Since a person is often the last to hear what is most important to them, I’ve brought it up so that Mr. Burke can have the chance to deny the rumor if he chooses to.
Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
PAINE'S PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION
The astonishment which the French Revolution has caused throughout Europe should be considered from two different points of view: first as it affects foreign peoples, secondly as it affects their governments.
The shock that the French Revolution has created across Europe should be looked at from two different angles: first, how it impacts other nations, and second, how it influences their governments.
The cause of the French people is that of all Europe, or rather of the whole world; but the governments of all those countries are by no means favorable to it. It is important that we should never lose sight of this distinction. We must not confuse the peoples with their governments; especially not the English people with its government.
The cause of the French people is the cause of all of Europe, or even the entire world; however, the governments of those countries are definitely not on their side. It's crucial that we always remember this distinction. We shouldn't confuse the people with their governments; especially not the English people with their government.
The government of England is no friend of the revolution of France. Of this we have sufficient proofs in the thanks given by that weak and witless person, the Elector of Hanover, sometimes called the King of England, to Mr. Burke for the insults heaped on it in his book, and in the malevolent comments of the English Minister, Pitt, in his speeches in Parliament.
The government of England is not supportive of the French Revolution. We have enough evidence of this in the gratitude expressed by that weak and foolish individual, the Elector of Hanover, often referred to as the King of England, to Mr. Burke for the insults directed at it in his book, and in the spiteful remarks from the English Minister, Pitt, in his speeches in Parliament.
In spite of the professions of sincerest friendship found in the official correspondence of the English government with that of France, its conduct gives the lie to all its declarations, and shows us clearly that it is not a court to be trusted, but an insane court, plunging in all the quarrels and intrigues of Europe, in quest of a war to satisfy its folly and countenance its extravagance.
Despite the expressions of genuine friendship in the official correspondence between the English government and France, their actions contradict these claims and make it clear that this is not a government to be trusted; it’s a reckless one, getting involved in all the conflicts and intrigues of Europe, looking for a war to justify its foolishness and support its absurdity.
The English nation, on the contrary, is very favorably disposed towards the French Revolution, and to the progress of liberty in the whole world; and this feeling will become more general in England as the intrigues and artifices of its government are better known, and the principles of the revolution better understood. The French should know that most English newspapers are directly in the pay of government, or, if indirectly connected with it, always under its orders; and that those papers constantly distort and attack the revolution in France in order to deceive the nation. But, as it is impossible long to prevent the prevalence of truth, the daily falsehoods of those papers no longer have the desired effect.
The English public, on the other hand, has a very positive attitude towards the French Revolution and the advancement of freedom worldwide. This sentiment will become more widespread in England as people learn more about their government's schemes and manipulations, and as they gain a clearer understanding of the principles of the revolution. The French should be aware that most English newspapers are directly funded by the government, or at the very least, always follow its directives; these papers consistently misrepresent and criticize the revolution in France to mislead the public. However, since it’s impossible to keep the truth at bay for long, the daily lies of these newspapers no longer have the intended impact.
To be convinced that the voice of truth has been stifled in England, the world needs only to be told that the government regards and prosecutes as a libel that which it should protect.*1 This outrage on morality is called law, and judges are found wicked enough to inflict penalties on truth.
To be sure that the voice of truth has been silenced in England, all the world needs to know is that the government considers and treats as libel what it should actually be protecting.*1 This violation of morality is labeled as law, and there are judges cruel enough to impose penalties on truth.
The English government presents, just now, a curious phenomenon. Seeing that the French and English nations are getting rid of the prejudices and false notions formerly entertained against each other, and which have cost them so much money, that government seems to be placarding its need of a foe; for unless it finds one somewhere, no pretext exists for the enormous revenue and taxation now deemed necessary.
The English government is currently displaying an interesting situation. As the French and English nations are shedding the biases and misconceptions they used to have about each other, which have cost them a lot of money, the government appears to be signaling its need for an enemy. If it doesn't find one somewhere, there's no reason for the huge revenue and taxes that are currently considered essential.
Therefore it seeks in Russia the enemy it has lost in France, and appears to say to the universe, or to say to itself. "If nobody will be so kind as to become my foe, I shall need no more fleets nor armies, and shall be forced to reduce my taxes. The American war enabled me to double the taxes; the Dutch business to add more; the Nootka humbug gave me a pretext for raising three millions sterling more; but unless I can make an enemy of Russia the harvest from wars will end. I was the first to incite Turk against Russian, and now I hope to reap a fresh crop of taxes."
Therefore, it looks to Russia for the enemy it lost in France and seems to say to the world, or maybe to itself, "If no one will be so nice as to be my enemy, I won't need any more fleets or armies, and I’ll have to cut my taxes. The American war allowed me to double the taxes; the situation with the Dutch added more; the Nootka nonsense gave me an excuse to raise three million pounds more; but unless I can create an enemy out of Russia, the profits from wars will stop. I was the first to provoke the Turks against the Russians, and now I hope to benefit from a new influx of taxes."
If the miseries of war, and the flood of evils it spreads over a country, did not check all inclination to mirth, and turn laughter into grief, the frantic conduct of the government of England would only excite ridicule. But it is impossible to banish from one's mind the images of suffering which the contemplation of such vicious policy presents. To reason with governments, as they have existed for ages, is to argue with brutes. It is only from the nations themselves that reforms can be expected. There ought not now to exist any doubt that the peoples of France, England, and America, enlightened and enlightening each other, shall henceforth be able, not merely to give the world an example of good government, but by their united influence enforce its practice.
If the horrors of war and the wave of troubles it brings to a country didn’t dampen all desire to have fun and turn laughter into sadness, the crazy actions of the government of England would just be laughed at. But it's impossible to ignore the images of suffering that come to mind when thinking about such harmful policies. Trying to reason with governments, as they’ve been for ages, is like arguing with animals. Real change can only come from the nations themselves. There shouldn’t be any doubt now that the people of France, England, and America, who are both informed and informing each other, will from now on be able not just to set an example of good governance but also to use their combined influence to make sure it happens.
(Translated from the French)
Please provide the short piece of text you would like me to modernize.
RIGHTS OF MAN. PART THE FIRST BEING AN ANSWER TO MR. BURKE'S ATTACK ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
Among the incivilities by which nations or individuals provoke and irritate each other, Mr. Burke's pamphlet on the French Revolution is an extraordinary instance. Neither the People of France, nor the National Assembly, were troubling themselves about the affairs of England, or the English Parliament; and that Mr. Burke should commence an unprovoked attack upon them, both in Parliament and in public, is a conduct that cannot be pardoned on the score of manners, nor justified on that of policy.
Among the disrespectful actions that countries or individuals use to provoke and irritate each other, Mr. Burke's pamphlet on the French Revolution is an exceptional example. Neither the people of France nor the National Assembly were concerned about England's affairs or the English Parliament; and Mr. Burke's choice to launch an unprovoked attack on them, both in Parliament and publicly, is behavior that cannot be excused as a matter of etiquette, nor justified in terms of policy.
There is scarcely an epithet of abuse to be found in the English language, with which Mr. Burke has not loaded the French Nation and the National Assembly. Everything which rancour, prejudice, ignorance or knowledge could suggest, is poured forth in the copious fury of near four hundred pages. In the strain and on the plan Mr. Burke was writing, he might have written on to as many thousands. When the tongue or the pen is let loose in a frenzy of passion, it is the man, and not the subject, that becomes exhausted.
There’s hardly an insult in the English language that Mr. Burke hasn't thrown at the French Nation and the National Assembly. Everything fueled by resentment, bias, ignorance, or even insight is unleashed in the overflowing rage of nearly four hundred pages. Given the tone and approach Mr. Burke was using, he could have easily written thousands more. When someone speaks or writes in a fit of passion, it’s the person, not the topic, that ultimately tires out.
Hitherto Mr. Burke has been mistaken and disappointed in the opinions he had formed of the affairs of France; but such is the ingenuity of his hope, or the malignancy of his despair, that it furnishes him with new pretences to go on. There was a time when it was impossible to make Mr. Burke believe there would be any Revolution in France. His opinion then was, that the French had neither spirit to undertake it nor fortitude to support it; and now that there is one, he seeks an escape by condemning it.
Until now, Mr. Burke has been wrong and let down by the views he has held about the situation in France; yet, his hopeful imagination or the bitterness of his disappointment provides him with new excuses to continue. There was a time when it was impossible to convince Mr. Burke that a Revolution would happen in France. He believed that the French lacked both the spirit to start it and the strength to endure it; and now that it has occurred, he tries to distance himself by criticizing it.
Not sufficiently content with abusing the National Assembly, a great part of his work is taken up with abusing Dr. Price (one of the best-hearted men that lives) and the two societies in England known by the name of the Revolution Society and the Society for Constitutional Information.
Not happy enough with attacking the National Assembly, a big part of his work is spent criticizing Dr. Price (one of the kindest people alive) and the two groups in England called the Revolution Society and the Society for Constitutional Information.
Dr. Price had preached a sermon on the 4th of November, 1789, being the anniversary of what is called in England the Revolution, which took place 1688. Mr. Burke, speaking of this sermon, says: "The political Divine proceeds dogmatically to assert, that by the principles of the Revolution, the people of England have acquired three fundamental rights:
Dr. Price delivered a sermon on November 4th, 1789, marking the anniversary of what is known in England as the Revolution, which occurred in 1688. Mr. Burke, referring to this sermon, states: "The political Divine confidently asserts that according to the principles of the Revolution, the people of England have gained three essential rights:
1. To choose our own governors.
1. To select our own leaders.
2. To cashier them for misconduct.
2. To fire them for misbehavior.
3. To frame a government for ourselves."
3. To create a government for ourselves.
Dr. Price does not say that the right to do these things exists in this or in that person, or in this or in that description of persons, but that it exists in the whole; that it is a right resident in the nation. Mr. Burke, on the contrary, denies that such a right exists in the nation, either in whole or in part, or that it exists anywhere; and, what is still more strange and marvellous, he says: "that the people of England utterly disclaim such a right, and that they will resist the practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes." That men should take up arms and spend their lives and fortunes, not to maintain their rights, but to maintain they have not rights, is an entirely new species of discovery, and suited to the paradoxical genius of Mr. Burke.
Dr. Price doesn’t claim that the right to do these things belongs to this or that person, or to this or that group of people, but that it exists in the whole; that it’s a right that resides in the nation. On the other hand, Mr. Burke denies that such a right exists in the nation, either entirely or partially, or that it exists anywhere at all; and, what’s even more strange and remarkable, he says: "that the people of England completely reject such a right, and that they will fight against any attempt to claim it with their lives and fortunes." The idea that people would take up arms and risk their lives and wealth, not to defend their rights, but to argue that they have no rights, is a completely new kind of idea, and fits well with Mr. Burke’s paradoxical nature.
The method which Mr. Burke takes to prove that the people of England have no such rights, and that such rights do not now exist in the nation, either in whole or in part, or anywhere at all, is of the same marvellous and monstrous kind with what he has already said; for his arguments are that the persons, or the generation of persons, in whom they did exist, are dead, and with them the right is dead also. To prove this, he quotes a declaration made by Parliament about a hundred years ago, to William and Mary, in these words: "The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of the people aforesaid" (meaning the people of England then living) "most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for Ever." He quotes a clause of another Act of Parliament made in the same reign, the terms of which he says, "bind us" (meaning the people of their day), "our heirs and our posterity, to them, their heirs and posterity, to the end of time."
The approach Mr. Burke takes to argue that the people of England have no such rights, and that such rights do not currently exist in the nation, either wholly or partially, or anywhere at all, is of the same astonishing and outrageous nature as what he has already stated; his arguments are that the individuals, or the generation of individuals, in whom they did exist, are dead, and with them the rights are also dead. To support this, he cites a declaration made by Parliament about a hundred years ago to William and Mary, stating: "The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of the people aforesaid" (referring to the people of England living at that time) "most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, forever." He also cites a clause from another Act of Parliament made during the same reign, which he says, "binds us" (referring to the people of his time), "our heirs and our posterity, to them, their heirs and posterity, to the end of time."
Mr. Burke conceives his point sufficiently established by producing those clauses, which he enforces by saying that they exclude the right of the nation for ever. And not yet content with making such declarations, repeated over and over again, he farther says, "that if the people of England possessed such a right before the Revolution" (which he acknowledges to have been the case, not only in England, but throughout Europe, at an early period), "yet that the English Nation did, at the time of the Revolution, most solemnly renounce and abdicate it, for themselves, and for all their posterity, for ever."
Mr. Burke believes he has made his point clear by presenting those clauses, which he emphasizes exclude the nation's rights permanently. Not satisfied with making such declarations repeatedly, he adds, "that if the people of England had that right before the Revolution" (which he admits was true, not just in England, but across Europe, at an earlier time), "then the English Nation did, at the time of the Revolution, solemnly renounce and give up that right, for themselves and for all their descendants, forever."
As Mr. Burke occasionally applies the poison drawn from his horrid principles, not only to the English nation, but to the French Revolution and the National Assembly, and charges that august, illuminated and illuminating body of men with the epithet of usurpers, I shall, sans ceremonie, place another system of principles in opposition to his.
As Mr. Burke sometimes uses the toxic ideas from his terrible principles, not only against the English nation but also against the French Revolution and the National Assembly, and labels that esteemed and enlightening group of people as usurpers, I will, without formality, present another set of principles in contrast to his.
The English Parliament of 1688 did a certain thing, which, for themselves and their constituents, they had a right to do, and which it appeared right should be done. But, in addition to this right, which they possessed by delegation, they set up another right by assumption, that of binding and controlling posterity to the end of time. The case, therefore, divides itself into two parts; the right which they possessed by delegation, and the right which they set up by assumption. The first is admitted; but with respect to the second, I reply: There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered.
The English Parliament of 1688 did something that they had every right to do for themselves and their constituents, and it seemed right that it should be done. However, besides this right, which came from delegation, they claimed another right by assumption: the right to bind and control future generations indefinitely. Thus, the situation divides into two parts: the right they had by delegation, and the right they assumed. The first is accepted; but regarding the second, I say: there has never been, nor will there ever be, a Parliament, or any group of people, or any generation, in any country that has the right or power to bind and control future generations "to the end of time," or to dictate how the world should be governed, or who should govern it. Therefore, all those clauses, acts, or declarations made by them attempting to do what they have no right or power to execute are completely null and void. Each age and generation must be as free to act for itself as the ages and generations that came before it. The arrogance of trying to govern beyond the grave is the most absurd and outrageous form of tyranny. No man owns another man; nor does any generation own the generations that will come after. The Parliament or people of 1688, or any other time, had no more right to decide the fate of present people, or to bind or control them in any way, than the Parliament or people of today have to decide, bind, or control those who will live a hundred or a thousand years from now. Every generation is, and must be, capable of handling all the needs that arise. It is the living, not the dead, who should be accommodated. When a person is gone, their power and needs disappear with them; and no longer having any stake in the world's affairs, they have no authority to determine who will govern it, how it will be organized, or how it will be run.
I am not contending for nor against any form of government, nor for nor against any party, here or elsewhere. That which a whole nation chooses to do it has a right to do. Mr. Burke says, No. Where, then, does the right exist? I am contending for the rights of the living, and against their being willed away and controlled and contracted for by the manuscript assumed authority of the dead, and Mr. Burke is contending for the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living. There was a time when kings disposed of their crowns by will upon their death-beds, and consigned the people, like beasts of the field, to whatever successor they appointed. This is now so exploded as scarcely to be remembered, and so monstrous as hardly to be believed. But the Parliamentary clauses upon which Mr. Burke builds his political church are of the same nature.
I’m not arguing for or against any type of government, nor for or against any political party, here or anywhere else. Whatever a nation chooses to do, it has the right to do. Mr. Burke disagrees. So, where does that right actually exist? I am standing up for the rights of the living and opposing the idea that their choices can be controlled and limited by the outdated authority of the dead. Mr. Burke is arguing for the authority of the deceased over the rights and freedom of the living. There was a time when kings handed down their crowns through their wills on their deathbeds, treating people like livestock to be given to whichever successor they chose. This practice is now so outdated it’s almost forgotten, and it’s so outrageous it’s hard to believe. However, the Parliamentary provisions that Mr. Burke uses to support his political views are of the same kind.
The laws of every country must be analogous to some common principle. In England no parent or master, nor all the authority of Parliament, omnipotent as it has called itself, can bind or control the personal freedom even of an individual beyond the age of twenty-one years. On what ground of right, then, could the Parliament of 1688, or any other Parliament, bind all posterity for ever?
The laws of every country should reflect some common principle. In England, no parent or master, nor even the full authority of Parliament, powerful as it claims to be, can limit or control the personal freedom of anyone over the age of twenty-one. So on what basis of right could the Parliament of 1688, or any other Parliament, impose restrictions on all future generations indefinitely?
Those who have quitted the world, and those who have not yet arrived at it, are as remote from each other as the utmost stretch of mortal imagination can conceive. What possible obligation, then, can exist between them—what rule or principle can be laid down that of two nonentities, the one out of existence and the other not in, and who never can meet in this world, the one should control the other to the end of time?
Those who have left the world behind and those who haven’t even entered it are as distant from each other as anyone can imagine. What obligation could possibly exist between them—what rule or principle could dictate that of two nonentities, one out of existence and the other not yet in it, and who can never meet in this world, one should have control over the other for all time?
In England it is said that money cannot be taken out of the pockets of the people without their consent. But who authorised, or who could authorise, the Parliament of 1688 to control and take away the freedom of posterity (who were not in existence to give or to withhold their consent) and limit and confine their right of acting in certain cases for ever?
In England, it's said that money can't be taken from people's pockets without their consent. But who authorized, or could authorize, the Parliament of 1688 to control and take away the freedom of future generations (who didn't exist to give or withhold their consent) and permanently limit their right to act in certain situations?
A greater absurdity cannot present itself to the understanding of man than what Mr. Burke offers to his readers. He tells them, and he tells the world to come, that a certain body of men who existed a hundred years ago made a law, and that there does not exist in the nation, nor ever will, nor ever can, a power to alter it. Under how many subtilties or absurdities has the divine right to govern been imposed on the credulity of mankind? Mr. Burke has discovered a new one, and he has shortened his journey to Rome by appealing to the power of this infallible Parliament of former days, and he produces what it has done as of divine authority, for that power must certainly be more than human which no human power to the end of time can alter.
A greater nonsense can’t be presented to human understanding than what Mr. Burke shares with his readers. He claims that a specific group of people who lived a hundred years ago made a law, and that there is no power in the nation, now or ever, that can change it. How many twists or absurdities have been placed on people's belief in the divine right to govern? Mr. Burke has found a new one, and he’s cut his path to Rome by relying on the authority of this infallible Parliament from the past, presenting its decisions as if they hold divine power, since that authority must surely be beyond human if no human power can change it for all time.
But Mr. Burke has done some service—not to his cause, but to his country—by bringing those clauses into public view. They serve to demonstrate how necessary it is at all times to watch against the attempted encroachment of power, and to prevent its running to excess. It is somewhat extraordinary that the offence for which James II. was expelled, that of setting up power by assumption, should be re-acted, under another shape and form, by the Parliament that expelled him. It shows that the Rights of Man were but imperfectly understood at the Revolution, for certain it is that the right which that Parliament set up by assumption (for by the delegation it had not, and could not have it, because none could give it) over the persons and freedom of posterity for ever was of the same tyrannical unfounded kind which James attempted to set up over the Parliament and the nation, and for which he was expelled. The only difference is (for in principle they differ not) that the one was an usurper over living, and the other over the unborn; and as the one has no better authority to stand upon than the other, both of them must be equally null and void, and of no effect.
But Mr. Burke has contributed something—not for his own cause, but for his country—by bringing those clauses to public attention. They show how important it is to always be vigilant against attempts to overstep power and prevent it from going too far. It’s quite remarkable that the offense for which James II was removed, which was establishing power through assumption, should be repeated in a different form by the Parliament that got rid of him. This shows that the Rights of Man were not fully understood during the Revolution, since it is clear that the right the Parliament established through assumption (because it didn't have authority through delegation, as no one could give it) over the lives and freedoms of future generations was the same kind of baseless tyranny that James tried to impose over the Parliament and the nation, and for which he was ousted. The only difference is that one was an usurper over the living, while the other is over those who are not yet born; and since neither has any stronger authority than the other, both must be equally null and void and without effect.
From what, or from whence, does Mr. Burke prove the right of any human power to bind posterity for ever? He has produced his clauses, but he must produce also his proofs that such a right existed, and show how it existed. If it ever existed it must now exist, for whatever appertains to the nature of man cannot be annihilated by man. It is the nature of man to die, and he will continue to die as long as he continues to be born. But Mr. Burke has set up a sort of political Adam, in whom all posterity are bound for ever. He must, therefore, prove that his Adam possessed such a power, or such a right.
From where does Mr. Burke claim any human authority has the right to bind future generations forever? He has presented his arguments, but he also needs to provide evidence that such a right exists and explain how it came to exist. If it ever did exist, it must still exist, because anything that is part of human nature cannot be destroyed by humanity. It’s human nature to die, and as long as people continue to be born, they will keep dying. But Mr. Burke has created a sort of political Adam, where all future generations are bound forever. Therefore, he must prove that his Adam had that kind of power or right.
The weaker any cord is, the less will it bear to be stretched, and the worse is the policy to stretch it, unless it is intended to break it. Had anyone proposed the overthrow of Mr. Burke's positions, he would have proceeded as Mr. Burke has done. He would have magnified the authorities, on purpose to have called the right of them into question; and the instant the question of right was started, the authorities must have been given up.
The weaker any rope is, the less weight it can take before snapping, and it's a bad idea to push it, unless you want it to break. If someone had suggested challenging Mr. Burke's views, he would have reacted just like Mr. Burke did. He would have emphasized the authorities to question their legitimacy; and the moment the legitimacy was challenged, those authorities would have had to be abandoned.
It requires but a very small glance of thought to perceive that although laws made in one generation often continue in force through succeeding generations, yet they continue to derive their force from the consent of the living. A law not repealed continues in force, not because it cannot be repealed, but because it is not repealed; and the non-repealing passes for consent.
It takes only a brief moment of thought to see that even though laws created in one generation often remain active in later ones, they still get their power from the agreement of the people alive at that time. A law that hasn't been repealed remains in effect, not because it can't be repealed, but because it hasn't been; and the lack of repeal is seen as consent.
But Mr. Burke's clauses have not even this qualification in their favour. They become null, by attempting to become immortal. The nature of them precludes consent. They destroy the right which they might have, by grounding it on a right which they cannot have. Immortal power is not a human right, and therefore cannot be a right of Parliament. The Parliament of 1688 might as well have passed an act to have authorised themselves to live for ever, as to make their authority live for ever. All, therefore, that can be said of those clauses is that they are a formality of words, of as much import as if those who used them had addressed a congratulation to themselves, and in the oriental style of antiquity had said: O Parliament, live for ever!
But Mr. Burke's clauses don't even have that qualification in their favor. They become pointless by trying to be everlasting. Their very nature prevents agreement. They undermine the rights they might have by basing those rights on something they cannot possess. Eternal power is not a human right, so it can't be a right of Parliament. The Parliament of 1688 might as well have passed a law allowing themselves to live forever as to make their authority last forever. So, all that can be said about those clauses is that they are just empty words, as meaningful as if those who used them had congratulated themselves and, in the ancient Eastern style, had said: O Parliament, live forever!
The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead?
The situation in the world is always changing, and people’s opinions change too. Since government is meant for the living, not the dead, only the living have any stake in it. What seems right and useful in one era may be seen as wrong and impractical in another. In such instances, who gets to decide— the living or the dead?
As almost one hundred pages of Mr. Burke's book are employed upon these clauses, it will consequently follow that if the clauses themselves, so far as they set up an assumed usurped dominion over posterity for ever, are unauthoritative, and in their nature null and void; that all his voluminous inferences, and declamation drawn therefrom, or founded thereon, are null and void also; and on this ground I rest the matter.
Since nearly one hundred pages of Mr. Burke's book are dedicated to these clauses, it follows that if the clauses themselves, which attempt to establish an assumed usurped control over future generations indefinitely, are without authority and inherently invalid, then all his extensive conclusions and arguments based on them are also invalid; and on this basis, I conclude my point.
We now come more particularly to the affairs of France. Mr. Burke's book has the appearance of being written as instruction to the French nation; but if I may permit myself the use of an extravagant metaphor, suited to the extravagance of the case, it is darkness attempting to illuminate light.
We now turn specifically to the situation in France. Mr. Burke's book seems to be written as guidance for the French people; but if I may indulge in an over-the-top metaphor, fitting for the absurdity of the situation, it’s like darkness trying to shed light on brightness.
While I am writing this there are accidentally before me some proposals for a declaration of rights by the Marquis de la Fayette (I ask his pardon for using his former address, and do it only for distinction's sake) to the National Assembly, on the 11th of July, 1789, three days before the taking of the Bastille, and I cannot but remark with astonishment how opposite the sources are from which that gentleman and Mr. Burke draw their principles. Instead of referring to musty records and mouldy parchments to prove that the rights of the living are lost, "renounced and abdicated for ever," by those who are now no more, as Mr. Burke has done, M. de la Fayette applies to the living world, and emphatically says: "Call to mind the sentiments which nature has engraved on the heart of every citizen, and which take a new force when they are solemnly recognised by all:—For a nation to love liberty, it is sufficient that she knows it; and to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it." How dry, barren, and obscure is the source from which Mr. Burke labors! and how ineffectual, though gay with flowers, are all his declamation and his arguments compared with these clear, concise, and soul-animating sentiments! Few and short as they are, they lead on to a vast field of generous and manly thinking, and do not finish, like Mr. Burke's periods, with music in the ear, and nothing in the heart.
While I’m writing this, I happen to have in front of me some proposals for a declaration of rights by the Marquis de la Fayette (I apologize for using his former title, but I do it for clarity) to the National Assembly on July 11, 1789, three days before the storming of the Bastille. I can’t help but be amazed at how different the sources are from which he and Mr. Burke draw their principles. Instead of turning to dusty records and old documents to claim that the rights of the living have been lost, “renounced and abdicated forever,” by those who are no longer here—as Mr. Burke has done—M. de la Fayette looks to the living world and strongly states: “Remember the feelings that nature has implanted in every citizen’s heart, which gain new strength when recognized by all: For a nation to love liberty, it’s enough that she knows it; and to be free, it’s enough that she desires it.” How dry, barren, and vague is the source of Mr. Burke’s efforts! And how ineffective, even though adorned with flowery language, are all his speeches and arguments compared to these clear, concise, and uplifting sentiments! Few and brief as they are, they open up a vast terrain of noble and courageous thought, and don’t conclude like Mr. Burke’s sentences, which sound nice but leave nothing substantial in the heart.
As I have introduced M. de la Fayette, I will take the liberty of adding an anecdote respecting his farewell address to the Congress of America in 1783, and which occurred fresh to my mind, when I saw Mr. Burke's thundering attack on the French Revolution. M. de la Fayette went to America at the early period of the war, and continued a volunteer in her service to the end. His conduct through the whole of that enterprise is one of the most extraordinary that is to be found in the history of a young man, scarcely twenty years of age. Situated in a country that was like the lap of sensual pleasure, and with the means of enjoying it, how few are there to be found who would exchange such a scene for the woods and wildernesses of America, and pass the flowery years of youth in unprofitable danger and hardship! but such is the fact. When the war ended, and he was on the point of taking his final departure, he presented himself to Congress, and contemplating in his affectionate farewell the Revolution he had seen, expressed himself in these words: "May this great monument raised to liberty serve as a lesson to the oppressor, and an example to the oppressed!" When this address came to the hands of Dr. Franklin, who was then in France, he applied to Count Vergennes to have it inserted in the French Gazette, but never could obtain his consent. The fact was that Count Vergennes was an aristocratical despot at home, and dreaded the example of the American Revolution in France, as certain other persons now dread the example of the French Revolution in England, and Mr. Burke's tribute of fear (for in this light his book must be considered) runs parallel with Count Vergennes' refusal. But to return more particularly to his work.
As I’ve introduced M. de la Fayette, I’d like to share an anecdote about his farewell speech to the Congress of America in 1783, which came to mind when I saw Mr. Burke's fierce criticism of the French Revolution. M. de la Fayette went to America early in the war and served as a volunteer until the end. His actions throughout this entire endeavor are some of the most remarkable found in the history of a young man who was barely twenty years old. In a country that offered so much pleasure and the opportunity to enjoy it, how rare is it to find someone willing to trade that life for the woods and wilderness of America, spending the vibrant years of youth in danger and hardship? Yet, that’s exactly what he did. When the war concluded and he was about to leave for good, he addressed Congress, and while reflecting affectionately on the Revolution he had witnessed, he said: "May this great monument raised to liberty serve as a lesson to the oppressor, and an example to the oppressed!" When this speech reached Dr. Franklin, who was in France at the time, he asked Count Vergennes to publish it in the French Gazette, but he couldn’t get his approval. The truth was that Count Vergennes was an aristocratic despot at home and feared the example set by the American Revolution would inspire similar ideas in France, just as some now fear the example of the French Revolution could influence England. Mr. Burke’s fearful tribute (which is how we must view his book) parallels Count Vergennes' refusal. But let’s get back to his work.
"We have seen," says Mr. Burke, "the French rebel against a mild and lawful monarch, with more fury, outrage, and insult, than any people has been known to rise against the most illegal usurper, or the most sanguinary tyrant." This is one among a thousand other instances, in which Mr. Burke shows that he is ignorant of the springs and principles of the French Revolution.
"We have seen," says Mr. Burke, "the French rise up against a gentle and legitimate king with more rage, violence, and disrespect than any group has ever shown against the most unlawful usurper or the bloodiest tyrant." This is just one of countless examples in which Mr. Burke demonstrates that he doesn't understand the motivations and principles behind the French Revolution.
It was not against Louis XVI. but against the despotic principles of the Government, that the nation revolted. These principles had not their origin in him, but in the original establishment, many centuries back: and they were become too deeply rooted to be removed, and the Augean stables of parasites and plunderers too abominably filthy to be cleansed by anything short of a complete and universal Revolution. When it becomes necessary to do anything, the whole heart and soul should go into the measure, or not attempt it. That crisis was then arrived, and there remained no choice but to act with determined vigor, or not to act at all. The king was known to be the friend of the nation, and this circumstance was favorable to the enterprise. Perhaps no man bred up in the style of an absolute king, ever possessed a heart so little disposed to the exercise of that species of power as the present King of France. But the principles of the Government itself still remained the same. The Monarch and the Monarchy were distinct and separate things; and it was against the established despotism of the latter, and not against the person or principles of the former, that the revolt commenced, and the Revolution has been carried.
The nation didn’t revolt against Louis XVI, but against the oppressive principles of the Government. These principles didn’t start with him, but date back many centuries; they had become too deeply ingrained to be changed, and the corrupt system of parasites and thieves was too revolting to be cleaned up by anything less than a complete and total Revolution. When action is necessary, the whole heart and soul should be invested in it, or it shouldn’t be attempted at all. That moment had arrived, and there was no choice but to act with determination or not to act at all. The king was known to be a friend to the people, and this was beneficial to their efforts. Perhaps no one raised as an absolute monarch ever had a heart so little inclined to wield that kind of power as the current King of France. However, the principles of the Government itself remained unchanged. The Monarch and the Monarchy were separate entities; the revolt was against the established tyranny of the latter, not against the individual or beliefs of the former, and that’s how the Revolution began and proceeded.
Mr. Burke does not attend to the distinction between men and principles, and, therefore, he does not see that a revolt may take place against the despotism of the latter, while there lies no charge of despotism against the former.
Mr. Burke overlooks the difference between people and principles, so he doesn’t understand that there can be a rebellion against the tyranny of the latter, even if there are no accusations of tyranny against the former.
The natural moderation of Louis XVI. contributed nothing to alter the hereditary despotism of the monarchy. All the tyrannies of former reigns, acted under that hereditary despotism, were still liable to be revived in the hands of a successor. It was not the respite of a reign that would satisfy France, enlightened as she was then become. A casual discontinuance of the practice of despotism, is not a discontinuance of its principles: the former depends on the virtue of the individual who is in immediate possession of the power; the latter, on the virtue and fortitude of the nation. In the case of Charles I. and James II. of England, the revolt was against the personal despotism of the men; whereas in France, it was against the hereditary despotism of the established Government. But men who can consign over the rights of posterity for ever on the authority of a mouldy parchment, like Mr. Burke, are not qualified to judge of this Revolution. It takes in a field too vast for their views to explore, and proceeds with a mightiness of reason they cannot keep pace with.
The natural moderation of Louis XVI didn’t change the hereditary tyranny of the monarchy. All the oppressive actions from previous reigns, which operated under that hereditary tyranny, could still be revived by a successor. A brief period without tyranny wouldn’t satisfy France, which had become so enlightened by then. Just because despotism is paused doesn’t mean its principles are gone; the pause depends on the character of the person holding the power, while the principles rely on the strength and integrity of the nation. In the cases of Charles I and James II in England, the rebellion was against the personal tyranny of those individuals; in France, it was against the inherited tyranny of the established government. However, people who can hand over the rights of future generations based on some old document, like Mr. Burke, aren’t fit to judge this Revolution. It encompasses a scope too large for their understanding and moves with a strength of reasoning they can’t keep up with.
But there are many points of view in which this Revolution may be considered. When despotism has established itself for ages in a country, as in France, it is not in the person of the king only that it resides. It has the appearance of being so in show, and in nominal authority; but it is not so in practice and in fact. It has its standard everywhere. Every office and department has its despotism, founded upon custom and usage. Every place has its Bastille, and every Bastille its despot. The original hereditary despotism resident in the person of the king, divides and sub-divides itself into a thousand shapes and forms, till at last the whole of it is acted by deputation. This was the case in France; and against this species of despotism, proceeding on through an endless labyrinth of office till the source of it is scarcely perceptible, there is no mode of redress. It strengthens itself by assuming the appearance of duty, and tyrannizes under the pretence of obeying.
But there are many perspectives from which we can view this Revolution. When tyranny has taken hold for a long time in a country, like in France, it isn't just the king who embodies it. It may seem that way on the surface and in terms of official power, but that's not how it really works in practice. Tyranny is everywhere. Every office and department has its own form of oppression, rooted in tradition and what’s customary. Every place has its own Bastille, and each Bastille has its own tyrant. The original hereditary tyranny that resides in the king fragments into countless shapes and forms, until ultimately it is all enforced by others. This was true in France; and against this type of tyranny, which weaves through an endless maze of offices to the point where its origin is barely visible, there is no way to seek justice. It reinforces itself by pretending to fulfill responsibilities and oppresses under the guise of compliance.
When a man reflects on the condition which France was in from the nature of her government, he will see other causes for revolt than those which immediately connect themselves with the person or character of Louis XVI. There were, if I may so express it, a thousand despotisms to be reformed in France, which had grown up under the hereditary despotism of the monarchy, and became so rooted as to be in a great measure independent of it. Between the Monarchy, the Parliament, and the Church there was a rivalship of despotism; besides the feudal despotism operating locally, and the ministerial despotism operating everywhere. But Mr. Burke, by considering the king as the only possible object of a revolt, speaks as if France was a village, in which everything that passed must be known to its commanding officer, and no oppression could be acted but what he could immediately control. Mr. Burke might have been in the Bastille his whole life, as well under Louis XVI. as Louis XIV., and neither the one nor the other have known that such a man as Burke existed. The despotic principles of the government were the same in both reigns, though the dispositions of the men were as remote as tyranny and benevolence.
When a man thinks about the state of France due to its government, he will recognize other reasons for the uprising beyond just the actions or personality of Louis XVI. There were, for lack of a better term, countless forms of oppression in France that had emerged under the hereditary rule of the monarchy, becoming entrenched enough to operate largely independently. The monarchy, Parliament, and Church were all in competition for power, not to mention the local feudal oppressors and the widespread ministerial tyranny. However, Mr. Burke, by viewing the king as the sole target of rebellion, implies that France was like a small village where the commanding officer knew everything happening and could directly control all forms of oppression. Mr. Burke could have spent his entire life in the Bastille, whether under Louis XVI or Louis XIV, and neither king would have been aware that someone like Burke existed. The oppressive principles of government were consistent in both reigns, even though the characters of the rulers were as different as tyranny and generosity.
What Mr. Burke considers as a reproach to the French Revolution (that of bringing it forward under a reign more mild than the preceding ones) is one of its highest honors. The Revolutions that have taken place in other European countries, have been excited by personal hatred. The rage was against the man, and he became the victim. But, in the instance of France we see a Revolution generated in the rational contemplation of the Rights of Man, and distinguishing from the beginning between persons and principles.
What Mr. Burke sees as a criticism of the French Revolution (that it emerged during a more lenient reign compared to previous ones) is actually one of its greatest achievements. The revolutions that have happened in other European countries were fueled by personal animosity. The anger was directed at individuals, who became the victims. But in the case of France, we have a revolution born out of a thoughtful consideration of the Rights of Man, clearly differentiating from the start between people and ideas.
But Mr. Burke appears to have no idea of principles when he is contemplating Governments. "Ten years ago," says he, "I could have felicitated France on her having a Government, without inquiring what the nature of that Government was, or how it was administered." Is this the language of a rational man? Is it the language of a heart feeling as it ought to feel for the rights and happiness of the human race? On this ground, Mr. Burke must compliment all the Governments in the world, while the victims who suffer under them, whether sold into slavery, or tortured out of existence, are wholly forgotten. It is power, and not principles, that Mr. Burke venerates; and under this abominable depravity he is disqualified to judge between them. Thus much for his opinion as to the occasions of the French Revolution. I now proceed to other considerations.
But Mr. Burke seems to have no understanding of principles when he talks about governments. "Ten years ago," he says, "I could have praised France for having a government, without questioning what kind of government it was or how it was run." Is this the way a rational person talks? Is it the expression of a heart that truly cares about the rights and well-being of humanity? By this logic, Mr. Burke would have to praise all the governments around the world, while completely ignoring the suffering of the people under them, whether they are sold into slavery or tortured to death. It’s power, not principles, that Mr. Burke admires; and because of this terrible blindness, he is unfit to judge between them. That’s enough about his views on the causes of the French Revolution. Now, I’ll move on to other considerations.
I know a place in America called Point-no-Point, because as you proceed along the shore, gay and flowery as Mr. Burke's language, it continually recedes and presents itself at a distance before you; but when you have got as far as you can go, there is no point at all. Just thus it is with Mr. Burke's three hundred and sixty-six pages. It is therefore difficult to reply to him. But as the points he wishes to establish may be inferred from what he abuses, it is in his paradoxes that we must look for his arguments.
I know a place in America called Point-no-Point, because as you walk along the shore, colorful and vibrant like Mr. Burke's writing, it keeps appearing and disappearing at a distance. But when you reach the furthest you can go, there isn’t really a point at all. That’s how it is with Mr. Burke's three hundred and sixty-six pages. So, it’s hard to respond to him. However, since the points he wants to make can be inferred from what he criticizes, we have to look for his arguments in his contradictions.
As to the tragic paintings by which Mr. Burke has outraged his own imagination, and seeks to work upon that of his readers, they are very well calculated for theatrical representation, where facts are manufactured for the sake of show, and accommodated to produce, through the weakness of sympathy, a weeping effect. But Mr. Burke should recollect that he is writing history, and not plays, and that his readers will expect truth, and not the spouting rant of high-toned exclamation.
Regarding the dramatic paintings that Mr. Burke has used to shock his own imagination and aims to manipulate that of his readers, they are quite suitable for theatrical performances, where facts are crafted for the sake of spectacle and adjusted to elicit an emotional response through the power of sympathy. However, Mr. Burke should remember that he is writing history, not plays, and that his readers will expect honesty, not the over-the-top rhetoric of grand speeches.
When we see a man dramatically lamenting in a publication intended to be believed that "The age of chivalry is gone! that The glory of Europe is extinguished for ever! that The unbought grace of life (if anyone knows what it is), the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone!" and all this because the Quixot age of chivalry nonsense is gone, what opinion can we form of his judgment, or what regard can we pay to his facts? In the rhapsody of his imagination he has discovered a world of wind mills, and his sorrows are that there are no Quixots to attack them. But if the age of aristocracy, like that of chivalry, should fall (and they had originally some connection) Mr. Burke, the trumpeter of the Order, may continue his parody to the end, and finish with exclaiming: "Othello's occupation's gone!"
When we see a guy dramatically complaining in a publication meant to be taken seriously that "The age of chivalry is gone! The glory of Europe is extinguished forever! The unearned grace of life (if anyone knows what that is), the cheap defense of nations, the source of manly sentiment and heroic ventures is gone!" and all this because the silly Quixotic age of chivalry is over, what can we think of his judgment, or how much can we trust his facts? In his imaginative rhapsody, he has created a world of windmills, and his sorrow is that there are no Quixotes to fight them. But if the age of aristocracy, just like that of chivalry, were to fall (and they were originally linked), Mr. Burke, the promoter of the Order, can keep up his parody until the end, finishing with exclaiming: "Othello's occupation's gone!"
Notwithstanding Mr. Burke's horrid paintings, when the French Revolution is compared with the Revolutions of other countries, the astonishment will be that it is marked with so few sacrifices; but this astonishment will cease when we reflect that principles, and not persons, were the meditated objects of destruction. The mind of the nation was acted upon by a higher stimulus than what the consideration of persons could inspire, and sought a higher conquest than could be produced by the downfall of an enemy. Among the few who fell there do not appear to be any that were intentionally singled out. They all of them had their fate in the circumstances of the moment, and were not pursued with that long, cold-blooded unabated revenge which pursued the unfortunate Scotch in the affair of 1745.
Despite Mr. Burke's awful paintings, when you compare the French Revolution to the revolutions in other countries, you'll be surprised by how few sacrifices it involved. However, this surprise fades when we realize that the focus was on principles, not individuals, as the targets of destruction. The country's mindset was driven by a greater motivation than just concerns about people, seeking a higher achievement than simply defeating an enemy. Among the few who died, there doesn’t seem to be anyone who was specifically targeted. Their fate depended on the circumstances of the moment, and they were not pursued with the same relentless, cold-blooded revenge that the unfortunate Scots faced in 1745.
Through the whole of Mr. Burke's book I do not observe that the Bastille is mentioned more than once, and that with a kind of implication as if he were sorry it was pulled down, and wished it were built up again. "We have rebuilt Newgate," says he, "and tenanted the mansion; and we have prisons almost as strong as the Bastille for those who dare to libel the queens of France."*2 As to what a madman like the person called Lord George Gordon might say, and to whom Newgate is rather a bedlam than a prison, it is unworthy a rational consideration. It was a madman that libelled, and that is sufficient apology; and it afforded an opportunity for confining him, which was the thing that was wished for. But certain it is that Mr. Burke, who does not call himself a madman (whatever other people may do), has libelled in the most unprovoked manner, and in the grossest style of the most vulgar abuse, the whole representative authority of France, and yet Mr. Burke takes his seat in the British House of Commons! From his violence and his grief, his silence on some points and his excess on others, it is difficult not to believe that Mr. Burke is sorry, extremely sorry, that arbitrary power, the power of the Pope and the Bastille, are pulled down.
Throughout Mr. Burke's book, I notice that the Bastille is mentioned only once, and even then it seems like he wishes it hadn't been destroyed and wants it to be rebuilt. "We have rebuilt Newgate," he says, "and filled the place; and we have prisons almost as strong as the Bastille for those who dare to slander the queens of France."*2 As for what a madman like Lord George Gordon might say, who finds Newgate more like a madhouse than a prison, it's not worth a rational discussion. It was a madman who libeled, and that's a good enough excuse; it gave a chance to lock him up, which was the goal. But it's clear that Mr. Burke, who doesn’t consider himself a madman (regardless of what others may think), has insulted the entire representative authority of France in the most unwarranted and vulgar way, yet Mr. Burke still sits in the British House of Commons! Due to his outbursts and sorrow, his silence on certain issues, and his excessive reaction to others, it's hard not to believe that Mr. Burke is very sorry that arbitrary power, the power of the Pope and the Bastille, has been brought down.
Not one glance of compassion, not one commiserating reflection that I can find throughout his book, has he bestowed on those who lingered out the most wretched of lives, a life without hope in the most miserable of prisons. It is painful to behold a man employing his talents to corrupt himself. Nature has been kinder to Mr. Burke than he is to her. He is not affected by the reality of distress touching his heart, but by the showy resemblance of it striking his imagination. He pities the plumage, but forgets the dying bird. Accustomed to kiss the aristocratical hand that hath purloined him from himself, he degenerates into a composition of art, and the genuine soul of nature forsakes him. His hero or his heroine must be a tragedy-victim expiring in show, and not the real prisoner of misery, sliding into death in the silence of a dungeon.
Not a single look of compassion, not one sympathetic thought I can find in his book, has he given to those who endure the most miserable lives, a life without hope in the worst kind of prisons. It’s painful to see a man using his talents to ruin himself. Nature has been kinder to Mr. Burke than he has been to her. He isn’t touched by the reality of suffering in his heart, but by the flashy appearance of it stirring his imagination. He feels sorry for the feathers, but forgets the dying bird. Used to kissing the aristocratic hand that has robbed him of himself, he turns into a mere creation of art, and the true spirit of nature leaves him. His hero or heroine must be a tragic victim dying in a show, and not the real prisoner of misery, slipping into death in the silence of a dungeon.
As Mr. Burke has passed over the whole transaction of the Bastille (and his silence is nothing in his favour), and has entertained his readers with refections on supposed facts distorted into real falsehoods, I will give, since he has not, some account of the circumstances which preceded that transaction. They will serve to show that less mischief could scarcely have accompanied such an event when considered with the treacherous and hostile aggravations of the enemies of the Revolution.
As Mr. Burke has ignored the entire event of the Bastille (and his silence doesn’t help his case), and has instead filled his readers’ heads with reflections on supposed facts twisted into actual falsehoods, I will provide, since he hasn’t, some details about the circumstances leading up to that event. These will demonstrate that minimal harm could have come from such an occurrence when weighed against the deceitful and hostile actions of the enemies of the Revolution.
The mind can hardly picture to itself a more tremendous scene than what the city of Paris exhibited at the time of taking the Bastille, and for two days before and after, nor perceive the possibility of its quieting so soon. At a distance this transaction has appeared only as an act of heroism standing on itself, and the close political connection it had with the Revolution is lost in the brilliancy of the achievement. But we are to consider it as the strength of the parties brought man to man, and contending for the issue. The Bastille was to be either the prize or the prison of the assailants. The downfall of it included the idea of the downfall of despotism, and this compounded image was become as figuratively united as Bunyan's Doubting Castle and Giant Despair.
The mind can hardly imagine a more intense scene than what the city of Paris displayed during the storming of the Bastille, and for two days before and after, nor can it grasp how things could settle down so quickly. From afar, this event has seemed like a standalone act of heroism, with its close political ties to the Revolution overshadowed by the brilliance of the achievement. But we must see it as the strength of opposing parties bringing people face-to-face, fighting for the outcome. The Bastille was either going to be the prize or the prison for the attackers. Its fall symbolized the downfall of tyranny, and this combined idea became as closely linked as Bunyan's Doubting Castle and Giant Despair.
The National Assembly, before and at the time of taking the Bastille, was sitting at Versailles, twelve miles distant from Paris. About a week before the rising of the Partisans, and their taking the Bastille, it was discovered that a plot was forming, at the head of which was the Count D'Artois, the king's youngest brother, for demolishing the National Assembly, seizing its members, and thereby crushing, by a coup de main, all hopes and prospects of forming a free government. For the sake of humanity, as well as freedom, it is well this plan did not succeed. Examples are not wanting to show how dreadfully vindictive and cruel are all old governments, when they are successful against what they call a revolt.
The National Assembly was meeting at Versailles, about twelve miles from Paris, before and when the Bastille was taken. About a week before the Partisans rose up and stormed the Bastille, a plot was uncovered that was led by Count D'Artois, the king's youngest brother. The plan was to dissolve the National Assembly, capture its members, and crush any hopes of establishing a free government in one swift move. It’s fortunate for humanity and freedom that this plan didn’t succeed. There are plenty of examples that show how harsh and ruthless old governments can be when they successfully suppress what they label a revolt.
This plan must have been some time in contemplation; because, in order to carry it into execution, it was necessary to collect a large military force round Paris, and cut off the communication between that city and the National Assembly at Versailles. The troops destined for this service were chiefly the foreign troops in the pay of France, and who, for this particular purpose, were drawn from the distant provinces where they were then stationed. When they were collected to the amount of between twenty-five and thirty thousand, it was judged time to put the plan into execution. The ministry who were then in office, and who were friendly to the Revolution, were instantly dismissed and a new ministry formed of those who had concerted the project, among whom was Count de Broglio, and to his share was given the command of those troops. The character of this man as described to me in a letter which I communicated to Mr. Burke before he began to write his book, and from an authority which Mr. Burke well knows was good, was that of "a high-flying aristocrat, cool, and capable of every mischief."
This plan must have been in the works for some time because, to execute it, a large military force had to be gathered around Paris and the communication between that city and the National Assembly in Versailles had to be cut off. The troops assigned to this task were mainly foreign soldiers paid by France, who were brought in from distant provinces where they were stationed. Once they gathered a force of about twenty-five to thirty thousand, it was considered the right time to carry out the plan. The government in power at that time, which was supportive of the Revolution, was quickly dismissed and a new government was formed with those who had devised the scheme, including Count de Broglio, who was given command of the troops. The description of this man, shared with me in a letter I sent to Mr. Burke before he started writing his book, came from a reliable source that Mr. Burke is well aware of, characterizing him as "a high-flying aristocrat, cool, and capable of every mischief."
While these matters were agitating, the National Assembly stood in the most perilous and critical situation that a body of men can be supposed to act in. They were the devoted victims, and they knew it. They had the hearts and wishes of their country on their side, but military authority they had none. The guards of Broglio surrounded the hall where the Assembly sat, ready, at the word of command, to seize their persons, as had been done the year before to the Parliament of Paris. Had the National Assembly deserted their trust, or had they exhibited signs of weakness or fear, their enemies had been encouraged and their country depressed. When the situation they stood in, the cause they were engaged in, and the crisis then ready to burst, which should determine their personal and political fate and that of their country, and probably of Europe, are taken into one view, none but a heart callous with prejudice or corrupted by dependence can avoid interesting itself in their success.
While these issues were troubling, the National Assembly found itself in the most dangerous and critical situation possible. They were the devoted victims, and they knew it. They had the support and hopes of their country behind them, but they had no military power. The guards of Broglio surrounded the hall where the Assembly met, ready to arrest them on command, just as they had done the year before to the Parliament of Paris. If the National Assembly had abandoned their duty or shown any signs of weakness or fear, they would have emboldened their enemies and let down their country. Considering the situation they were in, the cause they were fighting for, and the imminent crisis that would decide their personal and political future, as well as that of their country—and possibly Europe—anyone not blinded by bias or tainted by dependency would surely be invested in their success.
The Archbishop of Vienne was at this time President of the National Assembly—a person too old to undergo the scene that a few days or a few hours might bring forth. A man of more activity and bolder fortitude was necessary, and the National Assembly chose (under the form of a Vice-President, for the Presidency still resided in the Archbishop) M. de la Fayette; and this is the only instance of a Vice-President being chosen. It was at the moment that this storm was pending (July 11th) that a declaration of rights was brought forward by M. de la Fayette, and is the same which is alluded to earlier. It was hastily drawn up, and makes only a part of the more extensive declaration of rights agreed upon and adopted afterwards by the National Assembly. The particular reason for bringing it forward at this moment (M. de la Fayette has since informed me) was that, if the National Assembly should fall in the threatened destruction that then surrounded it, some trace of its principles might have the chance of surviving the wreck.
The Archbishop of Vienne was, at that time, the President of the National Assembly—a person too old to handle the upheaval that could come within days or even hours. A more active and courageous leader was needed, so the National Assembly appointed M. de la Fayette as Vice-President (since the presidency still belonged to the Archbishop). This is the only case of a Vice-President being appointed. It was during this turbulent moment (July 11th) that M. de la Fayette presented a declaration of rights, which is the same one mentioned earlier. It was put together quickly and is only part of the broader declaration of rights that the National Assembly later agreed upon and adopted. The specific reason for introducing it at that time (as M. de la Fayette later told me) was so that if the National Assembly should face the imminent destruction surrounding it, some record of its principles might survive the chaos.
Everything now was drawing to a crisis. The event was freedom or slavery. On one side, an army of nearly thirty thousand men; on the other, an unarmed body of citizens—for the citizens of Paris, on whom the National Assembly must then immediately depend, were as unarmed and as undisciplined as the citizens of London are now. The French guards had given strong symptoms of their being attached to the national cause; but their numbers were small, not a tenth part of the force that Broglio commanded, and their officers were in the interest of Broglio.
Everything was coming to a head. The choice was between freedom and slavery. On one side, there was an army of nearly thirty thousand men; on the other, an unarmed group of citizens—because the citizens of Paris, whom the National Assembly had to rely on, were just as unarmed and undisciplined as the citizens of London are today. The French guards showed clear signs of supporting the national cause; however, their numbers were small, not even a tenth of Broglio's forces, and their officers were on Broglio's side.
Matters being now ripe for execution, the new ministry made their appearance in office. The reader will carry in his mind that the Bastille was taken the 14th July; the point of time I am now speaking of is the 12th. Immediately on the news of the change of ministry reaching Paris, in the afternoon, all the playhouses and places of entertainment, shops and houses, were shut up. The change of ministry was considered as the prelude of hostilities, and the opinion was rightly founded.
Things were now ready to move forward, and the new government took office. Keep in mind that the Bastille was stormed on July 14th; the time I'm talking about is the 12th. As soon as the news of the new ministry reached Paris in the afternoon, all theaters, entertainment venues, shops, and homes were closed. The shift in government was seen as a sign of impending conflict, and that belief turned out to be accurate.
The foreign troops began to advance towards the city. The Prince de Lambesc, who commanded a body of German cavalry, approached by the Place of Louis Xv., which connects itself with some of the streets. In his march, he insulted and struck an old man with a sword. The French are remarkable for their respect to old age; and the insolence with which it appeared to be done, uniting with the general fermentation they were in, produced a powerful effect, and a cry of "To arms! to arms!" spread itself in a moment over the city.
The foreign troops started advancing toward the city. The Prince de Lambesc, who was in charge of a group of German cavalry, approached through the Place of Louis XV, which connects to several streets. During his march, he insulted and struck an old man with a sword. The French are known for their respect for the elderly, and the audacity with which this was done, combined with the general unrest in the city, had a strong impact, causing the cry of "To arms! To arms!" to quickly spread throughout the city.
Arms they had none, nor scarcely anyone who knew the use of them; but desperate resolution, when every hope is at stake, supplies, for a while, the want of arms. Near where the Prince de Lambesc was drawn up, were large piles of stones collected for building the new bridge, and with these the people attacked the cavalry. A party of French guards upon hearing the firing, rushed from their quarters and joined the people; and night coming on, the cavalry retreated.
They had no weapons, and hardly anyone who knew how to use them; but in desperate situations, when all hope is lost, determination can temporarily make up for the lack of arms. Close to where the Prince de Lambesc was stationed, there were big piles of stones gathered for building the new bridge, and the people used them to attack the cavalry. A group of French guards, upon hearing the gunfire, rushed out of their quarters and joined the crowd; and as night fell, the cavalry retreated.
The streets of Paris, being narrow, are favourable for defence, and the loftiness of the houses, consisting of many stories, from which great annoyance might be given, secured them against nocturnal enterprises; and the night was spent in providing themselves with every sort of weapon they could make or procure: guns, swords, blacksmiths' hammers, carpenters' axes, iron crows, pikes, halberts, pitchforks, spits, clubs, etc., etc. The incredible numbers in which they assembled the next morning, and the still more incredible resolution they exhibited, embarrassed and astonished their enemies. Little did the new ministry expect such a salute. Accustomed to slavery themselves, they had no idea that liberty was capable of such inspiration, or that a body of unarmed citizens would dare to face the military force of thirty thousand men. Every moment of this day was employed in collecting arms, concerting plans, and arranging themselves into the best order which such an instantaneous movement could afford. Broglio continued lying round the city, but made no further advances this day, and the succeeding night passed with as much tranquility as such a scene could possibly produce.
The narrow streets of Paris were great for defense, and the tall houses, with their many stories, provided a good vantage point to fend off night attacks. They spent the night gathering every kind of weapon they could make or get their hands on: guns, swords, blacksmith hammers, carpenters' axes, crowbars, pikes, halberds, pitchforks, spits, clubs, and more. The huge numbers that assembled the next morning, along with their astonishing determination, shocked and confused their enemies. The new government had no idea what was coming. Used to oppression themselves, they couldn’t fathom that the spirit of freedom could inspire such action, or that a group of unarmed citizens would stand up to a military force of thirty thousand. Every moment of that day was spent gathering weapons, making plans, and organizing themselves as best they could in such a short time. Broglio stayed around the city but didn’t make any further moves that day, and the following night passed as peacefully as a scene like that could allow.
But defence only was not the object of the citizens. They had a cause at stake, on which depended their freedom or their slavery. They every moment expected an attack, or to hear of one made on the National Assembly; and in such a situation, the most prompt measures are sometimes the best. The object that now presented itself was the Bastille; and the eclat of carrying such a fortress in the face of such an army, could not fail to strike terror into the new ministry, who had scarcely yet had time to meet. By some intercepted correspondence this morning, it was discovered that the Mayor of Paris, M. Defflesselles, who appeared to be in the interest of the citizens, was betraying them; and from this discovery, there remained no doubt that Broglio would reinforce the Bastille the ensuing evening. It was therefore necessary to attack it that day; but before this could be done, it was first necessary to procure a better supply of arms than they were then possessed of.
But defense wasn’t the only goal of the citizens. They were fighting for their freedom, not for slavery. At any moment, they expected an attack or news of one on the National Assembly; in such situations, quick action is often the best response. The target that now presented itself was the Bastille, and the prestige of capturing such a fortress in front of such a large army would certainly instill fear in the new government, which had barely had time to convene. This morning, some intercepted correspondence revealed that the Mayor of Paris, M. Defflesselles, who seemed to support the citizens, was actually betraying them; and from this discovery, it became clear that Broglio would send reinforcements to the Bastille that evening. Therefore, it was necessary to attack that day, but first, they needed to obtain better weapons than what they currently had.
There was, adjoining to the city a large magazine of arms deposited at the Hospital of the Invalids, which the citizens summoned to surrender; and as the place was neither defensible, nor attempted much defence, they soon succeeded. Thus supplied, they marched to attack the Bastille; a vast mixed multitude of all ages, and of all degrees, armed with all sorts of weapons. Imagination would fail in describing to itself the appearance of such a procession, and of the anxiety of the events which a few hours or a few minutes might produce. What plans the ministry were forming, were as unknown to the people within the city, as what the citizens were doing was unknown to the ministry; and what movements Broglio might make for the support or relief of the place, were to the citizens equally as unknown. All was mystery and hazard.
Adjacent to the city was a large store of weapons located at the Hospital of the Invalids, which the citizens called on to surrender; and since the place was not defensible and did not put up much of a fight, they quickly succeeded. Armed with all sorts of weapons, they marched to attack the Bastille, a massive crowd of people of all ages and backgrounds. It’s hard to fully imagine the sight of such a procession and the anxiety about what could happen in just a few hours or even minutes. The plans being made by the government were just as unknown to the people in the city as the actions of the citizens were to the government; and any moves that Broglio might make for the support or relief of the place were equally unknown to the citizens. Everything was shrouded in mystery and risk.
That the Bastille was attacked with an enthusiasm of heroism, such only as the highest animation of liberty could inspire, and carried in the space of a few hours, is an event which the world is fully possessed of. I am not undertaking the detail of the attack, but bringing into view the conspiracy against the nation which provoked it, and which fell with the Bastille. The prison to which the new ministry were dooming the National Assembly, in addition to its being the high altar and castle of despotism, became the proper object to begin with. This enterprise broke up the new ministry, who began now to fly from the ruin they had prepared for others. The troops of Broglio dispersed, and himself fled also.
The attack on the Bastille was fueled by a heroic enthusiasm, inspired only by the highest excitement for freedom, and it was taken in just a few hours—an event that the world is well aware of. I'm not here to go into the details of the attack but to highlight the conspiracy against the nation that triggered it and fell with the Bastille. The prison that the new government sentenced the National Assembly to, besides being the ultimate symbol of tyranny, became the logical starting point. This operation dismantled the new government, which began to flee from the disaster they had orchestrated for others. Broglio's troops scattered, and he fled as well.
Mr. Burke has spoken a great deal about plots, but he has never once spoken of this plot against the National Assembly, and the liberties of the nation; and that he might not, he has passed over all the circumstances that might throw it in his way. The exiles who have fled from France, whose case he so much interests himself in, and from whom he has had his lesson, fled in consequence of the miscarriage of this plot. No plot was formed against them; they were plotting against others; and those who fell, met, not unjustly, the punishment they were preparing to execute. But will Mr. Burke say that if this plot, contrived with the subtilty of an ambuscade, had succeeded, the successful party would have restrained their wrath so soon? Let the history of all governments answer the question.
Mr. Burke has talked a lot about various plots, but he has never once mentioned this plot against the National Assembly and the freedoms of the nation; and to avoid doing so, he has ignored all the circumstances that could have revealed it. The exiles who fled France, whom he claims to care so much about and from whom he has learned, escaped because this plot fell apart. There was no plot against them; they were scheming against others; and those who were defeated faced, perhaps rightly, the consequences of their actions. But will Mr. Burke argue that if this plot, designed with the cleverness of an ambush, had succeeded, the winning side would have held back their anger for long? Let the history of all governments respond to that question.
Whom has the National Assembly brought to the scaffold? None. They were themselves the devoted victims of this plot, and they have not retaliated; why, then, are they charged with revenge they have not acted? In the tremendous breaking forth of a whole people, in which all degrees, tempers and characters are confounded, delivering themselves, by a miracle of exertion, from the destruction meditated against them, is it to be expected that nothing will happen? When men are sore with the sense of oppressions, and menaced with the prospects of new ones, is the calmness of philosophy or the palsy of insensibility to be looked for? Mr. Burke exclaims against outrage; yet the greatest is that which himself has committed. His book is a volume of outrage, not apologised for by the impulse of a moment, but cherished through a space of ten months; yet Mr. Burke had no provocation—no life, no interest, at stake.
Who has the National Assembly brought to the scaffold? No one. They were actually the innocent victims of this plot, and they haven't retaliated; so why are they accused of seeking revenge when they haven't acted? In the overwhelming uprising of an entire people, where all kinds of backgrounds, moods, and personalities are mixed together, liberating themselves, through a miraculous effort, from the destruction planned against them, can we really expect nothing to happen? When people are hurting from oppression and facing the threat of new ones, can we ask for the calmness of philosophy or the paralysis of indifference? Mr. Burke cries out against violence; yet the greatest violence is the one he has committed. His book is full of outrage, not just a momentary impulse, but nurtured over ten months; yet Mr. Burke had no provocation—no life, no interest, at stake.
More of the citizens fell in this struggle than of their opponents: but four or five persons were seized by the populace, and instantly put to death; the Governor of the Bastille, and the Mayor of Paris, who was detected in the act of betraying them; and afterwards Foulon, one of the new ministry, and Berthier, his son-in-law, who had accepted the office of intendant of Paris. Their heads were stuck upon spikes, and carried about the city; and it is upon this mode of punishment that Mr. Burke builds a great part of his tragic scene. Let us therefore examine how men came by the idea of punishing in this manner.
More citizens died in this conflict than their opponents: however, four or five individuals were captured by the crowd and quickly executed; among them were the Governor of the Bastille and the Mayor of Paris, who was caught betraying them. Later, Foulon, a member of the new government, and Berthier, his son-in-law who had taken the position of intendant of Paris, were also killed. Their heads were placed on spikes and paraded around the city; this method of punishment is a significant element of the tragic scene that Mr. Burke describes. So, let's explore how people came to the idea of punishing this way.
They learn it from the governments they live under; and retaliate the punishments they have been accustomed to behold. The heads stuck upon spikes, which remained for years upon Temple Bar, differed nothing in the horror of the scene from those carried about upon spikes at Paris; yet this was done by the English Government. It may perhaps be said that it signifies nothing to a man what is done to him after he is dead; but it signifies much to the living; it either tortures their feelings or hardens their hearts, and in either case it instructs them how to punish when power falls into their hands.
They learn it from the governments they are under and retaliate against the punishments they’ve seen before. The heads on spikes that stayed for years at Temple Bar were no less horrifying than those displayed on spikes in Paris; yet this was done by the English government. Some might say it doesn’t matter to a person what happens to them after they die, but it means a lot to the living; it either torments their emotions or toughens their hearts, and in either case, it teaches them how to punish when they gain power.
Lay then the axe to the root, and teach governments humanity. It is their sanguinary punishments which corrupt mankind. In England the punishment in certain cases is by hanging, drawing and quartering; the heart of the sufferer is cut out and held up to the view of the populace. In France, under the former Government, the punishments were not less barbarous. Who does not remember the execution of Damien, torn to pieces by horses? The effect of those cruel spectacles exhibited to the populace is to destroy tenderness or excite revenge; and by the base and false idea of governing men by terror, instead of reason, they become precedents. It is over the lowest class of mankind that government by terror is intended to operate, and it is on them that it operates to the worst effect. They have sense enough to feel they are the objects aimed at; and they inflict in their turn the examples of terror they have been instructed to practise.
Cut to the chase and teach governments to show humanity. It's their brutal punishments that corrupt society. In England, some punishments involve hanging, drawing, and quartering; the heart of the victim is cut out and displayed for everyone to see. In France, under the old regime, the punishments were just as savage. Who can forget the execution of Damien, who was torn apart by horses? The impact of these cruel spectacles on the public is to numb compassion or stir up revenge, and through the misguided and false idea of ruling people by fear rather than reason, they become examples to follow. This terror-based governance is meant to target the lowest classes, and it hits them the hardest. They understand they're the ones being targeted, and they, in turn, carry out the acts of terror they've been taught to do.
There is in all European countries a large class of people of that description, which in England is called the "mob." Of this class were those who committed the burnings and devastations in London in 1780, and of this class were those who carried the heads on iron spikes in Paris. Foulon and Berthier were taken up in the country, and sent to Paris, to undergo their examination at the Hotel de Ville; for the National Assembly, immediately on the new ministry coming into office, passed a decree, which they communicated to the King and Cabinet, that they (the National Assembly) would hold the ministry, of which Foulon was one, responsible for the measures they were advising and pursuing; but the mob, incensed at the appearance of Foulon and Berthier, tore them from their conductors before they were carried to the Hotel de Ville, and executed them on the spot. Why then does Mr. Burke charge outrages of this kind on a whole people? As well may he charge the riots and outrages of 1780 on all the people of London, or those in Ireland on all his countrymen.
In every European country, there is a large group of people that in England is referred to as the "mob." This group included those who set fires and caused destruction in London in 1780, as well as those who displayed heads on iron spikes in Paris. Foulon and Berthier were arrested in the countryside and sent to Paris for questioning at the Hotel de Ville; the National Assembly, right after the new ministry took office, issued a decree informing the King and Cabinet that they (the National Assembly) would hold the ministry, including Foulon, accountable for the actions they were considering and implementing. However, the mob, furious at the sight of Foulon and Berthier, seized them from their captors before they reached the Hotel de Ville and executed them on the spot. So why does Mr. Burke blame such violence on an entire population? He might as well blame the riots and mayhem of 1780 on all the people of London or the unrest in Ireland on all of his fellow countrymen.
But everything we see or hear offensive to our feelings and derogatory to the human character should lead to other reflections than those of reproach. Even the beings who commit them have some claim to our consideration. How then is it that such vast classes of mankind as are distinguished by the appellation of the vulgar, or the ignorant mob, are so numerous in all old countries? The instant we ask ourselves this question, reflection feels an answer. They rise, as an unavoidable consequence, out of the ill construction of all old governments in Europe, England included with the rest. It is by distortedly exalting some men, that others are distortedly debased, till the whole is out of nature. A vast mass of mankind are degradedly thrown into the back-ground of the human picture, to bring forward, with greater glare, the puppet-show of state and aristocracy. In the commencement of a revolution, those men are rather the followers of the camp than of the standard of liberty, and have yet to be instructed how to reverence it.
But everything we see or hear that offends our feelings and disrespects human character should prompt reflections beyond just blame. Even the people who commit such acts deserve some consideration. So why are there so many large groups of people referred to as the vulgar or the ignorant mob in all old countries? The moment we ask ourselves this question, reflection provides an answer. They arise, as an unavoidable result, from the poor structure of all old governments in Europe, England included. By unfairly promoting some individuals, others are unfairly pushed down, resulting in a complete distortion of nature. A vast number of people are shamefully pushed to the background of the human picture to highlight the spectacle of state and aristocracy. At the start of a revolution, these individuals are more followers of the camp than of the banner of liberty, and they still need to learn how to respect it.
I give to Mr. Burke all his theatrical exaggerations for facts, and I then ask him if they do not establish the certainty of what I here lay down? Admitting them to be true, they show the necessity of the French Revolution, as much as any one thing he could have asserted. These outrages were not the effect of the principles of the Revolution, but of the degraded mind that existed before the Revolution, and which the Revolution is calculated to reform. Place them then to their proper cause, and take the reproach of them to your own side.
I accept Mr. Burke's theatrical exaggerations as facts, and I then ask him if they don't prove the truth of what I'm stating here. If we consider them true, they clearly demonstrate the necessity of the French Revolution, just as any argument he could have made. These outrages weren't caused by the principles of the Revolution, but rather by the degraded mindset that existed before it, which the Revolution aims to change. So, assign them to their actual cause, and take the blame for them on your own side.
It is the honour of the National Assembly and the city of Paris that, during such a tremendous scene of arms and confusion, beyond the control of all authority, they have been able, by the influence of example and exhortation, to restrain so much. Never were more pains taken to instruct and enlighten mankind, and to make them see that their interest consisted in their virtue, and not in their revenge, than have been displayed in the Revolution of France. I now proceed to make some remarks on Mr. Burke's account of the expedition to Versailles, October the 5th and 6th.
It is a privilege for the National Assembly and the city of Paris that, during such a chaotic time of conflict and confusion, when everything seemed out of control, they managed, through the power of example and encouragement, to limit so much. Never has there been more effort to educate and enlighten people, helping them realize that their true interest lies in their virtue, not in their desire for revenge, than what was shown during the French Revolution. I will now share some thoughts on Mr. Burke's description of the events in Versailles on October 5th and 6th.
I can consider Mr. Burke's book in scarcely any other light than a dramatic performance; and he must, I think, have considered it in the same light himself, by the poetical liberties he has taken of omitting some facts, distorting others, and making the whole machinery bend to produce a stage effect. Of this kind is his account of the expedition to Versailles. He begins this account by omitting the only facts which as causes are known to be true; everything beyond these is conjecture, even in Paris; and he then works up a tale accommodated to his own passions and prejudices.
I can only view Mr. Burke's book as a dramatic performance, and I believe he viewed it that way too, considering the poetic liberties he's taken by leaving out certain facts, twisting others, and shaping everything to create a theatrical effect. His account of the expedition to Versailles is a prime example of this. He starts by leaving out the only true facts that are known to be the causes; everything else is just speculation, even in Paris. Then he fabricates a story that fits his own emotions and biases.
It is to be observed throughout Mr. Burke's book that he never speaks of plots against the Revolution; and it is from those plots that all the mischiefs have arisen. It suits his purpose to exhibit the consequences without their causes. It is one of the arts of the drama to do so. If the crimes of men were exhibited with their sufferings, stage effect would sometimes be lost, and the audience would be inclined to approve where it was intended they should commiserate.
It’s noticeable throughout Mr. Burke's book that he never mentions the conspiracies against the Revolution, and it’s from those conspiracies that all the problems have come. He prefers to show the outcomes without the reasons behind them. This is a technique often used in drama. If people's crimes were shown alongside their suffering, the dramatic effect might sometimes be diminished, and the audience might end up sympathizing where they were meant to feel pity.
After all the investigations that have been made into this intricate affair (the expedition to Versailles), it still remains enveloped in all that kind of mystery which ever accompanies events produced more from a concurrence of awkward circumstances than from fixed design. While the characters of men are forming, as is always the case in revolutions, there is a reciprocal suspicion, and a disposition to misinterpret each other; and even parties directly opposite in principle will sometimes concur in pushing forward the same movement with very different views, and with the hopes of its producing very different consequences. A great deal of this may be discovered in this embarrassed affair, and yet the issue of the whole was what nobody had in view.
After all the investigations into this complicated situation (the expedition to Versailles), it still remains wrapped in that kind of mystery that always surrounds events resulting more from a series of unfortunate circumstances than from a set plan. While people's characters are being shaped, as is typical during revolutions, there's mutual suspicion and a tendency to misunderstand one another; even opposing parties with different principles can sometimes unite to advance the same cause with very different intentions, hoping for very different outcomes. A lot of this can be seen in this confusing situation, yet the outcome was something no one anticipated.
The only things certainly known are that considerable uneasiness was at this time excited at Paris by the delay of the King in not sanctioning and forwarding the decrees of the National Assembly, particularly that of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the decrees of the fourth of August, which contained the foundation principles on which the constitution was to be erected. The kindest, and perhaps the fairest conjecture upon this matter is, that some of the ministers intended to make remarks and observations upon certain parts of them before they were finally sanctioned and sent to the provinces; but be this as it may, the enemies of the Revolution derived hope from the delay, and the friends of the Revolution uneasiness.
The only things that were definitely known at this time were that there was significant unease in Paris about the King’s delay in approving and sending out the decrees from the National Assembly, especially the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the decrees from August 4th, which laid the foundational principles for the upcoming constitution. The kindest and perhaps fairest interpretation of this situation is that some ministers wanted to comment on certain aspects of these decrees before they were officially approved and sent out to the provinces. Regardless, the enemies of the Revolution found hope in the delay, while the supporters of the Revolution felt anxious.
During this state of suspense, the Garde du Corps, which was composed as such regiments generally are, of persons much connected with the Court, gave an entertainment at Versailles (October 1) to some foreign regiments then arrived; and when the entertainment was at the height, on a signal given, the Garde du Corps tore the national cockade from their hats, trampled it under foot, and replaced it with a counter-cockade prepared for the purpose. An indignity of this kind amounted to defiance. It was like declaring war; and if men will give challenges they must expect consequences. But all this Mr. Burke has carefully kept out of sight. He begins his account by saying: "History will record that on the morning of the 6th October, 1789, the King and Queen of France, after a day of confusion, alarm, dismay, and slaughter, lay down under the pledged security of public faith to indulge nature in a few hours of respite, and troubled melancholy repose." This is neither the sober style of history, nor the intention of it. It leaves everything to be guessed at and mistaken. One would at least think there had been a battle; and a battle there probably would have been had it not been for the moderating prudence of those whom Mr. Burke involves in his censures. By his keeping the Garde du Corps out of sight Mr. Burke has afforded himself the dramatic licence of putting the King and Queen in their places, as if the object of the expedition was against them. But to return to my account this conduct of the Garde du Corps, as might well be expected, alarmed and enraged the Partisans. The colors of the cause, and the cause itself, were become too united to mistake the intention of the insult, and the Partisans were determined to call the Garde du Corps to an account. There was certainly nothing of the cowardice of assassination in marching in the face of the day to demand satisfaction, if such a phrase may be used, of a body of armed men who had voluntarily given defiance. But the circumstance which serves to throw this affair into embarrassment is, that the enemies of the Revolution appear to have encouraged it as well as its friends. The one hoped to prevent a civil war by checking it in time, and the other to make one. The hopes of those opposed to the Revolution rested in making the King of their party, and getting him from Versailles to Metz, where they expected to collect a force and set up a standard. We have, therefore, two different objects presenting themselves at the same time, and to be accomplished by the same means: the one to chastise the Garde du Corps, which was the object of the Partisans; the other to render the confusion of such a scene an inducement to the King to set off for Metz.
During this tense situation, the Garde du Corps, made up of people closely linked to the Court, hosted an event at Versailles (October 1) for some foreign regiments that had just arrived. When the entertainment was at its peak, following a signal, the Garde du Corps tore the national cockade from their hats, trampled it underfoot, and replaced it with a counter-cockade they had prepared. This act was a blatant defiance, similar to declaring war; if people issue challenges, they must be ready for the consequences. However, Mr. Burke conveniently ignores this. He starts his account by saying: "History will record that on the morning of the 6th October, 1789, the King and Queen of France, after a day of confusion, alarm, dismay, and slaughter, lay down under the pledged security of public faith to indulge nature in a few hours of respite, and troubled melancholy repose." This isn’t a sober historical style, nor does it serve the purpose of history. It leaves everything up for interpretation and misunderstanding. One might think there had been a battle, and there likely would have been if it weren't for the moderating prudence of those Mr. Burke criticizes. By leaving the Garde du Corps out of the picture, Mr. Burke gives himself the dramatic license to place the King and Queen in their positions, as if the expedition was aimed at them. But to return to my account, this behavior of the Garde du Corps understandably alarmed and infuriated the Partisans. The colors of the cause, along with the cause itself, had become too intertwined to misinterpret the intention behind the insult, and the Partisans were set on holding the Garde du Corps accountable. Marching openly to demand satisfaction from a group of armed men who had willingly issued a challenge certainly lacked the cowardice of assassination. However, what complicates this situation is that both the enemies of the Revolution and its supporters seemed to encourage it. One side hoped to prevent a civil war by intervening in time, while the other aimed to instigate one. The opponents of the Revolution were counting on winning over the King to their side and transporting him from Versailles to Metz, where they planned to gather forces and raise a standard. Therefore, we have two conflicting objectives appearing at the same time and aimed to be achieved through the same means: one was to punish the Garde du Corps, as the Partisans intended, while the other was to turn the chaos of the moment into an incentive for the King to head to Metz.
On the 5th of October a very numerous body of women, and men in the disguise of women, collected around the Hotel de Ville or town-hall at Paris, and set off for Versailles. Their professed object was the Garde du Corps; but prudent men readily recollect that mischief is more easily begun than ended; and this impressed itself with the more force from the suspicions already stated, and the irregularity of such a cavalcade. As soon, therefore, as a sufficient force could be collected, M. de la Fayette, by orders from the civil authority of Paris, set off after them at the head of twenty thousand of the Paris militia. The Revolution could derive no benefit from confusion, and its opposers might. By an amiable and spirited manner of address he had hitherto been fortunate in calming disquietudes, and in this he was extraordinarily successful; to frustrate, therefore, the hopes of those who might seek to improve this scene into a sort of justifiable necessity for the King's quitting Versailles and withdrawing to Metz, and to prevent at the same time the consequences that might ensue between the Garde du Corps and this phalanx of men and women, he forwarded expresses to the King, that he was on his march to Versailles, by the orders of the civil authority of Paris, for the purpose of peace and protection, expressing at the same time the necessity of restraining the Garde du Corps from firing upon the people.*3
On October 5th, a large group of women, along with men disguised as women, gathered around the Hotel de Ville, or town hall, in Paris and set off for Versailles. Their stated goal was the Garde du Corps, but wise men knew that trouble is easier to start than to stop, and this became even more apparent given the suspicions already raised and the unusual nature of such a gathering. Therefore, as soon as a sufficient force could be gathered, M. de la Fayette, following orders from the civil authority of Paris, set out after them leading twenty thousand Paris militia. The Revolution had nothing to gain from chaos, but its opponents might. M. de la Fayette had been notably successful in calming tensions with his friendly and spirited communication, and he aimed to continue this success. He sought to thwart the hopes of those who might want to twist this situation into a justified reason for the King to leave Versailles and retreat to Metz, while also preventing any potential conflict between the Garde du Corps and this group of men and women. He sent messages to the King informing him that he was marching to Versailles under the orders of the civil authority of Paris for the sake of peace and protection, while emphasizing the need to prevent the Garde du Corps from firing on the people.*3
He arrived at Versailles between ten and eleven at night. The Garde du Corps was drawn up, and the people had arrived some time before, but everything had remained suspended. Wisdom and policy now consisted in changing a scene of danger into a happy event. M. de la Fayette became the mediator between the enraged parties; and the King, to remove the uneasiness which had arisen from the delay already stated, sent for the President of the National Assembly, and signed the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and such other parts of the constitution as were in readiness.
He got to Versailles between ten and eleven at night. The Garde du Corps was lined up, and the crowd had gathered a while earlier, but everything had been on hold. The smart move now was to turn a situation of danger into a positive event. M. de la Fayette stepped in as the mediator between the angry parties; and to ease the tension caused by the earlier delay, the King called for the President of the National Assembly and signed the Declaration of the Rights of Man, along with other parts of the constitution that were prepared.
It was now about one in the morning. Everything appeared to be composed, and a general congratulation took place. By the beat of a drum a proclamation was made that the citizens of Versailles would give the hospitality of their houses to their fellow-citizens of Paris. Those who could not be accommodated in this manner remained in the streets, or took up their quarters in the churches; and at two o'clock the King and Queen retired.
It was now around one in the morning. Everything seemed calm, and there was a general feeling of celebration. A drumbeat announced that the people of Versailles would open their homes to their fellow citizens from Paris. Those who couldn't find a place to stay either stayed in the streets or settled in the churches; and at two o'clock, the King and Queen went to bed.
In this state matters passed till the break of day, when a fresh disturbance arose from the censurable conduct of some of both parties, for such characters there will be in all such scenes. One of the Garde du Corps appeared at one of the windows of the palace, and the people who had remained during the night in the streets accosted him with reviling and provocative language. Instead of retiring, as in such a case prudence would have dictated, he presented his musket, fired, and killed one of the Paris militia. The peace being thus broken, the people rushed into the palace in quest of the offender. They attacked the quarters of the Garde du Corps within the palace, and pursued them throughout the avenues of it, and to the apartments of the King. On this tumult, not the Queen only, as Mr. Burke has represented it, but every person in the palace, was awakened and alarmed; and M. de la Fayette had a second time to interpose between the parties, the event of which was that the Garde du Corps put on the national cockade, and the matter ended as by oblivion, after the loss of two or three lives.
Things went on like this until dawn, when a new disturbance arose due to the inappropriate behavior of some people from both sides—there are always those kinds of characters in such situations. A member of the Garde du Corps appeared at one of the palace windows, and the people who had stayed in the streets all night yelled insults and provoked him. Instead of backing off, which would have been the sensible thing to do, he aimed his musket, fired, and shot one of the Paris militia. With the peace shattered, the crowd stormed into the palace looking for the shooter. They attacked the quarters of the Garde du Corps inside the palace, chasing them through the hallways and into the King’s rooms. This chaos didn’t just wake up the Queen, as Mr. Burke suggested; it alarmed everyone in the palace. M. de la Fayette had to step in again between the groups, and ultimately the Garde du Corps put on the national cockade, and the whole situation faded away, after a couple of lives were lost.
During the latter part of the time in which this confusion was acting, the King and Queen were in public at the balcony, and neither of them concealed for safety's sake, as Mr. Burke insinuates. Matters being thus appeased, and tranquility restored, a general acclamation broke forth of Le Roi a Paris—Le Roi a Paris—The King to Paris. It was the shout of peace, and immediately accepted on the part of the King. By this measure all future projects of trapanning the King to Metz, and setting up the standard of opposition to the constitution, were prevented, and the suspicions extinguished. The King and his family reached Paris in the evening, and were congratulated on their arrival by M. Bailly, the Mayor of Paris, in the name of the citizens. Mr. Burke, who throughout his book confounds things, persons, and principles, as in his remarks on M. Bailly's address, confounded time also. He censures M. Bailly for calling it "un bon jour," a good day. Mr. Burke should have informed himself that this scene took up the space of two days, the day on which it began with every appearance of danger and mischief, and the day on which it terminated without the mischiefs that threatened; and that it is to this peaceful termination that M. Bailly alludes, and to the arrival of the King at Paris. Not less than three hundred thousand persons arranged themselves in the procession from Versailles to Paris, and not an act of molestation was committed during the whole march.
During the later part of the time when this confusion was happening, the King and Queen were out on the balcony, and neither of them hid for safety, as Mr. Burke suggests. With things calmed down and peace restored, a loud cheer erupted of "Le Roi à Paris—Le Roi à Paris—The King to Paris." It was a shout for peace, which the King immediately accepted. This move prevented any future plans to trick the King into Metz and to set up opposition to the constitution, putting an end to the suspicions. The King and his family arrived in Paris in the evening and were welcomed by M. Bailly, the Mayor of Paris, on behalf of the citizens. Mr. Burke, who throughout his book mixes up things, people, and ideas, as seen in his comments on M. Bailly's address, also mixed up time. He criticizes M. Bailly for calling it "un bon jour," a good day. Mr. Burke should have realized that this event spanned two days: the day it began with signs of danger and trouble, and the day it ended without the expected trouble; and it is to this peaceful ending that M. Bailly refers, as well as the King's arrival in Paris. No fewer than three hundred thousand people gathered in the procession from Versailles to Paris, and there was not a single act of disruption during the entire march.
Mr. Burke on the authority of M. Lally Tollendal, a deserter from the National Assembly, says that on entering Paris, the people shouted "Tous les eveques a la lanterne." All Bishops to be hanged at the lanthorn or lamp-posts. It is surprising that nobody could hear this but Lally Tollendal, and that nobody should believe it but Mr. Burke. It has not the least connection with any part of the transaction, and is totally foreign to every circumstance of it. The Bishops had never been introduced before into any scene of Mr. Burke's drama: why then are they, all at once, and altogether, tout a coup, et tous ensemble, introduced now? Mr. Burke brings forward his Bishops and his lanthorn-like figures in a magic lanthorn, and raises his scenes by contrast instead of connection. But it serves to show, with the rest of his book what little credit ought to be given where even probability is set at defiance, for the purpose of defaming; and with this reflection, instead of a soliloquy in praise of chivalry, as Mr. Burke has done, I close the account of the expedition to Versailles.*4
Mr. Burke, citing M. Lally Tollendal, a defector from the National Assembly, claims that when people entered Paris, they shouted "All bishops to the lamppost." It’s hard to believe that only Lally Tollendal heard this and that Mr. Burke is the only one who believes it. This has nothing to do with the whole situation and doesn’t relate to any aspect of it. The bishops were never involved in any part of Mr. Burke's narrative; so why are they suddenly being introduced now, all at once? Mr. Burke pulls in his bishops and lamp-like figures as if they’re part of a magic lantern show, using contrast instead of connection to build his scenes. But it illustrates, along with the rest of his book, how little credibility one should give when even likelihood is ignored to slander; and with this thought, instead of a monologue praising chivalry as Mr. Burke has done, I conclude the account of the expedition to Versailles.*4
I have now to follow Mr. Burke through a pathless wilderness of rhapsodies, and a sort of descant upon governments, in which he asserts whatever he pleases, on the presumption of its being believed, without offering either evidence or reasons for so doing.
I now have to navigate through Mr. Burke's chaotic rants and his comments on governments, where he claims whatever he wants, assuming people will just believe it without providing any evidence or reasons.
Before anything can be reasoned upon to a conclusion, certain facts, principles, or data, to reason from, must be established, admitted, or denied. Mr. Burke with his usual outrage, abused the Declaration of the Rights of Man, published by the National Assembly of France, as the basis on which the constitution of France is built. This he calls "paltry and blurred sheets of paper about the rights of man." Does Mr. Burke mean to deny that man has any rights? If he does, then he must mean that there are no such things as rights anywhere, and that he has none himself; for who is there in the world but man? But if Mr. Burke means to admit that man has rights, the question then will be: What are those rights, and how man came by them originally?
Before any reasoning can lead to a conclusion, certain facts, principles, or data must be established, accepted, or rejected. Mr. Burke, with his usual outrage, criticized the Declaration of the Rights of Man published by the National Assembly of France, claiming it is the foundation of France's constitution. He refers to it as "trivial and unclear sheets of paper about the rights of man." Does Mr. Burke really mean to deny that humans have any rights? If he does, then he must believe that rights don’t exist anywhere, and that he has none himself; after all, who else is there in the world but humans? But if Mr. Burke acknowledges that humans have rights, then the question becomes: What are those rights, and how did humans originally obtain them?
The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity, respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into antiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the intermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce what was then done, as a rule for the present day. This is no authority at all. If we travel still farther into antiquity, we shall find a direct contrary opinion and practice prevailing; and if antiquity is to be authority, a thousand such authorities may be produced, successively contradicting each other; but if we proceed on, we shall at last come out right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of his Maker. What was he then? Man. Man was his high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him. But of titles I shall speak hereafter.
The mistake of those who rely on historical precedents when discussing human rights is that they don’t look far enough back in history. They stop at some points from a hundred or a thousand years ago and use what was done then as a guideline for today. That’s not a valid authority at all. If we dig deeper into history, we’ll find completely opposite views and practices. If history is to be considered authoritative, then countless conflicting authorities can be found. However, if we keep going further, we will ultimately arrive at the time when man was created by his Maker. What was he then? Man. Man was his only and highest title, and nothing higher can be assigned to him. But I’ll talk more about titles later.
We are now got at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights. As to the manner in which the world has been governed from that day to this, it is no farther any concern of ours than to make a proper use of the errors or the improvements which the history of it presents. Those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago, were then moderns, as we are now. They had their ancients, and those ancients had others, and we also shall be ancients in our turn. If the mere name of antiquity is to govern in the affairs of life, the people who are to live an hundred or a thousand years hence, may as well take us for a precedent, as we make a precedent of those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago. The fact is, that portions of antiquity, by proving everything, establish nothing. It is authority against authority all the way, till we come to the divine origin of the rights of man at the creation. Here our enquiries find a resting-place, and our reason finds a home. If a dispute about the rights of man had arisen at the distance of an hundred years from the creation, it is to this source of authority they must have referred, and it is to this same source of authority that we must now refer.
We are now at the origin of humanity and the foundation of our rights. As for how the world has been governed from that time to now, it's not our concern beyond using the lessons from its history, whether mistakes or improvements. People who lived a hundred or a thousand years ago were modern back then, just as we are now. They had their own predecessors, and those predecessors had others, just as we will one day be the predecessors for future generations. If the concept of antiquity is to control the matters of life, then those living a hundred or a thousand years from now might as well look to us as a precedent, just as we do for those from the past. The truth is that parts of history can prove everything but establish nothing. It’s authority clashing with authority all the way to the divine foundation of human rights at creation. Here, our inquiries find a stopping point, and our reason finds a home. If a debate about human rights had come up a hundred years after creation, that would be the source of authority they would refer to, and it’s the same source of authority we must look to now.
Though I mean not to touch upon any sectarian principle of religion, yet it may be worth observing, that the genealogy of Christ is traced to Adam. Why then not trace the rights of man to the creation of man? I will answer the question. Because there have been upstart governments, thrusting themselves between, and presumptuously working to un-make man.
Though I don’t intend to discuss any specific religious beliefs, it’s interesting to note that Christ’s genealogy is traced back to Adam. So why shouldn’t we trace human rights to the creation of mankind? I’ll explain. It’s because there have been self-appointed governments that have inserted themselves in between and arrogantly tried to redefine humanity.
If any generation of men ever possessed the right of dictating the mode by which the world should be governed for ever, it was the first generation that existed; and if that generation did it not, no succeeding generation can show any authority for doing it, nor can set any up. The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates, not only to the living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other. Every generation is equal in rights to generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary.
If any generation of people ever had the right to decide how the world should be governed forever, it was the first generation. If that generation didn't take that chance, then no following generation can claim any authority to do so, nor establish any. The powerful and fundamental principle of equal rights for all people (which comes from our Creator) applies not just to individuals alive today, but to all generations that come after. Every generation has the same rights as the ones that came before it, just as every individual is born equal in rights to their peers.
Every history of the creation, and every traditionary account, whether from the lettered or unlettered world, however they may vary in their opinion or belief of certain particulars, all agree in establishing one point, the unity of man; by which I mean that men are all of one degree, and consequently that all men are born equal, and with equal natural right, in the same manner as if posterity had been continued by creation instead of generation, the latter being the only mode by which the former is carried forward; and consequently every child born into the world must be considered as deriving its existence from God. The world is as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and his natural right in it is of the same kind.
Every account of creation, whether from educated or uneducated sources, regardless of their differences in specific beliefs or opinions, all agree on one fundamental point: the unity of humanity. This means that all people are of equal status, and therefore, all individuals are born equal with the same natural rights. It’s as if the future generations are created anew rather than born through reproduction, which is the only way to continue the lineage. Thus, every child born into the world should be seen as having their existence from God. The world is as fresh to them as it was to the very first human, and their natural rights in it are the same.
The Mosaic account of the creation, whether taken as divine authority or merely historical, is full to this point, the unity or equality of man. The expression admits of no controversy. "And God said, Let us make man in our own image. In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." The distinction of sexes is pointed out, but no other distinction is even implied. If this be not divine authority, it is at least historical authority, and shows that the equality of man, so far from being a modern doctrine, is the oldest upon record.
The Mosaic story of creation, whether viewed as a divine truth or just a historical account, emphasizes the unity and equality of humans. There's no argument about this. "And God said, Let us make man in our own image. In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." It highlights the difference between the sexes but implies no other distinctions. Even if this isn't divine authority, it's still a historical basis that demonstrates that the idea of human equality, far from being a recent concept, is actually the oldest known.
It is also to be observed that all the religions known in the world are founded, so far as they relate to man, on the unity of man, as being all of one degree. Whether in heaven or in hell, or in whatever state man may be supposed to exist hereafter, the good and the bad are the only distinctions. Nay, even the laws of governments are obliged to slide into this principle, by making degrees to consist in crimes and not in persons.
It should also be noted that all known religions in the world are based, as far as they relate to humanity, on the idea of the unity of people, treating everyone as being of equal worth. Whether in heaven or hell, or in any state that we might believe humans will exist in the future, the only distinctions are between good and bad. In fact, even government laws must adhere to this principle by categorizing offenses based on actions rather than individuals.
It is one of the greatest of all truths, and of the highest advantage to cultivate. By considering man in this light, and by instructing him to consider himself in this light, it places him in a close connection with all his duties, whether to his Creator or to the creation, of which he is a part; and it is only when he forgets his origin, or, to use a more fashionable phrase, his birth and family, that he becomes dissolute. It is not among the least of the evils of the present existing governments in all parts of Europe that man, considered as man, is thrown back to a vast distance from his Maker, and the artificial chasm filled up with a succession of barriers, or sort of turnpike gates, through which he has to pass. I will quote Mr. Burke's catalogue of barriers that he has set up between man and his Maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says: "We fear God—we look with awe to kings—with affection to Parliaments with duty to magistrates—with reverence to priests, and with respect to nobility." Mr. Burke has forgotten to put in "'chivalry." He has also forgotten to put in Peter.
It’s one of the greatest truths and highly beneficial to embrace. By viewing humanity in this way and encouraging individuals to see themselves similarly, it connects them closely to all their responsibilities, whether to their Creator or to the world they belong to. It’s only when someone forgets their roots, or to use a more modern term, their background and family, that they start to lose their way. One of the significant issues with the current governments all over Europe is that people, seen simply as individuals, are distanced from their Maker, and this artificial gap is filled with a series of barriers, like toll gates, that they have to navigate. I’ll引用Mr. Burke's list of barriers that he identifies between people and their Maker. Taking on the role of a herald, he states: “We fear God—we look up to kings with awe—feel affection for Parliaments—have duties to magistrates—show reverence to priests, and respect for nobility.” Mr. Burke forgot to include “chivalry.” He also overlooked Peter.
The duty of man is not a wilderness of turnpike gates, through which he is to pass by tickets from one to the other. It is plain and simple, and consists but of two points. His duty to God, which every man must feel; and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by. If those to whom power is delegated do well, they will be respected: if not, they will be despised; and with regard to those to whom no power is delegated, but who assume it, the rational world can know nothing of them.
The role of a person isn’t a confusing maze of toll booths, requiring tickets to move from one to another. It's straightforward and boils down to two main points: our responsibility to God, which everyone should understand; and how we treat others, doing unto them as we would want done to ourselves. If those in power perform their duties well, they'll earn respect; if they don't, they'll be looked down upon. As for those who take power for themselves without being given the authority, the sensible world has nothing to say about them.
Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights.
So far, we've only talked about the natural rights of individuals, and even then, only partially. Now we need to look at the civil rights of individuals and explain how these stem from the former. People didn't join society to become worse off than they were before or to have fewer rights than they had previously; they did so to have their rights more effectively protected. Natural rights form the basis for all civil rights. However, to clarify this distinction further, we need to identify the different characteristics of natural and civil rights.
A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.
A few words will clarify this. Natural rights are those that belong to a person simply because they exist. This includes all intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, as well as the rights to act as an individual for their own comfort and happiness, as long as those actions don't harm the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those that belong to a person by virtue of being a member of society. Each civil right is based on some natural right that already exists within the individual, but for which their individual ability is not always enough for full enjoyment. This includes all rights related to security and protection.
From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.
From this brief overview, it will be simple to differentiate between the natural rights that a person keeps after joining society and those that they contribute to the collective as a member of that society.
The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the ann of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.
The natural rights that he retains are those where an individual has as much power to act on that right as the right itself. Among these are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; therefore, religion is one of those rights. The natural rights that are not retained are those where, even though the individual has the right, their ability to act on it is lacking. They don’t serve his purpose. A person, by natural right, has the freedom to judge in their own affairs; as far as the mind's rights go, he never gives that up. But what good does it do him to judge if he can’t take action to correct things? He therefore puts this right into the common pool of society and accepts the benefits of society, of which he is a part, alongside his own. Society grants him nothing. Every person has ownership in society and can access its resources as a matter of right.
From these premisses two or three certain conclusions will follow:
From these premises, two or three clear conclusions will follow:
First, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged.
First, every civil right comes from a natural right; in other words, it’s a natural right that has been exchanged.
Secondly, That civil power properly considered as such is made up of the aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the Purpose of every one.
Secondly, civil power, when properly understood, is made up of the totality of that category of natural rights that becomes insufficient for individuals in terms of power and doesn't serve their needs. However, when these rights are gathered together, they become capable of fulfilling the needs of everyone.
Thirdly, That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.
Thirdly, the power generated from the total of natural rights, which is limited in individuals, cannot be used to violate the natural rights that individuals still possess, in which the ability to act is as complete as the right itself.
We have now, in a few words, traced man from a natural individual to a member of society, and shown, or endeavoured to show, the quality of the natural rights retained, and of those which are exchanged for civil rights. Let us now apply these principles to governments.
We have now, in just a few words, followed the journey of a person from being a solitary individual to becoming part of society, and we have demonstrated, or tried to demonstrate, the nature of the natural rights they keep and those that are traded for civil rights. Now, let’s apply these principles to governments.
In casting our eyes over the world, it is extremely easy to distinguish the governments which have arisen out of society, or out of the social compact, from those which have not; but to place this in a clearer light than what a single glance may afford, it will be proper to take a review of the several sources from which governments have arisen and on which they have been founded.
As we look at the world, it's quite easy to tell the governments that have come from society or the social agreement from those that haven't. However, to make this clearer than just a quick glance can provide, it makes sense to examine the different sources from which governments have emerged and on which they are based.
They may be all comprehended under three heads.
They can all be grouped into three categories.
First, Superstition.
First, Belief.
Secondly, Power.
Secondly, power.
Thirdly, The common interest of society and the common rights of man.
Thirdly, the shared interests of society and the universal rights of individuals.
The first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason.
The first was a government of religious leaders, the second of conquerors, and the third of logic.
When a set of artful men pretended, through the medium of oracles, to hold intercourse with the Deity, as familiarly as they now march up the back-stairs in European courts, the world was completely under the government of superstition. The oracles were consulted, and whatever they were made to say became the law; and this sort of government lasted as long as this sort of superstition lasted.
When a group of talented individuals claimed to communicate with the Deity through oracles, just like they now confidently approach the upper echelons of European courts, the world was entirely ruled by superstition. The oracles were sought for guidance, and whatever they proclaimed was treated as law; this type of governance persisted as long as that kind of superstition endured.
After these a race of conquerors arose, whose government, like that of William the Conqueror, was founded in power, and the sword assumed the name of a sceptre. Governments thus established last as long as the power to support them lasts; but that they might avail themselves of every engine in their favor, they united fraud to force, and set up an idol which they called Divine Right, and which, in imitation of the Pope, who affects to be spiritual and temporal, and in contradiction to the Founder of the Christian religion, twisted itself afterwards into an idol of another shape, called Church and State. The key of St. Peter and the key of the Treasury became quartered on one another, and the wondering cheated multitude worshipped the invention.
After this, a group of conquerors emerged, whose rule, much like that of William the Conqueror, was based on power, where the sword took on the title of a scepter. Governments established this way only last as long as the power supporting them endures; but to strengthen their position, they combined deceit with force, creating an idol they referred to as Divine Right. This idol, imitating the Pope who claims both spiritual and temporal authority, later morphed into another form called Church and State, which contradicted the teachings of the Founder of Christianity. The key of St. Peter and the key of the Treasury became intertwined, and the amazed and deceived masses worshipped this invention.
When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.
When I think about the natural dignity of humanity, when I feel (because Nature hasn't been kind enough to numb my emotions) for the honor and happiness of our character, I get frustrated by the effort to control people through force and deceit, as if they were all dishonest and foolish, and I can hardly contain my disgust for those who are taken advantage of in this way.
We have now to review the governments which arise out of society, in contradistinction to those which arose out of superstition and conquest.
We now need to examine the governments that emerge from society, as opposed to those that came from superstition and conquest.
It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.
It's often been considered a significant step in establishing the principles of Freedom to say that government is an agreement between those in power and those being governed. However, this can't be true because it places the result before the reason. Since humans had to exist before governments did, there was a time when governments didn't exist, and therefore, there were originally no rulers to create such an agreement with.
The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
The truth is that the individuals themselves, each in their own personal and independent capacity, agreed to form a government together: and this is the only way that governments have the right to come into being, and the only principle on which they have the right to exist.
To possess ourselves of a clear idea of what government is, or ought to be, we must trace it to its origin. In doing this we shall easily discover that governments must have arisen either out of the people or over the people. Mr. Burke has made no distinction. He investigates nothing to its source, and therefore he confounds everything; but he has signified his intention of undertaking, at some future opportunity, a comparison between the constitution of England and France. As he thus renders it a subject of controversy by throwing the gauntlet, I take him upon his own ground. It is in high challenges that high truths have the right of appearing; and I accept it with the more readiness because it affords me, at the same time, an opportunity of pursuing the subject with respect to governments arising out of society.
To get a clear understanding of what government is or should be, we need to look at its origins. In doing so, we'll easily see that governments must have come either from the people or been imposed over them. Mr. Burke makes no distinction between the two. He doesn't investigate anything at its source, which leads to confusion; however, he has indicated that he plans to compare the constitutions of England and France at some point in the future. By making this a topic of debate, I will engage with him on his own terms. It’s through bold challenges that important truths can emerge, and I gladly take this opportunity to explore the topic of governments that arise from society.
But it will be first necessary to define what is meant by a Constitution. It is not sufficient that we adopt the word; we must fix also a standard signification to it.
But first, we need to define what a Constitution actually means. It's not enough to just use the word; we also need to establish a clear definition for it.
A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.
A constitution isn’t just a name; it’s something real. It doesn't represent an ideal; it exists in reality. If it can't be presented visibly, then it doesn't exist. A constitution comes before a government, which is simply the result of a constitution. The constitution of a country isn’t created by its government, but by the people who form that government. It consists of elements that can be referenced and quoted article by article; it outlines the principles on which the government will be built, how it will be organized, the powers it will have, the way elections will be conducted, the length of parliamentary terms, or whatever other name such bodies go by; it describes the powers of the executive branch of the government; and ultimately, it includes everything related to the full organization of a civil government and the principles guiding its actions and obligations. Thus, a constitution to a government is like the laws enacted later by that government to a court of law. Just as a court doesn’t create laws and can’t change them but operates according to those laws, a government is likewise bound by the constitution.
Can, then, Mr. Burke produce the English Constitution? If he cannot, we may fairly conclude that though it has been so much talked about, no such thing as a constitution exists, or ever did exist, and consequently that the people have yet a constitution to form.
Can Mr. Burke provide the English Constitution? If he can't, we can reasonably conclude that although it has been widely discussed, no such thing as a constitution exists or ever did exist, and therefore, the people still have a constitution to create.
Mr. Burke will not, I presume, deny the position I have already advanced—namely, that governments arise either out of the people or over the people. The English Government is one of those which arose out of a conquest, and not out of society, and consequently it arose over the people; and though it has been much modified from the opportunity of circumstances since the time of William the Conqueror, the country has never yet regenerated itself, and is therefore without a constitution.
Mr. Burke probably won't deny the point I've already made—specifically, that governments come either from the people or over the people. The English Government is one that came out of a conquest, not out of society, and as a result, it is over the people; and even though it has changed a lot due to circumstances since the time of William the Conqueror, the country has never truly regenerated itself and therefore lacks a constitution.
I readily perceive the reason why Mr. Burke declined going into the comparison between the English and French constitutions, because he could not but perceive, when he sat down to the task, that no such a thing as a constitution existed on his side the question. His book is certainly bulky enough to have contained all he could say on this subject, and it would have been the best manner in which people could have judged of their separate merits. Why then has he declined the only thing that was worth while to write upon? It was the strongest ground he could take, if the advantages were on his side, but the weakest if they were not; and his declining to take it is either a sign that he could not possess it or could not maintain it.
I can easily see why Mr. Burke chose not to compare the English and French constitutions; he must have realized, when he started the task, that there wasn't really a constitution on his side of the debate. His book is definitely large enough to include everything he could say on this topic, and it would have been the best way for people to judge their respective merits. So why did he avoid the one topic worth discussing? It would have been the strongest argument if the benefits were on his side, but the weakest if they weren't; his decision not to engage with it suggests either that he couldn't support it or couldn't argue for it effectively.
Mr. Burke said, in a speech last winter in Parliament, "that when the National Assembly first met in three Orders (the Tiers Etat, the Clergy, and the Noblesse), France had then a good constitution." This shows, among numerous other instances, that Mr. Burke does not understand what a constitution is. The persons so met were not a constitution, but a convention, to make a constitution.
Mr. Burke said in a speech last winter in Parliament, "that when the National Assembly first met in three Orders (the Third Estate, the Clergy, and the Nobility), France had a good constitution." This shows, among many other examples, that Mr. Burke does not understand what a constitution is. The people who gathered were not a constitution, but a convention meant to create a constitution.
The present National Assembly of France is, strictly speaking, the personal social compact. The members of it are the delegates of the nation in its original character; future assemblies will be the delegates of the nation in its organised character. The authority of the present Assembly is different from what the authority of future Assemblies will be. The authority of the present one is to form a constitution; the authority of future assemblies will be to legislate according to the principles and forms prescribed in that constitution; and if experience should hereafter show that alterations, amendments, or additions are necessary, the constitution will point out the mode by which such things shall be done, and not leave it to the discretionary power of the future government.
The current National Assembly of France is basically a direct social agreement. Its members are the representatives of the nation in its original form; future assemblies will represent the nation in its organized form. The authority of this Assembly is different from what future Assemblies will have. This Assembly's authority is to create a constitution; future assemblies will be responsible for making laws based on the principles and guidelines set out in that constitution. If experience shows later on that changes, updates, or additions are needed, the constitution will specify how to make those changes, rather than leaving it up to the future government's discretion.
A government on the principles on which constitutional governments arising out of society are established, cannot have the right of altering itself. If it had, it would be arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shows there is no constitution. The act by which the English Parliament empowered itself to sit seven years, shows there is no constitution in England. It might, by the same self-authority, have sat any great number of years, or for life. The bill which the present Mr. Pitt brought into Parliament some years ago, to reform Parliament, was on the same erroneous principle. The right of reform is in the nation in its original character, and the constitutional method would be by a general convention elected for the purpose. There is, moreover, a paradox in the idea of vitiated bodies reforming themselves.
A government that is based on the principles of constitutional governance cannot have the right to change itself. If it did, it would be arbitrary. It could become whatever it wanted; wherever such a right exists, it indicates there’s no real constitution. The action taken by the English Parliament to allow itself to sit for seven years shows that there’s no constitution in England. It could have, with the same self-granted authority, sat for any number of years or even for life. The bill that the current Mr. Pitt introduced in Parliament a few years ago to reform Parliament was based on this same flawed principle. The right to reform belongs to the nation in its original sense, and the constitutional way to do it would be through a general convention elected for that purpose. Additionally, there's a contradiction in the idea of corrupt bodies trying to reform themselves.
From these preliminaries I proceed to draw some comparisons. I have already spoken of the declaration of rights; and as I mean to be as concise as possible, I shall proceed to other parts of the French Constitution.
From these introductory points, I’ll start making some comparisons. I have already discussed the declaration of rights, and since I want to be as brief as possible, I’ll move on to other sections of the French Constitution.
The constitution of France says that every man who pays a tax of sixty sous per annum (2s. 6d. English) is an elector. What article will Mr. Burke place against this? Can anything be more limited, and at the same time more capricious, than the qualification of electors is in England? Limited—because not one man in an hundred (I speak much within compass) is admitted to vote. Capricious—because the lowest character that can be supposed to exist, and who has not so much as the visible means of an honest livelihood, is an elector in some places: while in other places, the man who pays very large taxes, and has a known fair character, and the farmer who rents to the amount of three or four hundred pounds a year, with a property on that farm to three or four times that amount, is not admitted to be an elector. Everything is out of nature, as Mr. Burke says on another occasion, in this strange chaos, and all sorts of follies are blended with all sorts of crimes. William the Conqueror and his descendants parcelled out the country in this manner, and bribed some parts of it by what they call charters to hold the other parts of it the better subjected to their will. This is the reason why so many of those charters abound in Cornwall; the people were averse to the Government established at the Conquest, and the towns were garrisoned and bribed to enslave the country. All the old charters are the badges of this conquest, and it is from this source that the capriciousness of election arises.
The constitution of France states that any man who pays a tax of sixty sous a year (which is 2s. 6d. in English currency) is allowed to vote. What will Mr. Burke counter this with? Can anything be more restricted and, at the same time, more arbitrary than the qualifications for voters in England? Restricted—because only about one in a hundred men (and I’m being conservative) is allowed to vote. Arbitrary—because in some areas, the lowest type of person, who has no visible means of honest income, is eligible to vote, while in other areas, someone who pays substantial taxes, has a reputable character, or a farmer who rents land for three or four hundred pounds a year, along with property worth three or four times that, cannot vote. Everything is out of order, as Mr. Burke remarked on another occasion, in this bizarre chaos, and all kinds of foolishness are mixed with all sorts of wrongdoings. William the Conqueror and his successors divided the land in this way and bribed some areas with what they called charters to better control the rest. This explains why so many of those charters exist in Cornwall; the people opposed the government set up at the Conquest, and towns were fortified and bribed to subjugate the region. All the old charters represent this conquest, and this is where the randomness of elections stems from.
The French Constitution says that the number of representatives for any place shall be in a ratio to the number of taxable inhabitants or electors. What article will Mr. Burke place against this? The county of York, which contains nearly a million of souls, sends two county members; and so does the county of Rutland, which contains not an hundredth part of that number. The old town of Sarum, which contains not three houses, sends two members; and the town of Manchester, which contains upward of sixty thousand souls, is not admitted to send any. Is there any principle in these things? It is admitted that all this is altered, but there is much to be done yet, before we have a fair representation of the people. Is there anything by which you can trace the marks of freedom, or discover those of wisdom? No wonder then Mr. Burke has declined the comparison, and endeavored to lead his readers from the point by a wild, unsystematical display of paradoxical rhapsodies.
The French Constitution states that the number of representatives for any area should be proportional to the number of taxpayers or voters. What article can Mr. Burke use to counter this? The county of York, which has nearly a million residents, sends two county representatives; meanwhile, the county of Rutland, with not even a hundredth of that population, also sends two representatives. The old town of Sarum, which has less than three houses, sends two members, while the town of Manchester, with over sixty thousand people, is not allowed to send any. Is there any logic in this? It's acknowledged that changes have been made, but there's still a lot to be done before we achieve fair representation of the people. Can you find any signs of freedom or wisdom in these discrepancies? No wonder Mr. Burke has avoided this comparison and tried to distract his readers with a chaotic, unorganized mix of contradictory ideas.
The French Constitution says that the National Assembly shall be elected every two years. What article will Mr. Burke place against this? Why, that the nation has no right at all in the case; that the government is perfectly arbitrary with respect to this point; and he can quote for his authority the precedent of a former Parliament.
The French Constitution states that the National Assembly will be elected every two years. What article will Mr. Burke offer against this? He might argue that the nation has no say in the matter; that the government has complete authority regarding this issue; and he can cite a former Parliament as his example.
The French Constitution says there shall be no game laws, that the farmer on whose lands wild game shall be found (for it is by the produce of his lands they are fed) shall have a right to what he can take; that there shall be no monopolies of any kind—that all trades shall be free and every man free to follow any occupation by which he can procure an honest livelihood, and in any place, town, or city throughout the nation. What will Mr. Burke say to this? In England, game is made the property of those at whose expense it is not fed; and with respect to monopolies, the country is cut up into monopolies. Every chartered town is an aristocratical monopoly in itself, and the qualification of electors proceeds out of those chartered monopolies. Is this freedom? Is this what Mr. Burke means by a constitution?
The French Constitution states that there will be no game laws, meaning the farmer on whose land wild game is found (since it's fed by the produce of his land) has the right to take what he can. It also says there will be no monopolies of any kind—that all trades will be free and every individual can pursue any occupation that allows them to earn an honest living, in any place, town, or city across the nation. What will Mr. Burke say about this? In England, game is treated as property belonging to those who do not cover its cost; and regarding monopolies, the country is divided into monopolies. Every chartered town is in itself an aristocratic monopoly, and the qualifications for electors stem from those chartered monopolies. Is this freedom? Is this what Mr. Burke refers to as a constitution?
In these chartered monopolies, a man coming from another part of the country is hunted from them as if he were a foreign enemy. An Englishman is not free of his own country; every one of those places presents a barrier in his way, and tells him he is not a freeman—that he has no rights. Within these monopolies are other monopolies. In a city, such for instance as Bath, which contains between twenty and thirty thousand inhabitants, the right of electing representatives to Parliament is monopolised by about thirty-one persons. And within these monopolies are still others. A man even of the same town, whose parents were not in circumstances to give him an occupation, is debarred, in many cases, from the natural right of acquiring one, be his genius or industry what it may.
In these chartered monopolies, a person from another part of the country is treated like a foreign enemy. An Englishman isn't truly free in his own country; every one of those places is a barrier in his path, reminding him he isn't a free man—that he has no rights. Within these monopolies, there are more monopolies. In a city like Bath, with around twenty to thirty thousand residents, the right to elect representatives to Parliament is held by only about thirty-one people. And within these monopolies, there are even more. A person from the same town, whose parents couldn't provide for an occupation, is often denied the basic right to pursue one, no matter how talented or hardworking they are.
Are these things examples to hold out to a country regenerating itself from slavery, like France? Certainly they are not, and certain am I, that when the people of England come to reflect upon them they will, like France, annihilate those badges of ancient oppression, those traces of a conquered nation. Had Mr. Burke possessed talents similar to the author of "On the Wealth of Nations." he would have comprehended all the parts which enter into, and, by assemblage, form a constitution. He would have reasoned from minutiae to magnitude. It is not from his prejudices only, but from the disorderly cast of his genius, that he is unfitted for the subject he writes upon. Even his genius is without a constitution. It is a genius at random, and not a genius constituted. But he must say something. He has therefore mounted in the air like a balloon, to draw the eyes of the multitude from the ground they stand upon.
Are these examples worth showing to a country rebuilding itself after slavery, like France? Definitely not, and I am sure that when the people of England reflect on them, they will, like France, get rid of those signs of old oppression, those remnants of a conquered nation. If Mr. Burke had talents like the author of "On the Wealth of Nations," he would have understood all the components that come together to form a constitution. He would connect the small details to the big picture. It’s not just his prejudices, but the chaotic nature of his genius that makes him unsuited for the topic he writes about. Even his genius lacks structure. It’s a random genius, not a structured one. But he has to say something. So, he has risen high like a balloon, trying to distract the public from the ground where they stand.
Much is to be learned from the French Constitution. Conquest and tyranny transplanted themselves with William the Conqueror from Normandy into England, and the country is yet disfigured with the marks. May, then, the example of all France contribute to regenerate the freedom which a province of it destroyed!
Much can be learned from the French Constitution. Conquest and tyranny were brought over by William the Conqueror from Normandy to England, and the country still bears the scars. So, may the example of all France help restore the freedom that a part of it destroyed!
The French Constitution says that to preserve the national representation from being corrupt, no member of the National Assembly shall be an officer of the government, a placeman or a pensioner. What will Mr. Burke place against this? I will whisper his answer: Loaves and Fishes. Ah! this government of loaves and fishes has more mischief in it than people have yet reflected on. The National Assembly has made the discovery, and it holds out the example to the world. Had governments agreed to quarrel on purpose to fleece their countries by taxes, they could not have succeeded better than they have done.
The French Constitution states that to keep the national representation from being corrupted, no member of the National Assembly can hold a position in the government, be a political appointee, or receive a pension. What will Mr. Burke say in response to this? I'll tell you his answer: Loaves and Fishes. Ah! this system of loaves and fishes brings more trouble than people have realized. The National Assembly has figured this out, and it's setting an example for the world. If governments had intentionally decided to fight in order to exploit their countries through taxes, they couldn't have done it any better than they already have.
Everything in the English government appears to me the reverse of what it ought to be, and of what it is said to be. The Parliament, imperfectly and capriciously elected as it is, is nevertheless supposed to hold the national purse in trust for the nation; but in the manner in which an English Parliament is constructed it is like a man being both mortgagor and mortgagee, and in the case of misapplication of trust it is the criminal sitting in judgment upon himself. If those who vote the supplies are the same persons who receive the supplies when voted, and are to account for the expenditure of those supplies to those who voted them, it is themselves accountable to themselves, and the Comedy of Errors concludes with the pantomime of Hush. Neither the Ministerial party nor the Opposition will touch upon this case. The national purse is the common hack which each mounts upon. It is like what the country people call "Ride and tie—you ride a little way, and then I."*5 They order these things better in France.
Everything about the English government seems to me completely backwards and contrary to what it should be and what people say it is. The Parliament, though it is elected in a flawed and random way, is still expected to manage the national finances for the country. But with the way the English Parliament is set up, it’s like a person being both the one mortgaging a property and the one lending money on it, resulting in a situation where the wrongdoer is judging themselves. When the same people who decide on funding are also the ones receiving it, and they have to report back on how that money is spent to themselves, it ends up being a situation where they hold themselves accountable. The whole thing feels like a Comedy of Errors that ends with a ridiculous hush. Neither the ruling party nor the opposition want to discuss this issue. The national finances are just a common resource that everyone takes advantage of. It’s like what local people call “Ride and tie”—you ride a bit, then I take over. They manage these issues better in France.
The French Constitution says that the right of war and peace is in the nation. Where else should it reside but in those who are to pay the expense?
The French Constitution states that the power to declare war and make peace belongs to the nation. Where else should it rest but with those who will bear the costs?
In England this right is said to reside in a metaphor shown at the Tower for sixpence or a shilling a piece: so are the lions; and it would be a step nearer to reason to say it resided in them, for any inanimate metaphor is no more than a hat or a cap. We can all see the absurdity of worshipping Aaron's molten calf, or Nebuchadnezzar's golden image; but why do men continue to practise themselves the absurdities they despise in others?
In England, this right is said to be represented by a metaphor displayed at the Tower for sixpence or a shilling each: that includes the lions too; and it would make more sense to say it resides in them, since any inanimate metaphor is no different than a hat or a cap. We can all see how ridiculous it is to worship Aaron's golden calf or Nebuchadnezzar's statue; but why do people keep doing the same absurd things they criticize in others?
It may with reason be said that in the manner the English nation is represented it signifies not where the right resides, whether in the Crown or in the Parliament. War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.
It can reasonably be said that the way the English nation is represented doesn’t really matter in terms of who holds the authority, whether it’s the Crown or Parliament. War is the common outcome for everyone involved in managing and spending public funds, no matter the country. It’s the skill of winning at home; the goal is to boost revenue, and since revenue can't grow without taxes, there must be a justification for spending. When looking back at the history of the English Government, its wars, and its taxes, an observer who isn’t biased or self-interested would conclude that taxes weren’t raised to fund wars, but that wars were started to justify raising taxes.
Mr. Burke, as a member of the House of Commons, is a part of the English Government; and though he professes himself an enemy to war, he abuses the French Constitution, which seeks to explode it. He holds up the English Government as a model, in all its parts, to France; but he should first know the remarks which the French make upon it. They contend in favor of their own, that the portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism, and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is, therefore on the ground of interest, opposed to both. They account also for the readiness which always appears in such governments for engaging in wars by remarking on the different motives which produced them. In despotic governments wars are the effect of pride; but in those governments in which they become the means of taxation, they acquire thereby a more permanent promptitude.
Mr. Burke, as a member of the House of Commons, is part of the English Government; and even though he claims to be against war, he criticizes the French Constitution, which aims to eliminate it. He presents the English Government as a model for France in every way, but he should first be aware of the criticism that the French have about it. They argue that the level of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to control a country more effectively than outright tyranny, and that since the main goal of despotism is revenue, a government structured this way can extract more than it could either through direct tyranny or complete freedom, and is thus, for financial reasons, opposed to both. They also explain the eagerness that such governments have for going to war by noting the different reasons that lead to wars. In tyrannical governments, wars stem from pride; however, in those governments where wars serve as a means of taxation, they tend to be initiated more consistently.
The French Constitution, therefore, to provide against both these evils, has taken away the power of declaring war from kings and ministers, and placed the right where the expense must fall.
The French Constitution has addressed both of these issues by removing the power to declare war from kings and ministers and putting that right in the hands of those who will bear the costs.
When the question of the right of war and peace was agitating in the National Assembly, the people of England appeared to be much interested in the event, and highly to applaud the decision. As a principle it applies as much to one country as another. William the Conqueror, as a conqueror, held this power of war and peace in himself, and his descendants have ever since claimed it under him as a right.
When the National Assembly was debating the issues of war and peace, the people of England seemed very interested in what was happening and strongly supported the decision. This principle applies equally to all countries. William the Conqueror, as a conqueror, held the power of war and peace himself, and since then, his descendants have claimed it as their right.
Although Mr. Burke has asserted the right of the Parliament at the Revolution to bind and control the nation and posterity for ever, he denies at the same time that the Parliament or the nation had any right to alter what he calls the succession of the crown in anything but in part, or by a sort of modification. By his taking this ground he throws the case back to the Norman Conquest, and by thus running a line of succession springing from William the Conqueror to the present day, he makes it necessary to enquire who and what William the Conqueror was, and where he came from, and into the origin, history and nature of what are called prerogatives. Everything must have had a beginning, and the fog of time and antiquity should be penetrated to discover it. Let, then, Mr. Burke bring forward his William of Normandy, for it is to this origin that his argument goes. It also unfortunately happens, in running this line of succession, that another line parallel thereto presents itself, which is that if the succession runs in the line of the conquest, the nation runs in the line of being conquered, and it ought to rescue itself from this reproach.
Although Mr. Burke has claimed that Parliament has the right since the Revolution to govern and control the nation and future generations forever, he also argues that Parliament or the nation had no right to fully change what he refers to as the crown's succession, except in part or with some modifications. By taking this position, he traces the case back to the Norman Conquest, and by establishing a line of succession from William the Conqueror to today, he makes it necessary to investigate who William the Conqueror was, where he came from, and the origins, history, and nature of what are known as prerogatives. Everything must have had a beginning, and we need to look beyond the fog of time and history to uncover it. Let Mr. Burke present his William of Normandy, as that is the origin his argument leads to. It also happens that in tracing this line of succession, a parallel line emerges: if the succession follows the path of conquest, then the nation follows the path of being conquered, and it should work to free itself from this shame.
But it will perhaps be said that though the power of declaring war descends in the heritage of the conquest, it is held in check by the right of Parliament to withhold the supplies. It will always happen when a thing is originally wrong that amendments do not make it right, and it often happens that they do as much mischief one way as good the other, and such is the case here, for if the one rashly declares war as a matter of right, and the other peremptorily withholds the supplies as a matter of right, the remedy becomes as bad, or worse, than the disease. The one forces the nation to a combat, and the other ties its hands; but the more probable issue is that the contest will end in a collusion between the parties, and be made a screen to both.
But some might argue that even though the power to declare war comes from the legacy of conquest, it is limited by Parliament's right to withhold funding. When something is fundamentally wrong, fixing it doesn’t necessarily make it right, and sometimes attempts to amend it can cause just as much harm as they do good. This is true in this situation because if one side recklessly declares war as a right, while the other insistently refuses to provide funds as a right, the solution could be just as bad, if not worse, than the initial problem. One side forces the nation into battle, and the other restricts its ability to respond; however, it’s likely that the outcome will be a compromise between the two sides that serves as a cover for both.
On this question of war, three things are to be considered. First, the right of declaring it: secondly, the expense of supporting it: thirdly, the mode of conducting it after it is declared. The French Constitution places the right where the expense must fall, and this union can only be in the nation. The mode of conducting it after it is declared, it consigns to the executive department. Were this the case in all countries, we should hear but little more of wars.
When it comes to the issue of war, three things need to be considered. First, the authority to declare it; second, the cost of funding it; and third, how to manage it once it has been declared. The French Constitution assigns the right to declare war to the body that will bear the expense, which can only be the nation. The way to conduct it after it's declared is given to the executive branch. If this were the case in all countries, we would hear a lot less about wars.
Before I proceed to consider other parts of the French Constitution, and by way of relieving the fatigue of argument, I will introduce an anecdote which I had from Dr. Franklin.
Before I move on to discuss other aspects of the French Constitution, and to lighten the mood a bit, I'll share a story I heard from Dr. Franklin.
While the Doctor resided in France as Minister from America, during the war, he had numerous proposals made to him by projectors of every country and of every kind, who wished to go to the land that floweth with milk and honey, America; and among the rest, there was one who offered himself to be king. He introduced his proposal to the Doctor by letter, which is now in the hands of M. Beaumarchais, of Paris—stating, first, that as the Americans had dismissed or sent away*6 their King, that they would want another. Secondly, that himself was a Norman. Thirdly, that he was of a more ancient family than the Dukes of Normandy, and of a more honorable descent, his line having never been bastardised. Fourthly, that there was already a precedent in England of kings coming out of Normandy, and on these grounds he rested his offer, enjoining that the Doctor would forward it to America. But as the Doctor neither did this, nor yet sent him an answer, the projector wrote a second letter, in which he did not, it is true, threaten to go over and conquer America, but only with great dignity proposed that if his offer was not accepted, an acknowledgment of about L30,000 might be made to him for his generosity! Now, as all arguments respecting succession must necessarily connect that succession with some beginning, Mr. Burke's arguments on this subject go to show that there is no English origin of kings, and that they are descendants of the Norman line in right of the Conquest. It may, therefore, be of service to his doctrine to make this story known, and to inform him, that in case of that natural extinction to which all mortality is subject, Kings may again be had from Normandy, on more reasonable terms than William the Conqueror; and consequently, that the good people of England, at the revolution of 1688, might have done much better, had such a generous Norman as this known their wants, and they had known his. The chivalric character which Mr. Burke so much admires, is certainly much easier to make a bargain with than a hard dealing Dutchman. But to return to the matters of the constitution: The French Constitution says, There shall be no titles; and, of consequence, all that class of equivocal generation which in some countries is called "aristocracy" and in others "nobility," is done away, and the peer is exalted into the Man.
While the Doctor was living in France as a representative from America during the war, he received many proposals from people of all kinds and from every country who wanted to go to the land of opportunity, America. Among them was one person who offered to be king. He sent his proposal to the Doctor in a letter, which is now with M. Beaumarchais in Paris. In his letter, he first pointed out that since the Americans had dismissed or sent away their King, they would need another one. Second, he claimed to be a Norman. Third, he asserted that he came from a more ancient family than the Dukes of Normandy, and that his lineage had never been illegitimate. Fourth, he mentioned that there was already a precedent in England for kings coming from Normandy, and he based his offer on these points, insisting that the Doctor forward it to America. However, since the Doctor neither did this nor replied to him, the proposer wrote a second letter. In this letter, he didn’t threaten to come over and conquer America but instead presented a dignified proposal that if his offer wasn’t accepted, he should receive a recognition of about £30,000 for his generosity! Now, as all discussions about succession must connect that succession to some beginning, Mr. Burke's arguments on the topic suggest there is no English origin of kings; they descend from the Norman line due to the Conquest. Therefore, it might be helpful to share this story with him. In case of the natural extinction that all mortals face, kings could again be sourced from Normandy under more reasonable terms than with William the Conqueror. Consequently, the good people of England, at the 1688 revolution, might have fared better if such a generous Norman had known their needs and if they had known his. The chivalrous nature that Mr. Burke admires is certainly easier to negotiate with than a hard-nosed Dutchman. But returning to constitutional matters: The French Constitution states there shall be no titles; thus, all that class of ambiguous social ranks referred to as "aristocracy" in some countries and "nobility" in others is abolished, and the peer is elevated to the status of a common man.
Titles are but nicknames, and every nickname is a title. The thing is perfectly harmless in itself, but it marks a sort of foppery in the human character, which degrades it. It reduces man into the diminutive of man in things which are great, and the counterfeit of women in things which are little. It talks about its fine blue ribbon like a girl, and shows its new garter like a child. A certain writer, of some antiquity, says: "When I was a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Titles are just nicknames, and every nickname is a title. They’re harmless on their own, but they reflect a kind of vanity in human nature that diminishes it. They reduce a person to a lesser version of themselves in significant matters and to a fake version of women in trivial ones. It brags about its fancy blue ribbon like a girl and shows off its new garter like a child. An old writer once said, "When I was a child, I thought like a child; but when I grew up, I put away childish things."
It is, properly, from the elevated mind of France that the folly of titles has fallen. It has outgrown the baby clothes of Count and Duke, and breeched itself in manhood. France has not levelled, it has exalted. It has put down the dwarf, to set up the man. The punyism of a senseless word like Duke, Count or Earl has ceased to please. Even those who possessed them have disowned the gibberish, and as they outgrew the rickets, have despised the rattle. The genuine mind of man, thirsting for its native home, society, contemns the gewgaws that separate him from it. Titles are like circles drawn by the magician's wand, to contract the sphere of man's felicity. He lives immured within the Bastille of a word, and surveys at a distance the envied life of man.
It is, properly, from the elevated mind of France that the silliness of titles has faded away. It has outgrown the childish labels of Count and Duke, and has embraced a more mature identity. France hasn’t brought everyone down to the same level; rather, it has uplifted individuals. It has cast aside the short stature of a meaningless title like Duke, Count, or Earl, which no longer satisfies. Even those who held these titles have rejected the nonsense, and as they have matured, they have turned away from the trivialities. The true spirit of humanity, longing for its rightful place in society, dismisses the ornaments that keep him apart. Titles are like circles drawn by a magician’s wand, limiting the range of a person’s happiness. He is confined within the prison of a word and watches from afar the enviable life of others.
Is it, then, any wonder that titles should fall in France? Is it not a greater wonder that they should be kept up anywhere? What are they? What is their worth, and "what is their amount?" When we think or speak of a Judge or a General, we associate with it the ideas of office and character; we think of gravity in one and bravery in the other; but when we use the word merely as a title, no ideas associate with it. Through all the vocabulary of Adam there is not such an animal as a Duke or a Count; neither can we connect any certain ideas with the words. Whether they mean strength or weakness, wisdom or folly, a child or a man, or the rider or the horse, is all equivocal. What respect then can be paid to that which describes nothing, and which means nothing? Imagination has given figure and character to centaurs, satyrs, and down to all the fairy tribe; but titles baffle even the powers of fancy, and are a chimerical nondescript.
Is it any surprise that titles are losing their significance in France? Isn’t it more surprising that they still hold any value at all? What are they? What is their actual worth, and how much do they really matter? When we think or talk about a Judge or a General, we associate those titles with authority and personality; we think of seriousness in one and courage in the other. But when we use the term just as a title, it carries no real meaning. In all the language of Adam, there’s no such thing as a Duke or a Count; we can’t connect any specific ideas to those words. Whether they imply strength or weakness, wisdom or foolishness, a child or an adult, or the rider or the horse, it’s all ambiguous. So, what respect can we have for something that signifies nothing and means nothing? Imagination has given shape and character to centaurs, satyrs, and all sorts of fairy beings; but titles confuse even the power of creativity and are merely an imaginary concept.
But this is not all. If a whole country is disposed to hold them in contempt, all their value is gone, and none will own them. It is common opinion only that makes them anything, or nothing, or worse than nothing. There is no occasion to take titles away, for they take themselves away when society concurs to ridicule them. This species of imaginary consequence has visibly declined in every part of Europe, and it hastens to its exit as the world of reason continues to rise. There was a time when the lowest class of what are called nobility was more thought of than the highest is now, and when a man in armour riding throughout Christendom in quest of adventures was more stared at than a modern Duke. The world has seen this folly fall, and it has fallen by being laughed at, and the farce of titles will follow its fate. The patriots of France have discovered in good time that rank and dignity in society must take a new ground. The old one has fallen through. It must now take the substantial ground of character, instead of the chimerical ground of titles; and they have brought their titles to the altar, and made of them a burnt-offering to Reason.
But that's not all. If an entire country is set on looking down on them, their value disappears, and no one will claim them. It's public opinion that gives them any worth, or makes them worthless, or even worse. There’s no need to strip titles away; they lose themselves when society chooses to mock them. This type of imaginary importance has clearly declined all over Europe, and it’s quickly fading as rational thought continues to grow. There was a time when the lowest ranks of nobility were valued more than the highest today, and when a man in armor riding across Christendom in search of adventures attracted more attention than a modern Duke. The world has seen this foolishness decline, and it has done so through laughter, and the absurdity of titles will meet the same end. The patriots of France have realized in time that social rank and dignity need to find a new foundation. The old one has collapsed. It must now be based on true character, instead of the illusory value of titles; they have taken their titles to the altar and turned them into a burnt offering to Reason.
If no mischief had annexed itself to the folly of titles they would not have been worth a serious and formal destruction, such as the National Assembly have decreed them; and this makes it necessary to enquire farther into the nature and character of aristocracy.
If there hadn't been any trouble connected to the foolishness of titles, they wouldn't have been worth the serious and formal abolishment that the National Assembly has ordered; this means we need to investigate more deeply into the nature and character of aristocracy.
That, then, which is called aristocracy in some countries and nobility in others arose out of the governments founded upon conquest. It was originally a military order for the purpose of supporting military government (for such were all governments founded in conquest); and to keep up a succession of this order for the purpose for which it was established, all the younger branches of those families were disinherited and the law of primogenitureship set up.
What is referred to as aristocracy in some countries and nobility in others emerged from governments established through conquest. It initially acted as a military class to support military rule (since all governments created by conquest were military in nature). To maintain this class for its intended purpose, all younger branches of those families were disinherited, and the law of primogeniture was implemented.
The nature and character of aristocracy shows itself to us in this law. It is the law against every other law of nature, and Nature herself calls for its destruction. Establish family justice, and aristocracy falls. By the aristocratical law of primogenitureship, in a family of six children five are exposed. Aristocracy has never more than one child. The rest are begotten to be devoured. They are thrown to the cannibal for prey, and the natural parent prepares the unnatural repast.
The essence and traits of aristocracy are evident in this law. It contradicts every other natural law, and Nature itself demands its end. Establish genuine family justice, and aristocracy will crumble. According to the aristocratic law of primogeniture, in a family of six children, five are left at risk. Aristocrats typically have only one child. The others are born to be sacrificed. They are offered up to the predator, while their natural parent prepares the unthinkable feast.
As everything which is out of nature in man affects, more or less, the interest of society, so does this. All the children which the aristocracy disowns (which are all except the eldest) are, in general, cast like orphans on a parish, to be provided for by the public, but at a greater charge. Unnecessary offices and places in governments and courts are created at the expense of the public to maintain them.
As everything unnatural about humans impacts society in some way, this is true as well. All the children that the aristocracy rejects (all except the firstborn) are generally left like orphans reliant on the community, which ends up costing more. Unnecessary jobs and positions in the government and courts are created at the public's expense to support them.
With what kind of parental reflections can the father or mother contemplate their younger offspring? By nature they are children, and by marriage they are heirs; but by aristocracy they are bastards and orphans. They are the flesh and blood of their parents in the one line, and nothing akin to them in the other. To restore, therefore, parents to their children, and children to their parents relations to each other, and man to society—and to exterminate the monster aristocracy, root and branch—the French Constitution has destroyed the law of Primogenitureship. Here then lies the monster; and Mr. Burke, if he pleases, may write its epitaph.
What kind of thoughts can parents have when they look at their younger children? By nature, they are kids, and by marriage, they are heirs; but in the eyes of the aristocracy, they are illegitimate and orphaned. They are the biological children of their parents in one sense, and completely unrelated in another. To reconnect parents with their children, and children with their parents, and to integrate individuals back into society—and to eliminate the terrible aristocracy once and for all—the French Constitution has abolished the law of Primogeniture. Here lies the problem; and Mr. Burke can write its epitaph if he wishes.
Hitherto we have considered aristocracy chiefly in one point of view. We have now to consider it in another. But whether we view it before or behind, or sideways, or any way else, domestically or publicly, it is still a monster.
So far, we've looked at aristocracy mainly from one perspective. Now we need to examine it from another. But whether we see it from the front, back, side, or any other angle, whether in private or in public, it remains a monster.
In France aristocracy had one feature less in its countenance than what it has in some other countries. It did not compose a body of hereditary legislators. It was not "a corporation of aristocracy," for such I have heard M. de la Fayette describe an English House of Peers. Let us then examine the grounds upon which the French Constitution has resolved against having such a House in France.
In France, the aristocracy had one less characteristic than in some other countries. It wasn’t made up of hereditary legislators. It wasn’t "a corporation of aristocracy," as I’ve heard M. de la Fayette refer to the English House of Peers. So, let’s take a look at the reasons why the French Constitution decided against having a House like that in France.
Because, in the first place, as is already mentioned, aristocracy is kept up by family tyranny and injustice.
Because, first of all, as mentioned before, aristocracy is maintained through family dominance and unfairness.
Secondly. Because there is an unnatural unfitness in an aristocracy to be legislators for a nation. Their ideas of distributive justice are corrupted at the very source. They begin life by trampling on all their younger brothers and sisters, and relations of every kind, and are taught and educated so to do. With what ideas of justice or honour can that man enter a house of legislation, who absorbs in his own person the inheritance of a whole family of children or doles out to them some pitiful portion with the insolence of a gift?
Secondly. Because there is an unnatural unfitness in an aristocracy to be lawmakers for a nation. Their understanding of fairness is flawed from the very beginning. They start life by stepping on all their younger siblings and relatives, and they are trained to do so. With what sense of justice or honor can a person enter a legislative body when they embody the wealth of an entire family of children or hands out a meager share to them with the arrogance of a gift?
Thirdly. Because the idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet laureate.
Thirdly. Because the idea of hereditary lawmakers is just as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges or hereditary juries; as absurd as a hereditary mathematician or a hereditary wise person; and as ridiculous as a hereditary poet laureate.
Fourthly. Because a body of men, holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.
Fourthly. Because a group of people who answer to no one shouldn't be trusted by anyone.
Fifthly. Because it is continuing the uncivilised principle of governments founded in conquest, and the base idea of man having property in man, and governing him by personal right.
Fifthly. Because it continues the uncivilized principle of governments based on conquest, along with the degrading notion that one person can own another and govern them by personal authority.
Sixthly. Because aristocracy has a tendency to deteriorate the human species. By the universal economy of nature it is known, and by the instance of the Jews it is proved, that the human species has a tendency to degenerate, in any small number of persons, when separated from the general stock of society, and inter-marrying constantly with each other. It defeats even its pretended end, and becomes in time the opposite of what is noble in man. Mr. Burke talks of nobility; let him show what it is. The greatest characters the world have known have arisen on the democratic floor. Aristocracy has not been able to keep a proportionate pace with democracy. The artificial Noble shrinks into a dwarf before the Noble of Nature; and in the few instances of those (for there are some in all countries) in whom nature, as by a miracle, has survived in aristocracy, Those Men Despise It.—But it is time to proceed to a new subject.
Sixthly. Because aristocracy tends to harm the human species. It's understood through the universal laws of nature, and the example of the Jews illustrates that the human species can degenerate when a small group is consistently separated from the general population and intermarriages occur among themselves. It ultimately undermines its supposed purpose and becomes the opposite of what is admirable in humanity. Mr. Burke speaks of nobility; he should define what it means. The greatest figures in history have emerged from democratic settings. Aristocracy has been unable to keep up with democracy. The artificial Noble diminishes in stature compared to the Noble of Nature; and in the rare cases where natural qualities survive within aristocracy, those individuals look down on it. — But it’s time to move on to a new topic.
The French Constitution has reformed the condition of the clergy. It has raised the income of the lower and middle classes, and taken from the higher. None are now less than twelve hundred livres (fifty pounds sterling), nor any higher than two or three thousand pounds. What will Mr. Burke place against this? Hear what he says.
The French Constitution has changed the situation for the clergy. It has increased the income for the lower and middle classes while reducing it for the higher classes. No one earns less than twelve hundred livres (fifty pounds sterling), and no one earns more than two or three thousand pounds. What will Mr. Burke say about this? Listen to what he has to say.
He says: "That the people of England can see without pain or grudging, an archbishop precede a duke; they can see a Bishop of Durham, or a Bishop of Winchester in possession of L10,000 a-year; and cannot see why it is in worse hands than estates to a like amount, in the hands of this earl or that squire." And Mr. Burke offers this as an example to France.
He says: "The people of England can watch without discomfort or resentment as an archbishop takes precedence over a duke; they can see a Bishop of Durham or a Bishop of Winchester with an income of £10,000 a year, and they don't understand why that money is in worse hands than the estates of a similar value held by some earl or squire." And Mr. Burke uses this as an example for France.
As to the first part, whether the archbishop precedes the duke, or the duke the bishop, it is, I believe, to the people in general, somewhat like Sternhold and Hopkins, or Hopkins and Sternhold; you may put which you please first; and as I confess that I do not understand the merits of this case, I will not contest it with Mr. Burke.
As for the first part, whether the archbishop goes before the duke or the duke before the bishop, I think it’s kind of like Sternhold and Hopkins, or Hopkins and Sternhold; you can put either one first. Since I admit that I don’t grasp the merits of this situation, I won’t argue it with Mr. Burke.
But with respect to the latter, I have something to say. Mr. Burke has not put the case right. The comparison is out of order, by being put between the bishop and the earl or the squire. It ought to be put between the bishop and the curate, and then it will stand thus:—"The people of England can see without pain or grudging, a Bishop of Durham, or a Bishop of Winchester, in possession of ten thousand pounds a-year, and a curate on thirty or forty pounds a-year, or less." No, sir, they certainly do not see those things without great pain or grudging. It is a case that applies itself to every man's sense of justice, and is one among many that calls aloud for a constitution.
But regarding the latter, I have something to say. Mr. Burke hasn't presented the case correctly. The comparison is misplaced when it’s drawn between a bishop and an earl or a squire. It should be made between a bishop and a curate, and then it would go like this: “The people of England can look at a Bishop of Durham or a Bishop of Winchester earning ten thousand pounds a year, while a curate makes thirty or forty pounds a year, or even less." No, sir, they definitely do not accept these disparities without significant pain or resentment. This issue strikes at every person's sense of justice and is just one of many that urgently calls for a constitution.
In France the cry of "the church! the church!" was repeated as often as in Mr. Burke's book, and as loudly as when the Dissenters' Bill was before the English Parliament; but the generality of the French clergy were not to be deceived by this cry any longer. They knew that whatever the pretence might be, it was they who were one of the principal objects of it. It was the cry of the high beneficed clergy, to prevent any regulation of income taking place between those of ten thousand pounds a-year and the parish priest. They therefore joined their case to those of every other oppressed class of men, and by this union obtained redress.
In France, the shout of "the church! the church!" was heard just as often as in Mr. Burke's book and as loudly as when the Dissenters' Bill was in front of the English Parliament; however, the majority of the French clergy were no longer fooled by this outcry. They understood that no matter what the excuse was, they were one of the main targets. It was the cry of the wealthy clergy, aimed at stopping any income regulation between those making ten thousand pounds a year and the parish priest. Therefore, they allied their cause with every other oppressed group of people, and through this solidarity, they achieved justice.
The French Constitution has abolished tythes, that source of perpetual discontent between the tythe-holder and the parishioner. When land is held on tythe, it is in the condition of an estate held between two parties; the one receiving one-tenth, and the other nine-tenths of the produce: and consequently, on principles of equity, if the estate can be improved, and made to produce by that improvement double or treble what it did before, or in any other ratio, the expense of such improvement ought to be borne in like proportion between the parties who are to share the produce. But this is not the case in tythes: the farmer bears the whole expense, and the tythe-holder takes a tenth of the improvement, in addition to the original tenth, and by this means gets the value of two-tenths instead of one. This is another case that calls for a constitution.
The French Constitution has eliminated tithes, which were a constant source of frustration between the tithe-holder and the parishioner. When land is held under tithes, it operates like a joint estate; one party receives one-tenth, while the other gets nine-tenths of the produce. As a result, based on fairness, if the estate can be enhanced to produce twice or three times as much as it did before, or in any other ratio, the costs of such improvements should be shared equally between the parties receiving the produce. However, this isn’t how it works with tithes: the farmer pays all the improvement costs, and the tithe-holder takes a tenth of the increased value, in addition to the original tenth, resulting in the tithe-holder effectively getting the value of two-tenths instead of one. This situation illustrates the need for a constitution.
The French Constitution hath abolished or renounced Toleration and Intolerance also, and hath established Universal Right Of Conscience.
The French Constitution has abolished or renounced both Toleration and Intolerance, and has established the Universal Right of Conscience.
Toleration is not the opposite of Intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it. The one is the Pope armed with fire and faggot, and the other is the Pope selling or granting indulgences. The former is church and state, and the latter is church and traffic.
Toleration isn't the opposite of intolerance; it’s a fake version of it. Both are forms of tyranny. One claims the right to deny freedom of conscience, while the other claims the right to grant it. One is like the Pope wielding fire and torture, and the other is the Pope selling or granting indulgences. The first represents the alliance of church and state, while the second represents the alliance of church and commerce.
But Toleration may be viewed in a much stronger light. Man worships not himself, but his Maker; and the liberty of conscience which he claims is not for the service of himself, but of his God. In this case, therefore, we must necessarily have the associated idea of two things; the mortal who renders the worship, and the Immortal Being who is worshipped. Toleration, therefore, places itself, not between man and man, nor between church and church, nor between one denomination of religion and another, but between God and man; between the being who worships, and the Being who is worshipped; and by the same act of assumed authority which it tolerates man to pay his worship, it presumptuously and blasphemously sets itself up to tolerate the Almighty to receive it.
But Toleration can be seen in a much more powerful way. People don't worship themselves; they worship their Creator. The freedom of conscience that they seek isn’t just for their own benefit, but for their God. In this sense, we inevitably have to consider two things: the mortal who is offering the worship and the Eternal Being who is being worshipped. Toleration, then, doesn’t stand between one person and another, nor between different churches, nor between various religious denominations, but between God and humankind; between the one who worships and the One who is worshipped. By the same act of authority that allows people to offer their worship, it arrogantly and irreverently assumes the power to allow the Almighty to accept it.
Were a bill brought into any Parliament, entitled, "An Act to tolerate or grant liberty to the Almighty to receive the worship of a Jew or Turk," or "to prohibit the Almighty from receiving it," all men would startle and call it blasphemy. There would be an uproar. The presumption of toleration in religious matters would then present itself unmasked; but the presumption is not the less because the name of "Man" only appears to those laws, for the associated idea of the worshipper and the worshipped cannot be separated. Who then art thou, vain dust and ashes! by whatever name thou art called, whether a King, a Bishop, a Church, or a State, a Parliament, or anything else, that obtrudest thine insignificance between the soul of man and its Maker? Mind thine own concerns. If he believes not as thou believest, it is a proof that thou believest not as he believes, and there is no earthly power can determine between you.
If a bill were introduced in any Parliament titled, "An Act to Allow or Grant Freedom for the Almighty to Accept the Worship of a Jew or Turk," or "to Prevent the Almighty from Accepting It," everyone would be shocked and call it blasphemy. There would be chaos. The assumption of toleration in religious matters would then be laid bare; but that assumption exists regardless of the fact that only the term "Man" appears in those laws, because the idea of the worshipper and the worshipped cannot be separated. So who are you, you insignificant dust and ashes! no matter what title you bear, whether a King, a Bishop, a Church, or a State, a Parliament, or anything else, that you place your unimportance between the soul of man and its Creator? Focus on your own matters. If he doesn’t believe the same way you do, it just proves that you don’t believe the same way he does, and no earthly power can decide between you.
With respect to what are called denominations of religion, if every one is left to judge of its own religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is wrong; but if they are to judge of each other's religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is right; and therefore all the world is right, or all the world is wrong. But with respect to religion itself, without regard to names, and as directing itself from the universal family of mankind to the Divine object of all adoration, it is man bringing to his Maker the fruits of his heart; and though those fruits may differ from each other like the fruits of the earth, the grateful tribute of every one is accepted.
Regarding what we call religions, if everyone is allowed to determine their own beliefs, then no religion can be considered wrong; but if they start judging each other's beliefs, then no religion can truly be seen as right. So, either everyone is correct, or everyone is mistaken. However, focusing on religion itself, beyond just names, and connecting the entire human family to the Divine being that we all worship, it's about people offering their heartfelt expressions to their Creator. Even though these expressions may vary like the different fruits we harvest from the earth, the sincere gratitude from each person is welcomed.
A Bishop of Durham, or a Bishop of Winchester, or the archbishop who heads the dukes, will not refuse a tythe-sheaf of wheat because it is not a cock of hay, nor a cock of hay because it is not a sheaf of wheat; nor a pig, because it is neither one nor the other; but these same persons, under the figure of an established church, will not permit their Maker to receive the varied tythes of man's devotion.
A Bishop of Durham, or a Bishop of Winchester, or the archbishop who leads the dukes, won't turn down a tithe of wheat just because it's not a stack of hay, nor a stack of hay because it's not a sheaf of wheat; nor will they refuse a pig, since it’s different from both. Yet these same individuals, under the guise of an established church, won't allow their Creator to accept the diverse offerings of human devotion.
One of the continual choruses of Mr. Burke's book is "Church and State." He does not mean some one particular church, or some one particular state, but any church and state; and he uses the term as a general figure to hold forth the political doctrine of always uniting the church with the state in every country, and he censures the National Assembly for not having done this in France. Let us bestow a few thoughts on this subject.
One of the recurring themes in Mr. Burke's book is "Church and State." He doesn’t refer to a specific church or state but to any church and state. He uses the term as a general concept to promote the political idea of always merging church and state in every country, and he criticizes the National Assembly for not having done this in France. Let’s take a moment to consider this topic.
All religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or immoral. Like everything else, they had their beginning; and they proceeded by persuasion, exhortation, and example. How then is it that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant?
All religions are inherently kind and gentle, and are connected to moral principles. They couldn't have gained followers at first by promoting anything vicious, cruel, persecuting, or immoral. Like everything else, they had a starting point and grew through persuasion, encouragement, and setting an example. So, how is it that they lose their original gentleness and become bitter and intolerant?
It proceeds from the connection which Mr. Burke recommends. By engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called the Church established by Law. It is a stranger, even from its birth, to any parent mother, on whom it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and destroys.
It comes from the relationship that Mr. Burke suggests. By merging the church with the state, they create a hybrid that can only cause damage and not nurture, known as the Church established by Law. From the moment it is created, it is alien to its founding parent, eventually rejecting and destroying the very source from which it came.
The inquisition in Spain does not proceed from the religion originally professed, but from this mule-animal, engendered between the church and the state. The burnings in Smithfield proceeded from the same heterogeneous production; and it was the regeneration of this strange animal in England afterwards, that renewed rancour and irreligion among the inhabitants, and that drove the people called Quakers and Dissenters to America. Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is alway the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity. In America, a catholic priest is a good citizen, a good character, and a good neighbour; an episcopalian minister is of the same description: and this proceeds independently of the men, from there being no law-establishment in America.
The inquisition in Spain doesn’t come from the originally practiced religion, but from this hybrid creature created between the church and the state. The burnings in Smithfield originated from the same mixed influence; and it was the revival of this odd entity in England later that fueled hostility and irreligion among the people, driving groups like the Quakers and Dissenters to America. Persecution isn’t an intrinsic aspect of any religion; instead, it’s a prominent characteristic of all state-established religions. Remove the legal establishment, and each religion returns to its original kindness. In America, a Catholic priest is a good citizen, a person of good character, and a good neighbor; an Episcopalian minister is the same; and this happens regardless of the individuals involved, due to the absence of a legal establishment in America.
If also we view this matter in a temporal sense, we shall see the ill effects it has had on the prosperity of nations. The union of church and state has impoverished Spain. The revoking the edict of Nantes drove the silk manufacture from that country into England; and church and state are now driving the cotton manufacture from England to America and France. Let then Mr. Burke continue to preach his antipolitical doctrine of Church and State. It will do some good. The National Assembly will not follow his advice, but will benefit by his folly. It was by observing the ill effects of it in England, that America has been warned against it; and it is by experiencing them in France, that the National Assembly have abolished it, and, like America, have established Universal Right Of Conscience, And Universal Right Of Citizenship.*7
If we also look at this issue from a historical perspective, we'll see the negative impact it has had on the success of nations. The alliance between church and state has left Spain in poverty. Revoking the Edict of Nantes forced the silk industry to move from that country to England; now, the church and state are pushing the cotton industry from England to America and France. So let Mr. Burke keep promoting his anti-political stance on Church and State. It might do some good. The National Assembly may not take his advice, but they will benefit from his mistakes. By seeing the harmful effects of this in England, America has been warned against it; and by experiencing it in France, the National Assembly has abolished it and, like America, established the Universal Right of Conscience and the Universal Right of Citizenship.*7
I will here cease the comparison with respect to the principles of the French Constitution, and conclude this part of the subject with a few observations on the organisation of the formal parts of the French and English governments.
I will stop comparing the principles of the French Constitution and wrap up this section with a few remarks on the structure of the formal parts of the French and English governments.
The executive power in each country is in the hands of a person styled the King; but the French Constitution distinguishes between the King and the Sovereign: It considers the station of King as official, and places Sovereignty in the nation.
The executive power in each country is held by an individual known as the King; however, the French Constitution makes a distinction between the King and the Sovereign: it views the role of King as an official position and assigns Sovereignty to the nation.
The representatives of the nation, who compose the National Assembly, and who are the legislative power, originate in and from the people by election, as an inherent right in the people.—In England it is otherwise; and this arises from the original establishment of what is called its monarchy; for, as by the conquest all the rights of the people or the nation were absorbed into the hands of the Conqueror, and who added the title of King to that of Conqueror, those same matters which in France are now held as rights in the people, or in the nation, are held in England as grants from what is called the crown. The Parliament in England, in both its branches, was erected by patents from the descendants of the Conqueror. The House of Commons did not originate as a matter of right in the people to delegate or elect, but as a grant or boon.
The representatives of the nation, who make up the National Assembly and hold the legislative power, come from the people through elections, which is an inherent right of the people. In England, it's different; this difference comes from the original establishment of what’s known as its monarchy. When the Conqueror took over, all the rights of the people or the nation were absorbed into his control, and he took the title of King along with that of Conqueror. The rights that in France are now recognized as belonging to the people or the nation are seen in England as grants from what is called the crown. The Parliament in England, in both its houses, was created through patents from the descendants of the Conqueror. The House of Commons didn’t come about as a right for the people to delegate or elect, but rather as a privilege or favor.
By the French Constitution the nation is always named before the king. The third article of the declaration of rights says: "The nation is essentially the source (or fountain) of all sovereignty." Mr. Burke argues that in England a king is the fountain—that he is the fountain of all honour. But as this idea is evidently descended from the conquest I shall make no other remark upon it, than that it is the nature of conquest to turn everything upside down; and as Mr. Burke will not be refused the privilege of speaking twice, and as there are but two parts in the figure, the fountain and the spout, he will be right the second time.
According to the French Constitution, the nation is always mentioned before the king. The third article of the declaration of rights states: "The nation is fundamentally the source of all sovereignty." Mr. Burke argues that in England, a king is the source—that he is the source of all honor. However, since this idea clearly comes from conquest, I’ll refrain from commenting further, except to say that conquest tends to turn everything upside down; and since Mr. Burke shouldn’t be denied the chance to speak twice, and since there are only two parts in the analogy, the source and the spout, he will be correct the second time.
The French Constitution puts the legislative before the executive, the law before the king; la loi, le roi. This also is in the natural order of things, because laws must have existence before they can have execution.
The French Constitution places the legislative branch above the executive, the law before the king; la loi, le roi. This is also in line with how things should naturally be, because laws need to exist before they can be enforced.
A king in France does not, in addressing himself to the National Assembly, say, "My Assembly," similar to the phrase used in England of my "Parliament"; neither can he use it consistently with the constitution, nor could it be admitted. There may be propriety in the use of it in England, because as is before mentioned, both Houses of Parliament originated from what is called the crown by patent or boon—and not from the inherent rights of the people, as the National Assembly does in France, and whose name designates its origin.
A king in France doesn’t refer to the National Assembly as "My Assembly," like the term "my Parliament" used in England. He can't use it according to the constitution, nor would it be acceptable. In England, it makes sense to use it because, as mentioned earlier, both Houses of Parliament originated from what’s called the crown by patent or privilege—not from the people's inherent rights, as the National Assembly does in France, and whose name reflects its origin.
The President of the National Assembly does not ask the King to grant to the Assembly liberty of speech, as is the case with the English House of Commons. The constitutional dignity of the National Assembly cannot debase itself. Speech is, in the first place, one of the natural rights of man always retained; and with respect to the National Assembly the use of it is their duty, and the nation is their authority. They were elected by the greatest body of men exercising the right of election the European world ever saw. They sprung not from the filth of rotten boroughs, nor are they the vassal representatives of aristocratical ones. Feeling the proper dignity of their character they support it. Their Parliamentary language, whether for or against a question, is free, bold and manly, and extends to all the parts and circumstances of the case. If any matter or subject respecting the executive department or the person who presides in it (the king) comes before them it is debated on with the spirit of men, and in the language of gentlemen; and their answer or their address is returned in the same style. They stand not aloof with the gaping vacuity of vulgar ignorance, nor bend with the cringe of sycophantic insignificance. The graceful pride of truth knows no extremes, and preserves, in every latitude of life, the right-angled character of man.
The President of the National Assembly doesn't ask the King for permission to speak freely, unlike the English House of Commons. The constitutional integrity of the National Assembly cannot undermine itself. Free speech is, first and foremost, one of the natural rights of humanity that is always upheld; for the National Assembly, exercising this right is their duty, and the nation is their authority. They were elected by the largest voting body the European world has ever seen. They do not come from corrupt electoral districts, nor are they subordinate representatives of the aristocracy. Aware of their rightful dignity, they carry themselves accordingly. Their parliamentary language, whether in support of or opposition to an issue, is free, bold, and dignified, covering all aspects and circumstances of the matter. When any issue concerning the executive branch or the person who leads it (the king) arises, it is debated with the spirit of men and in the language of gentlemen; their response or address is given in the same manner. They do not stand apart with the mindlessness of common ignorance, nor do they bow down with the servility of insignificant flattery. The noble pride of truth knows no bounds and maintains, in all walks of life, the rightful character of humanity.
Let us now look to the other side of the question. In the addresses of the English Parliaments to their kings we see neither the intrepid spirit of the old Parliaments of France, nor the serene dignity of the present National Assembly; neither do we see in them anything of the style of English manners, which border somewhat on bluntness. Since then they are neither of foreign extraction, nor naturally of English production, their origin must be sought for elsewhere, and that origin is the Norman Conquest. They are evidently of the vassalage class of manners, and emphatically mark the prostrate distance that exists in no other condition of men than between the conqueror and the conquered. That this vassalage idea and style of speaking was not got rid of even at the Revolution of 1688, is evident from the declaration of Parliament to William and Mary in these words: "We do most humbly and faithfully submit ourselves, our heirs and posterities, for ever." Submission is wholly a vassalage term, repugnant to the dignity of freedom, and an echo of the language used at the Conquest.
Let's now consider the other side of the issue. In the speeches from the English Parliaments to their kings, we don’t see the bold spirit of the old French Parliaments nor the composed dignity of the current National Assembly; we also don’t find anything reflective of English manners, which can be a bit blunt. Since they’re not from foreign origins, nor naturally English in their creation, their roots must be sought elsewhere, specifically in the Norman Conquest. They clearly exhibit the behaviors of a vassalage class, highlighting the significant distance that exists only in the relationship between the conqueror and the conquered. The persistence of this vassalage mindset and way of speaking even after the Revolution of 1688 is evident in Parliament’s declaration to William and Mary: “We do most humbly and faithfully submit ourselves, our heirs and posterities, for ever.” The term submission is entirely a notion of vassalage, contrary to the dignity of freedom, and reflects the language used at the time of the Conquest.
As the estimation of all things is given by comparison, the Revolution of 1688, however from circumstances it may have been exalted beyond its value, will find its level. It is already on the wane, eclipsed by the enlarging orb of reason, and the luminous revolutions of America and France. In less than another century it will go, as well as Mr. Burke's labours, "to the family vault of all the Capulets." Mankind will then scarcely believe that a country calling itself free would send to Holland for a man, and clothe him with power on purpose to put themselves in fear of him, and give him almost a million sterling a year for leave to submit themselves and their posterity, like bondmen and bondwomen, for ever.
Since we judge everything by comparison, the Revolution of 1688, despite being elevated beyond its true significance due to various circumstances, will eventually settle into its rightful place. It's already fading, overshadowed by the growing light of reason and the impactful revolutions in America and France. In less than another century, it will join Mr. Burke's work "in the family vault of all the Capulets." People will hardly believe that a nation claiming to be free would look to Holland for a leader, grant him power to instill fear in them, and pay him almost a million pounds a year just to allow them and their descendants to live like slaves forever.
But there is a truth that ought to be made known; I have had the opportunity of seeing it; which is, that notwithstanding appearances, there is not any description of men that despise monarchy so much as courtiers. But they well know, that if it were seen by others, as it is seen by them, the juggle could not be kept up; they are in the condition of men who get their living by a show, and to whom the folly of that show is so familiar that they ridicule it; but were the audience to be made as wise in this respect as themselves, there would be an end to the show and the profits with it. The difference between a republican and a courtier with respect to monarchy, is that the one opposes monarchy, believing it to be something; and the other laughs at it, knowing it to be nothing.
But there's a truth that needs to be shared; I've had the chance to see it, which is that despite appearances, there isn't a group of people who despise monarchy as much as courtiers do. They understand well that if others saw it the way they do, the deception couldn't continue; they are like people who make a living by performing, and to whom the foolishness of that performance is so familiar that they mock it. However, if the audience were to gain the same insight as they have, the performance and their profits would come to an end. The difference between a republican and a courtier regarding monarchy is that one opposes monarchy, believing it holds some value, while the other laughs at it, knowing it has no real significance.
As I used sometimes to correspond with Mr. Burke believing him then to be a man of sounder principles than his book shows him to be, I wrote to him last winter from Paris, and gave him an account how prosperously matters were going on. Among other subjects in that letter, I referred to the happy situation the National Assembly were placed in; that they had taken ground on which their moral duty and their political interest were united. They have not to hold out a language which they do not themselves believe, for the fraudulent purpose of making others believe it. Their station requires no artifice to support it, and can only be maintained by enlightening mankind. It is not their interest to cherish ignorance, but to dispel it. They are not in the case of a ministerial or an opposition party in England, who, though they are opposed, are still united to keep up the common mystery. The National Assembly must throw open a magazine of light. It must show man the proper character of man; and the nearer it can bring him to that standard, the stronger the National Assembly becomes.
Since I sometimes used to write to Mr. Burke, thinking he was a man of stronger principles than his book suggests, I reached out to him last winter from Paris and shared how well things were going. In that letter, I mentioned the fortunate position the National Assembly was in; they had found a path where their moral duty and political interests aligned. They don't have to use language they don't believe in to trick others into believing it. Their role doesn't require any deception to uphold it and can only be sustained by enlightening people. It's not in their interest to promote ignorance but rather to eliminate it. They aren't like a government or opposition party in England that, despite being opposed, still works together to maintain a common mystery. The National Assembly needs to open a source of knowledge. It must reveal the true nature of humanity, and the closer it can align people to that ideal, the stronger the National Assembly becomes.
In contemplating the French Constitution, we see in it a rational order of things. The principles harmonise with the forms, and both with their origin. It may perhaps be said as an excuse for bad forms, that they are nothing more than forms; but this is a mistake. Forms grow out of principles, and operate to continue the principles they grow from. It is impossible to practise a bad form on anything but a bad principle. It cannot be ingrafted on a good one; and wherever the forms in any government are bad, it is a certain indication that the principles are bad also.
When we think about the French Constitution, we find a logical order in it. The principles align with the structures, and both connect back to their source. One might argue, as an excuse for poor structures, that they are just structures; but that's a misunderstanding. Structures emerge from principles and work to uphold the principles they come from. It's impossible to apply a flawed structure to anything other than a flawed principle. It can't be attached to a good one; and wherever the structures in any government are poor, it clearly shows that the principles are poor as well.
I will here finally close this subject. I began it by remarking that Mr. Burke had voluntarily declined going into a comparison of the English and French Constitutions. He apologises (in page 241) for not doing it, by saying that he had not time. Mr. Burke's book was upwards of eight months in hand, and is extended to a volume of three hundred and sixty-six pages. As his omission does injury to his cause, his apology makes it worse; and men on the English side of the water will begin to consider, whether there is not some radical defect in what is called the English constitution, that made it necessary for Mr. Burke to suppress the comparison, to avoid bringing it into view.
I will finally wrap up this topic. I started by noting that Mr. Burke chose not to compare the English and French Constitutions. He explains (on page 241) that he didn't do it because he didn't have enough time. Mr. Burke's book took over eight months to complete and spans three hundred sixty-six pages. His choice to leave this out hurts his argument, and his excuse makes it even worse. People on the English side of the water will start to question whether there’s some fundamental flaw in what is called the English constitution that led Mr. Burke to avoid making that comparison.
As Mr. Burke has not written on constitutions so neither has he written on the French Revolution. He gives no account of its commencement or its progress. He only expresses his wonder. "It looks," says he, "to me, as if I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs of France alone, but of all Europe, perhaps of more than Europe. All circumstances taken together, the French Revolution is the most astonishing that has hitherto happened in the world."
As Mr. Burke hasn't written about constitutions, he also hasn't written about the French Revolution. He doesn’t describe how it started or how it unfolded. He simply shares his astonishment. "It seems to me," he says, "as if I am witnessing a major turning point, not just in France, but for all of Europe, maybe even beyond Europe. Considering everything, the French Revolution is the most incredible event that has ever occurred in the world."
As wise men are astonished at foolish things, and other people at wise ones, I know not on which ground to account for Mr. Burke's astonishment; but certain it is, that he does not understand the French Revolution. It has apparently burst forth like a creation from a chaos, but it is no more than the consequence of a mental revolution priorily existing in France. The mind of the nation had changed beforehand, and the new order of things has naturally followed the new order of thoughts. I will here, as concisely as I can, trace out the growth of the French Revolution, and mark the circumstances that have contributed to produce it.
As wise people are surprised by silly things, and others are surprised by wise ones, I don't know why Mr. Burke is so astonished. What’s clear is that he doesn’t understand the French Revolution. It seems to have erupted like something new from chaos, but it's really just the result of a change in thinking that had already taken place in France. The mindset of the nation had shifted before, and naturally, the new reality followed the new way of thinking. I will here, as briefly as possible, outline the development of the French Revolution and highlight the factors that contributed to its emergence.
The despotism of Louis XIV., united with the gaiety of his Court, and the gaudy ostentation of his character, had so humbled, and at the same time so fascinated the mind of France, that the people appeared to have lost all sense of their own dignity, in contemplating that of their Grand Monarch; and the whole reign of Louis XV., remarkable only for weakness and effeminacy, made no other alteration than that of spreading a sort of lethargy over the nation, from which it showed no disposition to rise.
The tyranny of Louis XIV, along with the lively atmosphere of his court and the flashy showiness of his character, had so diminished and yet so captivated the people of France that they seemed to have lost all awareness of their own dignity while admiring their Grand Monarch's. The entire reign of Louis XV, marked only by weakness and softness, did nothing but cast a sort of lethargy over the nation, from which it showed no desire to awaken.
The only signs which appeared to the spirit of Liberty during those periods, are to be found in the writings of the French philosophers. Montesquieu, President of the Parliament of Bordeaux, went as far as a writer under a despotic government could well proceed; and being obliged to divide himself between principle and prudence, his mind often appears under a veil, and we ought to give him credit for more than he has expressed.
The only signs that showed up for the spirit of Liberty during those times can be found in the writings of the French philosophers. Montesquieu, the President of the Parliament of Bordeaux, pushed the limits of what a writer under a despotic government could express. Having to balance principle and caution, his thoughts often seem somewhat concealed, and we should acknowledge that he likely conveyed more than what he actually wrote.
Voltaire, who was both the flatterer and the satirist of despotism, took another line. His forte lay in exposing and ridiculing the superstitions which priest-craft, united with state-craft, had interwoven with governments. It was not from the purity of his principles, or his love of mankind (for satire and philanthropy are not naturally concordant), but from his strong capacity of seeing folly in its true shape, and his irresistible propensity to expose it, that he made those attacks. They were, however, as formidable as if the motive had been virtuous; and he merits the thanks rather than the esteem of mankind.
Voltaire, both a flatterer and a critic of authoritarian rule, took a different approach. His strength was in revealing and mocking the superstitions that the clergy, working with the government, had tangled up in their systems. It wasn't out of pure principles or love for humanity (since satire and kindness don't usually go hand in hand), but rather from his sharp ability to see foolishness for what it really was, and his strong urge to highlight it, that he made his critiques. However, they were as powerful as if his intentions had been noble; he deserves gratitude rather than admiration from people.
On the contrary, we find in the writings of Rousseau, and the Abbe Raynal, a loveliness of sentiment in favour of liberty, that excites respect, and elevates the human faculties; but having raised this animation, they do not direct its operation, and leave the mind in love with an object, without describing the means of possessing it.
On the other hand, in the writings of Rousseau and the Abbe Raynal, we discover a beautiful sentiment in favor of liberty that inspires respect and uplifts human capabilities. However, while they generate this enthusiasm, they don't guide its application, leaving the mind enamored with an idea without explaining how to achieve it.
The writings of Quesnay, Turgot, and the friends of those authors, are of the serious kind; but they laboured under the same disadvantage with Montesquieu; their writings abound with moral maxims of government, but are rather directed to economise and reform the administration of the government, than the government itself.
The writings of Quesnay, Turgot, and their associates are serious in nature; however, they faced the same issue as Montesquieu. Their works are full of moral guidelines for governance but focus more on managing and improving the administration of the government rather than changing the government itself.
But all those writings and many others had their weight; and by the different manner in which they treated the subject of government, Montesquieu by his judgment and knowledge of laws, Voltaire by his wit, Rousseau and Raynal by their animation, and Quesnay and Turgot by their moral maxims and systems of economy, readers of every class met with something to their taste, and a spirit of political inquiry began to diffuse itself through the nation at the time the dispute between England and the then colonies of America broke out.
But all those writings and many others had their significance; and because of the different ways they approached the topic of government, Montesquieu with his insight and understanding of laws, Voltaire with his cleverness, Rousseau and Raynal with their enthusiasm, and Quesnay and Turgot with their moral principles and economic theories, readers from all walks of life found something they liked, and a spirit of political inquiry started to spread throughout the nation just as the conflict between England and the American colonies began.
In the war which France afterwards engaged in, it is very well known that the nation appeared to be before-hand with the French ministry. Each of them had its view; but those views were directed to different objects; the one sought liberty, and the other retaliation on England. The French officers and soldiers who after this went to America, were eventually placed in the school of Freedom, and learned the practice as well as the principles of it by heart.
In the war that France got involved in later, it’s well-known that the nation seemed to be ahead of the French government. Each side had its goals, but those goals were aimed at different things; one sought freedom, while the other sought revenge against England. The French officers and soldiers who went to America after this eventually found themselves in the school of Freedom, where they learned both the principles and the practice of it by heart.
As it was impossible to separate the military events which took place in America from the principles of the American Revolution, the publication of those events in France necessarily connected themselves with the principles which produced them. Many of the facts were in themselves principles; such as the declaration of American Independence, and the treaty of alliance between France and America, which recognised the natural rights of man, and justified resistance to oppression.
Since it was impossible to separate the military events that occurred in America from the principles of the American Revolution, the reporting of those events in France was inherently linked to the principles that led to them. Many of the facts were, in essence, principles themselves; for instance, the declaration of American Independence and the treaty of alliance between France and America, which acknowledged the natural rights of individuals and justified resisting oppression.
The then Minister of France, Count Vergennes, was not the friend of America; and it is both justice and gratitude to say, that it was the Queen of France who gave the cause of America a fashion at the French Court. Count Vergennes was the personal and social friend of Dr. Franklin; and the Doctor had obtained, by his sensible gracefulness, a sort of influence over him; but with respect to principles Count Vergennes was a despot.
The French Minister at the time, Count Vergennes, was not an ally of America; and it’s both fair and thankful to acknowledge that it was the Queen of France who brought American issues to the forefront at the French Court. Count Vergennes was a personal and social friend of Dr. Franklin, and the Doctor had gained some influence over him through his charming demeanor; however, when it came to principles, Count Vergennes was authoritarian.
The situation of Dr. Franklin, as Minister from America to France, should be taken into the chain of circumstances. The diplomatic character is of itself the narrowest sphere of society that man can act in. It forbids intercourse by the reciprocity of suspicion; and a diplomatic is a sort of unconnected atom, continually repelling and repelled. But this was not the case with Dr. Franklin. He was not the diplomatic of a Court, but of Man. His character as a philosopher had been long established, and his circle of society in France was universal.
The situation of Dr. Franklin as America’s Minister to France should be considered in the context of various circumstances. The diplomatic role is, by nature, the most restricted social sphere for someone to operate in. It limits interaction due to mutual suspicion; a diplomat is like an isolated atom, constantly pushing others away and being pushed away in return. However, this wasn’t true for Dr. Franklin. He was not just a representative of a court, but of humanity. His reputation as a philosopher was well-established, and his social circle in France was wide-reaching.
Count Vergennes resisted for a considerable time the publication in France of American constitutions, translated into the French language: but even in this he was obliged to give way to public opinion, and a sort of propriety in admitting to appear what he had undertaken to defend. The American constitutions were to liberty what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct them into syntax.
Count Vergennes resisted for a long time the publication in France of American constitutions translated into French. However, he eventually had to give in to public opinion and a sense of duty to allow the very things he had committed to defend to be made public. The American constitutions were to liberty what grammar is to language: they define its components and practically put them together into a coherent structure.
The peculiar situation of the then Marquis de la Fayette is another link in the great chain. He served in America as an American officer under a commission of Congress, and by the universality of his acquaintance was in close friendship with the civil government of America, as well as with the military line. He spoke the language of the country, entered into the discussions on the principles of government, and was always a welcome friend at any election.
The unique situation of the Marquis de la Fayette at that time is another connection in the bigger picture. He served in America as an officer under a commission from Congress, and because of his wide network, he was close friends with both the civil government and the military. He spoke the local language, engaged in discussions about government principles, and was always a welcomed friend at any election.
When the war closed, a vast reinforcement to the cause of Liberty spread itself over France, by the return of the French officers and soldiers. A knowledge of the practice was then joined to the theory; and all that was wanting to give it real existence was opportunity. Man cannot, properly speaking, make circumstances for his purpose, but he always has it in his power to improve them when they occur, and this was the case in France.
When the war ended, a significant boost to the cause of Liberty spread across France with the return of French officers and soldiers. Practical knowledge was combined with theory, and all that was needed to bring it to life was the chance to do so. While people can’t create the circumstances they want, they always have the ability to make the most of the opportunities that come their way, and that was true in France.
M. Neckar was displaced in May, 1781; and by the ill-management of the finances afterwards, and particularly during the extravagant administration of M. Calonne, the revenue of France, which was nearly twenty-four millions sterling per year, was become unequal to the expenditure, not because the revenue had decreased, but because the expenses had increased; and this was a circumstance which the nation laid hold of to bring forward a Revolution. The English Minister, Mr. Pitt, has frequently alluded to the state of the French finances in his budgets, without understanding the subject. Had the French Parliaments been as ready to register edicts for new taxes as an English Parliament is to grant them, there had been no derangement in the finances, nor yet any Revolution; but this will better explain itself as I proceed.
M. Neckar was removed in May 1781, and due to the poor management of finances afterward, especially during M. Calonne's extravagant term, France's revenue, which was nearly twenty-four million pounds a year, became insufficient for its spending. This was not because the revenue dropped, but because expenses rose. This situation provided the nation with the opportunity to push for a Revolution. The English Minister, Mr. Pitt, often referenced the status of French finances in his budgets, without truly grasping the issue. If the French Parliaments had been as willing to approve new taxes as the English Parliament is, there wouldn't have been any financial chaos or Revolution; but this will be clearer as I continue.
It will be necessary here to show how taxes were formerly raised in France. The King, or rather the Court or Ministry acting under the use of that name, framed the edicts for taxes at their own discretion, and sent them to the Parliaments to be registered; for until they were registered by the Parliaments they were not operative. Disputes had long existed between the Court and the Parliaments with respect to the extent of the Parliament's authority on this head. The Court insisted that the authority of Parliaments went no farther than to remonstrate or show reasons against the tax, reserving to itself the right of determining whether the reasons were well or ill-founded; and in consequence thereof, either to withdraw the edict as a matter of choice, or to order it to be unregistered as a matter of authority. The Parliaments on their part insisted that they had not only a right to remonstrate, but to reject; and on this ground they were always supported by the nation.
It’s important to explain how taxes used to be collected in France. The King, or more accurately, the Court or Ministry acting in his name, created tax edicts at their own discretion and sent them to the Parliaments for registration. These edicts wouldn’t take effect until the Parliaments registered them. There had been ongoing disputes between the Court and the Parliaments regarding the extent of the Parliament's authority in this matter. The Court argued that the authority of the Parliaments was limited to protesting or presenting reasons against the tax, while it reserved the right to decide if those reasons were valid or not. Consequently, the Court could either choose to withdraw the edict or order it to be unregistered as a matter of authority. Meanwhile, the Parliaments maintained that they not only had the right to protest but also to reject the edicts, and they were consistently supported by the nation in this belief.
But to return to the order of my narrative. M. Calonne wanted money: and as he knew the sturdy disposition of the Parliaments with respect to new taxes, he ingeniously sought either to approach them by a more gentle means than that of direct authority, or to get over their heads by a manoeuvre; and for this purpose he revived the project of assembling a body of men from the several provinces, under the style of an "Assembly of the Notables," or men of note, who met in 1787, and who were either to recommend taxes to the Parliaments, or to act as a Parliament themselves. An Assembly under this name had been called in 1617.
But to get back to the main story. M. Calonne needed money, and since he was aware of the strong resistance from the Parliaments regarding new taxes, he cleverly tried to approach them in a less forceful way than direct authority or find a way around them. To do this, he brought back the idea of gathering a group of notable individuals from various provinces, referred to as an "Assembly of the Notables," who came together in 1787. This assembly was intended to either recommend taxes to the Parliaments or function as a Parliament itself. An Assembly by this name had been called in 1617.
As we are to view this as the first practical step towards the Revolution, it will be proper to enter into some particulars respecting it. The Assembly of the Notables has in some places been mistaken for the States-General, but was wholly a different body, the States-General being always by election. The persons who composed the Assembly of the Notables were all nominated by the king, and consisted of one hundred and forty members. But as M. Calonne could not depend upon a majority of this Assembly in his favour, he very ingeniously arranged them in such a manner as to make forty-four a majority of one hundred and forty; to effect this he disposed of them into seven separate committees, of twenty members each. Every general question was to be decided, not by a majority of persons, but by a majority of committee, and as eleven votes would make a majority in a committee, and four committees a majority of seven, M. Calonne had good reason to conclude that as forty-four would determine any general question he could not be outvoted. But all his plans deceived him, and in the event became his overthrow.
As we consider this the first practical step toward the Revolution, it's important to discuss some details about it. The Assembly of the Notables has sometimes been confused with the States-General, but they were completely different; the States-General was always formed through elections. The members of the Assembly of the Notables were all appointed by the king and included one hundred and forty members. However, since M. Calonne couldn't rely on a majority of this Assembly supporting him, he cleverly organized them so that forty-four would constitute a majority of one hundred and forty. To achieve this, he divided them into seven separate committees, each with twenty members. Every general question would be decided not by a majority of individuals, but by a majority of committees. Since eleven votes would make a majority in a committee, and four committees would represent a majority of seven, M. Calonne had every reason to believe that with forty-four votes, he would not be outvoted on any general question. But all his plans misled him, ultimately leading to his downfall.
The then Marquis de la Fayette was placed in the second committee, of which the Count D'Artois was president, and as money matters were the object, it naturally brought into view every circumstance connected with it. M. de la Fayette made a verbal charge against Calonne for selling crown lands to the amount of two millions of livres, in a manner that appeared to be unknown to the king. The Count D'Artois (as if to intimidate, for the Bastille was then in being) asked the Marquis if he would render the charge in writing? He replied that he would. The Count D'Artois did not demand it, but brought a message from the king to that purport. M. de la Fayette then delivered in his charge in writing, to be given to the king, undertaking to support it. No farther proceedings were had upon this affair, but M. Calonne was soon after dismissed by the king and set off to England.
The Marquis de la Fayette was put on the second committee, which was led by Count D'Artois, and since their focus was on financial matters, it naturally brought up everything related to it. M. de la Fayette accused Calonne of selling crown lands worth two million livres in a way that seemed unknown to the king. The Count D'Artois, seemingly to intimidate him (since the Bastille was still there), asked the Marquis if he would submit the accusation in writing. He responded that he would. The Count D'Artois didn't formally ask for it, but instead brought a message from the king indicating the same. M. de la Fayette then presented his written accusation to be given to the king, agreeing to support it. No further action was taken on this matter, but shortly after, M. Calonne was dismissed by the king and headed off to England.
As M. de la Fayette, from the experience of what he had seen in America, was better acquainted with the science of civil government than the generality of the members who composed the Assembly of the Notables could then be, the brunt of the business fell considerably to his share. The plan of those who had a constitution in view was to contend with the Court on the ground of taxes, and some of them openly professed their object. Disputes frequently arose between Count D'Artois and M. de la Fayette upon various subjects. With respect to the arrears already incurred the latter proposed to remedy them by accommodating the expenses to the revenue instead of the revenue to the expenses; and as objects of reform he proposed to abolish the Bastille and all the State prisons throughout the nation (the keeping of which was attended with great expense), and to suppress Lettres de Cachet; but those matters were not then much attended to, and with respect to Lettres de Cachet, a majority of the Nobles appeared to be in favour of them.
As M. de la Fayette, based on his experiences in America, understood civil government better than most of the members of the Assembly of the Notables, he took on a significant amount of the responsibility. Those who aimed to create a constitution planned to challenge the Court regarding taxes, and some openly stated their intentions. Frequent disputes occurred between Count D'Artois and M. de la Fayette on various issues. Regarding past debts, M. de la Fayette suggested addressing them by aligning expenses with revenue rather than vice versa. He also proposed reforms such as abolishing the Bastille and all state prisons across the country (which were costly to maintain) and getting rid of Lettres de Cachet; however, these issues were largely ignored at the time, and a majority of the Nobles seemed to support Lettres de Cachet.
On the subject of supplying the Treasury by new taxes the Assembly declined taking the matter on themselves, concurring in the opinion that they had not authority. In a debate on this subject M. de la Fayette said that raising money by taxes could only be done by a National Assembly, freely elected by the people, and acting as their representatives. Do you mean, said the Count D'Artois, the States-General? M. de la Fayette replied that he did. Will you, said the Count D'Artois, sign what you say to be given to the king? The other replied that he would not only do this but that he would go farther, and say that the effectual mode would be for the king to agree to the establishment of a constitution.
Regarding the idea of providing the Treasury with new taxes, the Assembly chose not to take it on themselves, agreeing that they lacked the authority. During a debate on this topic, M. de la Fayette stated that raising funds through taxes could only be done by a National Assembly, which is freely elected by the people and acts as their representatives. "Are you referring to the States-General?" asked Count D'Artois. M. de la Fayette confirmed that he was. "Will you sign what you believe should be presented to the king?" the Count inquired. M. de la Fayette replied that not only would he do this, but he would also go further and assert that a practical approach would be for the king to agree to establish a constitution.
As one of the plans had thus failed, that of getting the Assembly to act as a Parliament, the other came into view, that of recommending. On this subject the Assembly agreed to recommend two new taxes to be unregistered by the Parliament: the one a stamp-tax and the other a territorial tax, or sort of land-tax. The two have been estimated at about five millions sterling per annum. We have now to turn our attention to the Parliaments, on whom the business was again devolving.
As one of the plans didn't work out, which was to have the Assembly function as a Parliament, another option emerged: making recommendations. Regarding this, the Assembly decided to suggest two new taxes to be unapproved by Parliament: one was a stamp tax and the other a property tax, or a kind of land tax. Both were estimated to raise about five million pounds a year. Now we need to focus on Parliament, which would again take charge of the matter.
The Archbishop of Thoulouse (since Archbishop of Sens, and now a Cardinal), was appointed to the administration of the finances soon after the dismission of Calonne. He was also made Prime Minister, an office that did not always exist in France. When this office did not exist, the chief of each of the principal departments transacted business immediately with the King, but when a Prime Minister was appointed they did business only with him. The Archbishop arrived to more state authority than any minister since the Duke de Choiseul, and the nation was strongly disposed in his favour; but by a line of conduct scarcely to be accounted for he perverted every opportunity, turned out a despot, and sunk into disgrace, and a Cardinal.
The Archbishop of Toulouse (previously the Archbishop of Sens, and now a Cardinal) was put in charge of the finances soon after Calonne was dismissed. He was also made Prime Minister, a position that didn’t always exist in France. When there was no Prime Minister, the heads of the main departments would deal directly with the King, but when a Prime Minister was appointed, they dealt only with him. The Archbishop gained more authority than any minister since Duke de Choiseul, and the public was largely supportive of him. However, through a series of inexplicable decisions, he squandered every opportunity, became a tyrant, and fell into disgrace, ultimately becoming a Cardinal.
The Assembly of the Notables having broken up, the minister sent the edicts for the two new taxes recommended by the Assembly to the Parliaments to be unregistered. They of course came first before the Parliament of Paris, who returned for answer: "that with such a revenue as the nation then supported the name of taxes ought not to be mentioned but for the purpose of reducing them"; and threw both the edicts out.*8 On this refusal the Parliament was ordered to Versailles, where, in the usual form, the King held what under the old government was called a Bed of justice; and the two edicts were unregistered in presence of the Parliament by an order of State, in the manner mentioned, earlier. On this the Parliament immediately returned to Paris, renewed their session in form, and ordered the enregistering to be struck out, declaring that everything done at Versailles was illegal. All the members of the Parliament were then served with Lettres de Cachet, and exiled to Troyes; but as they continued as inflexible in exile as before, and as vengeance did not supply the place of taxes, they were after a short time recalled to Paris.
The Assembly of Notables had disbanded, and the minister sent the edicts for the two new taxes suggested by the Assembly to the Parliaments for approval. Naturally, they were presented first to the Parliament of Paris, which responded: "Given the revenue the nation was currently handling, the term taxes should only be mentioned for the purpose of reducing them," and dismissed both edicts. On this refusal, the Parliament was summoned to Versailles, where the King, in a traditional ceremony known as a Bed of justice from the old regime, forced the registration of the two edicts in front of the Parliament by a state order. Following this, the Parliament returned to Paris, resumed their session officially, and insisted that the registration be annulled, declaring that everything done at Versailles was illegal. All Parliament members were then served with Lettres de Cachet and exiled to Troyes; however, since they remained resolute in exile just as they had before, and since vengeance did not replace the need for taxes, they were soon called back to Paris.
The edicts were again tendered to them, and the Count D'Artois undertook to act as representative of the King. For this purpose he came from Versailles to Paris, in a train of procession; and the Parliament were assembled to receive him. But show and parade had lost their influence in France; and whatever ideas of importance he might set off with, he had to return with those of mortification and disappointment. On alighting from his carriage to ascend the steps of the Parliament House, the crowd (which was numerously collected) threw out trite expressions, saying: "This is Monsieur D'Artois, who wants more of our money to spend." The marked disapprobation which he saw impressed him with apprehensions, and the word Aux armes! (To arms!) was given out by the officer of the guard who attended him. It was so loudly vociferated, that it echoed through the avenues of the house, and produced a temporary confusion. I was then standing in one of the apartments through which he had to pass, and could not avoid reflecting how wretched was the condition of a disrespected man.
The directives were presented to them again, and Count D'Artois took on the role of the King's representative. To do this, he traveled from Versailles to Paris in a grand procession, and the Parliament was gathered to welcome him. However, spectacle and ceremony had lost their effect in France, and no matter how important he aimed to appear, he had to return feeling humiliated and disappointed. As he got out of his carriage to climb the steps of the Parliament House, the large crowd gathered there shouted phrases like, "This is Monsieur D'Artois, who wants more of our money to waste." The clear disapproval he saw made him anxious, and the officer of the guard accompanying him shouted, "Aux armes!" (To arms!). It was shouted so loudly that it echoed through the hallways and caused a brief commotion. I was standing in one of the rooms he had to pass through and couldn’t help but think about how miserable it must be to be a man who is so disrespected.
He endeavoured to impress the Parliament by great words, and opened his authority by saying, "The King, our Lord and Master." The Parliament received him very coolly, and with their usual determination not to register the taxes: and in this manner the interview ended.
He tried to impress Parliament with grand statements and started off by saying, "The King, our Lord and Master." Parliament received him rather coldly, sticking to their usual stance of refusing to approve the taxes, and that's how the meeting wrapped up.
After this a new subject took place: In the various debates and contests which arose between the Court and the Parliaments on the subject of taxes, the Parliament of Paris at last declared that although it had been customary for Parliaments to enregister edicts for taxes as a matter of convenience, the right belonged only to the States-General; and that, therefore, the Parliament could no longer with propriety continue to debate on what it had not authority to act. The King after this came to Paris and held a meeting with the Parliament, in which he continued from ten in the morning till about six in the evening, and, in a manner that appeared to proceed from him as if unconsulted upon with the Cabinet or Ministry, gave his word to the Parliament that the States-General should be convened.
After this, a new issue came up: During the debates and disputes between the Court and the Parliaments about taxes, the Parliament of Paris finally stated that while it had been usual for Parliaments to register tax edicts for convenience, the right actually belonged only to the States-General. Therefore, the Parliament could no longer properly engage in discussions about matters that were beyond its authority. After this, the King traveled to Paris and held a meeting with the Parliament that lasted from ten in the morning until about six in the evening. In a way that seemed spontaneous and not previously discussed with the Cabinet or Ministry, he assured the Parliament that the States-General would be assembled.
But after this another scene arose, on a ground different from all the former. The Minister and the Cabinet were averse to calling the States-General. They well knew that if the States-General were assembled, themselves must fall; and as the King had not mentioned any time, they hit on a project calculated to elude, without appearing to oppose.
But after this, another scene emerged, on ground different from all the previous ones. The Minister and the Cabinet were opposed to calling the States-General. They knew very well that if the States-General were assembled, they would have to resign; and since the King hadn’t given a specific time, they came up with a plan designed to avoid it without looking like they were opposing it.
For this purpose, the Court set about making a sort of constitution itself. It was principally the work of M. Lamoignon, the Keeper of the Seals, who afterwards shot himself. This new arrangement consisted in establishing a body under the name of a Cour Pleniere, or Full Court, in which were invested all the powers that the Government might have occasion to make use of. The persons composing this Court were to be nominated by the King; the contended right of taxation was given up on the part of the King, and a new criminal code of laws and law proceedings was substituted in the room of the former. The thing, in many points, contained better principles than those upon which the Government had hitherto been administered; but with respect to the Cour Pleniere, it was no other than a medium through which despotism was to pass, without appearing to act directly from itself.
To achieve this, the Court set out to create a kind of constitution. It was mainly the work of M. Lamoignon, the Keeper of the Seals, who later took his own life. This new setup involved establishing a body called a Cour Pleniere, or Full Court, which would hold all the powers that the Government might need. The members of this Court were to be appointed by the King; the King gave up his contested right to tax, and a new criminal code of laws and legal procedures replaced the old one. In many aspects, it included better principles than those used by the Government before; however, regarding the Cour Pleniere, it merely served as a channel for despotism to operate without seeming to act directly.
The Cabinet had high expectations from their new contrivance. The people who were to compose the Cour Pleniere were already nominated; and as it was necessary to carry a fair appearance, many of the best characters in the nation were appointed among the number. It was to commence on May 8, 1788; but an opposition arose to it on two grounds the one as to principle, the other as to form.
The Cabinet had high hopes for their new device. The people who were going to make up the Cour Pleniere had already been nominated; and to maintain a good image, many of the most respected individuals in the country were included. It was set to begin on May 8, 1788, but opposition emerged for two reasons: one regarding principle and the other concerning its structure.
On the ground of Principle it was contended that Government had not a right to alter itself, and that if the practice was once admitted it would grow into a principle and be made a precedent for any future alterations the Government might wish to establish: that the right of altering the Government was a national right, and not a right of Government. And on the ground of form it was contended that the Cour Pleniere was nothing more than a larger Cabinet.
On the basis of principle, it was argued that the government shouldn't have the right to change itself, and that if this practice was allowed, it would become a principle and set a precedent for any future changes the government might want to make: that the right to change the government was a national right, not a governmental one. And on the basis of form, it was argued that the Cour Pleniere was just a bigger cabinet.
The then Duke de la Rochefoucault, Luxembourg, De Noailles, and many others, refused to accept the nomination, and strenuously opposed the whole plan. When the edict for establishing this new court was sent to the Parliaments to be unregistered and put into execution, they resisted also. The Parliament of Paris not only refused, but denied the authority; and the contest renewed itself between the Parliament and the Cabinet more strongly than ever. While the Parliament were sitting in debate on this subject, the Ministry ordered a regiment of soldiers to surround the House and form a blockade. The members sent out for beds and provisions, and lived as in a besieged citadel: and as this had no effect, the commanding officer was ordered to enter the Parliament House and seize them, which he did, and some of the principal members were shut up in different prisons. About the same time a deputation of persons arrived from the province of Brittany to remonstrate against the establishment of the Cour Pleniere, and those the archbishop sent to the Bastille. But the spirit of the nation was not to be overcome, and it was so fully sensible of the strong ground it had taken—that of withholding taxes—that it contented itself with keeping up a sort of quiet resistance, which effectually overthrew all the plans at that time formed against it. The project of the Cour Pleniere was at last obliged to be given up, and the Prime Minister not long afterwards followed its fate, and M. Neckar was recalled into office.
The Duke de la Rochefoucault, Luxembourg, De Noailles, and many others refused to accept the nomination and strongly opposed the entire plan. When the order to establish this new court was sent to the Parliaments to be unregistered and put into action, they resisted as well. The Parliament of Paris not only refused but also denied the authority, and the conflict between the Parliament and the Cabinet intensified. While the Parliament was debating this issue, the Ministry ordered a regiment of soldiers to surround the House and create a blockade. The members requested beds and supplies, living as though they were in a besieged fortress. Since this had no effect, the commanding officer was instructed to enter the Parliament House and arrest them, which he did, and several key members were imprisoned in different jails. Around the same time, a group arrived from Brittany to protest the establishment of the Cour Pleniere, and those were sent to the Bastille by the archbishop. However, the spirit of the nation could not be subdued, and it was fully aware of the strong stance it had taken—refusing to pay taxes. It maintained a form of quiet resistance that effectively thwarted all plans against it at that time. Ultimately, the project for the Cour Pleniere had to be abandoned, and shortly after, the Prime Minister suffered the same fate, leading to M. Neckar being recalled to office.
The attempt to establish the Cour Pleniere had an effect upon the nation which itself did not perceive. It was a sort of new form of government that insensibly served to put the old one out of sight and to unhinge it from the superstitious authority of antiquity. It was Government dethroning Government; and the old one, by attempting to make a new one, made a chasm.
The effort to create the Cour Pleniere had an impact on the nation that it didn’t even realize. It was a kind of new government that gradually pushed the old one into the background and detached it from the outdated superstitions of the past. It was one government replacing another; and by trying to establish a new one, the old government created a divide.
The failure of this scheme renewed the subject of convening the State-General; and this gave rise to a new series of politics. There was no settled form for convening the States-General: all that it positively meant was a deputation from what was then called the Clergy, the Noblesse, and the Commons; but their numbers or their proportions had not been always the same. They had been convened only on extraordinary occasions, the last of which was in 1614; their numbers were then in equal proportions, and they voted by orders.
The failure of this plan brought back the conversation about calling the States-General, which led to a new wave of political activity. There was no fixed method for gathering the States-General; it simply referred to a delegation from what was known as the Clergy, the Nobility, and the Commons, but their numbers or proportions were not always consistent. They had only been convened on special occasions, the most recent being in 1614; at that time, they were represented in equal numbers and voted by order.
It could not well escape the sagacity of M. Neckar, that the mode of 1614 would answer neither the purpose of the then government nor of the nation. As matters were at that time circumstanced it would have been too contentious to agree upon anything. The debates would have been endless upon privileges and exemptions, in which neither the wants of the Government nor the wishes of the nation for a Constitution would have been attended to. But as he did not choose to take the decision upon himself, he summoned again the Assembly of the Notables and referred it to them. This body was in general interested in the decision, being chiefly of aristocracy and high-paid clergy, and they decided in favor of the mode of 1614. This decision was against the sense of the Nation, and also against the wishes of the Court; for the aristocracy opposed itself to both and contended for privileges independent of either. The subject was then taken up by the Parliament, who recommended that the number of the Commons should be equal to the other two: and they should all sit in one house and vote in one body. The number finally determined on was 1,200; 600 to be chosen by the Commons (and this was less than their proportion ought to have been when their worth and consequence is considered on a national scale), 300 by the Clergy, and 300 by the Aristocracy; but with respect to the mode of assembling themselves, whether together or apart, or the manner in which they should vote, those matters were referred.*9
M. Neckar couldn't overlook that the method from 1614 wouldn’t serve the needs of the current government or the country. Given the situation then, it would have been too contentious to agree on anything. The discussions would have dragged on endlessly over privileges and exemptions, ignoring both the government's needs and the nation's desire for a Constitution. Since he didn't want to make the decision alone, he called the Assembly of the Notables together again and handed it over to them. This group, mainly consisting of aristocrats and well-compensated clergy, had a vested interest in the outcome and decided in favor of the 1614 method. This decision went against the will of the nation and the preferences of the Court since the aristocracy stood against both and argued for privileges independent of either. The Parliament then took up the issue and suggested that the number of Commoners should be equal to the other two groups, allowing them all to sit in one house and vote as a single body. The final number agreed upon was 1,200: 600 to be elected by the Commoners (which was less than their fair share when taking their national importance into account), 300 by the Clergy, and 300 by the Aristocracy. However, the questions about how they would assemble—whether together or separately—and how they would vote were left unresolved.*9
The election that followed was not a contested election, but an animated one. The candidates were not men, but principles. Societies were formed in Paris, and committees of correspondence and communication established throughout the nation, for the purpose of enlightening the people, and explaining to them the principles of civil government; and so orderly was the election conducted, that it did not give rise even to the rumour of tumult.
The election that followed wasn’t a contested one, but it was lively. The candidates weren’t individuals, but ideas. Groups were formed in Paris, and committees for communication were set up across the country to educate the public and explain the principles of civil government; and the election was run so smoothly that it didn’t even stir up rumors of unrest.
The States-General were to meet at Versailles in April 1789, but did not assemble till May. They situated themselves in three separate chambers, or rather the Clergy and Aristocracy withdrew each into a separate chamber. The majority of the Aristocracy claimed what they called the privilege of voting as a separate body, and of giving their consent or their negative in that manner; and many of the bishops and the high-beneficed clergy claimed the same privilege on the part of their Order.
The States-General were supposed to meet at Versailles in April 1789, but they didn’t gather until May. They set up in three separate chambers, with the Clergy and Aristocracy each moving into their own space. Most of the Aristocracy claimed what they called the right to vote as a separate group, allowing them to give their approval or disapproval that way; many of the bishops and high-ranking clergy members also claimed the same right for their Order.
The Tiers Etat (as they were then called) disowned any knowledge of artificial orders and artificial privileges; and they were not only resolute on this point, but somewhat disdainful. They began to consider the Aristocracy as a kind of fungus growing out of the corruption of society, that could not be admitted even as a branch of it; and from the disposition the Aristocracy had shown by upholding Lettres de Cachet, and in sundry other instances, it was manifest that no constitution could be formed by admitting men in any other character than as National Men.
The Third Estate (as they were called then) rejected any notion of artificial hierarchies and privileges. They were not only firm about this but also somewhat scornful. They started to view the Aristocracy as a kind of fungus thriving on society's corruption, which couldn't even be considered a part of it; and given the Aristocracy's attitude in supporting Lettres de Cachet and in various other situations, it was clear that no constitution could be established by acknowledging anyone other than as citizens of the nation.
After various altercations on this head, the Tiers Etat or Commons (as they were then called) declared themselves (on a motion made for that purpose by the Abbe Sieyes) "The Representative Of The Nation; and that the two Orders could be considered but as deputies of corporations, and could only have a deliberate voice when they assembled in a national character with the national representatives." This proceeding extinguished the style of Etats Generaux, or States-General, and erected it into the style it now bears, that of L'Assemblee Nationale, or National Assembly.
After several disputes on this matter, the Tiers Etat or Commons (as they were then known) declared themselves (in a motion made for this purpose by Abbe Sieyes) "The Representative of the Nation," stating that the two Orders could only be seen as representatives of their respective groups and could only have a meaningful voice when they came together as a national body with the country's representatives. This action replaced the title Etats Generaux, or States-General, with its new title, L'Assemblee Nationale, or National Assembly.
This motion was not made in a precipitate manner. It was the result of cool deliberation, and concerned between the national representatives and the patriotic members of the two chambers, who saw into the folly, mischief, and injustice of artificial privileged distinctions. It was become evident, that no constitution, worthy of being called by that name, could be established on anything less than a national ground. The Aristocracy had hitherto opposed the despotism of the Court, and affected the language of patriotism; but it opposed it as its rival (as the English Barons opposed King John) and it now opposed the nation from the same motives.
This motion wasn't made hastily. It came from careful thought and involved discussions between national representatives and the patriotic members of both chambers, who understood the folly, harm, and unfairness of artificial privileged distinctions. It had become clear that no constitution worthy of the name could be established on anything less than a national basis. The Aristocracy had previously resisted the despotism of the Court and pretended to champion patriotism; however, they opposed it as a competitor (just like the English Barons opposed King John) and now opposed the nation for the same reasons.
On carrying this motion, the national representatives, as had been concerted, sent an invitation to the two chambers, to unite with them in a national character, and proceed to business. A majority of the clergy, chiefly of the parish priests, withdrew from the clerical chamber, and joined the nation; and forty-five from the other chamber joined in like manner. There is a sort of secret history belonging to this last circumstance, which is necessary to its explanation; it was not judged prudent that all the patriotic members of the chamber styling itself the Nobles, should quit it at once; and in consequence of this arrangement, they drew off by degrees, always leaving some, as well to reason the case, as to watch the suspected. In a little time the numbers increased from forty-five to eighty, and soon after to a greater number; which, with the majority of the clergy, and the whole of the national representatives, put the malcontents in a very diminutive condition.
When this motion was passed, the national representatives sent out an invitation to the two chambers, as planned, asking them to come together under a national focus and get to work. A majority of the clergy, mainly the parish priests, left the clerical chamber and joined the national representatives; forty-five from the other chamber did the same. There’s a bit of a hidden background to this situation that needs explaining; it wasn’t considered wise for all the patriotic members of the chamber calling itself the Nobles to leave at the same time. Because of this plan, they gradually withdrew, always leaving some behind to discuss the matter and keep an eye on those who were suspected. Before long, the numbers grew from forty-five to eighty, and then even higher; this, along with the majority of the clergy and all the national representatives, left the dissenters in a very weakened state.
The King, who, very different from the general class called by that name, is a man of a good heart, showed himself disposed to recommend a union of the three chambers, on the ground the National Assembly had taken; but the malcontents exerted themselves to prevent it, and began now to have another project in view. Their numbers consisted of a majority of the aristocratical chamber, and the minority of the clerical chamber, chiefly of bishops and high-beneficed clergy; and these men were determined to put everything to issue, as well by strength as by stratagem. They had no objection to a constitution; but it must be such a one as themselves should dictate, and suited to their own views and particular situations. On the other hand, the Nation disowned knowing anything of them but as citizens, and was determined to shut out all such up-start pretensions. The more aristocracy appeared, the more it was despised; there was a visible imbecility and want of intellects in the majority, a sort of je ne sais quoi, that while it affected to be more than citizen, was less than man. It lost ground from contempt more than from hatred; and was rather jeered at as an ass, than dreaded as a lion. This is the general character of aristocracy, or what are called Nobles or Nobility, or rather No-ability, in all countries.
The King, who is quite different from the usual type referred to by that title, is a man with a good heart. He showed a willingness to support the unification of the three chambers based on the grounds taken by the National Assembly; however, those who were unhappy worked hard to prevent it and began considering another plan. Their group included a majority from the aristocratic chamber and a minority from the clerical chamber, mainly bishops and wealthy clergy. These individuals were determined to resolve everything through both force and cunning. They didn’t mind having a constitution, but it had to be one that they dictated to serve their own interests and situations. On the other hand, the Nation refused to recognize them as anything other than citizens and was set on rejecting any of their self-inflated claims. The more aristocracy tried to assert itself, the more it was looked down upon; there was a clear lack of intelligence among the majority, a sort of ineffable quality that, while pretending to be above mere citizenship, was actually less than human. It lost support more from disdain than outright hatred and was mocked like a donkey rather than feared like a lion. This is the general characterization of aristocracy, or those known as Nobles or Nobility, or rather No-ability, across all countries.
The plan of the malcontents consisted now of two things; either to deliberate and vote by chambers (or orders), more especially on all questions respecting a Constitution (by which the aristocratical chamber would have had a negative on any article of the Constitution); or, in case they could not accomplish this object, to overthrow the National Assembly entirely.
The plan of the dissenters now included two options: either to discuss and vote in separate chambers (or groups), particularly on all matters related to a Constitution (which would allow the aristocratic chamber to veto any article of the Constitution); or, if they couldn't achieve this goal, to completely dismantle the National Assembly.
To effect one or other of these objects they began to cultivate a friendship with the despotism they had hitherto attempted to rival, and the Count D'Artois became their chief. The king (who has since declared himself deceived into their measures) held, according to the old form, a Bed of Justice, in which he accorded to the deliberation and vote par tete (by head) upon several subjects; but reserved the deliberation and vote upon all questions respecting a constitution to the three chambers separately. This declaration of the king was made against the advice of M. Neckar, who now began to perceive that he was growing out of fashion at Court, and that another minister was in contemplation.
To achieve one of these goals, they started building a friendship with the authoritarian rule they had previously tried to oppose, with Count D'Artois as their leader. The king (who has since claimed he was misled into their actions) held a Bed of Justice, where he allowed discussions and voting by head on various issues; however, he reserved discussions and voting on all constitutional matters for the three chambers separately. The king's statement was made against the advice of M. Neckar, who was starting to realize that he was falling out of favor at Court and that another minister was being considered.
As the form of sitting in separate chambers was yet apparently kept up, though essentially destroyed, the national representatives immediately after this declaration of the King resorted to their own chambers to consult on a protest against it; and the minority of the chamber (calling itself the Nobles), who had joined the national cause, retired to a private house to consult in like manner. The malcontents had by this time concerted their measures with the court, which the Count D'Artois undertook to conduct; and as they saw from the discontent which the declaration excited, and the opposition making against it, that they could not obtain a control over the intended constitution by a separate vote, they prepared themselves for their final object—that of conspiring against the National Assembly, and overthrowing it.
As the practice of sitting in separate chambers still seemed to be in place, even though it was basically ruined, the national representatives immediately headed back to their chambers after the King made his declaration to discuss how to protest it. The minority of the chamber, identifying as the Nobles, who had joined the national cause, went to a private house to discuss things similarly. By this time, the dissenters had coordinated their plans with the court, which Count D'Artois took charge of; and seeing the dissatisfaction that the declaration caused, along with the opposition it faced, they realized that they could not gain control over the proposed constitution through a separate vote. So, they geared up for their ultimate goal—conspiring against the National Assembly and bringing it down.
The next morning the door of the chamber of the National Assembly was shut against them, and guarded by troops; and the members were refused admittance. On this they withdrew to a tennis-ground in the neighbourhood of Versailles, as the most convenient place they could find, and, after renewing their session, took an oath never to separate from each other, under any circumstance whatever, death excepted, until they had established a constitution. As the experiment of shutting up the house had no other effect than that of producing a closer connection in the members, it was opened again the next day, and the public business recommenced in the usual place.
The next morning, the door to the National Assembly’s chamber was locked against them and guarded by soldiers, and the members were denied entry. In response, they moved to a nearby tennis court in Versailles, as it was the most convenient location they could find. After resuming their session, they took an oath never to separate from each other, for any reason except death, until they established a constitution. Since the attempt to close the house only strengthened the bond among the members, it was reopened the following day, and public business resumed in the usual place.
We are now to have in view the forming of the new ministry, which was to accomplish the overthrow of the National Assembly. But as force would be necessary, orders were issued to assemble thirty thousand troops, the command of which was given to Broglio, one of the intended new ministry, who was recalled from the country for this purpose. But as some management was necessary to keep this plan concealed till the moment it should be ready for execution, it is to this policy that a declaration made by Count D'Artois must be attributed, and which is here proper to be introduced.
We are now going to focus on forming the new government, which aimed to dismantle the National Assembly. As force would be needed, orders were issued to gather thirty thousand troops, which were put under the command of Broglio, one of the members of the new government, who was called back from the countryside for this purpose. However, some careful planning was necessary to keep this strategy hidden until it was ready to be executed, and it is to this approach that a statement made by Count D'Artois should be linked, which is relevant to mention here.
It could not but occur while the malcontents continued to resort to their chambers separate from the National Assembly, more jealousy would be excited than if they were mixed with it, and that the plot might be suspected. But as they had taken their ground, and now wanted a pretence for quitting it, it was necessary that one should be devised. This was effectually accomplished by a declaration made by the Count D'Artois: "That if they took not a Part in the National Assembly, the life of the king would be endangered": on which they quitted their chambers, and mixed with the Assembly, in one body.
It was inevitable that while the discontented members continued to stay in their separate chambers away from the National Assembly, more jealousy would arise than if they had mingled with it, and that their scheme might be suspected. However, since they had already established their position and were now looking for a reason to abandon it, it became essential to come up with a justification. This was effectively achieved by a statement made by Count D'Artois: "If they do not participate in the National Assembly, the king's life will be in danger:" upon which they left their chambers and joined the Assembly as one group.
At the time this declaration was made, it was generally treated as a piece of absurdity in Count D'Artois calculated merely to relieve the outstanding members of the two chambers from the diminutive situation they were put in; and if nothing more had followed, this conclusion would have been good. But as things best explain themselves by their events, this apparent union was only a cover to the machinations which were secretly going on; and the declaration accommodated itself to answer that purpose. In a little time the National Assembly found itself surrounded by troops, and thousands more were daily arriving. On this a very strong declaration was made by the National Assembly to the King, remonstrating on the impropriety of the measure, and demanding the reason. The King, who was not in the secret of this business, as himself afterwards declared, gave substantially for answer, that he had no other object in view than to preserve the public tranquility, which appeared to be much disturbed.
At the time this declaration was made, it was widely seen as a ridiculous move by Count D'Artois, aimed merely at lifting the outstanding members of the two chambers from their uncomfortable position. If nothing more had come of it, this conclusion would have been valid. However, events often reveal the true nature of situations, and this apparent unity was just a facade for the schemes that were happening behind the scenes; the declaration served this purpose. Before long, the National Assembly found itself surrounded by troops, with thousands more arriving daily. In response, the National Assembly issued a strong statement to the King, protesting the inappropriateness of the situation and asking for an explanation. The King, who later claimed he was unaware of these developments, essentially replied that his only goal was to maintain public peace, which seemed to be greatly unsettled.
But in a few days from this time the plot unravelled itself M. Neckar and the ministry were displaced, and a new one formed of the enemies of the Revolution; and Broglio, with between twenty-five and thirty thousand foreign troops, was arrived to support them. The mask was now thrown off, and matters were come to a crisis. The event was that in a space of three days the new ministry and their abettors found it prudent to fly the nation; the Bastille was taken, and Broglio and his foreign troops dispersed, as is already related in the former part of this work.
But a few days later, the situation changed dramatically. M. Neckar and the ministry were removed, and a new one was established made up of the enemies of the Revolution. Broglio arrived with about twenty-five to thirty thousand foreign troops to support them. The facade was dropped, and things reached a boiling point. In just three days, the new ministry and their supporters decided it was best to flee the country; the Bastille was taken, and Broglio and his foreign troops were scattered, as previously mentioned in this work.
There are some curious circumstances in the history of this short-lived ministry, and this short-lived attempt at a counter-revolution. The Palace of Versailles, where the Court was sitting, was not more than four hundred yards distant from the hall where the National Assembly was sitting. The two places were at this moment like the separate headquarters of two combatant armies; yet the Court was as perfectly ignorant of the information which had arrived from Paris to the National Assembly, as if it had resided at an hundred miles distance. The then Marquis de la Fayette, who (as has been already mentioned) was chosen to preside in the National Assembly on this particular occasion, named by order of the Assembly three successive deputations to the king, on the day and up to the evening on which the Bastille was taken, to inform and confer with him on the state of affairs; but the ministry, who knew not so much as that it was attacked, precluded all communication, and were solacing themselves how dextrously they had succeeded; but in a few hours the accounts arrived so thick and fast that they had to start from their desks and run. Some set off in one disguise, and some in another, and none in their own character. Their anxiety now was to outride the news, lest they should be stopt, which, though it flew fast, flew not so fast as themselves.
There are some interesting circumstances in the history of this brief ministry and this fleeting attempt at a counter-revolution. The Palace of Versailles, where the Court was convening, was no more than four hundred yards from the hall where the National Assembly was meeting. At that moment, the two locations were like the separate headquarters of two opposing armies; yet the Court was completely unaware of the information that had reached the National Assembly in Paris, as if they were a hundred miles away. The Marquis de la Fayette, who was chosen to preside over the National Assembly on this occasion, ordered three successive delegations to the king on the day of the Bastille's capture to inform him and discuss the situation. However, the ministry, unaware even that they were under attack, shut down all communication and were congratulating themselves on how cleverly they had handled things. But within hours, news came flooding in so quickly that they had to abandon their desks and flee. Some left in one disguise, others in another, and none in their own identity. Their only concern now was to outrun the news, fearing they might be caught, which, although it was spreading fast, wasn’t as fast as they were.
It is worth remarking that the National Assembly neither pursued those fugitive conspirators, nor took any notice of them, nor sought to retaliate in any shape whatever. Occupied with establishing a constitution founded on the Rights of Man and the Authority of the People, the only authority on which Government has a right to exist in any country, the National Assembly felt none of those mean passions which mark the character of impertinent governments, founding themselves on their own authority, or on the absurdity of hereditary succession. It is the faculty of the human mind to become what it contemplates, and to act in unison with its object.
It's important to note that the National Assembly neither went after those fugitive conspirators, nor acknowledged them, nor sought any kind of revenge. Focused on creating a constitution based on the Rights of Man and the Authority of the People—the only legitimate foundation for government in any nation—the National Assembly lacked the petty emotions that define arrogant governments, which base themselves on their own power or the ridiculousness of hereditary succession. The human mind has the ability to become what it observes and to act in alignment with its focus.
The conspiracy being thus dispersed, one of the first works of the National Assembly, instead of vindictive proclamations, as has been the case with other governments, was to publish a declaration of the Rights of Man, as the basis on which the new constitution was to be built, and which is here subjoined:
The conspiracy being broken up, one of the first actions of the National Assembly, instead of issuing vengeful statements like other governments have done, was to release a declaration of the Rights of Man, which would serve as the foundation for the new constitution, and which is included here:
Declaration Of The Rights Of Man And Citizens By The National Assembly Of France
The representatives of the people of France, formed into a National Assembly, considering that ignorance, neglect, or contempt of human rights, are the sole causes of public misfortunes and corruptions of Government, have resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration, these natural, imprescriptible, and inalienable rights: that this declaration being constantly present to the minds of the members of the body social, they may be forever kept attentive to their rights and their duties; that the acts of the legislative and executive powers of Government, being capable of being every moment compared with the end of political institutions, may be more respected; and also, that the future claims of the citizens, being directed by simple and incontestable principles, may always tend to the maintenance of the Constitution, and the general happiness.
The representatives of the people of France, organized into a National Assembly, recognize that ignorance, neglect, or disregard for human rights are the main causes of public suffering and government corruption. They have decided to present a formal declaration of these natural, inalienable, and timeless rights: so that this declaration remains constantly in the minds of the members of society, ensuring they are always aware of their rights and responsibilities; that the actions of both the legislative and executive branches of government can be regularly compared to the purpose of political institutions, leading to greater respect; and that future claims of citizens, guided by clear and indisputable principles, will always contribute to the preservation of the Constitution and the overall well-being.
For these reasons the National Assembly doth recognize and declare, in the presence of the Supreme Being, and with the hope of his blessing and favour, the following sacred rights of men and of citizens:
For these reasons, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence of a higher power and with the hope for its blessing and favor, the following sacred rights of individuals and citizens:
One: Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their Rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on Public Utility.
One: Men are born free and equal in terms of their rights, and this continues throughout their lives. Civil distinctions can only be based on public benefit.
Two: The end of all Political associations is the Preservation of the Natural and Imprescriptible Rights of Man; and these rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.
Two: The main goal of all political groups is to protect the natural and fundamental rights of individuals; these rights include freedom, property, security, and the ability to resist oppression.
Three: The Nation is essentially the source of all Sovereignty; nor can any individual, or any body of Men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it.
Three: The Nation is basically the source of all power; no individual or group of people can have any authority that doesn’t come directly from it.
Four: Political Liberty consists in the power of doing whatever does not Injure another. The exercise of the Natural Rights of every Man, has no other limits than those which are necessary to secure to every other Man the Free exercise of the same Rights; and these limits are determinable only by the Law.
Four: Political liberty means the ability to do anything that doesn’t harm someone else. The exercise of each person’s natural rights has no limits except those required to ensure that everyone else can freely exercise the same rights; and these limits can only be determined by the law.
Five: The Law ought to Prohibit only actions hurtful to Society. What is not Prohibited by the Law should not be hindered; nor should anyone be compelled to that which the Law does not Require.
Five: The law should only prohibit actions that harm society. Anything not prohibited by the law shouldn't be restricted; nor should anyone be forced to do what the law doesn't require.
Six: the Law is an expression of the Will of the Community. All Citizens have a right to concur, either personally or by their Representatives, in its formation. It Should be the same to all, whether it protects or punishes; and all being equal in its sight, are equally eligible to all Honours, Places, and employments, according to their different abilities, without any other distinction than that created by their Virtues and talents.
Six: the Law is a reflection of the Community's Will. All Citizens have the right to participate, either personally or through their Representatives, in its creation. It should apply equally to everyone, whether it offers protection or imposes punishment; and since all are equal in its eyes, they are equally qualified for all Honors, Positions, and jobs, based on their various abilities, without any distinction other than that which arises from their Virtues and talents.
Seven: No Man should be accused, arrested, or held in confinement, except in cases determined by the Law, and according to the forms which it has prescribed. All who promote, solicit, execute, or cause to be executed, arbitrary orders, ought to be punished, and every Citizen called upon, or apprehended by virtue of the Law, ought immediately to obey, and renders himself culpable by resistance.
Seven: No one should be accused, arrested, or held in custody unless it’s covered by the law and follows the procedures it has established. Anyone who advocates for, requests, carries out, or instigates arbitrary orders should be punished, and every citizen who is called upon or detained under the law must comply immediately and is considered at fault if they resist.
Eight: The Law ought to impose no other penalties but such as are absolutely and evidently necessary; and no one ought to be punished, but in virtue of a Law promulgated before the offence, and Legally applied.
Eight: The law should only impose penalties that are absolutely necessary and clearly justified; and no one should be punished except under a law that was announced before the offense and applied legally.
Nine: Every Man being presumed innocent till he has been convicted, whenever his detention becomes indispensable, all rigour to him, more than is necessary to secure his person, ought to be provided against by the Law.
Nine: Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so when their detention becomes necessary, the law should protect them against any harsh treatment beyond what is needed to ensure their custody.
Ten: No Man ought to be molested on account of his opinions, not even on account of his Religious opinions, provided his avowal of them does not disturb the Public Order established by the Law.
Ten: No one should be bothered because of their opinions, not even their religious beliefs, as long as expressing them doesn’t disrupt the public order set by the law.
Eleven: The unrestrained communication of thoughts and opinions being one of the Most Precious Rights of Man, every Citizen may speak, write, and publish freely, provided he is responsible for the abuse of this Liberty, in cases determined by the Law.
Eleven: The open sharing of thoughts and opinions is one of the most valuable rights of a person. Every citizen has the right to speak, write, and publish freely, as long as they are accountable for any misuse of this freedom, in situations defined by the law.
Twelve: A Public force being necessary to give security to the Rights of Men and of Citizens, that force is instituted for the benefit of the Community and not for the particular benefit of the persons to whom it is intrusted.
Twelve: A public force is necessary to ensure the security of the rights of individuals and citizens; that force is created for the benefit of the community, not for the personal gain of those in charge of it.
Thirteen: A common contribution being necessary for the support of the Public force, and for defraying the other expenses of Government, it ought to be divided equally among the Members of the Community, according to their abilities.
Thirteen: A common contribution is essential for supporting the public force and covering other government expenses, so it should be divided equally among the members of the community based on their abilities.
Fourteen: every Citizen has a Right, either by himself or his Representative, to a free voice in determining the necessity of Public Contributions, the appropriation of them, and their amount, mode of assessment, and duration.
Fourteen: every Citizen has the Right, either on their own or through their Representative, to have a say in deciding the need for Public Contributions, how they are allocated, and their amount, method of assessment, and duration.
Fifteen: every Community has a Right to demand of all its agents an account of their conduct.
Fifteen: every community has the right to ask all its members for an explanation of their actions.
Sixteen: every Community in which a Separation of Powers and a Security of Rights is not Provided for, wants a Constitution.
Sixteen: every community that doesn't have a separation of powers and guaranteed rights needs a constitution.
Seventeen: The Right to Property being inviolable and sacred, no one ought to be deprived of it, except in cases of evident Public necessity, legally ascertained, and on condition of a previous just Indemnity.
Seventeen: The right to property is inviolable and sacred; no one should be deprived of it, except in clear cases of public necessity, legally determined, and with the condition of a fair prior compensation.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
The first three articles comprehend in general terms the whole of a Declaration of Rights, all the succeeding articles either originate from them or follow as elucidations. The 4th, 5th, and 6th define more particularly what is only generally expressed in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
The first three articles generally cover the entire Declaration of Rights, with all the following articles either deriving from them or serving as explanations. The 4th, 5th, and 6th articles more specifically define what is only broadly stated in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd articles.
The 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th articles are declaratory of principles upon which laws shall be constructed, conformable to rights already declared. But it is questioned by some very good people in France, as well as in other countries, whether the 10th article sufficiently guarantees the right it is intended to accord with; besides which it takes off from the divine dignity of religion, and weakens its operative force upon the mind, to make it a subject of human laws. It then presents itself to man like light intercepted by a cloudy medium, in which the source of it is obscured from his sight, and he sees nothing to reverence in the dusky ray.*10
The 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th articles state the principles on which laws should be built, based on already established rights. However, some respected individuals in France and other countries question whether the 10th article adequately guarantees the right it aims to secure. Additionally, treating religion as a matter of human laws diminishes its divine significance and weakens its impact on our minds. As a result, it appears to us like light filtered through a cloudy medium, obscuring its source, leaving us with nothing to truly respect in the dim ray.*10
The remaining articles, beginning with the twelfth, are substantially contained in the principles of the preceding articles; but in the particular situation in which France then was, having to undo what was wrong, as well as to set up what was right, it was proper to be more particular than what in another condition of things would be necessary.
The remaining articles, starting with the twelfth, are mainly based on the principles of the earlier articles; however, considering the specific circumstances France was in at that time—having to fix what was wrong while also establishing what was right—it was appropriate to be more detailed than would normally be required in a different situation.
While the Declaration of Rights was before the National Assembly some of its members remarked that if a declaration of rights were published it should be accompanied by a Declaration of Duties. The observation discovered a mind that reflected, and it only erred by not reflecting far enough. A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a Declaration of Duties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.
While the Declaration of Rights was being discussed in the National Assembly, some members noted that if a declaration of rights was published, it should come with a Declaration of Duties. This comment showed thoughtful consideration, but it failed to go far enough. A Declaration of Rights inherently includes a Declaration of Duties as well. Whatever rights I have as an individual are also the rights of others; therefore, it is my responsibility to ensure those rights are upheld as well as to enjoy them myself.
The three first articles are the base of Liberty, as well individual as national; nor can any country be called free whose government does not take its beginning from the principles they contain, and continue to preserve them pure; and the whole of the Declaration of Rights is of more value to the world, and will do more good, than all the laws and statutes that have yet been promulgated.
The first three articles are the foundation of both individual and national freedom; no country can truly be considered free if its government doesn’t stem from the principles they embody and maintain them intact. The entire Declaration of Rights holds more value for the world and will do more good than all the laws and statutes that have been established so far.
In the declaratory exordium which prefaces the Declaration of Rights we see the solemn and majestic spectacle of a nation opening its commission, under the auspices of its Creator, to establish a Government, a scene so new, and so transcendantly unequalled by anything in the European world, that the name of a Revolution is diminutive of its character, and it rises into a Regeneration of man. What are the present Governments of Europe but a scene of iniquity and oppression? What is that of England? Do not its own inhabitants say it is a market where every man has his price, and where corruption is common traffic at the expense of a deluded people? No wonder, then, that the French Revolution is traduced. Had it confined itself merely to the destruction of flagrant despotism perhaps Mr. Burke and some others had been silent. Their cry now is, "It has gone too far"—that is, it has gone too far for them. It stares corruption in the face, and the venal tribe are all alarmed. Their fear discovers itself in their outrage, and they are but publishing the groans of a wounded vice. But from such opposition the French Revolution, instead of suffering, receives an homage. The more it is struck the more sparks it will emit; and the fear is it will not be struck enough. It has nothing to dread from attacks; truth has given it an establishment, and time will record it with a name as lasting as his own.
In the opening statement that introduces the Declaration of Rights, we witness the serious and grand scene of a nation embarking on its mission, with the guidance of its Creator, to establish a Government. This moment is so unique and overwhelmingly unmatched by anything in Europe that calling it a Revolution seems insufficient; it represents a Rebirth of humanity. What do the current Governments of Europe represent but a landscape of injustice and oppression? And what about England? Don't its own citizens say it's a marketplace where everyone has a price and where corruption is commonplace, to the detriment of a misled public? It's no surprise that the French Revolution is criticized. If it had only focused on dismantling obvious tyranny, perhaps Mr. Burke and others would have remained quiet. Their complaint now is, "It's gone too far"—meaning it has gone too far for their liking. It confronts corruption head-on, and those who benefit from vice are panicking. Their fear reveals itself in their outrage, and they are merely broadcasting the cries of a wounded wrongdoing. However, rather than suffering from such opposition, the French Revolution gains recognition. The more it is attacked, the more it sparks; and the fear is that it might not be challenged enough. It has nothing to fear from these assaults; truth has granted it a foundation, and history will remember it with a name as enduring as its own.
Having now traced the progress of the French Revolution through most of its principal stages, from its commencement to the taking of the Bastille, and its establishment by the Declaration of Rights, I will close the subject with the energetic apostrophe of M. de la Fayette, "May this great monument, raised to Liberty, serve as a lesson to the oppressor, and an example to the oppressed!"*11
Having now followed the course of the French Revolution through most of its key stages, from the beginning to the storming of the Bastille, and its foundation through the Declaration of Rights, I will conclude the topic with the powerful words of M. de la Fayette, "May this great monument, dedicated to Liberty, serve as a lesson to the oppressor and an example to the oppressed!"*11
Extra Chapter
To prevent interrupting the argument in the preceding part of this work, or the narrative that follows it, I reserved some observations to be thrown together in a Miscellaneous Chapter; by which variety might not be censured for confusion. Mr. Burke's book is all Miscellany. His intention was to make an attack on the French Revolution; but instead of proceeding with an orderly arrangement, he has stormed it with a mob of ideas tumbling over and destroying one another.
To avoid disrupting the argument from the previous section of this work or the narrative that comes next, I set aside some remarks to compile in a Miscellaneous Chapter; this way, variety wouldn’t be mistaken for chaos. Mr. Burke's book is entirely a mix of different topics. His goal was to critique the French Revolution; however, instead of organizing his thoughts cohesively, he bombarded it with a chaotic jumble of ideas that contradict and undermine each other.
But this confusion and contradiction in Mr. Burke's Book is easily accounted for.—When a man in a wrong cause attempts to steer his course by anything else than some polar truth or principle, he is sure to be lost. It is beyond the compass of his capacity to keep all the parts of an argument together, and make them unite in one issue, by any other means than having this guide always in view. Neither memory nor invention will supply the want of it. The former fails him, and the latter betrays him.
But the confusion and contradictions in Mr. Burke's book are easy to explain. When someone on the wrong side of an argument tries to navigate using anything other than a clear truth or principle, they’re bound to get lost. It’s beyond their ability to keep all aspects of an argument cohesive and aligned toward one conclusion without having that guiding principle in sight. Neither memory nor creativity can replace this necessity. Memory lets them down, and imagination leads them astray.
Notwithstanding the nonsense, for it deserves no better name, that Mr. Burke has asserted about hereditary rights, and hereditary succession, and that a Nation has not a right to form a Government of itself; it happened to fall in his way to give some account of what Government is. "Government," says he, "is a contrivance of human wisdom."
Despite the nonsense, which deserves no better title, that Mr. Burke has claimed about hereditary rights and succession, as well as the idea that a nation doesn't have the right to create its own government; he happened to take the opportunity to describe what government is. "Government," he states, "is a creation of human wisdom."
Admitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must necessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights (as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary; and on the other hand, that cannot be a wise contrivance, which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. The ground which Mr. Burke now takes is fatal to every part of his cause. The argument changes from hereditary rights to hereditary wisdom; and the question is, Who is the wisest man? He must now show that every one in the line of hereditary succession was a Solomon, or his title is not good to be a king. What a stroke has Mr. Burke now made! To use a sailor's phrase, he has swabbed the deck, and scarcely left a name legible in the list of Kings; and he has mowed down and thinned the House of Peers, with a scythe as formidable as Death and Time.
Acknowledging that government is a creation of human intellect, it logically follows that hereditary succession and hereditary rights—so-called—cannot be part of it, because wisdom cannot be passed down through generations. Furthermore, a system that might place the governance of a nation in the hands of a fool cannot be considered wise. The position that Mr. Burke now takes is destructive to his entire argument. The discussion shifts from hereditary rights to hereditary wisdom, and the central question becomes, "Who is the wisest person?" He must now demonstrate that everyone in the line of hereditary succession was as wise as Solomon, or his claim to the throne is invalid. What a blow Mr. Burke has struck! To use a sailor's expression, he's cleaned the deck and barely left a name readable in the list of kings; and he has cut down and diminished the House of Peers with a scythe as powerful as Death and Time.
But Mr. Burke appears to have been aware of this retort; and he has taken care to guard against it, by making government to be not only a contrivance of human wisdom, but a monopoly of wisdom. He puts the nation as fools on one side, and places his government of wisdom, all wise men of Gotham, on the other side; and he then proclaims, and says that "Men have a Right that their Wants should be provided for by this wisdom." Having thus made proclamation, he next proceeds to explain to them what their wants are, and also what their rights are. In this he has succeeded dextrously, for he makes their wants to be a want of wisdom; but as this is cold comfort, he then informs them, that they have a right (not to any of the wisdom) but to be governed by it; and in order to impress them with a solemn reverence for this monopoly-government of wisdom, and of its vast capacity for all purposes, possible or impossible, right or wrong, he proceeds with astrological mysterious importance, to tell to them its powers in these words: "The rights of men in government are their advantages; and these are often in balance between differences of good; and in compromises sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil. Political reason is a computing principle; adding—subtracting—multiplying—and dividing, morally and not metaphysically or mathematically, true moral denominations."
But Mr. Burke seems to have anticipated this reply, and he's taken steps to defend against it by presenting government not just as a product of human intelligence, but as a monopoly on wisdom. He sets the foolish masses on one side and his wise government, filled with all the wise men of Gotham, on the other. He then declares that "People have a right to have their needs met by this wisdom." After making this declaration, he goes on to define for them what their needs and rights are. He’s skillfully succeeded in this, framing their needs as a lack of wisdom; however, since that’s not very comforting, he informs them that they have a right—not to any of the wisdom itself, but to be governed by it. To instill in them a deep respect for this monopoly government of wisdom and its immense capabilities for any purpose, whether possible or impossible, right or wrong, he proceeds with an air of mysterious importance to declare its powers in these words: "The rights of individuals in government are their benefits; and these are often weighed against differences of good; and sometimes are compromises between good and evil, and at times between evil and evil. Political reasoning is a calculating principle; adding—subtracting—multiplying—dividing, morally and not metaphysically or mathematically, with true moral categorization."
As the wondering audience, whom Mr. Burke supposes himself talking to, may not understand all this learned jargon, I will undertake to be its interpreter. The meaning, then, good people, of all this, is: That government is governed by no principle whatever; that it can make evil good, or good evil, just as it pleases. In short, that government is arbitrary power.
As the curious audience that Mr. Burke thinks he’s addressing might not get all this complicated language, I’ll take on the role of translator. So, the gist of this, dear folks, is: that government isn’t based on any principles at all; it can turn good into bad or bad into good whenever it wants. Basically, that government is just random power.
But there are some things which Mr. Burke has forgotten. First, he has not shown where the wisdom originally came from: and secondly, he has not shown by what authority it first began to act. In the manner he introduces the matter, it is either government stealing wisdom, or wisdom stealing government. It is without an origin, and its powers without authority. In short, it is usurpation.
But there are some things Mr. Burke has overlooked. First, he hasn't shown where the wisdom originally came from; and second, he hasn't indicated by what authority it first began to operate. In the way he presents the issue, it appears either that the government is stealing wisdom or that wisdom is stealing from the government. It lacks an origin, and its powers lack authority. In short, it's a usurpation.
Whether it be from a sense of shame, or from a consciousness of some radical defect in a government necessary to be kept out of sight, or from both, or from any other cause, I undertake not to determine, but so it is, that a monarchical reasoner never traces government to its source, or from its source. It is one of the shibboleths by which he may be known. A thousand years hence, those who shall live in America or France, will look back with contemplative pride on the origin of their government, and say, This was the work of our glorious ancestors! But what can a monarchical talker say? What has he to exult in? Alas he has nothing. A certain something forbids him to look back to a beginning, lest some robber, or some Robin Hood, should rise from the long obscurity of time and say, I am the origin. Hard as Mr. Burke laboured at the Regency Bill and Hereditary Succession two years ago, and much as he dived for precedents, he still had not boldness enough to bring up William of Normandy, and say, There is the head of the list! there is the fountain of honour! the son of a prostitute, and the plunderer of the English nation.
Whether it’s due to shame, an awareness of a fundamental flaw in a government that needs to be hidden, both, or any other reason, I won’t say, but it’s true that a monarchist never connects government to its origins or derives it from them. It’s one of the markers by which he can be identified. A thousand years from now, people living in America or France will look back with thoughtful pride on the origins of their government and say, "This was the work of our glorious ancestors!" But what can a monarchist say? What do they have to celebrate? Unfortunately, they have nothing. Something prevents them from looking back to a beginning, for fear that some outlaw, or some Robin Hood, might emerge from the mists of time and declare, "I am the origin." Despite how hard Mr. Burke worked on the Regency Bill and Hereditary Succession two years ago, and how much he searched for precedents, he still didn’t have the courage to mention William of Normandy and say, "There is the head of the list! There is the source of honor! The son of a prostitute and the plunderer of the English nation."
The opinions of men with respect to government are changing fast in all countries. The Revolutions of America and France have thrown a beam of light over the world, which reaches into man. The enormous expense of governments has provoked people to think, by making them feel; and when once the veil begins to rend, it admits not of repair. Ignorance is of a peculiar nature: once dispelled, it is impossible to re-establish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant. The mind, in discovering truth, acts in the same manner as it acts through the eye in discovering objects; when once any object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it. Those who talk of a counter-revolution in France, show how little they understand of man. There does not exist in the compass of language an arrangement of words to express so much as the means of effecting a counter-revolution. The means must be an obliteration of knowledge; and it has never yet been discovered how to make man unknow his knowledge, or unthink his thoughts.
The views of people regarding government are rapidly changing in all countries. The American and French Revolutions have shed a light across the globe that impacts individuals. The huge costs of governments have pushed people to think, as they start to feel the burden; once the veil begins to tear, there’s no going back. Ignorance has a unique quality: once it’s lifted, it can’t be reinstated. It isn't a thing in itself, but just a lack of knowledge; and while people can be kept in the dark, they can’t be made to forget what they’ve learned. The mind, in discovering truth, works like the eye discovering objects; once something has been seen, it’s impossible to revert to the state of mind before seeing it. Those who discuss a counter-revolution in France clearly don’t understand human nature. There are no words in any language that can convey the methods for achieving a counter-revolution. It would require erasing knowledge, and no one has ever figured out how to make a person unlearn what they know or stop thinking their thoughts.
Mr. Burke is labouring in vain to stop the progress of knowledge; and it comes with the worse grace from him, as there is a certain transaction known in the city which renders him suspected of being a pensioner in a fictitious name. This may account for some strange doctrine he has advanced in his book, which though he points it at the Revolution Society, is effectually directed against the whole nation.
Mr. Burke is trying unsuccessfully to stop the spread of knowledge; and it looks even worse coming from him because there’s a certain deal known in the city that makes people suspect he’s being paid under a fake name. This might explain some odd ideas he’s put forward in his book, which, although aimed at the Revolution Society, actually targets the whole country.
"The King of England," says he, "holds his crown (for it does not belong to the Nation, according to Mr. Burke) in contempt of the choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a single vote for a king among them either individually or collectively; and his Majesty's heirs each in their time and order, will come to the Crown with the same contempt of their choice, with which his Majesty has succeeded to that which he now wears."
"The King of England," he says, "holds his crown (which, according to Mr. Burke, doesn't belong to the Nation) in disregard of the choice of the Revolution Society, who don’t have a single vote for a king, either individually or as a group; and his Majesty's heirs, in their own time and order, will take the Crown with the same disregard for their choice that his Majesty showed when he took the one he currently wears."
As to who is King in England, or elsewhere, or whether there is any King at all, or whether the people choose a Cherokee chief, or a Hessian hussar for a King, it is not a matter that I trouble myself about—be that to themselves; but with respect to the doctrine, so far as it relates to the Rights of Men and Nations, it is as abominable as anything ever uttered in the most enslaved country under heaven. Whether it sounds worse to my ear, by not being accustomed to hear such despotism, than what it does to another person, I am not so well a judge of; but of its abominable principle I am at no loss to judge.
As for who is king in England or anywhere else, or if there’s even a king at all, or whether people choose a Cherokee chief or a Hessian hussar as their king, that’s not something I worry about—let them handle it. However, regarding the idea itself, especially as it pertains to the Rights of Men and Nations, it’s as terrible as anything ever said in the most oppressed country on Earth. I can’t really judge whether it sounds worse to me because I’m not used to such tyranny than it does to someone else, but I have no trouble judging its horrifying principle.
It is not the Revolution Society that Mr. Burke means; it is the Nation, as well in its original as in its representative character; and he has taken care to make himself understood, by saying that they have not a vote either collectively or individually. The Revolution Society is composed of citizens of all denominations, and of members of both the Houses of Parliament; and consequently, if there is not a right to a vote in any of the characters, there can be no right to any either in the nation or in its Parliament. This ought to be a caution to every country how to import foreign families to be kings. It is somewhat curious to observe, that although the people of England had been in the habit of talking about kings, it is always a Foreign House of Kings; hating Foreigners yet governed by them.—It is now the House of Brunswick, one of the petty tribes of Germany.
Mr. Burke isn’t referring to the Revolution Society; he’s talking about the Nation, both in its original and representative form. He’s made it clear that they don’t have a vote, either as a group or individually. The Revolution Society consists of citizens from all walks of life and members of both Houses of Parliament, so if there’s no right to vote in any of those roles, then there’s no right to vote in the nation or Parliament either. This should serve as a warning to every country about importing foreign families to become kings. It’s interesting to note that, even though the people of England often discuss kings, it’s always about a foreign royal family; they dislike foreigners but are governed by them. Currently, it’s the House of Brunswick, which is one of the minor tribes of Germany.
It has hitherto been the practice of the English Parliaments to regulate what was called the succession (taking it for granted that the Nation then continued to accord to the form of annexing a monarchical branch of its government; for without this the Parliament could not have had authority to have sent either to Holland or to Hanover, or to impose a king upon the nation against its will). And this must be the utmost limit to which Parliament can go upon this case; but the right of the Nation goes to the whole case, because it has the right of changing its whole form of government. The right of a Parliament is only a right in trust, a right by delegation, and that but from a very small part of the Nation; and one of its Houses has not even this. But the right of the Nation is an original right, as universal as taxation. The nation is the paymaster of everything, and everything must conform to its general will.
Until now, it has been the practice of the English Parliaments to manage what was known as the succession (assuming that the Nation continued to support the idea of having a monarch as part of its government; without this support, Parliament wouldn't have had the authority to send representatives to Holland or Hanover, or to impose a king on the nation against its wishes). This must be the furthest limit to which Parliament can go in this matter; however, the Nation's right extends to the entire situation, since it has the right to change its entire form of government. The right of a Parliament is merely a delegated right, a right of trust, stemming from a very small segment of the Nation; and one of its Houses does not even possess this right. In contrast, the right of the Nation is an original right, as universal as the right to tax. The nation is the one funding everything, and everything must align with its general will.
I remember taking notice of a speech in what is called the English House of Peers, by the then Earl of Shelburne, and I think it was at the time he was Minister, which is applicable to this case. I do not directly charge my memory with every particular; but the words and the purport, as nearly as I remember, were these: "That the form of a Government was a matter wholly at the will of the Nation at all times, that if it chose a monarchical form, it had a right to have it so; and if it afterwards chose to be a Republic, it had a right to be a Republic, and to say to a King, 'We have no longer any occasion for you.'"
I remember noticing a speech in what is known as the English House of Lords, given by the Earl of Shelburne at the time he was Minister, which is relevant to this situation. I don’t recall every detail, but as best as I remember, he said something like this: "The structure of a government is entirely up to the will of the people at all times. If they want a monarchical form, they have the right to choose that; and if they later decide to be a Republic, they have the right to do that too, and to tell a King, ‘We no longer need you.’"
When Mr. Burke says that "His Majesty's heirs and successors, each in their time and order, will come to the crown with the same content of their choice with which His Majesty had succeeded to that he wears," it is saying too much even to the humblest individual in the country; part of whose daily labour goes towards making up the million sterling a-year, which the country gives the person it styles a king. Government with insolence is despotism; but when contempt is added it becomes worse; and to pay for contempt is the excess of slavery. This species of government comes from Germany; and reminds me of what one of the Brunswick soldiers told me, who was taken prisoner by, the Americans in the late war: "Ah!" said he, "America is a fine free country, it is worth the people's fighting for; I know the difference by knowing my own: in my country, if the prince says eat straw, we eat straw." God help that country, thought I, be it England or elsewhere, whose liberties are to be protected by German principles of government, and Princes of Brunswick!
When Mr. Burke says that "His Majesty's heirs and successors, each in their time and order, will come to the crown with the same content of their choice with which His Majesty had succeeded to that he wears," it’s saying way too much even to the simplest person in the country; part of whose daily work goes toward making up the million pounds a year that the country pays to the person it calls a king. A government that acts with arrogance is despotism; but when it adds contempt, it’s even worse; and to pay for that contempt is the height of slavery. This type of government comes from Germany; and it reminds me of what one of the Brunswick soldiers told me, who was captured by the Americans in the recent war: "Ah!" he said, "America is a great free country, worth fighting for; I know the difference because I know my own: in my country, if the prince says eat straw, we eat straw." God help that country, whether it’s England or elsewhere, whose freedoms are supposed to be protected by German principles of government and Princes of Brunswick!
As Mr. Burke sometimes speaks of England, sometimes of France, and sometimes of the world, and of government in general, it is difficult to answer his book without apparently meeting him on the same ground. Although principles of Government are general subjects, it is next to impossible, in many cases, to separate them from the idea of place and circumstance, and the more so when circumstances are put for arguments, which is frequently the case with Mr. Burke.
As Mr. Burke often talks about England, sometimes about France, and occasionally about the world and government in general, it's challenging to respond to his book without seeming to engage him on the same terms. While the principles of government are broad topics, it's nearly impossible in many instances to separate them from the context of location and situation, especially when situations are presented as arguments, which is often the case with Mr. Burke.
In the former part of his book, addressing himself to the people of France, he says: "No experience has taught us (meaning the English), that in any other course or method than that of a hereditary crown, can our liberties be regularly perpetuated and preserved sacred as our hereditary right." I ask Mr. Burke, who is to take them away? M. de la Fayette, in speaking to France, says: "For a Nation to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it." But Mr. Burke represents England as wanting capacity to take care of itself, and that its liberties must be taken care of by a King holding it in "contempt." If England is sunk to this, it is preparing itself to eat straw, as in Hanover, or in Brunswick. But besides the folly of the declaration, it happens that the facts are all against Mr. Burke. It was by the government being hereditary, that the liberties of the people were endangered. Charles I. and James II. are instances of this truth; yet neither of them went so far as to hold the Nation in contempt.
In the earlier part of his book, addressing the people of France, he says: "No experience has taught us (meaning the English) that any other approach or method than that of a hereditary crown can ensure that our freedoms are consistently upheld and protected as our birthright." I ask Mr. Burke, who is supposed to take them away? M. de la Fayette, while speaking to France, says: "For a nation to be free, it’s enough that she wants it." But Mr. Burke suggests that England lacks the ability to take care of itself, and that its freedoms must be managed by a king who holds it in "contempt." If England has fallen to this level, it is preparing itself to become as poor as in Hanover or Brunswick. But apart from the foolishness of this statement, the facts all contradict Mr. Burke. It was the hereditary nature of the government that put the people's freedoms at risk. Charles I and James II are examples of this truth; yet neither of them went so far as to treat the nation with contempt.
As it is sometimes of advantage to the people of one country to hear what those of other countries have to say respecting it, it is possible that the people of France may learn something from Mr. Burke's book, and that the people of England may also learn something from the answers it will occasion. When Nations fall out about freedom, a wide field of debate is opened. The argument commences with the rights of war, without its evils, and as knowledge is the object contended for, the party that sustains the defeat obtains the prize.
Sometimes it's helpful for the people of one country to hear what those from other countries think about them. It's possible that the people of France might learn something from Mr. Burke's book, and that the people of England could also gain insights from the responses it prompts. When nations disagree about freedom, it sparks a broad discussion. The debate starts with the rights of war, without considering its downsides, and since knowledge is what everyone is fighting for, the group that loses the argument ends up winning the reward.
Mr. Burke talks about what he calls an hereditary crown, as if it were some production of Nature; or as if, like Time, it had a power to operate, not only independently, but in spite of man; or as if it were a thing or a subject universally consented to. Alas! it has none of those properties, but is the reverse of them all. It is a thing in imagination, the propriety of which is more than doubted, and the legality of which in a few years will be denied.
Mr. Burke discusses what he calls a hereditary crown, as if it were some natural creation; or as if, like Time, it had the ability to function not only independently but also against human will; or as if it were something universally accepted. Unfortunately, it has none of those characteristics and is the complete opposite of them all. It is purely an idea, the validity of which is highly questionable, and its legality will be disputed in just a few years.
But, to arrange this matter in a clearer view than what general expression can heads under which (what is called) an hereditary crown, or more properly speaking, an hereditary succession to the Government of a Nation, can be considered; which are:
But, to present this issue more clearly than what general terms can convey regarding what is referred to as an hereditary crown, or more accurately, an hereditary succession to the Government of a Nation, we can consider the following:
First, The right of a particular Family to establish itself.
First, the right of a specific family to establish itself.
Secondly, The right of a Nation to establish a particular Family.
Secondly, the right of a nation to establish a specific family.
With respect to the first of these heads, that of a Family establishing itself with hereditary powers on its own authority, and independent of the consent of a Nation, all men will concur in calling it despotism; and it would be trespassing on their understanding to attempt to prove it.
Regarding the first point, where a family sets itself up with inherited powers on its own authority, without the consent of a nation, everyone would agree to call it despotism; and it would be a waste of time to try to prove this.
But the second head, that of a Nation establishing a particular Family with hereditary powers, does not present itself as despotism on the first reflection; but if men will permit it a second reflection to take place, and carry that reflection forward but one remove out of their own persons to that of their offspring, they will then see that hereditary succession becomes in its consequences the same despotism to others, which they reprobated for themselves. It operates to preclude the consent of the succeeding generations; and the preclusion of consent is despotism. When the person who at any time shall be in possession of a Government, or those who stand in succession to him, shall say to a Nation, I hold this power in "contempt" of you, it signifies not on what authority he pretends to say it. It is no relief, but an aggravation to a person in slavery, to reflect that he was sold by his parent; and as that which heightens the criminality of an act cannot be produced to prove the legality of it, hereditary succession cannot be established as a legal thing.
But the second aspect, that of a Nation creating a specific Family with inherited powers, doesn’t immediately appear as tyranny. However, if people take a moment to reflect again and think about how this would affect their children, they’ll realize that hereditary succession ultimately becomes the same kind of tyranny for others that they condemned for themselves. It effectively denies the consent of future generations, and the lack of consent is tyranny. When the person in charge of a government, or those next in line, tells a Nation, "I have this power in contempt of you," it doesn’t matter what authority they claim to have. It doesn’t help someone in slavery to know they were sold by their own parent; in fact, it makes it worse. Since something that increases the wrongness of an action cannot be used to justify its legality, hereditary succession cannot be established as a legal practice.
In order to arrive at a more perfect decision on this head, it will be proper to consider the generation which undertakes to establish a Family with hereditary powers, apart and separate from the generations which are to follow; and also to consider the character in which the first generation acts with respect to succeeding generations.
To make a better decision on this matter, it's important to look at the generation that sets up a Family with inherited powers, separate from those that come after; and also to think about how the first generation behaves toward the following generations.
The generation which first selects a person, and puts him at the head of its Government, either with the title of King, or any other distinction, acts on its own choice, be it wise or foolish, as a free agent for itself The person so set up is not hereditary, but selected and appointed; and the generation who sets him up, does not live under a hereditary government, but under a government of its own choice and establishment. Were the generation who sets him up, and the person so set up, to live for ever, it never could become hereditary succession; and of consequence hereditary succession can only follow on the death of the first parties.
The generation that first chooses a person and places them at the head of its government, whether titled King or something else, acts on its own decision, whether that's smart or not, as an independent entity. The person chosen is not there by inheritance but through selection and appointment; the generation that chooses them does not live under a hereditary government but under a government they have selected and established. If both the generation that picks the leader and the leader they picked could live forever, it could never turn into a hereditary succession; therefore, hereditary succession can only occur after the death of the initial parties.
As, therefore, hereditary succession is out of the question with respect to the first generation, we have now to consider the character in which that generation acts with respect to the commencing generation, and to all succeeding ones.
Since hereditary succession is not an option for the first generation, we now need to think about how that generation interacts with the starting generation and all the generations that follow.
It assumes a character, to which it has neither right nor title. It changes itself from a Legislator to a Testator, and effects to make its Will, which is to have operation after the demise of the makers, to bequeath the Government; and it not only attempts to bequeath, but to establish on the succeeding generation, a new and different form of Government under which itself lived. Itself, as already observed, lived not under a hereditary Government but under a Government of its own choice and establishment; and it now attempts, by virtue of a will and testament (and which it has not authority to make), to take from the commencing generation, and all future ones, the rights and free agency by which itself acted.
It takes on a role it has no right to claim. It shifts from being a Legislator to a Testator and pretends to create its Will, which is supposed to be active after its makers pass away, to pass on the Government. It not only tries to bequeath it but also to impose a new and different form of Government on the next generation, one that it itself did not have. As already noted, it existed not under a hereditary Government but under a Government of its own choosing and establishment; now it tries, through a will and testament (which it has no authority to create), to take away from the new generation and all future ones the rights and freedom that allowed it to act.
But, exclusive of the right which any generation has to act collectively as a testator, the objects to which it applies itself in this case, are not within the compass of any law, or of any will or testament.
But, aside from the right that any generation has to act together as a testator, the subjects it focuses on in this case are not covered by any law, will, or testament.
The rights of men in society, are neither devisable or transferable, nor annihilable, but are descendable only, and it is not in the power of any generation to intercept finally, and cut off the descent. If the present generation, or any other, are disposed to be slaves, it does not lessen the right of the succeeding generation to be free. Wrongs cannot have a legal descent. When Mr. Burke attempts to maintain that the English nation did at the Revolution of 1688, most solemnly renounce and abdicate their rights for themselves, and for all their posterity for ever, he speaks a language that merits not reply, and which can only excite contempt for his prostitute principles, or pity for his ignorance.
The rights of individuals in society are not something that can be divided, transferred, or destroyed; they can only be passed down. No generation has the authority to completely cut off this passage. Even if the current generation or any other chooses to be subservient, it doesn't diminish the right of future generations to be free. Injustice cannot be legally inherited. When Mr. Burke claims that the English nation, during the Revolution of 1688, solemnly renounced and gave up their rights for themselves and all future generations forever, he uses language that doesn’t deserve a response and only deserves disdain for his corrupt principles or pity for his lack of understanding.
In whatever light hereditary succession, as growing out of the will and testament of some former generation, presents itself, it is an absurdity. A cannot make a will to take from B the property of B, and give it to C; yet this is the manner in which (what is called) hereditary succession by law operates. A certain former generation made a will, to take away the rights of the commencing generation, and all future ones, and convey those rights to a third person, who afterwards comes forward, and tells them, in Mr. Burke's language, that they have no rights, that their rights are already bequeathed to him and that he will govern in contempt of them. From such principles, and such ignorance, good Lord deliver the world!
No matter how you look at hereditary succession, which comes from the will of a previous generation, it’s just absurd. Person A can’t write a will that takes Person B's property away and gives it to Person C; yet, this is how what we call hereditary succession by law works. A certain past generation decided to take away the rights of the current generation and all future ones, giving those rights to a third party, who then steps in and tells them, in Mr. Burke's words, that they have no rights, that their rights are already given to him, and he will govern over them without regard for their claims. From such principles and such ignorance, good Lord, deliver the world!
But, after all, what is this metaphor called a crown, or rather what is monarchy? Is it a thing, or is it a name, or is it a fraud? Is it a "contrivance of human wisdom," or of human craft to obtain money from a nation under specious pretences? Is it a thing necessary to a nation? If it is, in what does that necessity consist, what service does it perform, what is its business, and what are its merits? Does the virtue consist in the metaphor, or in the man? Doth the goldsmith that makes the crown, make the virtue also? Doth it operate like Fortunatus's wishing-cap, or Harlequin's wooden sword? Doth it make a man a conjurer? In fine, what is it? It appears to be something going much out of fashion, falling into ridicule, and rejected in some countries, both as unnecessary and expensive. In America it is considered as an absurdity; and in France it has so far declined, that the goodness of the man, and the respect for his personal character, are the only things that preserve the appearance of its existence.
But really, what is this metaphor called a crown, or what is monarchy? Is it an object, a title, or a deception? Is it a "human invention" designed to extract money from a nation under misleading pretenses? Is it essential for a nation? If so, what makes it necessary, what role does it play, and what are its benefits? Does its value lie in the metaphor itself or in the person? Does the goldsmith who creates the crown also create the virtue? Does it function like Fortunatus's wishing cap or Harlequin's wooden sword? Does it turn someone into a magician? Ultimately, what is it? It seems to be something that's becoming outdated, ridiculed, and rejected in some countries for being both unnecessary and costly. In America, it's seen as absurd; and in France, it has declined so much that only the goodness of the individual and respect for their personal character preserve the illusion of its existence.
If government be what Mr. Burke describes it, "a contrivance of human wisdom" I might ask him, if wisdom was at such a low ebb in England, that it was become necessary to import it from Holland and from Hanover? But I will do the country the justice to say, that was not the case; and even if it was it mistook the cargo. The wisdom of every country, when properly exerted, is sufficient for all its purposes; and there could exist no more real occasion in England to have sent for a Dutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector, than there was in America to have done a similar thing. If a country does not understand its own affairs, how is a foreigner to understand them, who knows neither its laws, its manners, nor its language? If there existed a man so transcendently wise above all others, that his wisdom was necessary to instruct a nation, some reason might be offered for monarchy; but when we cast our eyes about a country, and observe how every part understands its own affairs; and when we look around the world, and see that of all men in it, the race of kings are the most insignificant in capacity, our reason cannot fail to ask us—What are those men kept for?
If the government is what Mr. Burke describes it as, "a contrivance of human wisdom," I might ask him if wisdom was really so lacking in England that it needed to be imported from Holland and Hanover? But I’ll give the country credit and say that wasn't the case; and even if it were, it got the wrong shipment. The wisdom of any country, when properly utilized, is enough for all its needs, and there was no real reason in England to call for a Dutch Stadtholder or a German Elector, just like there was no reason for America to do the same. If a country doesn't understand its own issues, how can a foreigner understand them, who knows nothing of its laws, customs, or language? If there were a person so extraordinarily wise that his wisdom was essential to teach a nation, there might be an argument for monarchy; but when we look around a country and see how well every part understands its own matters, and we look at the world and find that, of all people, royalty is the least capable, it’s reasonable for us to ask—What are those people even for?
If there is anything in monarchy which we people of America do not understand, I wish Mr. Burke would be so kind as to inform us. I see in America, a government extending over a country ten times as large as England, and conducted with regularity, for a fortieth part of the expense which Government costs in England. If I ask a man in America if he wants a King, he retorts, and asks me if I take him for an idiot? How is it that this difference happens? are we more or less wise than others? I see in America the generality of people living in a style of plenty unknown in monarchical countries; and I see that the principle of its government, which is that of the equal Rights of Man, is making a rapid progress in the world.
If there's anything about monarchy that we Americans don't understand, I wish Mr. Burke would kindly explain it to us. In America, I see a government that covers a country ten times larger than England and operates efficiently for a fraction of the cost that governing in England incurs. When I ask someone here if they want a king, they respond and ask if I think they're an idiot. Why is there such a difference? Are we more or less wise than others? I notice that most people in America live in a way that's abundantly better than what you'd find in monarchies, and the principle of equal rights for everyone is making significant progress around the globe.
If monarchy is a useless thing, why is it kept up anywhere? and if a necessary thing, how can it be dispensed with? That civil government is necessary, all civilized nations will agree; but civil government is republican government. All that part of the government of England which begins with the office of constable, and proceeds through the department of magistrate, quarter-sessions, and general assize, including trial by jury, is republican government. Nothing of monarchy appears in any part of it, except in the name which William the Conqueror imposed upon the English, that of obliging them to call him "Their Sovereign Lord the King."
If monarchy is unnecessary, why is it still around anywhere? And if it’s essential, how can it be gotten rid of? Everyone in civilized nations agrees that civil government is necessary; but civil government is republican government. The part of the government in England that starts with the role of constable and goes through magistrate, quarter-sessions, and general assize, including trial by jury, is republican government. There’s nothing monarchical in any of it, except for the title that William the Conqueror forced upon the English, requiring them to call him "Their Sovereign Lord the King."
It is easy to conceive that a band of interested men, such as Placemen, Pensioners, Lords of the bed-chamber, Lords of the kitchen, Lords of the necessary-house, and the Lord knows what besides, can find as many reasons for monarchy as their salaries, paid at the expense of the country, amount to; but if I ask the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and down through all the occupations of life to the common labourer, what service monarchy is to him? he can give me no answer. If I ask him what monarchy is, he believes it is something like a sinecure.
It's easy to imagine that a group of people with vested interests, like government officials, pensioners, courtiers, kitchen staff, maintenance workers, and who knows who else, can come up with just as many reasons to support monarchy as the amount of their salaries, which are paid for by the country. But when I ask a farmer, a manufacturer, a merchant, a tradesperson, or anyone down to the average laborer what monarchy does for them, they can’t provide any clear answer. If I ask them what monarchy actually is, they think it’s something like an easy job with no real responsibilities.
Notwithstanding the taxes of England amount to almost seventeen millions a year, said to be for the expenses of Government, it is still evident that the sense of the Nation is left to govern itself, and does govern itself, by magistrates and juries, almost at its own charge, on republican principles, exclusive of the expense of taxes. The salaries of the judges are almost the only charge that is paid out of the revenue. Considering that all the internal government is executed by the people, the taxes of England ought to be the lightest of any nation in Europe; instead of which, they are the contrary. As this cannot be accounted for on the score of civil government, the subject necessarily extends itself to the monarchical part.
Despite the fact that England's taxes total nearly seventeen million a year, which is claimed to cover government expenses, it's clear that the people govern themselves through magistrates and juries, largely at their own expense, based on republican principles, aside from the cost of taxes. The judges' salaries are pretty much the only expense that comes from the revenue. Given that the internal governance is handled by the people, England's taxes should be the lowest in Europe; instead, they are quite the opposite. Since this doesn't make sense when considering civil government, it necessarily shifts the focus to the monarchy aspect.
When the people of England sent for George the First (and it would puzzle a wiser man than Mr. Burke to discover for what he could be wanted, or what service he could render), they ought at least to have conditioned for the abandonment of Hanover. Besides the endless German intrigues that must follow from a German Elector being King of England, there is a natural impossibility of uniting in the same person the principles of Freedom and the principles of Despotism, or as it is usually called in England Arbitrary Power. A German Elector is in his electorate a despot; how then could it be expected that he should be attached to principles of liberty in one country, while his interest in another was to be supported by despotism? The union cannot exist; and it might easily have been foreseen that German Electors would make German Kings, or in Mr. Burke's words, would assume government with "contempt." The English have been in the habit of considering a King of England only in the character in which he appears to them; whereas the same person, while the connection lasts, has a home-seat in another country, the interest of which is different to their own, and the principles of the governments in opposition to each other. To such a person England will appear as a town-residence, and the Electorate as the estate. The English may wish, as I believe they do, success to the principles of liberty in France, or in Germany; but a German Elector trembles for the fate of despotism in his electorate; and the Duchy of Mecklenburgh, where the present Queen's family governs, is under the same wretched state of arbitrary power, and the people in slavish vassalage.
When the people of England called for George the First (and it would confuse someone wiser than Mr. Burke to figure out why he was needed or what he could actually do), they should have at least made it a condition that he abandon Hanover. In addition to the endless German plots that would inevitably arise from having a German Elector as King of England, there’s a fundamental impossibility in combining Freedom with Despotism, or as it’s often referred to in England, Arbitrary Power. A German Elector is a despot in his own territory; so how could we expect him to embrace liberty in one country while his interests in another rely on despotism? Such a union can't exist; it was easy to see that German Electors would create German Kings, or in Mr. Burke's words, would govern with "contempt." The English tend to view a King of England purely through their perspective, while the same individual, as long as the connection exists, has a home base in another country with different interests and opposing governmental principles. To him, England might seem like a city home, and the Electorate like a personal estate. The English may hope, as I believe they do, for the success of liberty in France or Germany; but a German Elector is anxious about the fate of despotism in his own territory; and the Duchy of Mecklenburgh, where the current Queen's family rules, remains in the same miserable state of arbitrary power, with the people trapped in a condition of servitude.
There never was a time when it became the English to watch continental intrigues more circumspectly than at the present moment, and to distinguish the politics of the Electorate from the politics of the Nation. The Revolution of France has entirely changed the ground with respect to England and France, as nations; but the German despots, with Prussia at their head, are combining against liberty; and the fondness of Mr. Pitt for office, and the interest which all his family connections have obtained, do not give sufficient security against this intrigue.
There has never been a time when the English have been more cautious about watching continental politics than right now, recognizing the difference between the politics of the Electorate and the politics of the Nation. The French Revolution has completely altered the relationship between England and France as nations; however, the German rulers, led by Prussia, are uniting against freedom. Mr. Pitt's desire for power, along with the advantages gained by his family connections, does not provide enough assurance against this scheming.
As everything which passes in the world becomes matter for history, I will now quit this subject, and take a concise review of the state of parties and politics in England, as Mr. Burke has done in France.
As everything that happens in the world becomes part of history, I will now move on from this topic and take a brief look at the state of political parties and politics in England, just as Mr. Burke has done in France.
Whether the present reign commenced with contempt, I leave to Mr. Burke: certain, however, it is, that it had strongly that appearance. The animosity of the English nation, it is very well remembered, ran high; and, had the true principles of Liberty been as well understood then as they now promise to be, it is probable the Nation would not have patiently submitted to so much. George the First and Second were sensible of a rival in the remains of the Stuarts; and as they could not but consider themselves as standing on their good behaviour, they had prudence to keep their German principles of government to themselves; but as the Stuart family wore away, the prudence became less necessary.
Whether the current monarchy started with disdain, I'll leave to Mr. Burke. What’s clear, however, is that it certainly seemed that way. The anger of the English people was well remembered and ran high; if the true principles of liberty had been as clearly understood back then as they seem to be now, it’s likely the nation wouldn’t have tolerated so much. George the First and Second were aware of a rival in the remnants of the Stuarts; since they could only see themselves as needing to act properly, they wisely kept their German principles of governance to themselves. However, as the Stuart family faded away, this caution became less necessary.
The contest between rights, and what were called prerogatives, continued to heat the nation till some time after the conclusion of the American War, when all at once it fell a calm—Execration exchanged itself for applause, and Court popularity sprung up like a mushroom in a night.
The battle between rights and what were called prerogatives kept stirring up the nation until sometime after the American War, when suddenly there was a calm—hatred turned into praise, and the popularity of the Court sprang up like mushrooms overnight.
To account for this sudden transition, it is proper to observe that there are two distinct species of popularity; the one excited by merit, and the other by resentment. As the Nation had formed itself into two parties, and each was extolling the merits of its parliamentary champions for and against prerogative, nothing could operate to give a more general shock than an immediate coalition of the champions themselves. The partisans of each being thus suddenly left in the lurch, and mutually heated with disgust at the measure, felt no other relief than uniting in a common execration against both. A higher stimulus or resentment being thus excited than what the contest on prerogatives occasioned, the nation quitted all former objects of rights and wrongs, and sought only that of gratification. The indignation at the Coalition so effectually superseded the indignation against the Court as to extinguish it; and without any change of principles on the part of the Court, the same people who had reprobated its despotism united with it to revenge themselves on the Coalition Parliament. The case was not, which they liked best, but which they hated most; and the least hated passed for love. The dissolution of the Coalition Parliament, as it afforded the means of gratifying the resentment of the Nation, could not fail to be popular; and from hence arose the popularity of the Court.
To understand this sudden change, we need to recognize that there are two different types of popularity: one driven by merit and the other by anger. With the nation divided into two parties, each praising their own parliamentary leaders for or against authority, nothing could shock the public more than an immediate alliance of those very leaders. Supporters from each side were suddenly left feeling betrayed and were both heated with frustration about this move, leading them to come together in a shared outrage against both sides. This surge of anger was much stronger than the previous feelings about authority, and people abandoned their past concerns over rights and wrongs, focusing only on their desire for satisfaction. The outrage over the coalition completely replaced their anger toward the Court, and without any change in the Court's principles, the same people who had criticized its tyranny joined forces with it to take revenge on the Coalition Parliament. It wasn't about which they preferred, but rather which they detested more; and the option that was least disliked was seen as love. The dissolution of the Coalition Parliament was popular because it allowed the nation to vent its anger, leading to the Court's newfound popularity.
Transitions of this kind exhibit a Nation under the government of temper, instead of a fixed and steady principle; and having once committed itself, however rashly, it feels itself urged along to justify by continuance its first proceeding. Measures which at other times it would censure it now approves, and acts persuasion upon itself to suffocate its judgment.
Transitions like these show a nation that is being guided by mood rather than a consistent and stable principle; once it has taken a step, even if it was hasty, it feels compelled to continue to justify that initial action. Choices that it would have criticized at other times are now accepted, and it convinces itself to silence its own judgment.
On the return of a new Parliament, the new Minister, Mr. Pitt, found himself in a secure majority; and the Nation gave him credit, not out of regard to himself, but because it had resolved to do it out of resentment to another. He introduced himself to public notice by a proposed Reform of Parliament, which in its operation would have amounted to a public justification of corruption. The Nation was to be at the expense of buying up the rotten boroughs, whereas it ought to punish the persons who deal in the traffic.
When a new Parliament reconvened, the new Minister, Mr. Pitt, found himself with a solid majority, and the Nation supported him not because of any admiration for him, but out of anger towards someone else. He made his public debut by proposing a Reform of Parliament that would essentially legitimize corruption. The Nation was expected to foot the bill for buying up the corrupt boroughs, instead of punishing those who engage in the trade.
Passing over the two bubbles of the Dutch business and the million a-year to sink the national debt, the matter which most presents itself, is the affair of the Regency. Never, in the course of my observation, was delusion more successfully acted, nor a nation more completely deceived. But, to make this appear, it will be necessary to go over the circumstances.
Ignoring the two issues of the Dutch business and the million a year set aside to reduce the national debt, the most prominent topic is the situation surrounding the Regency. Never have I witnessed a more successfully staged delusion, nor a nation more thoroughly misled. However, to illustrate this, it's necessary to examine the circumstances.
Mr. Fox had stated in the House of Commons, that the Prince of Wales, as heir in succession, had a right in himself to assume the Government. This was opposed by Mr. Pitt; and, so far as the opposition was confined to the doctrine, it was just. But the principles which Mr. Pitt maintained on the contrary side were as bad, or worse in their extent, than those of Mr. Fox; because they went to establish an aristocracy over the nation, and over the small representation it has in the House of Commons.
Mr. Fox had said in the House of Commons that the Prince of Wales, as the heir, had the right to take on the Government. Mr. Pitt disagreed with this, and while his opposition to that idea was valid, the principles he defended were equally, if not more, problematic than Mr. Fox's. They aimed to create an aristocracy over the nation and the limited representation it has in the House of Commons.
Whether the English form of Government be good or bad, is not in this case the question; but, taking it as it stands, without regard to its merits or demerits, Mr. Pitt was farther from the point than Mr. Fox.
Whether the English form of government is good or bad isn't the issue here; instead, taking it as it is, regardless of its strengths or weaknesses, Mr. Pitt was further from the point than Mr. Fox.
It is supposed to consist of three parts:—while therefore the Nation is disposed to continue this form, the parts have a national standing, independent of each other, and are not the creatures of each other. Had Mr. Fox passed through Parliament, and said that the person alluded to claimed on the ground of the Nation, Mr. Pitt must then have contended what he called the right of the Parliament against the right of the Nation.
It is meant to have three parts: while the Nation is willing to maintain this structure, the parts have their own national authority, independent of one another, and do not depend on each other. If Mr. Fox had made a statement in Parliament stating that the individual mentioned claimed rights based on the Nation, Mr. Pitt would have needed to argue what he referred to as the right of Parliament against the right of the Nation.
By the appearance which the contest made, Mr. Fox took the hereditary ground, and Mr. Pitt the Parliamentary ground; but the fact is, they both took hereditary ground, and Mr. Pitt took the worst of the two.
By how the contest looked, Mr. Fox took the hereditary angle, while Mr. Pitt took the Parliamentary angle; however, the truth is, they both went for the hereditary angle, and Mr. Pitt picked the worse of the two.
What is called the Parliament is made up of two Houses, one of which is more hereditary, and more beyond the control of the Nation than what the Crown (as it is called) is supposed to be. It is an hereditary aristocracy, assuming and asserting indefeasible, irrevocable rights and authority, wholly independent of the Nation. Where, then, was the merited popularity of exalting this hereditary power over another hereditary power less independent of the Nation than what itself assumed to be, and of absorbing the rights of the Nation into a House over which it has neither election nor control?
What we call Parliament consists of two Houses, one of which is more hereditary and less accountable to the Nation than the Crown is supposed to be. It is an inherited aristocracy that claims absolute and permanent rights and authority, completely independent of the Nation. So, where does the justified popularity come from in elevating this hereditary power above another hereditary power that is less independent from the Nation, and in merging the rights of the Nation into a House that the Nation has neither the ability to elect nor the power to control?
The general impulse of the Nation was right; but it acted without reflection. It approved the opposition made to the right set up by Mr. Fox, without perceiving that Mr. Pitt was supporting another indefeasible right more remote from the Nation, in opposition to it.
The overall direction of the Nation was correct; however, it acted impulsively. It backed the opposition to the claim made by Mr. Fox without realizing that Mr. Pitt was advocating for another undeniable right, further away from the Nation, in contrast to it.
With respect to the House of Commons, it is elected but by a small part of the Nation; but were the election as universal as taxation, which it ought to be, it would still be only the organ of the Nation, and cannot possess inherent rights.—When the National Assembly of France resolves a matter, the resolve is made in right of the Nation; but Mr. Pitt, on all national questions, so far as they refer to the House of Commons, absorbs the rights of the Nation into the organ, and makes the organ into a Nation, and the Nation itself into a cypher.
Regarding the House of Commons, it is elected, but only by a small portion of the Nation; if the election were as universal as taxation, as it should be, it would still just be the representative of the Nation and wouldn't have inherent rights. When the National Assembly of France makes a decision, it does so on behalf of the Nation; however, Mr. Pitt, on all national issues that relate to the House of Commons, merges the rights of the Nation into this representative body, turning the body into a Nation and the Nation itself into a mere nothing.
In a few words, the question on the Regency was a question of a million a-year, which is appropriated to the executive department: and Mr. Pitt could not possess himself of any management of this sum, without setting up the supremacy of Parliament; and when this was accomplished, it was indifferent who should be Regent, as he must be Regent at his own cost. Among the curiosities which this contentious debate afforded, was that of making the Great Seal into a King, the affixing of which to an act was to be royal authority. If, therefore, Royal Authority is a Great Seal, it consequently is in itself nothing; and a good Constitution would be of infinitely more value to the Nation than what the three Nominal Powers, as they now stand, are worth.
In short, the issue regarding the Regency was a matter of a million a year, which belonged to the executive branch. Mr. Pitt couldn’t take control of this amount without establishing the supremacy of Parliament. Once that was achieved, it didn’t really matter who the Regent was, since he would have to cover his own expenses. Among the intriguing aspects of this heated debate was the notion of turning the Great Seal into a King, with the seal's attachment to an act representing royal authority. Therefore, if royal authority is defined by the Great Seal, then it essentially amounts to nothing; a good Constitution would be worth far more to the Nation than the three nominal powers currently in place.
The continual use of the word Constitution in the English Parliament shows there is none; and that the whole is merely a form of government without a Constitution, and constituting itself with what powers it pleases. If there were a Constitution, it certainly could be referred to; and the debate on any constitutional point would terminate by producing the Constitution. One member says this is Constitution, and another says that is Constitution—To-day it is one thing; and to-morrow something else—while the maintaining of the debate proves there is none. Constitution is now the cant word of Parliament, tuning itself to the ear of the Nation. Formerly it was the universal supremacy of Parliament—the omnipotence of Parliament: But since the progress of Liberty in France, those phrases have a despotic harshness in their note; and the English Parliament have catched the fashion from the National Assembly, but without the substance, of speaking of Constitution.
The constant mention of the word Constitution in the English Parliament shows that there isn't one; it's just a form of government that gives itself whatever powers it chooses. If there were a Constitution, it could certainly be cited, and any debate over constitutional issues would be resolved by referring to it. One member claims this is the Constitution, while another claims that's the Constitution—today it's one thing, and tomorrow something else—while the ongoing argument proves there isn't one. Constitution has become the buzzword in Parliament, trying to resonate with the public. Previously, it was about the complete supremacy of Parliament—the absolute power of Parliament. But since the rise of Liberty in France, those terms sound excessively authoritative; the English Parliament has adopted the trend from the National Assembly, but without the actual essence, of discussing a Constitution.
As the present generation of the people in England did not make the Government, they are not accountable for any of its defects; but, that sooner or later, it must come into their hands to undergo a constitutional reformation, is as certain as that the same thing has happened in France. If France, with a revenue of nearly twenty-four millions sterling, with an extent of rich and fertile country above four times larger than England, with a population of twenty-four millions of inhabitants to support taxation, with upwards of ninety millions sterling of gold and silver circulating in the nation, and with a debt less than the present debt of England—still found it necessary, from whatever cause, to come to a settlement of its affairs, it solves the problem of funding for both countries.
Since the current generation of people in England didn’t create the Government, they aren't responsible for its flaws. However, it's certain that eventually, they will have to address a constitutional reform, just like what happened in France. If France, with a revenue of nearly twenty-four million pounds, an area of rich and fertile land that's over four times larger than England, a population of twenty-four million to support taxation, over ninety million pounds in gold and silver circulating throughout the country, and a debt smaller than England's current debt—still found it necessary, for whatever reason, to sort out its financial matters, it answers the question of funding for both countries.
It is out of the question to say how long what is called the English constitution has lasted, and to argue from thence how long it is to last; the question is, how long can the funding system last? It is a thing but of modern invention, and has not yet continued beyond the life of a man; yet in that short space it has so far accumulated, that, together with the current expenses, it requires an amount of taxes at least equal to the whole landed rental of the nation in acres to defray the annual expenditure. That a government could not have always gone on by the same system which has been followed for the last seventy years, must be evident to every man; and for the same reason it cannot always go on.
It’s impossible to determine exactly how long what we call the English constitution has been around and to predict how long it will last. The real question is, how long can the funding system survive? This system is relatively new and hasn’t lasted more than a person’s lifetime; however, in that short time, it has accumulated to the point that, along with current expenses, it requires taxes at least equal to the entire rental income of the nation’s land to cover annual spending. It should be clear to anyone that a government cannot continuously operate under the same system that has been in place for the last seventy years, and for that same reason, it won’t be able to continue indefinitely.
The funding system is not money; neither is it, properly speaking, credit. It, in effect, creates upon paper the sum which it appears to borrow, and lays on a tax to keep the imaginary capital alive by the payment of interest and sends the annuity to market, to be sold for paper already in circulation. If any credit is given, it is to the disposition of the people to pay the tax, and not to the government, which lays it on. When this disposition expires, what is supposed to be the credit of Government expires with it. The instance of France under the former Government shows that it is impossible to compel the payment of taxes by force, when a whole nation is determined to take its stand upon that ground.
The funding system isn't really about money; it's not exactly credit either. Essentially, it creates a number on paper that it seems to borrow and imposes a tax to keep that imagined capital alive by paying interest. Then, it offers the annuity for sale on the market for money that already exists. If there's any credit given, it’s based on the people's willingness to pay the tax, not the government that imposes it. When that willingness runs out, what’s assumed to be the government’s credit disappears too. The example of France under the previous government illustrates that you can't force a whole nation to pay taxes when they collectively decide not to.
Mr. Burke, in his review of the finances of France, states the quantity of gold and silver in France, at about eighty-eight millions sterling. In doing this, he has, I presume, divided by the difference of exchange, instead of the standard of twenty-four livres to a pound sterling; for M. Neckar's statement, from which Mr. Burke's is taken, is two thousand two hundred millions of livres, which is upwards of ninety-one millions and a half sterling.
Mr. Burke, in his review of France's finances, reports that the amount of gold and silver in France is about eighty-eight million pounds. In doing this, I assume he divided by the exchange rate difference, rather than using the standard of twenty-four livres to a pound sterling; because M. Neckar's statement, which Mr. Burke references, shows two billion two hundred million livres, which is over ninety-one and a half million pounds.
M. Neckar in France, and Mr. George Chalmers at the Office of Trade and Plantation in England, of which Lord Hawkesbury is president, published nearly about the same time (1786) an account of the quantity of money in each nation, from the returns of the Mint of each nation. Mr. Chalmers, from the returns of the English Mint at the Tower of London, states the quantity of money in England, including Scotland and Ireland, to be twenty millions sterling.*12
M. Neckar in France and Mr. George Chalmers at the Office of Trade and Plantation in England, which is presided over by Lord Hawkesbury, published an account around the same time (1786) detailing the amount of money in each nation based on the Mint's returns. Mr. Chalmers reports that the quantity of money in England, including Scotland and Ireland, is twenty million pounds sterling.*12
M. Neckar*13 says that the amount of money in France, recoined from the old coin which was called in, was two thousand five hundred millions of livres (upwards of one hundred and four millions sterling); and, after deducting for waste, and what may be in the West Indies and other possible circumstances, states the circulation quantity at home to be ninety-one millions and a half sterling; but, taking it as Mr. Burke has put it, it is sixty-eight millions more than the national quantity in England.
M. Neckar*13 says that the amount of money in France, recoined from the old currency that was called in, was two billion five hundred million livres (over one hundred four million pounds); and, after accounting for loss and what might be in the West Indies and other potential factors, he estimates the amount in circulation at home to be ninety-one and a half million pounds; however, as Mr. Burke pointed out, it's sixty-eight million more than the national amount in England.
That the quantity of money in France cannot be under this sum, may at once be seen from the state of the French Revenue, without referring to the records of the French Mint for proofs. The revenue of France, prior to the Revolution, was nearly twenty-four millions sterling; and as paper had then no existence in France the whole revenue was collected upon gold and silver; and it would have been impossible to have collected such a quantity of revenue upon a less national quantity than M. Neckar has stated. Before the establishment of paper in England, the revenue was about a fourth part of the national amount of gold and silver, as may be known by referring to the revenue prior to King William, and the quantity of money stated to be in the nation at that time, which was nearly as much as it is now.
The amount of money in France can't be below this sum, which is clear from the state of the French Revenue, without needing to look at the records of the French Mint for confirmation. Before the Revolution, France's revenue was almost twenty-four million pounds sterling, and since paper money didn't exist in France at that time, all revenue was collected in gold and silver. It would have been impossible to collect such a revenue without a national quantity as stated by M. Neckar. Before paper money was introduced in England, the revenue was about a quarter of the total amount of gold and silver in the country, as can be seen by looking at revenue figures before King William and the amount of money reported to be in the nation at that time, which was nearly the same as it is now.
It can be of no real service to a nation, to impose upon itself, or to permit itself to be imposed upon; but the prejudices of some, and the imposition of others, have always represented France as a nation possessing but little money—whereas the quantity is not only more than four times what the quantity is in England, but is considerably greater on a proportion of numbers. To account for this deficiency on the part of England, some reference should be had to the English system of funding. It operates to multiply paper, and to substitute it in the room of money, in various shapes; and the more paper is multiplied, the more opportunities are offered to export the specie; and it admits of a possibility (by extending it to small notes) of increasing paper till there is no money left.
It doesn’t really help a country to enforce rules on itself or to let others impose rules on it; however, the biases of some and the influence of others have long painted France as a nation with very little money. In reality, France has not only over four times the amount of money as England but has significantly more when you consider the population size. To explain this shortfall in England, we need to look at the English funding system. It creates more paper currency and replaces actual money with it in various forms. The more paper currency there is, the more opportunities arise to export real money, and it even allows for the possibility of increasing the amount of paper currency to the point where there is no actual money left.
I know this is not a pleasant subject to English readers; but the matters I am going to mention, are so important in themselves, as to require the attention of men interested in money transactions of a public nature. There is a circumstance stated by M. Neckar, in his treatise on the administration of the finances, which has never been attended to in England, but which forms the only basis whereon to estimate the quantity of money (gold and silver) which ought to be in every nation in Europe, to preserve a relative proportion with other nations.
I know this isn’t a pleasant topic for English readers, but the issues I'm about to discuss are so significant that they deserve the attention of anyone interested in public financial dealings. There’s a point made by M. Neckar in his essay on financial management that hasn’t been considered in England, but it provides the only foundation to estimate the amount of money (gold and silver) that should exist in every European nation to maintain a relative balance with others.
Lisbon and Cadiz are the two ports into which (money) gold and silver from South America are imported, and which afterwards divide and spread themselves over Europe by means of commerce, and increase the quantity of money in all parts of Europe. If, therefore, the amount of the annual importation into Europe can be known, and the relative proportion of the foreign commerce of the several nations by which it can be distributed can be ascertained, they give a rule sufficiently true, to ascertain the quantity of money which ought to be found in any nation, at any given time.
Lisbon and Cadiz are the two ports where gold and silver from South America are brought in, and from there, they spread across Europe through trade, boosting the amount of money in all parts of Europe. So, if we can determine how much is imported into Europe each year and figure out the share of foreign trade for each nation that distributes it, we can get a fairly accurate rule to estimate how much money should be present in any nation at any given time.
M. Neckar shows from the registers of Lisbon and Cadiz, that the importation of gold and silver into Europe, is five millions sterling annually. He has not taken it on a single year, but on an average of fifteen succeeding years, from 1763 to 1777, both inclusive; in which time, the amount was one thousand eight hundred million livres, which is seventy-five millions sterling.*14
M. Neckar demonstrates using the records from Lisbon and Cadiz that the annual import of gold and silver into Europe is five million pounds sterling. He based this not on just one year but on an average over fifteen consecutive years, from 1763 to 1777, inclusive; during that period, the total was one billion eight hundred million livres, which is seventy-five million pounds sterling.*14
From the commencement of the Hanover succession in 1714 to the time Mr. Chalmers published, is seventy-two years; and the quantity imported into Europe, in that time, would be three hundred and sixty millions sterling.
From the start of the Hanover succession in 1714 until Mr. Chalmers published, seventy-two years have passed; and the total imported into Europe during that time would be three hundred sixty million pounds.
If the foreign commerce of Great Britain be stated at a sixth part of what the whole foreign commerce of Europe amounts to (which is probably an inferior estimation to what the gentlemen at the Exchange would allow) the proportion which Britain should draw by commerce of this sum, to keep herself on a proportion with the rest of Europe, would be also a sixth part which is sixty millions sterling; and if the same allowance for waste and accident be made for England which M. Neckar makes for France, the quantity remaining after these deductions would be fifty-two millions; and this sum ought to have been in the nation (at the time Mr. Chalmers published), in addition to the sum which was in the nation at the commencement of the Hanover succession, and to have made in the whole at least sixty-six millions sterling; instead of which there were but twenty millions, which is forty-six millions below its proportionate quantity.
If we estimate Britain's foreign trade to be one-sixth of Europe's total foreign trade (which is likely a conservative estimate compared to what the traders at the Exchange would agree with), then the share Britain should get from this total to stay in line with the rest of Europe would also be one-sixth, equal to sixty million pounds. If we account for waste and unexpected losses in England the same way M. Neckar does for France, the amount left after these deductions would be fifty-two million. This amount should have been within the country (at the time Mr. Chalmers published), in addition to what was in the country at the start of the Hanoverian succession, bringing the total to at least sixty-six million pounds; instead, there were only twenty million, which is forty-six million below what it should have been.
As the quantity of gold and silver imported into Lisbon and Cadiz is more exactly ascertained than that of any commodity imported into England, and as the quantity of money coined at the Tower of London is still more positively known, the leading facts do not admit of controversy. Either, therefore, the commerce of England is unproductive of profit, or the gold and silver which it brings in leak continually away by unseen means at the average rate of about three-quarters of a million a year, which, in the course of seventy-two years, accounts for the deficiency; and its absence is supplied by paper.*15
Since the amount of gold and silver imported into Lisbon and Cadiz is more accurately known than that of any goods imported into England, and since the amount of money minted at the Tower of London is even more clearly established, the main facts are beyond dispute. Therefore, either the trade in England isn't generating profits, or the gold and silver it brings in consistently leaks away through unseen channels at an average rate of about three-quarters of a million a year, which over seventy-two years explains the shortfall; and its absence is compensated by paper.*15
The Revolution of France is attended with many novel circumstances, not only in the political sphere, but in the circle of money transactions. Among others, it shows that a government may be in a state of insolvency and a nation rich. So far as the fact is confined to the late Government of France, it was insolvent; because the nation would no longer support its extravagance, and therefore it could no longer support itself—but with respect to the nation all the means existed. A government may be said to be insolvent every time it applies to the nation to discharge its arrears. The insolvency of the late Government of France and the present of England differed in no other respect than as the dispositions of the people differ. The people of France refused their aid to the old Government; and the people of England submit to taxation without inquiry. What is called the Crown in England has been insolvent several times; the last of which, publicly known, was in May, 1777, when it applied to the nation to discharge upwards of L600,000 private debts, which otherwise it could not pay.
The French Revolution is accompanied by many new developments, not just in politics but also in financial dealings. For instance, it shows that a government can be bankrupt while the nation itself is wealthy. In terms of the recent government of France, it was bankrupt because the people no longer supported its excesses, and therefore it couldn't sustain itself—but the nation had plenty of resources. A government is considered bankrupt whenever it turns to the nation to settle its debts. The bankruptcy of the recent French government and the current situation in England are similar, except for how the people respond. The French people denied assistance to the old government, whereas the English people accept taxes without questioning them. The entity known as the Crown in England has been bankrupt several times; the last widely recognized instance was in May 1777, when it sought help from the nation to clear over £600,000 in private debts that it couldn’t otherwise pay.
It was the error of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and all those who were unacquainted with the affairs of France to confound the French nation with the French Government. The French nation, in effect, endeavoured to render the late Government insolvent for the purpose of taking government into its own hands: and it reserved its means for the support of the new Government. In a country of such vast extent and population as France the natural means cannot be wanting, and the political means appear the instant the nation is disposed to permit them. When Mr. Burke, in a speech last winter in the British Parliament, "cast his eyes over the map of Europe, and saw a chasm that once was France," he talked like a dreamer of dreams. The same natural France existed as before, and all the natural means existed with it. The only chasm was that the extinction of despotism had left, and which was to be filled up with the Constitution more formidable in resources than the power which had expired.
It was a mistake of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and others who didn’t understand the situation in France to confuse the French people with the French Government. In reality, the French people were trying to make the old Government bankrupt so they could take control themselves and set aside their resources to support the new Government. In a country as large and populated as France, natural resources are abundant, and political options become available as soon as the people decide to allow them. When Mr. Burke, in a speech last winter in the British Parliament, "looked over the map of Europe and saw a gap that used to be France," he sounded like someone lost in a fantasy. The same natural France still existed, along with all its resources. The only gap was left by the fall of tyranny, which was to be filled with a Constitution that had even more power than the previous government.
Although the French Nation rendered the late Government insolvent, it did not permit the insolvency to act towards the creditors; and the creditors, considering the Nation as the real pay-master, and the Government only as the agent, rested themselves on the nation, in preference to the Government. This appears greatly to disturb Mr. Burke, as the precedent is fatal to the policy by which governments have supposed themselves secure. They have contracted debts, with a view of attaching what is called the monied interest of a Nation to their support; but the example in France shows that the permanent security of the creditor is in the Nation, and not in the Government; and that in all possible revolutions that may happen in Governments, the means are always with the Nation, and the Nation always in existence. Mr. Burke argues that the creditors ought to have abided the fate of the Government which they trusted; but the National Assembly considered them as the creditors of the Nation, and not of the Government—of the master, and not of the steward.
Although the French Nation made the former Government bankrupt, it didn't let that bankruptcy affect the creditors; instead, the creditors saw the Nation as the real source of payment and the Government merely as an agent, choosing to rely on the Nation rather than the Government. This deeply unsettles Mr. Burke, as this precedent undermines the policy that has led governments to believe they are secure. They have taken on debts in hopes of securing what’s known as the financial interest of a Nation in their support; however, the situation in France demonstrates that the true security for creditors lies with the Nation, not the Government. No matter what revolutions might occur in Governments, the power always rests with the Nation, which is always present. Mr. Burke argues that creditors should have accepted the outcome of the Government they trusted; however, the National Assembly viewed them as creditors of the Nation, rather than of the Government—of the master, not the steward.
Notwithstanding the late government could not discharge the current expenses, the present government has paid off a great part of the capital. This has been accomplished by two means; the one by lessening the expenses of government, and the other by the sale of the monastic and ecclesiastical landed estates. The devotees and penitent debauchees, extortioners and misers of former days, to ensure themselves a better world than that they were about to leave, had bequeathed immense property in trust to the priesthood for pious uses; and the priesthood kept it for themselves. The National Assembly has ordered it to be sold for the good of the whole nation, and the priesthood to be decently provided for.
Even though the previous government couldn't cover its expenses, the current government has paid off a large portion of the debt. This was achieved in two ways: by reducing government expenses and by selling off monastic and church-owned land. People in the past, whether devoted or repentant sinners, greedy or stingy, had left behind vast properties in trust to the church for charitable purposes to secure a better afterlife. However, the church kept this wealth for itself. The National Assembly has mandated that it be sold for the benefit of the entire nation and that the clergy be respectfully supported.
In consequence of the revolution, the annual interest of the debt of France will be reduced at least six millions sterling, by paying off upwards of one hundred millions of the capital; which, with lessening the former expenses of government at least three millions, will place France in a situation worthy the imitation of Europe.
As a result of the revolution, France's annual debt interest will decrease by at least six million pounds by paying off over one hundred million of the principal; this, along with reducing previous government expenses by at least three million, will put France in a position that other European countries should look to emulate.
Upon a whole review of the subject, how vast is the contrast! While Mr. Burke has been talking of a general bankruptcy in France, the National Assembly has been paying off the capital of its debt; and while taxes have increased near a million a year in England, they have lowered several millions a year in France. Not a word has either Mr. Burke or Mr. Pitt said about the French affairs, or the state of the French finances, in the present Session of Parliament. The subject begins to be too well understood, and imposition serves no longer.
After looking at the whole situation, the contrast is striking! While Mr. Burke has been discussing a general bankruptcy in France, the National Assembly has been paying down its debt. Meanwhile, while taxes have gone up by nearly a million a year in England, they've been reduced by several million a year in France. Neither Mr. Burke nor Mr. Pitt has mentioned French affairs or the state of French finances in the current Session of Parliament. The topic is becoming too clear to ignore, and deception is no longer effective.
There is a general enigma running through the whole of Mr. Burke's book. He writes in a rage against the National Assembly; but what is he enraged about? If his assertions were as true as they are groundless, and that France by her Revolution, had annihilated her power, and become what he calls a chasm, it might excite the grief of a Frenchman (considering himself as a national man), and provoke his rage against the National Assembly; but why should it excite the rage of Mr. Burke? Alas! it is not the nation of France that Mr. Burke means, but the Court; and every Court in Europe, dreading the same fate, is in mourning. He writes neither in the character of a Frenchman nor an Englishman, but in the fawning character of that creature known in all countries, and a friend to none—a courtier. Whether it be the Court of Versailles, or the Court of St. James, or Carlton-House, or the Court in expectation, signifies not; for the caterpillar principle of all Courts and Courtiers are alike. They form a common policy throughout Europe, detached and separate from the interest of Nations: and while they appear to quarrel, they agree to plunder. Nothing can be more terrible to a Court or Courtier than the Revolution of France. That which is a blessing to Nations is bitterness to them: and as their existence depends on the duplicity of a country, they tremble at the approach of principles, and dread the precedent that threatens their overthrow.
There’s an ongoing mystery throughout Mr. Burke's book. He writes furiously against the National Assembly, but what exactly makes him so angry? If his claims were as valid as they are baseless, and if France had actually destroyed its power through its Revolution and become what he calls a chasm, that might upset a Frenchman (thinking of himself as part of the nation) and fuel his anger toward the National Assembly. But why should Mr. Burke be upset? Unfortunately, he’s not talking about the nation of France; he’s focusing on the Court, and every Court in Europe, fearing the same outcome, is in mourning. He doesn’t write as either a Frenchman or an Englishman but as the sycophantic figure known in every country, a friend to none—a courtier. Whether it's the Court of Versailles, the Court of St. James, or Carlton House, or any anticipated Court, it doesn’t matter; the basic nature of all Courts and Courtiers is the same. They create a shared agenda across Europe, separate from the interests of nations: while they seem to be in conflict, they actually collaborate to exploit. Nothing is more terrifying to a Court or Courtier than the Revolution in France. What brings blessings to nations brings anguish to them: since their existence relies on the deceitfulness of a country, they shake with fear at the coming of new principles and dread the precedent that threatens to bring about their downfall.
CONCLUSION
Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
Reason and Ignorance, being opposites, greatly impact most people. If either of these concepts is widespread in a country, the government functions smoothly. Reason follows its own logic, while Ignorance accepts whatever is imposed upon it.
The two modes of the Government which prevail in the world, are:
The two types of government that exist in the world are:
First, Government by election and representation.
First, government through elections and representation.
Secondly, Government by hereditary succession.
Second, government by hereditary succession.
The former is generally known by the name of republic; the latter by that of monarchy and aristocracy.
The first is commonly known as a republic; the second is referred to as a monarchy or aristocracy.
Those two distinct and opposite forms erect themselves on the two distinct and opposite bases of Reason and Ignorance.—As the exercise of Government requires talents and abilities, and as talents and abilities cannot have hereditary descent, it is evident that hereditary succession requires a belief from man to which his reason cannot subscribe, and which can only be established upon his ignorance; and the more ignorant any country is, the better it is fitted for this species of Government.
Those two different and opposing forms stand on two different and opposing foundations of Reason and Ignorance. Since governing requires skills and abilities, and these skills and abilities can’t be inherited, it’s clear that hereditary succession relies on a belief that people can’t rationally accept and can only be based on their ignorance. The more ignorant a country is, the more suited it is for this type of government.
On the contrary, Government, in a well-constituted republic, requires no belief from man beyond what his reason can give. He sees the rationale of the whole system, its origin and its operation; and as it is best supported when best understood, the human faculties act with boldness, and acquire, under this form of government, a gigantic manliness.
On the contrary, in a well-structured republic, the government doesn't need any belief from people beyond what their reason can provide. They understand the rationale behind the entire system, its origin, and how it works; and since it’s most effectively supported when fully understood, people's abilities work boldly, and they develop, under this form of government, a tremendous sense of strength.
As, therefore, each of those forms acts on a different base, the one moving freely by the aid of reason, the other by ignorance; we have next to consider, what it is that gives motion to that species of Government which is called mixed Government, or, as it is sometimes ludicrously styled, a Government of this, that and t' other.
As each of those forms operates on a different foundation, one guided by reason and the other by ignorance, we must now consider what drives the type of government known as mixed government, or, as it is sometimes humorously referred to, a government of this, that, and the other.
The moving power in this species of Government is, of necessity, Corruption. However imperfect election and representation may be in mixed Governments, they still give exercise to a greater portion of reason than is convenient to the hereditary Part; and therefore it becomes necessary to buy the reason up. A mixed Government is an imperfect everything, cementing and soldering the discordant parts together by corruption, to act as a whole. Mr. Burke appears highly disgusted that France, since she had resolved on a revolution, did not adopt what he calls "A British Constitution"; and the regretful manner in which he expresses himself on this occasion implies a suspicion that the British Constitution needed something to keep its defects in countenance.
The driving force behind this type of government is, inevitably, corruption. Even though elections and representation may be flawed in mixed governments, they still engage more reasoning than is comfortable for the hereditary elite; thus, it's necessary to buy off that reasoning. A mixed government is fundamentally flawed, stitching together its conflicting parts with corruption to function as a unit. Mr. Burke seems quite frustrated that France, after deciding to start a revolution, didn't adopt what he refers to as "A British Constitution"; his regretful tone suggests he thinks the British Constitution requires something to cover up its flaws.
In mixed Governments there is no responsibility: the parts cover each other till responsibility is lost; and the corruption which moves the machine, contrives at the same time its own escape. When it is laid down as a maxim, that a King can do no wrong, it places him in a state of similar security with that of idiots and persons insane, and responsibility is out of the question with respect to himself. It then descends upon the Minister, who shelters himself under a majority in Parliament, which, by places, pensions, and corruption, he can always command; and that majority justifies itself by the same authority with which it protects the Minister. In this rotatory motion, responsibility is thrown off from the parts, and from the whole.
In mixed governments, there's no accountability: the different parts protect each other until responsibility is lost, and the corruption that drives the system also finds a way to escape. When it’s accepted as a principle that a king can do no wrong, it puts him in a position similar to that of fools and those who are insane, completely removing any responsibility from him. Instead, it shifts down to the minister, who relies on a majority in Parliament that he can always control through jobs, pensions, and corruption; this majority justifies itself by the same power that shields the minister. In this cycle, accountability is discarded by both the individual parts and the entire system.
When there is a Part in a Government which can do no wrong, it implies that it does nothing; and is only the machine of another power, by whose advice and direction it acts. What is supposed to be the King in the mixed Governments, is the Cabinet; and as the Cabinet is always a part of the Parliament, and the members justifying in one character what they advise and act in another, a mixed Government becomes a continual enigma; entailing upon a country by the quantity of corruption necessary to solder the parts, the expense of supporting all the forms of government at once, and finally resolving itself into a Government by Committee; in which the advisers, the actors, the approvers, the justifiers, the persons responsible, and the persons not responsible, are the same persons.
When there's a part of the government that can do no wrong, it means it’s doing nothing and is just the tool of another power that guides it. In mixed governments, what’s thought to be the King is actually the Cabinet; since the Cabinet is always part of Parliament, and its members justify their actions in one role while acting in another, a mixed government becomes a constant puzzle. This leads to a country having to deal with the corruption needed to hold everything together, the cost of maintaining all forms of government simultaneously, and ultimately turning into a Government by Committee, where the advisers, the doers, the approvers, the justifiers, the accountable individuals, and those who aren't accountable are all the same people.
By this pantomimical contrivance, and change of scene and character, the parts help each other out in matters which neither of them singly would assume to act. When money is to be obtained, the mass of variety apparently dissolves, and a profusion of parliamentary praises passes between the parts. Each admires with astonishment, the wisdom, the liberality, the disinterestedness of the other: and all of them breathe a pitying sigh at the burthens of the Nation.
Through this theatrical trick and shift in scene and character, the roles support each other in ways that neither would take on alone. When it's time to get money, the diverse roles seem to come together, and an abundance of compliments is exchanged between them. Each expresses amazement at the other's intelligence, generosity, and selflessness, and they all let out a sympathetic sigh over the nation's burdens.
But in a well-constituted republic, nothing of this soldering, praising, and pitying, can take place; the representation being equal throughout the country, and complete in itself, however it may be arranged into legislative and executive, they have all one and the same natural source. The parts are not foreigners to each other, like democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. As there are no discordant distinctions, there is nothing to corrupt by compromise, nor confound by contrivance. Public measures appeal of themselves to the understanding of the Nation, and, resting on their own merits, disown any flattering applications to vanity. The continual whine of lamenting the burden of taxes, however successfully it may be practised in mixed Governments, is inconsistent with the sense and spirit of a republic. If taxes are necessary, they are of course advantageous; but if they require an apology, the apology itself implies an impeachment. Why, then, is man thus imposed upon, or why does he impose upon himself?
But in a well-structured republic, none of this flattering, praising, and pitying can happen; the representation is equal across the country and self-contained, no matter how it’s divided into legislative and executive branches—they all come from the same natural source. The parts are not strangers to each other like in democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy. Since there are no conflicting divisions, there's nothing to corrupt through compromise or confuse through manipulation. Public policies speak for themselves to the understanding of the Nation, and, based on their own merits, they don’t resort to appealing to vanity. The constant complaining about the burden of taxes, no matter how effectively it works in mixed governments, doesn’t fit with the sense and spirit of a republic. If taxes are necessary, they must be beneficial; but if they need an excuse, that excuse itself suggests a criticism. So, why is man burdened in this way, or why does he burden himself?
When men are spoken of as kings and subjects, or when Government is mentioned under the distinct and combined heads of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, what is it that reasoning man is to understand by the terms? If there really existed in the world two or more distinct and separate elements of human power, we should then see the several origins to which those terms would descriptively apply; but as there is but one species of man, there can be but one element of human power; and that element is man himself. Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, are but creatures of imagination; and a thousand such may be contrived as well as three.
When people talk about kings and subjects, or discuss government in terms of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, what are we really meant to understand by those terms? If there were genuinely two or more separate types of human power in the world, we would see different origins that those terms would apply to; however, since there is only one species of human beings, there can only be one source of human power, and that source is humanity itself. Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy are just constructs of our imagination; in fact, we could come up with a thousand such constructs just as easily as we have created three.
From the Revolutions of America and France, and the symptoms that have appeared in other countries, it is evident that the opinion of the world is changing with respect to systems of Government, and that revolutions are not within the compass of political calculations. The progress of time and circumstances, which men assign to the accomplishment of great changes, is too mechanical to measure the force of the mind, and the rapidity of reflection, by which revolutions are generated: All the old governments have received a shock from those that already appear, and which were once more improbable, and are a greater subject of wonder, than a general revolution in Europe would be now.
From the revolutions in America and France, as well as the signs of unrest in other countries, it’s clear that people’s views on government are shifting. Revolutions can’t be predicted by political calculations. The passage of time and circumstances that people think lead to major changes is too mechanical to capture the strength of human thought and the speed of reflection that spark revolutions. All the old governments have been jolted by those that have emerged, which once seemed unlikely, and are now more astonishing than a widespread revolution in Europe would be today.
When we survey the wretched condition of man, under the monarchical and hereditary systems of Government, dragged from his home by one power, or driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general revolution in the principle and construction of Governments is necessary.
When we look at the miserable state of humanity under monarchy and hereditary rule, pulled from their homes by one authority or forced out by another, and suffering from taxes more than from foes, it’s clear that these systems are flawed and that a widespread change in the principles and structure of government is needed.
What is government more than the management of the affairs of a Nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is supported; and though by force and contrivance it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things. Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition and happiness. The romantic and barbarous distinction of men into Kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle upon which Governments are now founded. Every citizen is a member of the Sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal subjection; and his obedience can be only to the laws.
What is government if not the management of a nation’s affairs? It isn’t, and by its very nature cannot be, the property of any one person or family, but belongs to the entire community that funds it; and even though it may have been wrongfully taken through force and manipulation, that usurpation doesn’t change what is right. Sovereignty, as a matter of right, belongs solely to the nation, not to any individual; and a nation always has the inherent and unchangeable right to abolish any form of government that it finds inconvenient and to establish one that aligns with its interests, preferences, and happiness. The outdated and harsh distinction between kings and subjects may benefit courtiers, but it does not suit citizens; it has been dismantled by the principles on which governments are currently based. Every citizen is a member of the sovereignty and, as such, cannot acknowledge any personal subjugation; their obedience can only be to the laws.
When men think of what Government is, they must necessarily suppose it to possess a knowledge of all the objects and matters upon which its authority is to be exercised. In this view of Government, the republican system, as established by America and France, operates to embrace the whole of a Nation; and the knowledge necessary to the interest of all the parts, is to be found in the center, which the parts by representation form: But the old Governments are on a construction that excludes knowledge as well as happiness; government by Monks, who knew nothing of the world beyond the walls of a Convent, is as consistent as government by Kings.
When people think about what government is, they must assume it has knowledge of all the issues and matters over which it holds authority. From this perspective, the republican system established by America and France aims to encompass the entire nation; the knowledge necessary for the well-being of all its parts is found in the center, which is formed by the representation of those parts. In contrast, the old governments are structured in a way that excludes both knowledge and happiness; governance by monks, who knew nothing about the world outside their convent walls, is as reasonable as governance by kings.
What were formerly called Revolutions, were little more than a change of persons, or an alteration of local circumstances. They rose and fell like things of course, and had nothing in their existence or their fate that could influence beyond the spot that produced them. But what we now see in the world, from the Revolutions of America and France, are a renovation of the natural order of things, a system of principles as universal as truth and the existence of man, and combining moral with political happiness and national prosperity.
What used to be called Revolutions were mostly just changes in people or shifts in local situations. They came and went as expected, affecting only the places where they happened. But what we now see in the world, from the Revolutions in America and France, represents a renewal of the natural order, a set of principles as universal as truth and human existence, linking moral and political happiness with national prosperity.
"I. Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility.
"I. Men are born and remain free and equal in terms of their rights. Civil distinctions can only be based on public benefit."
"II. The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.
II. The purpose of all political groups is to protect the natural and inalienable rights of individuals; these rights include freedom, property, safety, and the right to resist oppression.
"III. The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; nor can any Individual, or Any Body Of Men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it."
"III. The nation is the primary source of all power; no individual or group of people can claim any authority that does not come directly from it."
In these principles, there is nothing to throw a Nation into confusion by inflaming ambition. They are calculated to call forth wisdom and abilities, and to exercise them for the public good, and not for the emolument or aggrandisement of particular descriptions of men or families. Monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of mankind, and the source of misery, is abolished; and the sovereignty itself is restored to its natural and original place, the Nation. Were this the case throughout Europe, the cause of wars would be taken away.
In these principles, there’s nothing that would throw a nation into chaos by stirring up ambition. They are designed to bring out wisdom and skills, using them for the public good rather than for the profit or power of specific groups or families. Monarchical power, which is harmful to humanity and a source of suffering, has been eliminated; sovereignty is returned to its rightful place: the nation. If this were the case across Europe, the reasons for wars would disappear.
It is attributed to Henry the Fourth of France, a man of enlarged and benevolent heart, that he proposed, about the year 1610, a plan for abolishing war in Europe. The plan consisted in constituting an European Congress, or as the French authors style it, a Pacific Republic; by appointing delegates from the several Nations who were to act as a Court of arbitration in any disputes that might arise between nation and nation.
It is said that Henry IV of France, a man with a big and generous heart, proposed a plan around 1610 to end war in Europe. The plan involved creating a European Congress, or as French writers call it, a Pacific Republic, by appointing delegates from various nations to serve as a court of arbitration for any disputes that might come up between nations.
Had such a plan been adopted at the time it was proposed, the taxes of England and France, as two of the parties, would have been at least ten millions sterling annually to each Nation less than they were at the commencement of the French Revolution.
Had such a plan been put into action when it was suggested, the taxes in England and France, as two of the involved countries, would have been at least ten million pounds less each year for both nations compared to what they were at the start of the French Revolution.
To conceive a cause why such a plan has not been adopted (and that instead of a Congress for the purpose of preventing war, it has been called only to terminate a war, after a fruitless expense of several years) it will be necessary to consider the interest of Governments as a distinct interest to that of Nations.
To understand why such a plan hasn't been put in place (and why a Congress aimed at preventing war has only been called to end a war, after wasting several years), we need to view the interests of governments as separate from those of nations.
Whatever is the cause of taxes to a Nation, becomes also the means of revenue to Government. Every war terminates with an addition of taxes, and consequently with an addition of revenue; and in any event of war, in the manner they are now commenced and concluded, the power and interest of Governments are increased. War, therefore, from its productiveness, as it easily furnishes the pretence of necessity for taxes and appointments to places and offices, becomes a principal part of the system of old Governments; and to establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to Nations, would be to take from such Government the most lucrative of its branches. The frivolous matters upon which war is made, show the disposition and avidity of Governments to uphold the system of war, and betray the motives upon which they act.
Whatever the reason for taxes in a nation, it also becomes a source of revenue for the government. Every war ends with more taxes and, as a result, more revenue; and in any instance of war, with the way they're currently started and ended, the power and interests of governments grow. War, therefore, because it generates income, easily provides a reason for the need for taxes and appointments to roles and offices, becoming a key part of the framework of old governments. Establishing any way to eliminate war, no matter how beneficial it might be for nations, would mean taking away the most profitable part of such a government. The trivial matters over which wars are fought reveal the eagerness and greed of governments to maintain the war system and expose the motives behind their actions.
Why are not Republics plunged into war, but because the nature of their Government does not admit of an interest distinct from that of the Nation? Even Holland, though an ill-constructed Republic, and with a commerce extending over the world, existed nearly a century without war: and the instant the form of Government was changed in France, the republican principles of peace and domestic prosperity and economy arose with the new Government; and the same consequences would follow the cause in other Nations.
Why aren’t republics drawn into war? It's because their form of government doesn't allow for interests separate from those of the nation. Even Holland, despite being a poorly organized republic and having global trade, remained at peace for almost a century. The moment France changed its government, the republican ideals of peace, domestic prosperity, and frugality came back with the new administration; the same outcomes would happen in other countries as well.
As war is the system of Government on the old construction, the animosity which Nations reciprocally entertain, is nothing more than what the policy of their Governments excites to keep up the spirit of the system. Each Government accuses the other of perfidy, intrigue, and ambition, as a means of heating the imagination of their respective Nations, and incensing them to hostilities. Man is not the enemy of man, but through the medium of a false system of Government. Instead, therefore, of exclaiming against the ambition of Kings, the exclamation should be directed against the principle of such Governments; and instead of seeking to reform the individual, the wisdom of a Nation should apply itself to reform the system.
As war is the framework of the old-style government, the hostility that nations have toward each other is really just what their governments stir up to maintain the spirit of that system. Each government blames the other for dishonesty, scheming, and greed, as a way to fire up the imagination of their own people and provoke them into conflict. People are not each other's enemies, but rather because of a flawed governing system. So instead of complaining about the ambitions of kings, we should criticize the principles of those governments; and instead of trying to change individuals, a nation should focus on changing the system.
Whether the forms and maxims of Governments which are still in practice, were adapted to the condition of the world at the period they were established, is not in this case the question. The older they are, the less correspondence can they have with the present state of things. Time, and change of circumstances and opinions, have the same progressive effect in rendering modes of Government obsolete as they have upon customs and manners.—Agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and the tranquil arts, by which the prosperity of Nations is best promoted, require a different system of Government, and a different species of knowledge to direct its operations, than what might have been required in the former condition of the world.
Whether the forms and principles of governments that are still in use were suited to the world at the time they were created is not the issue here. The older they are, the less they correspond to the current state of affairs. Time, along with changing circumstances and opinions, has the same progressive effect on making systems of government outdated as it does on traditions and behaviors. Agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, and the peaceful arts that best promote the prosperity of nations require a different system of government and a different type of knowledge to guide their operations than what was needed in earlier times.
As it is not difficult to perceive, from the enlightened state of mankind, that hereditary Governments are verging to their decline, and that Revolutions on the broad basis of national sovereignty and Government by representation, are making their way in Europe, it would be an act of wisdom to anticipate their approach, and produce Revolutions by reason and accommodation, rather than commit them to the issue of convulsions.
It's easy to see, given the progress of humanity, that hereditary governments are fading away, and that revolutions based on national sovereignty and representation are emerging in Europe. It would be wise to prepare for these changes and foster revolutions through reason and compromise, rather than leaving them to the chaos of upheaval.
From what we now see, nothing of reform in the political world ought to be held improbable. It is an age of Revolutions, in which everything may be looked for. The intrigue of Courts, by which the system of war is kept up, may provoke a confederation of Nations to abolish it: and an European Congress to patronise the progress of free Government, and promote the civilisation of Nations with each other, is an event nearer in probability, than once were the revolutions and alliance of France and America.
From what we can see now, nothing about reforms in politics should be considered unlikely. We live in an age of revolutions, where anything is possible. The schemes of courts, which sustain the system of war, might inspire countries to come together and abolish it. An European Congress to support the advancement of free government and encourage cooperation among nations is now more likely than the earlier revolutions and alliances of France and America.
END OF PART I.
RIGHTS OF MAN. PART SECOND, COMBINING PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE.
By Thomas Paine.
FRENCH TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
(1792)
THE work of which we offer a translation to the public has created the greatest sensation in England. Paine, that man of freedom, who seems born to preach "Common Sense" to the whole world with the same success as in America, explains in it to the people of England the theory of the practice of the Rights of Man.
THE work we are translating for the public has caused a huge stir in England. Paine, that champion of freedom, who appears destined to share "Common Sense" with the entire world just as successfully as he did in America, explains to the people of England the theory behind the practice of the Rights of Man.
Owing to the prejudices that still govern that nation, the author has been obliged to condescend to answer Mr. Burke. He has done so more especially in an extended preface which is nothing but a piece of very tedious controversy, in which he shows himself very sensitive to criticisms that do not really affect him. To translate it seemed an insult to the free French people, and similar reasons have led the editors to suppress also a dedicatory epistle addressed by Paine to Lafayette.
Due to the biases that still control that nation, the author felt compelled to respond to Mr. Burke. He has done this primarily in a long preface that is essentially a lengthy and boring debate, where he comes across as overly sensitive to criticisms that don’t truly impact him. Translating it seemed like an insult to the free French people, and similar reasons have led the editors to also withhold a dedicatory letter from Paine to Lafayette.
The French can no longer endure dedicatory epistles. A man should write privately to those he esteems: when he publishes a book his thoughts should be offered to the public alone. Paine, that uncorrupted friend of freedom, believed too in the sincerity of Lafayette. So easy is it to deceive men of single-minded purpose! Bred at a distance from courts, that austere American does not seem any more on his guard against the artful ways and speech of courtiers than some Frenchmen who resemble him.
The French can no longer tolerate dedicatory letters. A person should write privately to those he respects; when he publishes a book, his ideas should be presented solely to the public. Paine, that genuine advocate for freedom, also believed in Lafayette's sincerity. It's so easy to mislead people who are straightforward! Raised far from the courts, that serious American doesn’t seem any more cautious about the cunning manners and words of courtiers than some Frenchmen who are similar to him.
TO M. DE LA FAYETTE
After an acquaintance of nearly fifteen years in difficult situations in America, and various consultations in Europe, I feel a pleasure in presenting to you this small treatise, in gratitude for your services to my beloved America, and as a testimony of my esteem for the virtues, public and private, which I know you to possess.
After knowing you for almost fifteen years through tough times in America and various meetings in Europe, I'm happy to share this short book with you. It's a way for me to thank you for your contributions to my beloved America and to show my respect for the qualities, both public and private, that I know you have.
The only point upon which I could ever discover that we differed was not as to principles of government, but as to time. For my own part I think it equally as injurious to good principles to permit them to linger, as to push them on too fast. That which you suppose accomplishable in fourteen or fifteen years, I may believe practicable in a much shorter period. Mankind, as it appears to me, are always ripe enough to understand their true interest, provided it be presented clearly to their understanding, and that in a manner not to create suspicion by anything like self-design, nor offend by assuming too much. Where we would wish to reform we must not reproach.
The only difference I could ever find between us wasn’t about government principles, but about timing. Personally, I think it’s just as harmful to let good ideas drag on as it is to rush them. What you think can be achieved in fourteen or fifteen years, I believe can be done in a much shorter time. It seems to me that people are always ready to grasp their true interests, as long as we present them clearly and in a way that doesn’t raise doubts or come off as overly aggressive. When we want to encourage change, we shouldn’t blame.
When the American revolution was established I felt a disposition to sit serenely down and enjoy the calm. It did not appear to me that any object could afterwards arise great enough to make me quit tranquility and feel as I had felt before. But when principle, and not place, is the energetic cause of action, a man, I find, is everywhere the same.
When the American Revolution started, I had the urge to sit back and enjoy the peace. It didn’t seem to me that anything could ever happen again that would make me leave that calm and feel the way I used to. But when a person is driven by principles instead of just their circumstances, I find that a person is the same no matter where they are.
I am now once more in the public world; and as I have not a right to contemplate on so many years of remaining life as you have, I have resolved to labour as fast as I can; and as I am anxious for your aid and your company, I wish you to hasten your principles and overtake me.
I am now back in the public sphere; and since I don’t have the same right to think about the many years of life ahead that you do, I’ve decided to work as quickly as possible. Because I value your support and companionship, I hope you will speed up your progress and catch up to me.
If you make a campaign the ensuing spring, which it is most probable there will be no occasion for, I will come and join you. Should the campaign commence, I hope it will terminate in the extinction of German despotism, and in establishing the freedom of all Germany. When France shall be surrounded with revolutions she will be in peace and safety, and her taxes, as well as those of Germany, will consequently become less.
If you launch a campaign next spring, which likely won’t be necessary, I’ll come and join you. If the campaign does start, I hope it leads to the end of German tyranny and brings freedom to all of Germany. When France is surrounded by revolutions, she will be peaceful and secure, and as a result, her taxes, along with those of Germany, will decrease.
Your sincere,
Your genuine,
Affectionate Friend,
Dear Friend,
Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
London, Feb. 9, 1792
London, Feb. 9, 1792
PREFACE
When I began the chapter entitled the "Conclusion" in the former part of the RIGHTS OF MAN, published last year, it was my intention to have extended it to a greater length; but in casting the whole matter in my mind, which I wish to add, I found that it must either make the work too bulky, or contract my plan too much. I therefore brought it to a close as soon as the subject would admit, and reserved what I had further to say to another opportunity.
When I started the chapter called "Conclusion" in the earlier part of the RIGHTS OF MAN, published last year, I intended to expand it further. However, as I considered all the additional points I wanted to include, I realized that it would either make the work too lengthy or narrow my focus too much. So, I wrapped it up as quickly as the topic allowed and saved what else I had to say for another time.
Several other reasons contributed to produce this determination. I wished to know the manner in which a work, written in a style of thinking and expression different to what had been customary in England, would be received before I proceeded farther. A great field was opening to the view of mankind by means of the French Revolution. Mr. Burke's outrageous opposition thereto brought the controversy into England. He attacked principles which he knew (from information) I would contest with him, because they are principles I believe to be good, and which I have contributed to establish, and conceive myself bound to defend. Had he not urged the controversy, I had most probably been a silent man.
Several other reasons led to this decision. I wanted to see how a work, written in a style of thinking and expression that was different from what was usual in England, would be received before moving forward. The French Revolution was opening up a vast new world for everyone. Mr. Burke’s extreme opposition to it brought the debate to England. He challenged principles that he knew (from what he had heard) I would argue against because I believe those principles are good, and I've worked to establish them and feel obligated to defend them. If he hadn't sparked the debate, I probably would have stayed quiet.
Another reason for deferring the remainder of the work was, that Mr. Burke promised in his first publication to renew the subject at another opportunity, and to make a comparison of what he called the English and French Constitutions. I therefore held myself in reserve for him. He has published two works since, without doing this: which he certainly would not have omitted, had the comparison been in his favour.
Another reason for postponing the rest of the work was that Mr. Burke promised in his first publication to revisit the topic later and compare what he referred to as the English and French Constitutions. So, I held back for him. He has published two works since then, without addressing this: which he definitely would have included if the comparison had favored him.
In his last work, his "Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs," he has quoted about ten pages from the RIGHTS OF MAN, and having given himself the trouble of doing this, says he "shall not attempt in the smallest degree to refute them," meaning the principles therein contained. I am enough acquainted with Mr. Burke to know that he would if he could. But instead of contesting them, he immediately after consoles himself with saying that "he has done his part."—He has not done his part. He has not performed his promise of a comparison of constitutions. He started the controversy, he gave the challenge, and has fled from it; and he is now a case in point with his own opinion that "the age of chivalry is gone!"
In his final work, "Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs," he quotes about ten pages from the RIGHTS OF MAN, and having taken the time to do this, he says he "will not even try to refute them," referring to the principles contained within. I know Mr. Burke well enough to understand that he would if he could. But instead of debating them, he immediately comforts himself by saying that "he has done his part."—He has not done his part. He has not fulfilled his promise of comparing constitutions. He started the debate, issued the challenge, and then backed away from it; and he is now an example of his own belief that "the age of chivalry is gone!"
The title, as well as the substance of his last work, his "Appeal," is his condemnation. Principles must stand on their own merits, and if they are good they certainly will. To put them under the shelter of other men's authority, as Mr. Burke has done, serves to bring them into suspicion. Mr. Burke is not very fond of dividing his honours, but in this case he is artfully dividing the disgrace.
The title and the content of his latest work, his "Appeal," actually serves as his punishment. Principles should be evaluated on their own, and if they’re worthwhile, they will certainly prove to be. Hiding behind the authority of others, like Mr. Burke has done, only raises doubts about them. Mr. Burke isn't keen on sharing his accolades, but in this situation, he is cleverly sharing the blame.
But who are those to whom Mr. Burke has made his appeal? A set of childish thinkers, and half-way politicians born in the last century, men who went no farther with any principle than as it suited their purposes as a party; the nation was always left out of the question; and this has been the character of every party from that day to this. The nation sees nothing of such works, or such politics, worthy its attention. A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation.
But who are the people Mr. Burke is appealing to? A group of naive thinkers and half-hearted politicians from the last century, individuals who only embraced any principle when it served their party's interests; the nation's needs were never part of the discussion. This has been true for every party from then until now. The nation doesn't acknowledge such actions or such politics as worthy of its attention. Small issues may sway a party, but it takes something significant to inspire a nation.
Though I see nothing in Mr. Burke's "Appeal" worth taking much notice of, there is, however, one expression upon which I shall offer a few remarks. After quoting largely from the RIGHTS OF MAN, and declining to contest the principles contained in that work, he says: "This will most probably be done (if such writings shall be thought to deserve any other refutation than that of criminal justice) by others, who may think with Mr. Burke and with the same zeal."
Though I don’t find anything in Mr. Burke's "Appeal" worth paying much attention to, there is one thing I’d like to comment on. After quoting extensively from the RIGHTS OF MAN and choosing not to challenge the principles in that work, he says: "This will most likely be addressed (if such writings are considered to need any response beyond that of criminal justice) by others who may share Mr. Burke's perspective and enthusiasm."
In the first place, it has not yet been done by anybody. Not less, I believe, than eight or ten pamphlets intended as answers to the former part of the RIGHTS OF MAN have been published by different persons, and not one of them to my knowledge, has extended to a second edition, nor are even the titles of them so much as generally remembered. As I am averse to unnecessary multiplying publications, I have answered none of them. And as I believe that a man may write himself out of reputation when nobody else can do it, I am careful to avoid that rock.
First of all, no one has done it yet. I believe no fewer than eight or ten pamphlets meant to respond to the first part of the RIGHTS OF MAN have been published by various individuals, and to my knowledge, not one of them has gone to a second edition, nor are their titles even widely remembered. Since I dislike the unnecessary proliferation of publications, I haven’t responded to any of them. And as I believe that a person can tarnish their own reputation when no one else can, I’m cautious about avoiding that trap.
But as I would decline unnecessary publications on the one hand, so would I avoid everything that might appear like sullen pride on the other. If Mr. Burke, or any person on his side the question, will produce an answer to the RIGHTS OF MAN that shall extend to a half, or even to a fourth part of the number of copies to which the Rights Of Man extended, I will reply to his work. But until this be done, I shall so far take the sense of the public for my guide (and the world knows I am not a flatterer) that what they do not think worth while to read, is not worth mine to answer. I suppose the number of copies to which the first part of the RIGHTS OF MAN extended, taking England, Scotland, and Ireland, is not less than between forty and fifty thousand.
But just as I would turn down unnecessary publications, I would also steer clear of anything that might come off as sulky pride. If Mr. Burke, or anyone on his side of the debate, can produce a response to the RIGHTS OF MAN that reaches even half, or maybe a fourth, of the copies that the Rights Of Man received, I will respond to their work. But until that happens, I will take the public’s opinion as my guide (and everyone knows I'm not someone who flatters) because if they don't think it's worth reading, then it's not worth my time to respond. I estimate that the first part of the RIGHTS OF MAN sold at least forty to fifty thousand copies across England, Scotland, and Ireland.
I now come to remark on the remaining part of the quotation I have made from Mr. Burke.
I’d like to comment on the rest of the quote I shared from Mr. Burke.
"If," says he, "such writings shall be thought to deserve any other refutation than that of criminal justice."
"If," he says, "these writings are considered to deserve any response other than that of law enforcement."
Pardoning the pun, it must be criminal justice indeed that should condemn a work as a substitute for not being able to refute it. The greatest condemnation that could be passed upon it would be a refutation. But in proceeding by the method Mr. Burke alludes to, the condemnation would, in the final event, pass upon the criminality of the process and not upon the work, and in this case, I had rather be the author, than be either the judge or the jury that should condemn it.
Pardoning the pun, it really should be the justice system that condemns a work as a way of avoiding a strong rebuttal. The worst thing you could do to it would be to prove it wrong. But if we go along with the method Mr. Burke talks about, the blame would ultimately fall on the wrongful process, not the work itself. In this case, I'd much rather be the author than the judge or jury that tries to condemn it.
But to come at once to the point. I have differed from some professional gentlemen on the subject of prosecutions, and I since find they are falling into my opinion, which I will here state as fully, but as concisely as I can.
But to get straight to the point. I have disagreed with some professionals about prosecutions, and I now see that they are starting to align with my opinion, which I will state here as clearly and briefly as possible.
I will first put a case with respect to any law, and then compare it with a government, or with what in England is, or has been, called a constitution.
I will first present a situation related to any law, and then compare it with a government, or with what is, or has been, referred to in England as a constitution.
It would be an act of despotism, or what in England is called arbitrary power, to make a law to prohibit investigating the principles, good or bad, on which such a law, or any other is founded.
It would be an act of tyranny, or what is referred to in England as arbitrary power, to create a law that prevents examining the principles, whether they are good or bad, on which such a law, or any other, is based.
If a law be bad it is one thing to oppose the practice of it, but it is quite a different thing to expose its errors, to reason on its defects, and to show cause why it should be repealed, or why another ought to be substituted in its place. I have always held it an opinion (making it also my practice) that it is better to obey a bad law, making use at the same time of every argument to show its errors and procure its repeal, than forcibly to violate it; because the precedent of breaking a bad law might weaken the force, and lead to a discretionary violation, of those which are good.
If a law is bad, it’s one thing to oppose following it, but it’s a completely different matter to point out its mistakes, discuss its flaws, and explain why it should be repealed or replaced with a better one. I’ve always believed (and practiced) that it’s better to obey a bad law while using every argument to highlight its errors and push for its repeal, rather than breaking it forcefully. This is because setting a precedent of ignoring a bad law could undermine the authority of good laws and lead to discretionary violations of them.
The case is the same with respect to principles and forms of government, or to what are called constitutions and the parts of which they are, composed.
The situation is the same when it comes to principles and types of government, or what we refer to as constitutions and their components.
It is for the good of nations and not for the emolument or aggrandisement of particular individuals, that government ought to be established, and that mankind are at the expense of supporting it. The defects of every government and constitution both as to principle and form, must, on a parity of reasoning, be as open to discussion as the defects of a law, and it is a duty which every man owes to society to point them out. When those defects, and the means of remedying them, are generally seen by a nation, that nation will reform its government or its constitution in the one case, as the government repealed or reformed the law in the other. The operation of government is restricted to the making and the administering of laws; but it is to a nation that the right of forming or reforming, generating or regenerating constitutions and governments belong; and consequently those subjects, as subjects of investigation, are always before a country as a matter of right, and cannot, without invading the general rights of that country, be made subjects for prosecution. On this ground I will meet Mr. Burke whenever he please. It is better that the whole argument should come out than to seek to stifle it. It was himself that opened the controversy, and he ought not to desert it.
Government should be established for the benefit of nations, not for the profit or advancement of particular individuals, and people bear the cost of supporting it. The shortcomings of every government and constitution, both in principle and in structure, should be just as open to discussion as the flaws in a law. It's the responsibility of every person to society to highlight these issues. When the people of a nation recognize these shortcomings and the ways to address them, that nation will reform its government or constitution in the same way that a government might repeal or amend a law. The role of government is limited to creating and enforcing laws, but the right to form or reform constitutions and governments lies with the people. Therefore, these topics should always be open for investigation, as a matter of right, and cannot be subject to prosecution without violating the general rights of the country. On this basis, I will engage with Mr. Burke whenever he wishes. It's better for the whole argument to be aired than to try to suppress it. He initiated this debate, and he should not abandon it.
I do not believe that monarchy and aristocracy will continue seven years longer in any of the enlightened countries in Europe. If better reasons can be shown for them than against them, they will stand; if the contrary, they will not. Mankind are not now to be told they shall not think, or they shall not read; and publications that go no farther than to investigate principles of government, to invite men to reason and to reflect, and to show the errors and excellences of different systems, have a right to appear. If they do not excite attention, they are not worth the trouble of a prosecution; and if they do, the prosecution will amount to nothing, since it cannot amount to a prohibition of reading. This would be a sentence on the public, instead of the author, and would also be the most effectual mode of making or hastening revolution.
I don't think monarchy and aristocracy will last another seven years in any of the advanced countries in Europe. If there are better reasons for them than against them, they will survive; if not, they won't. People today can't be told not to think or read. Publications that only explore government principles, encourage people to reason and reflect, and highlight the faults and merits of different systems have every right to exist. If they don't grab attention, they're not worth prosecuting; and if they do, the prosecution won't really matter because it can’t stop people from reading. That would be a punishment for the public, not the author, and it would actually be the most effective way to create or speed up a revolution.
On all cases that apply universally to a nation, with respect to systems of government, a jury of twelve men is not competent to decide. Where there are no witnesses to be examined, no facts to be proved, and where the whole matter is before the whole public, and the merits or demerits of it resting on their opinion; and where there is nothing to be known in a court, but what every body knows out of it, every twelve men is equally as good a jury as the other, and would most probably reverse each other's verdict; or, from the variety of their opinions, not be able to form one. It is one case, whether a nation approve a work, or a plan; but it is quite another case, whether it will commit to any such jury the power of determining whether that nation have a right to, or shall reform its government or not. I mention those cases that Mr. Burke may see I have not written on Government without reflecting on what is Law, as well as on what are Rights.—The only effectual jury in such cases would be a convention of the whole nation fairly elected; for in all such cases the whole nation is the vicinage. If Mr. Burke will propose such a jury, I will waive all privileges of being the citizen of another country, and, defending its principles, abide the issue, provided he will do the same; for my opinion is, that his work and his principles would be condemned instead of mine.
In all cases that apply to a nation regarding government systems, a jury of twelve men isn't qualified to decide. When there are no witnesses to examine, no facts to prove, and the matter is out in the open for the public to view, where the merits or flaws depend on public opinion, every group of twelve men is just as good as any other jury and would probably overturn each other’s verdicts; or, due to their differing opinions, they might not even reach a consensus. It's one thing for a nation to approve a work or a plan, but it’s a completely different issue to give any jury the power to decide whether the nation has the right to reform its government. I point this out so Mr. Burke knows that I haven't discussed government without considering law and rights. The only effective jury in these situations would be a convention of the entire nation that is fairly elected; because, in these matters, the whole nation is the relevant community. If Mr. Burke would suggest such a jury, I'd be happy to set aside my privileges as a citizen of another country and defend its principles, as long as he does the same; because I believe his work and his principles would be judged unfavorably instead of mine.
As to the prejudices which men have from education and habit, in favour of any particular form or system of government, those prejudices have yet to stand the test of reason and reflection. In fact, such prejudices are nothing. No man is prejudiced in favour of a thing, knowing it to be wrong. He is attached to it on the belief of its being right; and when he sees it is not so, the prejudice will be gone. We have but a defective idea of what prejudice is. It might be said, that until men think for themselves the whole is prejudice, and not opinion; for that only is opinion which is the result of reason and reflection. I offer this remark, that Mr. Burke may not confide too much in what have been the customary prejudices of the country.
Regarding the biases that people develop from education and habit in favor of any specific form or system of government, those biases still need to withstand reason and reflection. In reality, such biases amount to nothing. No one holds a bias towards something if they know it’s wrong. They are attached to it based on the belief that it’s right; and once they realize it isn't, the bias disappears. We have a limited understanding of what prejudice truly is. It could be argued that until people think for themselves, everything is bias, not opinion; because true opinion stems from reason and reflection. I make this point so that Mr. Burke doesn't place too much trust in the traditional biases of the country.
I do not believe that the people of England have ever been fairly and candidly dealt by. They have been imposed upon by parties, and by men assuming the character of leaders. It is time that the nation should rise above those trifles. It is time to dismiss that inattention which has so long been the encouraging cause of stretching taxation to excess. It is time to dismiss all those songs and toasts which are calculated to enslave, and operate to suffocate reflection. On all such subjects men have but to think, and they will neither act wrong nor be misled. To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not. If such a case could be proved, it would equally prove that those who govern are not fit to govern them, for they are a part of the same national mass.
I don't think the people of England have ever been treated fairly and honestly. They've been taken advantage of by political parties and by individuals pretending to be leaders. It's time for the nation to rise above those petty issues. It's time to shake off the indifference that has long allowed excessive taxation. It's time to get rid of all those songs and toasts that are meant to enslave and prevent deep thinking. If people simply think about these issues, they won’t make wrong choices or be misled. To say that any group of people isn't capable of being free is to choose poverty for them and to suggest they would prefer to be burdened by taxes instead. If that were proven to be true, it would also show that those in power aren’t fit to govern them, as they’re part of the same national community.
But admitting governments to be changed all over Europe; it certainly may be done without convulsion or revenge. It is not worth making changes or revolutions, unless it be for some great national benefit: and when this shall appear to a nation, the danger will be, as in America and France, to those who oppose; and with this reflection I close my Preface.
But if we accept that governments across Europe can be changed, it can definitely happen without chaos or revenge. It's not worth making changes or revolutions unless there's a significant national benefit. When a nation recognizes this, the real threat will be to those who oppose it, just as we saw in America and France. With this thought, I conclude my Preface.
THOMAS PAINE
THOMAS PAINE
London, Feb. 9, 1792
London, Feb. 9, 1792
RIGHTS OF MAN PART II.
INTRODUCTION.
What Archimedes said of the mechanical powers, may be applied to Reason and Liberty. "Had we," said he, "a place to stand upon, we might raise the world."
What Archimedes said about mechanical powers can be applied to Reason and Liberty. "If we had," he said, "a place to stand on, we could lift the world."
The revolution of America presented in politics what was only theory in mechanics. So deeply rooted were all the governments of the old world, and so effectually had the tyranny and the antiquity of habit established itself over the mind, that no beginning could be made in Asia, Africa, or Europe, to reform the political condition of man. Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think.
The American revolution showed in politics what was just a theory in mechanics. The old world's governments were so deeply entrenched, and tyranny and outdated habits had a strong hold on people's minds, that no change could start in Asia, Africa, or Europe to improve the political situation of humanity. Freedom had been chased around the world; reason was viewed as rebellion; and the fear of oppression had made people scared to think.
But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks,—and all it wants,—is the liberty of appearing. The sun needs no inscription to distinguish him from darkness; and no sooner did the American governments display themselves to the world, than despotism felt a shock and man began to contemplate redress.
But the nature of truth is so powerful that all it asks—and all it wants—is the freedom to be seen. The sun doesn’t need a label to set itself apart from darkness; and as soon as the American governments presented themselves to the world, tyranny felt a jolt, and people started to think about solutions.
The independence of America, considered merely as a separation from England, would have been a matter but of little importance, had it not been accompanied by a revolution in the principles and practice of governments. She made a stand, not for herself only, but for the world, and looked beyond the advantages herself could receive. Even the Hessian, though hired to fight against her, may live to bless his defeat; and England, condemning the viciousness of its government, rejoice in its miscarriage.
The independence of America, seen only as a break from England, would have been pretty insignificant if it weren't for the revolutionary changes in government principles and practices that came with it. America took a stand not just for itself but for the whole world, looking past the benefits it could gain. Even the Hessian, who was paid to fight against her, might one day be grateful for his defeat; and England, while criticizing the flaws of its government, could end up celebrating its failure.
As America was the only spot in the political world where the principle of universal reformation could begin, so also was it the best in the natural world. An assemblage of circumstances conspired, not only to give birth, but to add gigantic maturity to its principles. The scene which that country presents to the eye of a spectator, has something in it which generates and encourages great ideas. Nature appears to him in magnitude. The mighty objects he beholds, act upon his mind by enlarging it, and he partakes of the greatness he contemplates.—Its first settlers were emigrants from different European nations, and of diversified professions of religion, retiring from the governmental persecutions of the old world, and meeting in the new, not as enemies, but as brothers. The wants which necessarily accompany the cultivation of a wilderness produced among them a state of society, which countries long harassed by the quarrels and intrigues of governments, had neglected to cherish. In such a situation man becomes what he ought. He sees his species, not with the inhuman idea of a natural enemy, but as kindred; and the example shows to the artificial world, that man must go back to Nature for information.
As America was the only place in the political world where the idea of universal reform could start, it was also the best in the natural world. A combination of circumstances not only brought it to life but also helped its principles grow immensely. The landscape in that country displays something that inspires and promotes great ideas. Nature appears immense to him. The massive sights he witnesses expand his mind, and he shares in the greatness he observes. Its first settlers were immigrants from various European countries and different religious backgrounds, fleeing governmental persecution in the old world, and coming together in the new, not as enemies but as brothers. The needs that come with taming a wilderness created a society among them that countries long troubled by government conflicts had failed to nurture. In such a context, people become who they should be. They view their fellow humans, not as natural enemies, but as family; and this example shows the artificial world that people must return to Nature for true knowledge.
From the rapid progress which America makes in every species of improvement, it is rational to conclude that, if the governments of Asia, Africa, and Europe had begun on a principle similar to that of America, or had not been very early corrupted therefrom, those countries must by this time have been in a far superior condition to what they are. Age after age has passed away, for no other purpose than to behold their wretchedness. Could we suppose a spectator who knew nothing of the world, and who was put into it merely to make his observations, he would take a great part of the old world to be new, just struggling with the difficulties and hardships of an infant settlement. He could not suppose that the hordes of miserable poor with which old countries abound could be any other than those who had not yet had time to provide for themselves. Little would he think they were the consequence of what in such countries they call government.
From the rapid progress that America makes in every area of improvement, it's reasonable to conclude that if the governments of Asia, Africa, and Europe had started with principles similar to those in America, or hadn't been corrupted from them early on, those regions would be in a much better state by now. Age after age has passed just to witness their suffering. If we imagined a spectator who knew nothing about the world and was placed here just to observe, they would see much of the old world as being new, just grappling with the challenges and hardships of a fledgling settlement. They wouldn’t think that the many impoverished people in these old countries could be anything other than those who haven't yet had the chance to take care of themselves. They would hardly think that these conditions were a result of what those countries refer to as government.
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretences for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a tribute.
If we look at the more miserable parts of the old world and compare them to those that are improving, we still see the government's greedy hand reaching into every corner of industry and taking from the masses. There's constantly a push for new ways to generate revenue and taxes. It sees prosperity as its target and ensures that no one escapes without paying their share.
As revolutions have begun (and as the probability is always greater against a thing beginning, than of proceeding after it has begun), it is natural to expect that other revolutions will follow. The amazing and still increasing expenses with which old governments are conducted, the numerous wars they engage in or provoke, the embarrassments they throw in the way of universal civilisation and commerce, and the oppression and usurpation acted at home, have wearied out the patience, and exhausted the property of the world. In such a situation, and with such examples already existing, revolutions are to be looked for. They are become subjects of universal conversation, and may be considered as the Order of the day.
As revolutions have started (and the chances are always higher against something beginning than for it to continue once it has), it's natural to expect that more revolutions will happen. The incredible and still rising costs of running old governments, the many wars they engage in or provoke, the obstacles they place in the way of global progress and trade, and the oppression and usurpation occurring domestically have worn out the world's patience and drained its resources. In this context, and with existing examples already in play, revolutions are to be anticipated. They have become topics of widespread discussion and can be seen as the current state of affairs.
If systems of government can be introduced less expensive and more productive of general happiness than those which have existed, all attempts to oppose their progress will in the end be fruitless. Reason, like time, will make its own way, and prejudice will fall in a combat with interest. If universal peace, civilisation, and commerce are ever to be the happy lot of man, it cannot be accomplished but by a revolution in the system of governments. All the monarchical governments are military. War is their trade, plunder and revenue their objects. While such governments continue, peace has not the absolute security of a day. What is the history of all monarchical governments but a disgustful picture of human wretchedness, and the accidental respite of a few years' repose? Wearied with war, and tired with human butchery, they sat down to rest, and called it peace. This certainly is not the condition that heaven intended for man; and if this be monarchy, well might monarchy be reckoned among the sins of the Jews.
If we can create systems of government that are cheaper and more effective at creating overall happiness than those that currently exist, then any efforts to resist their advancement will ultimately be pointless. Reason, just like time, will find its way, and biases will lose out against genuine interest. If universal peace, civilization, and trade are ever to be the fortunate outcome for humanity, it can only be achieved through a transformation in government systems. All monarchies are military in nature. War is their business, and looting and profit are their goals. As long as these governments exist, peace doesn't have a guaranteed safety, even for a single day. What does the history of all monarchies show but a repulsive image of human suffering, interrupted only by random years of quiet? Exhausted by war and weary from violence, they would stop to rest and call it peace. This is certainly not the state that heaven intended for humanity; if this is what monarchy is, then it could rightly be considered one of the sins of the Jews.
The revolutions which formerly took place in the world had nothing in them that interested the bulk of mankind. They extended only to a change of persons and measures, but not of principles, and rose or fell among the common transactions of the moment. What we now behold may not improperly be called a "counter-revolution." Conquest and tyranny, at some earlier period, dispossessed man of his rights, and he is now recovering them. And as the tide of all human affairs has its ebb and flow in directions contrary to each other, so also is it in this. Government founded on a moral theory, on a system of universal peace, on the indefeasible hereditary Rights of Man, is now revolving from west to east by a stronger impulse than the government of the sword revolved from east to west. It interests not particular individuals, but nations in its progress, and promises a new era to the human race.
The revolutions that used to happen in the world never really mattered to most people. They only involved changing leaders and policies, not the underlying principles, and were just part of the everyday events of the time. What we see now can rightly be called a “counter-revolution.” Past conquests and oppression took away people's rights, and now they are getting them back. Just like the ebb and flow of all human affairs, this situation also has its ups and downs moving in opposite directions. A government based on moral principles, a system of universal peace, and the undeniable hereditary Rights of Man is now moving from west to east with a stronger force than the sword-based governments moved from east to west. It doesn’t just affect individuals but nations as a whole, promising a new era for humanity.
The danger to which the success of revolutions is most exposed is that of attempting them before the principles on which they proceed, and the advantages to result from them, are sufficiently seen and understood. Almost everything appertaining to the circumstances of a nation, has been absorbed and confounded under the general and mysterious word government. Though it avoids taking to its account the errors it commits, and the mischiefs it occasions, it fails not to arrogate to itself whatever has the appearance of prosperity. It robs industry of its honours, by pedantically making itself the cause of its effects; and purloins from the general character of man, the merits that appertain to him as a social being.
The biggest risk to the success of revolutions is trying to start them before people fully understand the principles behind them and the benefits they will bring. Almost everything related to a nation’s situation has been lumped together under the vague and mysterious term "government." While it doesn’t take responsibility for its mistakes and the harm it causes, it readily claims credit for anything that looks like success. It takes away the achievements of hard work by arrogantly presenting itself as the source of those results, and it strips the collective identity of people of the recognition they deserve as social beings.
It may therefore be of use in this day of revolutions to discriminate between those things which are the effect of government, and those which are not. This will best be done by taking a review of society and civilisation, and the consequences resulting therefrom, as things distinct from what are called governments. By beginning with this investigation, we shall be able to assign effects to their proper causes and analyse the mass of common errors.
It might be helpful in this time of change to distinguish between what is caused by government and what isn’t. The best way to do this is by looking at society and civilization and the outcomes that arise from them, separate from what we define as governments. By starting with this examination, we can allocate effects to their correct causes and break down the many misconceptions.
CHAPTER I. OF SOCIETY AND CIVILISATION
Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.
A large part of the order that exists among people is not due to government. It comes from the principles of society and the natural makeup of humans. It existed before government was established and would continue to exist even if government were eliminated. The mutual dependence and shared interests that people have with one another, and that all parts of a civilized community have with each other, create the strong connections that hold society together. Landowners, farmers, manufacturers, merchants, traders, and everyone in between thrive through the support they receive from one another and from the community as a whole. Shared interests regulate their interactions and shape their laws; the rules created by common practice have a greater impact than government laws. In short, society takes care of almost everything that is typically attributed to government.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.
To understand the right kind and amount of government for people, you need to consider their character. Nature designed humans for social living, equipping them for the role she intended. In every situation, she made people's natural needs greater than what they can provide for themselves. No one person can meet their own needs without the support of society, and those needs push everyone towards society as naturally as gravity pulls objects to a center.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
But she has taken it a step further. She has not only pushed humans into society through a variety of needs that can be met by helping each other, but she has also instilled in them a system of social connections that, while not essential for survival, are crucial for happiness. There’s never a time in life when this love for social interaction stops working. It starts and ends with our existence.
If we examine with attention into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.
If we take a close look at how humans are made and structured, the different needs people have, and the various talents different individuals possess to meet those needs, along with our natural tendency to form communities and benefit from them, we'll see that a significant portion of what we call government is simply a form of control.
Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.
Government is only really needed to handle a few situations that society and civilization can’t manage effectively. There are plenty of examples to show that everything useful that government can contribute has already been done through the general agreement of society, without the involvement of government.
For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American War, and to a longer period in several of the American States, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defence to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet during this interval order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.
For over two years since the start of the American War, and even longer in some of the American States, there were no established forms of government. The old governments were gone, and the nation was too focused on defense to spend time creating new governments. However, during this time, order and harmony were maintained as strongly as in any European country. There is a natural tendency in humans, and even more so in societies, which include a wider range of skills and resources, to adapt to whatever situation they find themselves in. As soon as formal government is dismantled, society starts to take action: a general association forms, and shared interests lead to collective security.
So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that it acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organisation which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium. When men, as well from natural instinct as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilised life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it.
It's far from true, as some have claimed, that getting rid of any formal government leads to the breakdown of society; in fact, it tends to bring people closer together. Everything that part of its organization had handed over to the government comes back to the people, who operate through their own means. When people, driven by both natural instinct and mutual benefits, adapt to social and civilized life, there are always enough foundational principles in practice to help them navigate any changes they decide to make in their government. In short, humans are so naturally social that it's nearly impossible to completely remove them from society.
Formal government makes but a small part of civilised life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental principles of society and civilisation—to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained—to the unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its million channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilised man—it is to these things, infinitely more than to anything which even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual and of the whole depends.
Formal government is just a small part of civilized life; and even when the best that human ingenuity can create is put in place, it's more about the concept than the reality. The real safety and prosperity for individuals and society as a whole depend much more on the great and essential principles of society and civilization—on the common practices everyone agrees to and upholds together, and on the constant flow of interests that, circulating through countless channels, energizes all of civilized society—rather than on what any well-structured government can actually achieve.
The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense men into society, and what are the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other.
The more advanced a civilization is, the less it needs government, because it can better manage its own affairs and govern itself. However, the way old governments operate is exactly the opposite of what makes sense— their costs increase when they should actually be decreasing. Civilized life only requires a few basic laws, and those are so generally useful that enforcing them through government or not will lead to nearly the same outcome. If we think about the principles that initially bring people together in society and the motivations that guide their interactions afterward, we’ll find that by the time we reach what we call government, nearly all tasks are handled by the natural interactions of individuals with one another.
Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.
People, when it comes to all these issues, are more consistent than they realize or than governments would like them to think. The fundamental rules of society are based on the laws of nature. The principles of trade and commerce, whether involving individual interactions or between nations, revolve around mutual and reciprocal interests. These principles are adhered to because it benefits everyone involved, not because of any official laws that their governments enforce or introduce.
But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being ingrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favour and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.
But how often is the natural tendency toward society disrupted or destroyed by government actions! When the government, instead of being based on the principles of society, tries to exist for its own sake and operates with favoritism and oppression, it becomes the source of the problems it should be solving.
If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have happened in England, we shall find that they did not proceed from the want of a government, but that government was itself the generating cause; instead of consolidating society it divided it; it deprived it of its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and disorders which otherwise would not have existed. In those associations which men promiscuously form for the purpose of trade, or of any concern in which government is totally out of the question, and in which they act merely on the principles of society, we see how naturally the various parties unite; and this shows, by comparison, that governments, so far from being always the cause or means of order, are often the destruction of it. The riots of 1780 had no other source than the remains of those prejudices which the government itself had encouraged. But with respect to England there are also other causes.
If we look back at the riots and disturbances that have occurred in England over time, we’ll see that they didn’t arise from a lack of government; rather, the government was the root cause. Instead of bringing society together, it tore it apart; it stripped away its natural cohesion and created discontent and chaos that wouldn’t have otherwise existed. In the groups that people randomly form for trade or for anything where government has no role, and where they operate purely on social principles, we can see how easily different parties come together. This comparison shows that governments, far from always being the source or means of order, are often the cause of its breakdown. The riots of 1780 stemmed solely from the lingering prejudices that the government itself had fostered. However, there are also other factors at play when it comes to England.
Excess and inequality of taxation, however disguised in the means, never fail to appear in their effects. As a great mass of the community are thrown thereby into poverty and discontent, they are constantly on the brink of commotion; and deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to outrage. Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness. It shows that something is wrong in the system of government that injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved.
Excessive and unequal taxation, no matter how it's hidden, always shows up in its effects. When a large portion of the community is pushed into poverty and dissatisfaction, they are always on edge and easily provoked to anger, especially since they lack access to information. Regardless of what the visible reasons for any riots are, the true underlying issue is always a lack of happiness. This indicates that something is fundamentally wrong with the government system that harms the well-being necessary for a stable society.
But as a fact is superior to reasoning, the instance of America presents itself to confirm these observations. If there is a country in the world where concord, according to common calculation, would be least expected, it is America. Made up as it is of people from different nations,*16 accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable; but by the simple operation of constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, and all the parts are brought into cordial unison. There the poor are not oppressed, the rich are not privileged. Industry is not mortified by the splendid extravagance of a court rioting at its expense. Their taxes are few, because their government is just: and as there is nothing to render them wretched, there is nothing to engender riots and tumults.
But since facts are more important than reasoning, the example of America serves to support these observations. If there’s any place in the world where harmony would be least expected, it’s America. It consists of people from different countries,*16 each used to different forms and habits of government, speaking various languages, and differing greatly in their practices of worship. It might seem that uniting such a diverse group would be impossible; however, by simply building government on the principles of society and human rights, every challenge disappears, and all the parts come together in harmony. There, the poor are not oppressed, and the rich are not favored. Hard work isn’t stifled by the lavish excess of a court living off their efforts. Their taxes are low because their government is fair: and since there’s nothing to make them miserable, there’s nothing to cause riots and chaos.
A metaphysical man, like Mr. Burke, would have tortured his invention to discover how such a people could be governed. He would have supposed that some must be managed by fraud, others by force, and all by some contrivance; that genius must be hired to impose upon ignorance, and show and parade to fascinate the vulgar. Lost in the abundance of his researches, he would have resolved and re-resolved, and finally overlooked the plain and easy road that lay directly before him.
A philosophical guy, like Mr. Burke, would have struggled with his ideas to figure out how to govern such a people. He would have assumed that some needed to be controlled through deception, others through force, and everyone through some scheme; that talent had to be enlisted to take advantage of ignorance and put on a show to captivate the masses. So caught up in his extensive research, he would have kept going in circles, ultimately missing the straightforward and simple path that was right in front of him.
One of the great advantages of the American Revolution has been, that it led to a discovery of the principles, and laid open the imposition, of governments. All the revolutions till then had been worked within the atmosphere of a court, and never on the grand floor of a nation. The parties were always of the class of courtiers; and whatever was their rage for reformation, they carefully preserved the fraud of the profession.
One of the great advantages of the American Revolution was that it revealed the principles behind governments and exposed their impositions. Until then, all revolutions had taken place in the context of a court and never on the larger stage of a nation. The participants were always part of the courtly class, and despite their desire for reform, they maintained the facade of their roles.
In all cases they took care to represent government as a thing made up of mysteries, which only themselves understood; and they hid from the understanding of the nation the only thing that was beneficial to know, namely, That government is nothing more than a national association adding on the principles of society.
In every instance, they made sure to portray the government as something filled with mysteries that only they comprehended; and they concealed from the public the one thing that was truly useful to know, which is that the government is simply a national group built upon the principles of society.
Having thus endeavoured to show that the social and civilised state of man is capable of performing within itself almost everything necessary to its protection and government, it will be proper, on the other hand, to take a review of the present old governments, and examine whether their principles and practice are correspondent thereto.
Having tried to demonstrate that society and civilization can provide nearly everything needed for self-protection and governance, it’s important to also look at the current established governments and see if their principles and practices align with this idea.
CHAPTER II. OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT OLD GOVERNMENTS
It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle sacred and moral. The obscurity in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin of the present government of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honourable to record it; but with respect to the rest, even Flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription.
It's impossible that the governments that have existed in the world so far could have started by any means other than completely violating every sacred and moral principle. The uncertainty surrounding the origins of all the current old governments suggests the wrongdoing and shame with which they began. The beginnings of the current governments of America and France will always be remembered because it's honorable to acknowledge them; but for the others, even Flattery has buried them in the tomb of time without a marker.
It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contributions. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of Robber in that of Monarch; and hence the origin of Monarchy and Kings.
In the early and isolated times of the world, when most people were focused on taking care of livestock, it wouldn't have been hard for a group of thugs to invade a country and impose taxes. Once they established their power, the leader of the group managed to trade the title of Robber for that of Monarch; this is how Monarchy and Kings began.
The origin of the Government of England, so far as relates to what is called its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the best recorded. The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.
The origin of the Government of England, regarding its monarchy, is one of the most recent and well-documented. The resentment caused by the Norman invasion and oppression must have been deeply ingrained in the country, surviving attempts to erase it. Although no courtier will mention the curfew bell, not a single village in England has forgotten it.
Those bands of robbers having parcelled out the world, and divided it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each other. What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first. They alternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each other explains the original character of monarchy. It was ruffian torturing ruffian. The conqueror considered the conquered, not as his prisoner, but his property. He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death. As time obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.
Those groups of robbers divided up the world into territories and, as is common, began to argue with one another. What was initially taken by force was seen by others as fair game, and a second thief took over from the first. They repeatedly invaded the lands each had claimed for themselves, and the way they treated each other reveals the original nature of monarchy. It was one thug tormenting another. The victor viewed the vanquished not as a prisoner but as property. He paraded him in chains and decided his fate—either slavery or death. As time erased the history of their origins, their successors took on new identities to escape their shame, yet their principles and goals remained unchanged. What began as plunder was rebranded as revenue, and the power that was originally seized was pretended to be inherited.
From such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a continued system of war and extortion? It has established itself into a trade. The vice is not peculiar to one more than to another, but is the common principle of all. There does not exist within such governments sufficient stamina whereon to engraft reformation; and the shortest and most effectual remedy is to begin anew on the ground of the nation.
From the start of governments like these, what else could be expected but an ongoing cycle of war and exploitation? It has turned into a business. This problem isn’t unique to one government over another; it’s a common issue across all of them. These governments lack the ability to support meaningful change, and the quickest and most effective solution is to start fresh based on the foundation of the nation.
What scenes of horror, what perfection of iniquity, present themselves in contemplating the character and reviewing the history of such governments! If we would delineate human nature with a baseness of heart and hypocrisy of countenance that reflection would shudder at and humanity disown, it is kings, courts and cabinets that must sit for the portrait. Man, naturally as he is, with all his faults about him, is not up to the character.
What terrifying scenes, what perfect wickedness, come to mind when we think about the character and history of such governments! If we wanted to illustrate human nature with a heart full of greed and a face full of deceit that would make us shudder and humanity turn away, it’s kings, courts, and governments that should be the subjects of that picture. Man, as he truly is, with all his faults, doesn’t quite fit the picture.
Can we possibly suppose that if governments had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen it? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plough, to lay aside his peaceful pursuit, and go to war with the farmer of another country? or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to them, or to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man's estate, or raise its value? Are not conquest and defeat each of the same price, and taxes the never-failing consequence?—Though this reasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government. War is the Pharo-table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.
Can we really believe that if governments had started with the right principles and didn't have an interest in pursuing the wrong ones, the world could be in the miserable and contentious state we've seen? What incentive does a farmer have, while working his fields, to abandon his peaceful work and go to war with a farmer from another country? Or what incentive does a manufacturer have? What does control mean to them, or to any group of people in a nation? Does it add land to anyone’s property, or increase its worth? Aren't both victory and defeat equally costly, with taxes being the inevitable result? — Although this reasoning might make sense for a nation, it doesn't apply to a government. War is the jackpot for governments, and nations are just the pawns in the game.
If there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments more than might be expected, it is the progress which the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufacture and commerce have made beneath such a long accumulating load of discouragement and oppression. It serves to show that instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of society and civilisation operate in man. Under all discouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impossibilities.
If there's anything surprising in this bleak situation of governments, it's how much the peaceful fields of agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce have advanced despite a heavy burden of discouragement and oppression. It shows that animals' instincts don't drive them with more urgency than the principles of society and civilization drive humans. No matter the setbacks, people keep going after their goals and give in only to things that are truly impossible.
CHAPTER III. OF THE OLD AND NEW SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT
Nothing can appear more contradictory than the principles on which the old governments began, and the condition to which society, civilisation and commerce are capable of carrying mankind. Government, on the old system, is an assumption of power, for the aggrandisement of itself; on the new, a delegation of power for the common benefit of society. The former supports itself by keeping up a system of war; the latter promotes a system of peace, as the true means of enriching a nation. The one encourages national prejudices; the other promotes universal society, as the means of universal commerce. The one measures its prosperity, by the quantity of revenue it extorts; the other proves its excellence, by the small quantity of taxes it requires.
Nothing seems more contradictory than the principles on which former governments were based and the state to which society, civilization, and commerce can elevate humanity. Government under the old system is a grab for power to increase its own strength; under the new system, it’s a transfer of power for the collective good of society. The former maintains itself through a cycle of war; the latter fosters a culture of peace, which is the true way to enrich a nation. The old system encourages national biases; the new one promotes a global community as a means of worldwide trade. The former measures its success by how much revenue it extracts; the latter demonstrates its value by how little tax it demands.
Mr. Burke has talked of old and new whigs. If he can amuse himself with childish names and distinctions, I shall not interrupt his pleasure. It is not to him, but to the Abbe Sieyes, that I address this chapter. I am already engaged to the latter gentleman to discuss the subject of monarchical government; and as it naturally occurs in comparing the old and new systems, I make this the opportunity of presenting to him my observations. I shall occasionally take Mr. Burke in my way.
Mr. Burke has mentioned old and new Whigs. If he finds joy in these childish labels and distinctions, I won’t spoil his fun. This chapter is directed not at him, but at Abbe Sieyes. I’m already set to discuss the topic of monarchical government with the latter, so it makes sense to share my thoughts while comparing the old and new systems. I might take a jab at Mr. Burke from time to time.
Though it might be proved that the system of government now called the New, is the most ancient in principle of all that have existed, being founded on the original, inherent Rights of Man: yet, as tyranny and the sword have suspended the exercise of those rights for many centuries past, it serves better the purpose of distinction to call it the new, than to claim the right of calling it the old.
Though it might be proven that the system of government now known as the New is the oldest in principle of all that have existed, being based on the original, inherent Rights of Man; since tyranny and violence have suppressed the exercise of those rights for many centuries, it better serves the purpose of distinction to call it the New rather than claim the right to call it the Old.
The first general distinction between those two systems, is, that the one now called the old is hereditary, either in whole or in part; and the new is entirely representative. It rejects all hereditary government:
The main difference between these two systems is that the one now referred to as the old is hereditary, either fully or partially, while the new one is completely representative. It discards any form of hereditary government:
First, As being an imposition on mankind.
First, as a burden on humanity.
Secondly, As inadequate to the purposes for which government is necessary.
Secondly, it's insufficient for the purposes that government is meant to serve.
With respect to the first of these heads—It cannot be proved by what right hereditary government could begin; neither does there exist within the compass of mortal power a right to establish it. Man has no authority over posterity in matters of personal right; and, therefore, no man, or body of men, had, or can have, a right to set up hereditary government. Were even ourselves to come again into existence, instead of being succeeded by posterity, we have not now the right of taking from ourselves the rights which would then be ours. On what ground, then, do we pretend to take them from others?
Regarding the first point—there's no way to prove that hereditary government could start based on any right; there's also no power among humans that grants the right to establish it. No person has authority over future generations when it comes to personal rights; therefore, no individual or group has had or can have the right to create hereditary government. Even if we were to come back to life instead of being succeeded by future generations, we wouldn't have the right to take away the rights that would belong to us then. So, on what basis do we claim the right to take these rights away from others?
All hereditary government is in its nature tyranny. An heritable crown, or an heritable throne, or by what other fanciful name such things may be called, have no other significant explanation than that mankind are heritable property. To inherit a government, is to inherit the people, as if they were flocks and herds.
All hereditary government is essentially tyranny. A hereditary crown or throne, or whatever other fancy name you want to call it, really just means that people are treated as property. To inherit a government is to inherit the people, as if they were just livestock.
With respect to the second head, that of being inadequate to the purposes for which government is necessary, we have only to consider what government essentially is, and compare it with the circumstances to which hereditary succession is subject.
With regard to the second point, which is being insufficient for the purposes that government is meant to serve, we just need to think about what government really is and compare it to the situations that hereditary succession faces.
Government ought to be a thing always in full maturity. It ought to be so constructed as to be superior to all the accidents to which individual man is subject; and, therefore, hereditary succession, by being subject to them all, is the most irregular and imperfect of all the systems of government.
Government should always be fully developed. It should be designed to be better than all the random challenges that individuals face; therefore, hereditary succession, being vulnerable to all of those challenges, is the most flawed and inconsistent form of government.
We have heard the Rights of Man called a levelling system; but the only system to which the word levelling is truly applicable, is the hereditary monarchical system. It is a system of mental levelling. It indiscriminately admits every species of character to the same authority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or moral characters are. Can we then be surprised at the abject state of the human mind in monarchical countries, when the government itself is formed on such an abject levelling system?—It has no fixed character. To-day it is one thing; to-morrow it is something else. It changes with the temper of every succeeding individual, and is subject to all the varieties of each. It is government through the medium of passions and accidents. It appears under all the various characters of childhood, decrepitude, dotage, a thing at nurse, in leading-strings, or in crutches. It reverses the wholesome order of nature. It occasionally puts children over men, and the conceits of nonage over wisdom and experience. In short, we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government, than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents.
We’ve heard the Rights of Man described as a leveling system, but the only system that truly fits that description is hereditary monarchy. It’s a system of mental leveling. It mindlessly allows all kinds of characters the same authority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality—good or bad—are treated equally. Kings come and go, not as rational beings, but like animals. It doesn’t matter what their mental or moral qualities are. Can we really be surprised at the miserable state of the human mind in monarchies when their government is based on such a degrading leveling system? It has no consistent character. Today it’s one way; tomorrow it’s something else. It shifts with the mood of each new ruler and is influenced by all their variations. It’s government driven by emotions and random events. It shows up in all the different states of immaturity, frailty, old age, like a child needing care, in a toddler's hand-holding, or on crutches. It upends the natural order of life. Sometimes it puts children above adults, and the whims of youth above wisdom and experience. In short, we can’t imagine a more ridiculous form of government than hereditary succession in all its examples.
Could it be made a decree in nature, or an edict registered in heaven, and man could know it, that virtue and wisdom should invariably appertain to hereditary succession, the objection to it would be removed; but when we see that nature acts as if she disowned and sported with the hereditary system; that the mental character of successors, in all countries, is below the average of human understanding; that one is a tyrant, another an idiot, a third insane, and some all three together, it is impossible to attach confidence to it, when reason in man has power to act.
If there were a natural law or a decree in the heavens that guaranteed virtue and wisdom would always be passed down through inheritance, then the argument against it would fade away. But when we observe that nature seemingly rejects and plays with the idea of hereditary succession; that the intelligence of successors, everywhere, often falls short of the average human capability; with some being tyrants, others fools, and some a mix of both, it’s hard to trust the system when reason can still guide human action.
It is not to the Abbe Sieyes that I need apply this reasoning; he has already saved me that trouble by giving his own opinion upon the case. "If it be asked," says he, "what is my opinion with respect to hereditary right, I answer without hesitation, That in good theory, an hereditary transmission of any power of office, can never accord with the laws of a true representation. Hereditaryship is, in this sense, as much an attaint upon principle, as an outrage upon society. But let us," continues he, "refer to the history of all elective monarchies and principalities: is there one in which the elective mode is not worse than the hereditary succession?"
I don't need to apply this reasoning to Abbe Sieyes; he has already saved me the trouble by sharing his opinion on the matter. "If you want to know," he says, "what I think about hereditary right, I'll say it clearly: in theory, hereditary transfer of any power or office cannot align with the laws of true representation. Heredity, in this context, is as much a flaw in principle as it is a violation of society. But let's," he continues, "look at the history of all elective monarchies and principalities: is there a single one where the elective system is better than hereditary succession?"
As to debating on which is the worst of the two, it is admitting both to be bad; and herein we are agreed. The preference which the Abbe has given, is a condemnation of the thing that he prefers. Such a mode of reasoning on such a subject is inadmissible, because it finally amounts to an accusation upon Providence, as if she had left to man no other choice with respect to government than between two evils, the best of which he admits to be "an attaint upon principle, and an outrage upon society."
Debating which of the two is worse means acknowledging that both are bad, and we can agree on that. The preference the Abbe has expressed actually condemns what he prefers. This way of reasoning about such a topic is unacceptable because it ultimately suggests that Providence has given humanity no choice for government other than between two evils, the better of which he admits is "a blemish on principle and a violation of society."
Passing over, for the present, all the evils and mischiefs which monarchy has occasioned in the world, nothing can more effectually prove its uselessness in a state of civil government, than making it hereditary. Would we make any office hereditary that required wisdom and abilities to fill it? And where wisdom and abilities are not necessary, such an office, whatever it may be, is superfluous or insignificant.
Ignoring, for now, all the problems and troubles that monarchy has caused in the world, nothing shows its uselessness in a civil government more clearly than making it hereditary. Would we make any position hereditary that needed skill and intelligence to occupy? And where skill and intelligence aren’t necessary, that position, whatever it is, is pointless or unimportant.
Hereditary succession is a burlesque upon monarchy. It puts it in the most ridiculous light, by presenting it as an office which any child or idiot may fill. It requires some talents to be a common mechanic; but to be a king requires only the animal figure of man—a sort of breathing automaton. This sort of superstition may last a few years more, but it cannot long resist the awakened reason and interest of man.
Hereditary succession is a joke when it comes to monarchy. It makes it look ridiculous by treating it like a job that any child or fool can do. It takes some skills to be an ordinary worker, but being a king only needs the physical form of a person—a kind of living robot. This kind of outdated belief might last for a few more years, but it can't hold out against the awakened reason and interests of people for long.
As to Mr. Burke, he is a stickler for monarchy, not altogether as a pensioner, if he is one, which I believe, but as a political man. He has taken up a contemptible opinion of mankind, who, in their turn, are taking up the same of him. He considers them as a herd of beings that must be governed by fraud, effigy, and show; and an idol would be as good a figure of monarchy with him, as a man. I will, however, do him the justice to say that, with respect to America, he has been very complimentary. He always contended, at least in my hearing, that the people of America were more enlightened than those of England, or of any country in Europe; and that therefore the imposition of show was not necessary in their governments.
As for Mr. Burke, he is a strong supporter of monarchy, not just because of a pension—if he has one, which I believe he does—but as a political figure. He holds a pretty low opinion of humanity, and in return, people are starting to think the same about him. He sees people as a group that needs to be controlled by manipulation, pretense, and spectacle; to him, an idol would serve just as well as a man for monarchy. That said, I must give him credit for being quite flattering about America. He has always argued, at least when I was around, that the people of America are more enlightened than those in England or any other European country, and that’s why there’s no need for superficiality in their governments.
Though the comparison between hereditary and elective monarchy, which the Abbe has made, is unnecessary to the case, because the representative system rejects both: yet, were I to make the comparison, I should decide contrary to what he has done.
Though the comparison between hereditary and elective monarchy that the Abbe made isn't relevant to the issue, since the representative system dismisses both, if I were to make the comparison, I would come to a different conclusion than he did.
The civil wars which have originated from contested hereditary claims, are more numerous, and have been more dreadful, and of longer continuance, than those which have been occasioned by election. All the civil wars in France arose from the hereditary system; they were either produced by hereditary claims, or by the imperfection of the hereditary form, which admits of regencies or monarchy at nurse. With respect to England, its history is full of the same misfortunes. The contests for succession between the houses of York and Lancaster lasted a whole century; and others of a similar nature have renewed themselves since that period. Those of 1715 and 1745 were of the same kind. The succession war for the crown of Spain embroiled almost half Europe. The disturbances of Holland are generated from the hereditaryship of the Stadtholder. A government calling itself free, with an hereditary office, is like a thorn in the flesh, that produces a fermentation which endeavours to discharge it.
The civil wars that have come from disputed claims to inheritances are more common, have been more devastating, and have lasted longer than those caused by elections. All the civil wars in France stemmed from the hereditary system; they were either triggered by inheritance claims or by flaws in the hereditary system, which allows for regencies or monarchies in waiting. In England, the history is filled with similar troubles. The fights for succession between the houses of York and Lancaster spanned an entire century, and similar conflicts have reoccurred since then. Those in 1715 and 1745 were of the same nature. The war of succession for the crown of Spain dragged in almost half of Europe. The unrest in Holland arises from the hereditary position of the Stadtholder. A government that claims to be free while holding an hereditary position is like a thorn in the flesh, creating a tension that seeks to push it out.
But I might go further, and place also foreign wars, of whatever kind, to the same cause. It is by adding the evil of hereditary succession to that of monarchy, that a permanent family interest is created, whose constant objects are dominion and revenue. Poland, though an elective monarchy, has had fewer wars than those which are hereditary; and it is the only government that has made a voluntary essay, though but a small one, to reform the condition of the country.
But I could go even further and attribute foreign wars of any kind to the same cause. By adding the problem of hereditary succession to that of monarchy, a lasting family interest is formed, focused on power and profit. Poland, despite being an elective monarchy, has experienced fewer wars than hereditary monarchies; and it is the only government that has made a small voluntary attempt to improve the situation in the country.
Having thus glanced at a few of the defects of the old, or hereditary systems of government, let us compare it with the new, or representative system.
Having briefly looked at some of the flaws in the old, hereditary systems of government, let's compare it with the new, representative system.
The representative system takes society and civilisation for its basis; nature, reason, and experience, for its guide.
The representative system is based on society and civilization; it uses nature, reason, and experience as its guide.
Experience, in all ages, and in all countries, has demonstrated that it is impossible to control Nature in her distribution of mental powers. She gives them as she pleases. Whatever is the rule by which she, apparently to us, scatters them among mankind, that rule remains a secret to man. It would be as ridiculous to attempt to fix the hereditaryship of human beauty, as of wisdom. Whatever wisdom constituently is, it is like a seedless plant; it may be reared when it appears, but it cannot be voluntarily produced. There is always a sufficiency somewhere in the general mass of society for all purposes; but with respect to the parts of society, it is continually changing its place. It rises in one to-day, in another to-morrow, and has most probably visited in rotation every family of the earth, and again withdrawn.
Experience, throughout history and across the globe, has shown that it’s impossible to control how Nature distributes mental abilities. She gives them out as she wishes. Whatever rule seems to guide her in spreading these abilities among people is a mystery to us. It would be just as absurd to try to define the inheritance of human beauty as it would be to define it for wisdom. Whatever wisdom truly is, it’s like a plant without seeds; it can be nurtured when it appears, but it cannot be deliberately created. There’s always enough of it somewhere in society for all needs, but its distribution among different groups is constantly shifting. It may rise in one group today, in another tomorrow, and it has likely visited every family on Earth in turn and then moved on.
As this is in the order of nature, the order of government must necessarily follow it, or government will, as we see it does, degenerate into ignorance. The hereditary system, therefore, is as repugnant to human wisdom as to human rights; and is as absurd as it is unjust.
Since this is in line with the natural order, the structure of government has to align with it, or else government will, as we can see, fall into ignorance. The hereditary system is therefore as offensive to human reason as it is to human rights; it is as ridiculous as it is unfair.
As the republic of letters brings forward the best literary productions, by giving to genius a fair and universal chance; so the representative system of government is calculated to produce the wisest laws, by collecting wisdom from where it can be found. I smile to myself when I contemplate the ridiculous insignificance into which literature and all the sciences would sink, were they made hereditary; and I carry the same idea into governments. An hereditary governor is as inconsistent as an hereditary author. I know not whether Homer or Euclid had sons; but I will venture an opinion that if they had, and had left their works unfinished, those sons could not have completed them.
As the republic of letters promotes the best literary works by giving talent a fair and universal opportunity, the representative system of government is designed to create the wisest laws by gathering wisdom from various sources. I can’t help but smile when I think about how absurdly insignificant literature and all the sciences would become if they were made hereditary; I apply the same reasoning to governments. An hereditary leader is as illogical as an hereditary author. I’m not sure if Homer or Euclid had sons, but I believe that if they did and left their work unfinished, those sons would not be able to complete it.
Do we need a stronger evidence of the absurdity of hereditary government than is seen in the descendants of those men, in any line of life, who once were famous? Is there scarcely an instance in which there is not a total reverse of the character? It appears as if the tide of mental faculties flowed as far as it could in certain channels, and then forsook its course, and arose in others. How irrational then is the hereditary system, which establishes channels of power, in company with which wisdom refuses to flow! By continuing this absurdity, man is perpetually in contradiction with himself; he accepts, for a king, or a chief magistrate, or a legislator, a person whom he would not elect for a constable.
Do we need stronger evidence of the absurdity of hereditary government than the descendants of once-famous individuals in any field? Is there hardly any example where their character hasn't completely flipped? It seems like the flow of intelligence reached its peak in certain individuals and then took a different direction entirely. How irrational is the hereditary system, which creates pathways for power while wisdom chooses not to follow? By maintaining this absurdity, people constantly contradict themselves; they accept someone as a king, chief magistrate, or legislator whom they wouldn’t even vote for as a constable.
It appears to general observation, that revolutions create genius and talents; but those events do no more than bring them forward. There is existing in man, a mass of sense lying in a dormant state, and which, unless something excites it to action, will descend with him, in that condition, to the grave. As it is to the advantage of society that the whole of its faculties should be employed, the construction of government ought to be such as to bring forward, by a quiet and regular operation, all that extent of capacity which never fails to appear in revolutions.
It seems that in general, revolutions bring out genius and talent; but these events merely reveal what was already there. Within every person lies a wealth of potential that stays dormant, and unless something stirs it into action, it will go to the grave with them. Since it's beneficial for society to utilize all its capabilities, the structure of government should be designed to bring forth, through a calm and regular process, all the abilities that usually emerge in times of revolution.
This cannot take place in the insipid state of hereditary government, not only because it prevents, but because it operates to benumb. When the mind of a nation is bowed down by any political superstition in its government, such as hereditary succession is, it loses a considerable portion of its powers on all other subjects and objects. Hereditary succession requires the same obedience to ignorance, as to wisdom; and when once the mind can bring itself to pay this indiscriminate reverence, it descends below the stature of mental manhood. It is fit to be great only in little things. It acts a treachery upon itself, and suffocates the sensations that urge the detection.
This can't happen in a dull hereditary government, not only because it prevents progress, but also because it numbs the mind. When a nation's spirit is weighed down by political superstitions like hereditary succession, it loses a significant part of its ability to think critically about everything else. Hereditary succession demands the same obedience to ignorance as it does to wisdom; once the mind starts giving equal respect to both, it drops below the level of true intellectual maturity. It is only capable of excelling in trivial matters. It betrays itself and stifles the instincts that push for awareness.
Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in anything which history affords.
Although ancient governments show us a sad picture of human conditions, there is one that stands out from the rest. I'm talking about Athenian democracy. We find more to admire and less to criticize in that remarkable and exceptional society than in anything else history has to offer.
Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As those democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed. Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical or aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.
Mr. Burke is so unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of government that he confuses democracy with representation. Representation was something unknown in ancient democracies. In those times, the majority of people came together to create laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. Simple democracy was nothing more than the gathering place of the ancients. It reflects both the structure and the public principle of the government. As those democracies grew in population and territory, the straightforward democratic approach became cumbersome and impractical; and since the system of representation wasn't known, the result was that they either violently turned into monarchies or were absorbed by existing ones. If the system of representation had been understood then as it is now, there's no reason to believe that those forms of government we now call monarchical or aristocratic would have ever emerged. It was the lack of a way to unify society's parts, once it became too large and widespread for the basic democratic structure, along with the isolated and lonely conditions of herders and pastoralists in other parts of the world, that created opportunities for those unnatural forms of government to arise.
As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others.
As it's important to remove the clutter of mistakes surrounding the topic of government, I will go on to discuss some additional points.
It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us examine a little into this case.
It has always been the political strategy of courtiers and court governments to misuse a concept they referred to as republicanism; however, they never make an effort to clarify what republicanism actually was or is. Let's take a closer look at this situation.
The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.
The only types of government are democratic, aristocratic, monarchical, and what we now refer to as representative.
What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.
What we call a republic isn’t just a specific type of government. It’s entirely about the purpose, matter, or objective for which government should be established and how it should function—Res-Publica, or public affairs, or the public good; literally translated, the public thing. It’s a term with a positive meaning, referring to what the character and role of government should be. In this sense, it stands in contrast to the word monarchy, which has a negative original meaning. It implies arbitrary power held by a single individual, where the focus is on that person, not the res-publica.
Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.
Every government that doesn’t operate on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that doesn’t make the public good its primary focus, is not a good government. A republican government is simply one that is established and run for the benefit of the public, both individually and collectively. It doesn’t have to be tied to any specific structure, but it most commonly aligns with a representative system, as this is best suited to achieve the purpose for which a nation invests in its support.
Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that This, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government, for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.
Different types of government have claimed to be a republic. Poland identifies as a republic, but it's actually an hereditary aristocracy with what's known as an elective monarchy. Holland also calls itself a republic, which is primarily aristocratic, with a hereditary stadtholder. However, the government of America, which operates entirely on a system of representation, is the only true Republic, both in character and in practice, that currently exists. Its government has no other purpose than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is rightly considered a republic; the Americans have ensured that this, and nothing else, will always be the aim of their government by rejecting everything hereditary and establishing governments solely based on representation. Those who claim that a republic isn’t suited for large countries have confused the function of government with its form; the res-publica applies to any size of territory and population. Furthermore, if they referred to form, they likely meant the straightforward democratic structure, like in ancient democracies, which lacked representation. The reality is not that a republic can’t be large, but that it can’t thrive under a simple democratic structure. This leads to the question: What is the best government form for managing the Res-Publica, or the public business of a nation, once it becomes too large and populated for a straightforward democratic structure? It can’t be monarchy, because monarchy faces the same issues that the simple democratic form did.
It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practice upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., etc., a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society. It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences.
An individual can create a system of principles that a government can be constitutionally based on, no matter how large the territory. This is simply a mental exercise, relying on one’s own abilities. However, putting those principles into practice in relation to the diverse and numerous circumstances of a nation—its agriculture, manufacturing, trade, commerce, and so on—requires a different kind of knowledge, which can only be gained from the various sectors of society. It’s a collection of practical knowledge that no single person can fully grasp; thus, a monarchy is just as limited in effective practice due to a lack of knowledge as a democracy is hindered by a large population. One leads to confusion by spreading too wide, while the other results in ignorance and incompetence, as seen in all the major monarchies. Therefore, a monarchical system cannot replace a democratic one because it faces the same challenges.
Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.
Much less could it be when it became hereditary. This is the most effective way to block knowledge. The high democratic mind would never voluntarily submit to being governed by children and fools, along with all the silly insignificance of character that comes with such a basic animalistic system, which is the shame and the reproach of reason and humanity.
As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.*17
Regarding the aristocratic form, it shares the same flaws and shortcomings as the monarchical one, except that the opportunity for abilities is better due to a larger number of individuals involved. However, there is still no guarantee for the proper use and application of those abilities.*17
Referring them to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.
Referring back to the original simple democracy, it provides the accurate information needed for establishing a large-scale government. It cannot expand, not because of its principles, but due to the limitations of its structure; meanwhile, monarchy and aristocracy fail because of their own weaknesses. So, by keeping democracy as the foundation and discarding the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally comes into play; it effectively addresses the flaws of simple democracy in terms of structure and the shortcomings of the other two regarding knowledge.
Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.
Basic democracy was society managing itself without outside help. By adding representation to democracy, we create a government system that can include and unite diverse interests across different regions and populations. This system has benefits far greater than those of hereditary rule, just as the republic of letters surpasses hereditary literature.
It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood and the most eligible in practice; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.
This system is the foundation of the American government. It combines representation with democracy. It has established a structure that aligns with the reach of the principle. Just as Athens was a small-scale version of democracy, America represents it on a larger scale. Athens was the marvel of the ancient world; America is becoming the admiration of our time. This form of government is the easiest to understand and the most practical; it removes the ignorance and uncertainty of hereditary rule and the drawbacks of pure democracy.
It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and populous as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivalled her own democracy.
It’s hard to imagine a government system that can manage such a large area and diverse interests as those created by representation. France, no matter how vast and populated it is, is just a tiny part of this larger system. It’s better than simple democracy, even in smaller regions. If Athens had used representation, it would have surpassed its own democratic model.
That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system. It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interest of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has already been observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage. It is never in the cradle, nor on crutches. It admits not of a separation between knowledge and power, and is superior, as government always ought to be, to all the accidents of individual man, and is therefore superior to what is called monarchy.
What we call government, or what we should understand government to be, is simply a common center where all parts of society come together. This can be best achieved through a representative system. It brings together the knowledge needed for the interests of both individuals and the community as a whole. It keeps the government in a state of constant improvement. As previously mentioned, it is never young, never old. It is not subject to immaturity or decline. It is neither in its infancy nor reliant on aids. It does not allow for a separation between knowledge and power and is, as government should always be, superior to the unpredictable nature of individual people and therefore superior to what we refer to as monarchy.
A nation is not a body, the figure of which is to be represented by the human body; but is like a body contained within a circle, having a common center, in which every radius meets; and that center is formed by representation. To connect representation with what is called monarchy, is eccentric government. Representation is of itself the delegated monarchy of a nation, and cannot debase itself by dividing it with another.
A nation isn't just a physical entity, like a human body; rather, it's like a body within a circle, centered around a common point where all lines meet. That central point is defined by representation. Linking representation to what we call monarchy is a form of unconventional governance. Representation is essentially the appointed monarchy of a nation and cannot lower itself by sharing power with another.
Mr. Burke has two or three times, in his parliamentary speeches, and in his publications, made use of a jingle of words that convey no ideas. Speaking of government, he says, "It is better to have monarchy for its basis, and republicanism for its corrective, than republicanism for its basis, and monarchy for its corrective."—If he means that it is better to correct folly with wisdom, than wisdom with folly, I will no otherwise contend with him, than that it would be much better to reject the folly entirely.
Mr. Burke has mentioned a catchy phrase a couple of times in his speeches and writings that doesn't actually convey any real ideas. When talking about government, he says, "It's better to have monarchy as the foundation and republicanism as the correction, than republicanism as the foundation and monarchy as the correction." If he means that it's better to fix foolishness with wisdom rather than the other way around, I would only argue that it's much better to completely get rid of the foolishness.
But what is this thing which Mr. Burke calls monarchy? Will he explain it? All men can understand what representation is; and that it must necessarily include a variety of knowledge and talents. But what security is there for the same qualities on the part of monarchy? or, when the monarchy is a child, where then is the wisdom? What does it know about government? Who then is the monarch, or where is the monarchy? If it is to be performed by regency, it proves to be a farce. A regency is a mock species of republic, and the whole of monarchy deserves no better description. It is a thing as various as imagination can paint. It has none of the stable character that government ought to possess. Every succession is a revolution, and every regency a counter-revolution. The whole of it is a scene of perpetual court cabal and intrigue, of which Mr. Burke is himself an instance. To render monarchy consistent with government, the next in succession should not be born a child, but a man at once, and that man a Solomon. It is ridiculous that nations are to wait and government be interrupted till boys grow to be men.
But what is this thing that Mr. Burke calls monarchy? Can he explain it? All people understand what representation is, and that it must include a range of knowledge and skills. But what assurance do we have that monarchy has the same qualities? Or, when the monarchy is a child, where is the wisdom? What does it understand about governance? Who is the monarch, or where is the monarchy? If it’s going to be managed by regents, it turns into a farce. A regency is a mock version of a republic, and the entire concept of monarchy deserves no better description. It's something as varied as imagination allows. It lacks the stable character that government should have. Every succession is a revolution, and every regency is a counter-revolution. It's all a scene of constant court intrigue and scheming, of which Mr. Burke is an example. For monarchy to be consistent with government, the next in line shouldn’t be born a child but should be a fully grown man, and that man should be a Solomon. It’s absurd that nations have to wait and governance gets interrupted while boys grow up to be men.
Whether I have too little sense to see, or too much to be imposed upon; whether I have too much or too little pride, or of anything else, I leave out of the question; but certain it is, that what is called monarchy, always appears to me a silly, contemptible thing. I compare it to something kept behind a curtain, about which there is a great deal of bustle and fuss, and a wonderful air of seeming solemnity; but when, by any accident, the curtain happens to be open—and the company see what it is, they burst into laughter.
Whether I lack the sense to see or have too much to let it slide; whether I have too much or too little pride, or anything else, I’m not going to get into that. What’s clear to me is that what people call monarchy always seems like a silly, ridiculous thing. I liken it to something hidden behind a curtain, surrounded by a lot of commotion and a sense of false seriousness; but when, by chance, the curtain is pulled back—and people see what it really is—they start laughing.
In the representative system of government, nothing of this can happen. Like the nation itself, it possesses a perpetual stamina, as well of body as of mind, and presents itself on the open theatre of the world in a fair and manly manner. Whatever are its excellences or defects, they are visible to all. It exists not by fraud and mystery; it deals not in cant and sophistry; but inspires a language that, passing from heart to heart, is felt and understood.
In a representative government, none of this can happen. Like the nation itself, it has enduring strength, both physical and mental, and stands on the global stage in a straightforward and honorable way. Its strengths and weaknesses are clear to everyone. It doesn't thrive on deception or secrecy; it doesn’t rely on empty words and clever arguments; instead, it creates a language that resonates and is genuinely understood as it spreads from one person to another.
We must shut our eyes against reason, we must basely degrade our understanding, not to see the folly of what is called monarchy. Nature is orderly in all her works; but this is a mode of government that counteracts nature. It turns the progress of the human faculties upside down. It subjects age to be governed by children, and wisdom by folly.
We have to ignore logic and lower our understanding to not see the absurdity of what’s called monarchy. Nature is structured in all her creations; yet, this form of government goes against that. It completely reverses the development of human abilities. It puts the elderly under the rule of children, and wisdom under the influence of foolishness.
On the contrary, the representative system is always parallel with the order and immutable laws of nature, and meets the reason of man in every part. For example:
On the contrary, the representative system always aligns with the order and unchanging laws of nature, and resonates with human reason at every level. For example:
In the American Federal Government, more power is delegated to the President of the United States than to any other individual member of Congress. He cannot, therefore, be elected to this office under the age of thirty-five years. By this time the judgment of man becomes more matured, and he has lived long enough to be acquainted with men and things, and the country with him.—But on the monarchial plan (exclusive of the numerous chances there are against every man born into the world, of drawing a prize in the lottery of human faculties), the next in succession, whatever he may be, is put at the head of a nation, and of a government, at the age of eighteen years. Does this appear like an action of wisdom? Is it consistent with the proper dignity and the manly character of a nation? Where is the propriety of calling such a lad the father of the people?—In all other cases, a person is a minor until the age of twenty-one years. Before this period, he is not trusted with the management of an acre of land, or with the heritable property of a flock of sheep, or an herd of swine; but, wonderful to tell! he may, at the age of eighteen years, be trusted with a nation.
In the American Federal Government, the President of the United States holds more power than any individual member of Congress. Therefore, a person must be at least thirty-five years old to be elected to this office. By this age, a person’s judgment is more developed, and they have lived long enough to understand people and the world around them, along with the country itself. However, in a monarchy (not considering the countless odds against anyone born into the world having exceptional abilities), the next in line, no matter who they are, takes charge of a nation and government at the age of eighteen. Does this seem wise? Is it in line with the dignity and maturity expected of a nation? How is it appropriate to call such a young person the father of the people? In all other situations, a person is considered a minor until they are twenty-one years old. Before then, they aren’t entrusted with managing even a piece of land, or caring for the inheritances of a flock of sheep or a herd of pigs; yet, surprisingly, they can be trusted with a nation at eighteen.
That monarchy is all a bubble, a mere court artifice to procure money, is evident (at least to me) in every character in which it can be viewed. It would be impossible, on the rational system of representative government, to make out a bill of expenses to such an enormous amount as this deception admits. Government is not of itself a very chargeable institution. The whole expense of the federal government of America, founded, as I have already said, on the system of representation, and extending over a country nearly ten times as large as England, is but six hundred thousand dollars, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds sterling.
That monarchy is just a facade, a simple trick to gather money, which is clear (at least to me) in every way you look at it. It would be impossible, under a rational system of representative government, to justify such an enormous amount of expenses as this deception suggests. Government, in itself, isn’t a very costly institution. The total expense of the federal government of America, based, as I’ve already mentioned, on the system of representation and covering a country nearly ten times the size of England, is only six hundred thousand dollars, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds sterling.
I presume that no man in his sober senses will compare the character of any of the kings of Europe with that of General Washington. Yet, in France, and also in England, the expense of the civil list only, for the support of one man, is eight times greater than the whole expense of the federal government in America. To assign a reason for this, appears almost impossible. The generality of people in America, especially the poor, are more able to pay taxes, than the generality of people either in France or England.
I doubt that any rational person would compare the character of any of the kings of Europe to that of General Washington. Yet, in France and England, the cost of the civil list alone, to support just one person, is eight times greater than the total expenses of the federal government in America. Finding a reason for this seems nearly impossible. Most people in America, particularly the poor, can pay taxes better than most people in France or England.
But the case is, that the representative system diffuses such a body of knowledge throughout a nation, on the subject of government, as to explode ignorance and preclude imposition. The craft of courts cannot be acted on that ground. There is no place for mystery; nowhere for it to begin. Those who are not in the representation, know as much of the nature of business as those who are. An affectation of mysterious importance would there be scouted. Nations can have no secrets; and the secrets of courts, like those of individuals, are always their defects.
But the reality is that the representative system spreads a significant amount of knowledge across a nation about governance, which eliminates ignorance and prevents manipulation. The tricks of courts can't operate on that foundation. There's no room for mystery; it can't even get started. Those who aren't part of the representation understand the nature of business just as well as those who are. Any pretension of mysterious significance would be dismissed. Nations can't have secrets; and the secrets of courts, like those of individuals, are always their weaknesses.
In the representative system, the reason for everything must publicly appear. Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest, because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what in other governments are called Leaders.
In a representative system, the reason behind everything has to be made public. Every person is a stakeholder in government and sees it as essential to understand it. It matters to them because it impacts their property. They look at the costs and weigh them against the benefits; and most importantly, they don't blindly follow what are known as Leaders in other governments.
It can only be by blinding the understanding of man, and making him believe that government is some wonderful mysterious thing, that excessive revenues are obtained. Monarchy is well calculated to ensure this end. It is the popery of government; a thing kept up to amuse the ignorant, and quiet them into taxes.
It can only be by confusing people’s understanding and making them believe that government is some amazing, mysterious thing that excessive revenues are collected. Monarchy is perfectly suited for this purpose. It is the con of government; a system maintained to entertain the uninformed and lull them into accepting taxes.
The government of a free country, properly speaking, is not in the persons, but in the laws. The enacting of those requires no great expense; and when they are administered, the whole of civil government is performed—the rest is all court contrivance.
The government of a free country, to be precise, is not found in the individuals, but in the laws. Creating those laws doesn’t require much cost; and when they are enforced, all of civil government is carried out—the remainder is just legal maneuvering.
CHAPTER IV. OF CONSTITUTIONS
That men mean distinct and separate things when they speak of constitutions and of governments, is evident; or why are those terms distinctly and separately used? A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution, is power without a right.
That men have different and specific meanings when they talk about constitutions and governments is clear; otherwise, why are those terms used separately? A constitution isn't something that a government creates but rather something that the people create to establish a government; and a government without a constitution is just power without legitimacy.
All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.
All power exercised over a nation must have a starting point. It must either be given or taken. Those are the only sources. All given power is trust, and all taken power is usurpation. Time does not change the nature or quality of either.
In viewing this subject, the case and circumstances of America present themselves as in the beginning of a world; and our enquiry into the origin of government is shortened, by referring to the facts that have arisen in our own day. We have no occasion to roam for information into the obscure field of antiquity, nor hazard ourselves upon conjecture. We are brought at once to the point of seeing government begin, as if we had lived in the beginning of time. The real volume, not of history, but of facts, is directly before us, unmutilated by contrivance, or the errors of tradition.
In looking at this topic, America's situation and conditions appear as if we’re at the start of a new world; our exploration of government’s origins is simplified by referring to the events that have happened in our own time. We don’t need to search for information in the unclear realm of the past or rely on guesses. We're immediately positioned to witness the beginning of government, as if we’ve lived at the dawn of time. The true narrative, not of history, but of facts, is right in front of us, unaltered by manipulation or the mistakes of tradition.
I will here concisely state the commencement of the American constitutions; by which the difference between constitutions and governments will sufficiently appear.
I will briefly outline the beginning of the American constitutions, which will clearly show the difference between constitutions and governments.
It may not appear improper to remind the reader that the United States of America consist of thirteen separate states, each of which established a government for itself, after the declaration of independence, done the 4th of July, 1776. Each state acted independently of the rest, in forming its governments; but the same general principle pervades the whole. When the several state governments were formed, they proceeded to form the federal government, that acts over the whole in all matters which concern the interest of the whole, or which relate to the intercourse of the several states with each other, or with foreign nations. I will begin with giving an instance from one of the state governments (that of Pennsylvania) and then proceed to the federal government.
It might not seem out of place to remind the reader that the United States of America consists of thirteen individual states, each of which created its own government following the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Each state acted independently when forming its government, but they all share the same general principle. Once the various state governments were established, they moved on to create the federal government, which operates over the entire country in matters that affect the whole or relate to the interactions between the states or with foreign nations. I'll start by providing an example from one of the state governments (specifically Pennsylvania) and then move on to the federal government.
The state of Pennsylvania, though nearly of the same extent of territory as England, was then divided into only twelve counties. Each of those counties had elected a committee at the commencement of the dispute with the English government; and as the city of Philadelphia, which also had its committee, was the most central for intelligence, it became the center of communication to the several country committees. When it became necessary to proceed to the formation of a government, the committee of Philadelphia proposed a conference of all the committees, to be held in that city, and which met the latter end of July, 1776.
The state of Pennsylvania, while almost the same size as England, was divided into only twelve counties at that time. Each of these counties had elected a committee at the start of the conflict with the English government. Since Philadelphia had its own committee and was the most central location for information, it became the hub of communication for the various country committees. When it was time to start forming a government, the Philadelphia committee suggested a conference of all the committees to be held in that city, which took place at the end of July 1776.
Though these committees had been duly elected by the people, they were not elected expressly for the purpose, nor invested with the authority of forming a constitution; and as they could not, consistently with the American idea of rights, assume such a power, they could only confer upon the matter, and put it into a train of operation. The conferees, therefore, did no more than state the case, and recommend to the several counties to elect six representatives for each county, to meet in convention at Philadelphia, with powers to form a constitution, and propose it for public consideration.
Even though these committees were elected by the people, they weren’t specifically chosen to create a constitution and didn’t have the authority to do so. Since they couldn’t, in line with the American idea of rights, take on such a power, their role was to address the issue and set things in motion. Therefore, the conferees merely outlined the situation and suggested that each county elect six representatives to gather in a convention in Philadelphia, with the authority to draft a constitution and present it for public review.
This convention, of which Benjamin Franklin was president, having met and deliberated, and agreed upon a constitution, they next ordered it to be published, not as a thing established, but for the consideration of the whole people, their approbation or rejection, and then adjourned to a stated time. When the time of adjournment was expired, the convention re-assembled; and as the general opinion of the people in approbation of it was then known, the constitution was signed, sealed, and proclaimed on the authority of the people and the original instrument deposited as a public record. The convention then appointed a day for the general election of the representatives who were to compose the government, and the time it should commence; and having done this they dissolved, and returned to their several homes and occupations.
This convention, led by Benjamin Franklin, met, discussed, and agreed on a constitution. They then decided to publish it, not as something final, but for the public to consider, so they could approve or reject it, and then they adjourned to a later date. When the adjournment period was over, the convention reconvened; since the general public's support for the constitution was clear, it was signed, sealed, and announced with the people's authority, and the original document was filed as a public record. The convention then set a date for the general election of representatives who would form the government and decided when it would start; after that, they dissolved and went back to their homes and jobs.
In this constitution were laid down, first, a declaration of rights; then followed the form which the government should have, and the powers it should possess—the authority of the courts of judicature, and of juries—the manner in which elections should be conducted, and the proportion of representatives to the number of electors—the time which each succeeding assembly should continue, which was one year—the mode of levying, and of accounting for the expenditure, of public money—of appointing public officers, etc., etc., etc.
In this constitution, there was first a declaration of rights; then came the structure of the government and the powers it should hold—the authority of the courts and juries—the way elections should be conducted, and the ratio of representatives to voters—the duration of each assembly, which was one year—the process for collecting and accounting for public funds—and the appointment of public officials, and so on.
No article of this constitution could be altered or infringed at the discretion of the government that was to ensue. It was to that government a law. But as it would have been unwise to preclude the benefit of experience, and in order also to prevent the accumulation of errors, if any should be found, and to preserve an unison of government with the circumstances of the state at all times, the constitution provided that, at the expiration of every seven years, a convention should be elected, for the express purpose of revising the constitution, and making alterations, additions, or abolitions therein, if any such should be found necessary.
No part of this constitution could be changed or violated at the government's discretion. It was a law for that government. However, since it would have been unwise to ignore the value of experience, and to avoid the buildup of mistakes, if any were found, as well as to ensure that the government remained in sync with the state's conditions at all times, the constitution stated that every seven years, a convention should be elected specifically to revise the constitution and make any necessary changes, additions, or removals.
Here we see a regular process—a government issuing out of a constitution, formed by the people in their original character; and that constitution serving, not only as an authority, but as a law of control to the government. It was the political bible of the state. Scarcely a family was without it. Every member of the government had a copy; and nothing was more common, when any debate arose on the principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was connected.
Here we see a typical process—a government emerging from a constitution created by the people in their original form; and that constitution acting not just as a source of authority, but as a control mechanism for the government. It was the political handbook of the state. Almost every family had a copy. Every government member carried one; and it was common practice, when a debate came up about the principles of a bill or the scope of any authority, for members to pull out the printed constitution from their pockets and read the relevant section.
Having thus given an instance from one of the states, I will show the proceedings by which the federal constitution of the United States arose and was formed.
Having given an example from one of the states, I will now explain the process by which the federal constitution of the United States was created and established.
Congress, at its two first meetings, in September 1774, and May 1775, was nothing more than a deputation from the legislatures of the several provinces, afterwards states; and had no other authority than what arose from common consent, and the necessity of its acting as a public body. In everything which related to the internal affairs of America, congress went no further than to issue recommendations to the several provincial assemblies, who at discretion adopted them or not. Nothing on the part of congress was compulsive; yet, in this situation, it was more faithfully and affectionately obeyed than was any government in Europe. This instance, like that of the national assembly in France, sufficiently shows, that the strength of government does not consist in any thing itself, but in the attachment of a nation, and the interest which a people feel in supporting it. When this is lost, government is but a child in power; and though, like the old government in France, it may harass individuals for a while, it but facilitates its own fall.
Congress, during its first two meetings in September 1774 and May 1775, was simply a delegation from the legislatures of the various provinces, which later became states. It had no authority other than what came from mutual agreement and the need to act as a public body. In matters related to America's internal affairs, Congress only made recommendations to the provincial assemblies, who could choose to follow them or not. Congress had no power to enforce these recommendations; however, it was more faithfully and willingly followed than any government in Europe. This example, similar to that of the national assembly in France, clearly shows that the strength of government lies not in its structures but in the people's commitment and interest in supporting it. When that connection is lost, government is powerless; and even though, like the old government in France, it may trouble individuals for a time, it only hastens its own downfall.
After the declaration of independence, it became consistent with the principle on which representative government is founded, that the authority of congress should be defined and established. Whether that authority should be more or less than congress then discretionarily exercised was not the question. It was merely the rectitude of the measure.
After the declaration of independence, it became consistent with the principle on which representative government is based that the authority of Congress should be clearly defined and established. The question wasn't whether that authority should be more or less than what Congress was then exercising at its discretion. It was simply about the rightness of the measure.
For this purpose, the act, called the act of confederation (which was a sort of imperfect federal constitution), was proposed, and, after long deliberation, was concluded in the year 1781. It was not the act of congress, because it is repugnant to the principles of representative government that a body should give power to itself. Congress first informed the several states, of the powers which it conceived were necessary to be invested in the union, to enable it to perform the duties and services required from it; and the states severally agreed with each other, and concentrated in congress those powers.
To address this, the act, known as the act of confederation (which was essentially an incomplete federal constitution), was proposed and finalized after extensive discussion in 1781. It wasn’t the act of Congress because it goes against the principles of representative government for a body to grant power to itself. Congress first informed the individual states about the powers it believed were necessary for the union to carry out its duties and responsibilities; the states then agreed with one another and delegated those powers to Congress.
It may not be improper to observe that in both those instances (the one of Pennsylvania, and the other of the United States), there is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side, and the government on the other. The compact was that of the people with each other, to produce and constitute a government. To suppose that any government can be a party in a compact with the whole people, is to suppose it to have existence before it can have a right to exist. The only instance in which a compact can take place between the people and those who exercise the government, is, that the people shall pay them, while they choose to employ them.
It may not be inappropriate to point out that in both cases (one in Pennsylvania and the other in the United States), there’s no such thing as a compact between the people on one side and the government on the other. The compact was actually between the people themselves, to create and establish a government. To assume that any government can be part of a compact with the entire population is to assume it exists before it has a rightful claim to exist. The only situation where a compact can exist between the people and those in government is that the people will pay them as long as they choose to employ them.
Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumeable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties.
Government isn't a business that anyone, or any group of people, has the right to run for their own personal gain; rather, it's a responsibility entrusted to them by the people who grant that trust, and it can always be taken back by those who delegated it. Government itself has no rights; it only has responsibilities.
Having thus given two instances of the original formation of a constitution, I will show the manner in which both have been changed since their first establishment.
Having given two examples of how a constitution was originally created, I will now explain how both have changed since they were first established.
The powers vested in the governments of the several states, by the state constitutions, were found, upon experience, to be too great; and those vested in the federal government, by the act of confederation, too little. The defect was not in the principle, but in the distribution of power.
The powers granted to the governments of the various states by their constitutions were found, through experience, to be too extensive; while those granted to the federal government by the Articles of Confederation were found to be too limited. The issue wasn't with the principle itself, but in how power was distributed.
Numerous publications, in pamphlets and in the newspapers, appeared, on the propriety and necessity of new modelling the federal government. After some time of public discussion, carried on through the channel of the press, and in conversations, the state of Virginia, experiencing some inconvenience with respect to commerce, proposed holding a continental conference; in consequence of which, a deputation from five or six state assemblies met at Annapolis, in Maryland, in 1786. This meeting, not conceiving itself sufficiently authorised to go into the business of a reform, did no more than state their general opinions of the propriety of the measure, and recommend that a convention of all the states should be held the year following.
Many publications, in pamphlets and newspapers, emerged discussing the appropriateness and necessity of redesigning the federal government. After a period of public debate, conducted through the press and in conversations, the state of Virginia, facing some issues related to commerce, suggested holding a continental conference. As a result, representatives from five or six state assemblies gathered in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786. This meeting, feeling insufficiently authorized to pursue reform, simply expressed their general opinions on the appropriateness of the idea and recommended that a convention of all the states be held the following year.
The convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, of which General Washington was elected president. He was not at that time connected with any of the state governments, or with congress. He delivered up his commission when the war ended, and since then had lived a private citizen.
The convention gathered in Philadelphia in May 1787, where General Washington was elected president. At that time, he wasn't affiliated with any state governments or Congress. He had handed over his commission when the war concluded and had been living as a private citizen since then.
The convention went deeply into all the subjects; and having, after a variety of debate and investigation, agreed among themselves upon the several parts of a federal constitution, the next question was, the manner of giving it authority and practice.
The convention thoroughly discussed all the topics; and after much debate and investigation, they reached an agreement on the various elements of a federal constitution. The next question was how to establish its authority and implementation.
For this purpose they did not, like a cabal of courtiers, send for a Dutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector; but they referred the whole matter to the sense and interest of the country.
For this purpose, they didn’t, like a group of courtiers, call for a Dutch Stadtholder or a German Elector; instead, they left the entire issue up to the opinions and interests of the country.
They first directed that the proposed constitution should be published. Secondly, that each state should elect a convention, expressly for the purpose of taking it into consideration, and of ratifying or rejecting it; and that as soon as the approbation and ratification of any nine states should be given, that those states shall proceed to the election of their proportion of members to the new federal government; and that the operation of it should then begin, and the former federal government cease.
They first stated that the proposed constitution should be published. Secondly, each state should hold an election for a convention specifically to consider and either approve or reject it. Once nine states have approved and ratified it, those states will then proceed to elect their share of members to the new federal government. At that point, the new government will start operating, and the old federal government will come to an end.
The several states proceeded accordingly to elect their conventions. Some of those conventions ratified the constitution by very large majorities, and two or three unanimously. In others there were much debate and division of opinion. In the Massachusetts convention, which met at Boston, the majority was not above nineteen or twenty, in about three hundred members; but such is the nature of representative government, that it quietly decides all matters by majority. After the debate in the Massachusetts convention was closed, and the vote taken, the objecting members rose and declared, "That though they had argued and voted against it, because certain parts appeared to them in a different light to what they appeared to other members; yet, as the vote had decided in favour of the constitution as proposed, they should give it the same practical support as if they had for it."
The various states went ahead and elected their conventions. Some of these conventions approved the constitution by very large margins, with two or three doing so unanimously. In others, there was a lot of debate and differing opinions. In the Massachusetts convention, which gathered in Boston, the majority was only about nineteen or twenty out of around three hundred members; but that's the way representative government works—decisions are made by majority vote. After the debate in the Massachusetts convention ended and the vote was taken, the members who disagreed stood up and said, "Even though we argued and voted against it because certain parts seemed different to us than to others, now that the vote has favored the proposed constitution, we will support it just as if we had voted for it."
As soon as nine states had concurred (and the rest followed in the order their conventions were elected), the old fabric of the federal government was taken down, and the new one erected, of which General Washington is president.—In this place I cannot help remarking, that the character and services of this gentleman are sufficient to put all those men called kings to shame. While they are receiving from the sweat and labours of mankind, a prodigality of pay, to which neither their abilities nor their services can entitle them, he is rendering every service in his power, and refusing every pecuniary reward. He accepted no pay as commander-in-chief; he accepts none as president of the United States.
As soon as nine states agreed (and the others followed in the order their conventions were elected), the old structure of the federal government was dismantled, and the new one was established, with General Washington as president. Here, I can't help but point out that this man's character and contributions are enough to shame all those called kings. While they are receiving extravagant pay from the hard work of others, which neither their skills nor their contributions justify, he is providing every service he can and refusing any financial reward. He took no salary as commander-in-chief, and he takes none as president of the United States.
After the new federal constitution was established, the state of Pennsylvania, conceiving that some parts of its own constitution required to be altered, elected a convention for that purpose. The proposed alterations were published, and the people concurring therein, they were established.
After the new federal constitution was established, the state of Pennsylvania, believing that some parts of its own constitution needed to be changed, elected a convention for that purpose. The proposed changes were published, and since the people agreed with them, they were enacted.
In forming those constitutions, or in altering them, little or no inconvenience took place. The ordinary course of things was not interrupted, and the advantages have been much. It is always the interest of a far greater number of people in a nation to have things right, than to let them remain wrong; and when public matters are open to debate, and the public judgment free, it will not decide wrong, unless it decides too hastily.
In creating or changing those constitutions, there was hardly any inconvenience. The usual flow of things was not disrupted, and the benefits have been significant. It's always in the best interest of a much larger number of people in a nation to make sure things are right rather than leave them wrong; and when public issues are subject to discussion and the public opinion is free, it won't make the wrong decision unless it rushes to a conclusion.
In the two instances of changing the constitutions, the governments then in being were not actors either way. Government has no right to make itself a party in any debate respecting the principles or modes of forming, or of changing, constitutions. It is not for the benefit of those who exercise the powers of government that constitutions, and the governments issuing from them, are established. In all those matters the right of judging and acting are in those who pay, and not in those who receive.
In the two cases of changing the constitutions, the existing governments were not involved in either situation. The government doesn't have the right to make itself part of any discussion about the principles or methods of creating or changing constitutions. Constitutions and the governments that come from them are not set up for the benefit of those in power. In all these matters, the right to judge and take action belongs to those who pay, not to those who benefit.
A constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who exercise the government. All the constitutions of America are declared to be established on the authority of the people. In France, the word nation is used instead of the people; but in both cases, a constitution is a thing antecedent to the government, and always distinct there from.
A constitution belongs to a nation, not just to those in power. All the constitutions in America are said to be established by the authority of the people. In France, the term nation is used instead of the people; however, in both cases, a constitution exists before the government and remains separate from it.
In England it is not difficult to perceive that everything has a constitution, except the nation. Every society and association that is established, first agreed upon a number of original articles, digested into form, which are its constitution. It then appointed its officers, whose powers and authorities are described in that constitution, and the government of that society then commenced. Those officers, by whatever name they are called, have no authority to add to, alter, or abridge the original articles. It is only to the constituting power that this right belongs.
In England, it's clear that everything has a constitution except the nation itself. Every society and group that is formed starts by agreeing on a set of foundational articles, organized into a formal document that serves as its constitution. They then select their leaders, whose powers and responsibilities are outlined in that constitution, and that's when the governance of the society begins. Those leaders, regardless of their title, have no authority to add to, change, or reduce the original articles. Only the founding authority has that right.
From the want of understanding the difference between a constitution and a government, Dr. Johnson, and all writers of his description, have always bewildered themselves. They could not but perceive, that there must necessarily be a controlling power existing somewhere, and they placed this power in the discretion of the persons exercising the government, instead of placing it in a constitution formed by the nation. When it is in a constitution, it has the nation for its support, and the natural and the political controlling powers are together. The laws which are enacted by governments, control men only as individuals, but the nation, through its constitution, controls the whole government, and has a natural ability to do so. The final controlling power, therefore, and the original constituting power, are one and the same power.
Because of the lack of understanding of the difference between a constitution and a government, Dr. Johnson and other writers like him have always confused themselves. They recognized that there must be some kind of controlling power somewhere, but they attributed that power to the judgment of the people in government rather than to a constitution created by the nation. When the power lies in a constitution, it has the nation's backing, and both the natural and political controlling powers are aligned. The laws made by governments control individuals, but the nation, through its constitution, oversees the entire government and has a natural capacity to do so. Thus, the ultimate controlling power and the original power that creates a constitution are actually the same power.
Dr. Johnson could not have advanced such a position in any country where there was a constitution; and he is himself an evidence that no such thing as a constitution exists in England. But it may be put as a question, not improper to be investigated, that if a constitution does not exist, how came the idea of its existence so generally established?
Dr. Johnson couldn't have promoted such a view in any country with a constitution; and he himself is proof that no constitution exists in England. However, it raises a question worth exploring: if a constitution doesn't exist, how did the idea of its existence become so widely accepted?
In order to decide this question, it is necessary to consider a constitution in both its cases:—First, as creating a government and giving it powers. Secondly, as regulating and restraining the powers so given.
To answer this question, we need to look at a constitution in two ways: first, as a framework for establishing a government and granting it powers; and second, as a means of regulating and limiting those powers.
If we begin with William of Normandy, we find that the government of England was originally a tyranny, founded on an invasion and conquest of the country. This being admitted, it will then appear, that the exertion of the nation, at different periods, to abate that tyranny, and render it less intolerable, has been credited for a constitution.
If we start with William of Normandy, we see that the government of England was initially a tyranny, established through invasion and conquest of the land. Acknowledging this, it becomes clear that the efforts of the nation at various times to reduce that tyranny and make it more bearable have been recognized as a constitution.
Magna Charta, as it was called (it is now like an almanack of the same date), was no more than compelling the government to renounce a part of its assumptions. It did not create and give powers to government in a manner a constitution does; but was, as far as it went, of the nature of a re-conquest, and not a constitution; for could the nation have totally expelled the usurpation, as France has done its despotism, it would then have had a constitution to form.
Magna Charta, as it was called (now similar to a calendar from the same year), was merely forcing the government to give up some of its claims. It didn’t establish or grant powers to the government like a constitution does; rather, it was, to some extent, more like a reclaiming of rights, not a constitution. If the nation could have completely removed the usurpation, like France did with its tyranny, it would have then had a constitution to create.
The history of the Edwards and the Henries, and up to the commencement of the Stuarts, exhibits as many instances of tyranny as could be acted within the limits to which the nation had restricted it. The Stuarts endeavoured to pass those limits, and their fate is well known. In all those instances we see nothing of a constitution, but only of restrictions on assumed power.
The history of the Edwards and the Henries, up until the start of the Stuarts, shows just as many examples of tyranny as could occur within the boundaries set by the nation. The Stuarts tried to exceed those boundaries, and we all know what happened to them. In all these cases, there’s no indication of a constitution, just limits on assumed power.
After this, another William, descended from the same stock, and claiming from the same origin, gained possession; and of the two evils, James and William, the nation preferred what it thought the least; since, from circumstances, it must take one. The act, called the Bill of Rights, comes here into view. What is it, but a bargain, which the parts of the government made with each other to divide powers, profits, and privileges? You shall have so much, and I will have the rest; and with respect to the nation, it said, for your share, You shall have the right of petitioning. This being the case, the bill of rights is more properly a bill of wrongs, and of insult. As to what is called the convention parliament, it was a thing that made itself, and then made the authority by which it acted. A few persons got together, and called themselves by that name. Several of them had never been elected, and none of them for the purpose.
After this, another William, from the same family and claiming the same lineage, took control; and between the two options, James and William, the nation chose what it thought was the lesser evil, since it had to pick one. The act known as the Bill of Rights comes into play here. What is it, if not an agreement among the parts of the government to share powers, profits, and privileges? You get this much, and I’ll take the rest; and regarding the nation, it provided, for your share, the right to petition. Given this situation, the bill of rights is better described as a bill of wrongs and insults. As for what is referred to as the convention parliament, it was something that established itself and then created the authority under which it operated. A few people gathered and called themselves by that name. Many of them had never been elected, and none were elected for that purpose.
From the time of William a species of government arose, issuing out of this coalition bill of rights; and more so, since the corruption introduced at the Hanover succession by the agency of Walpole; that can be described by no other name than a despotic legislation. Though the parts may embarrass each other, the whole has no bounds; and the only right it acknowledges out of itself, is the right of petitioning. Where then is the constitution either that gives or restrains power?
From the time of William, a type of government emerged from this coalition bill of rights; and even more so, since the corruption introduced during the Hanover succession by Walpole's influence, which can only be described as despotic legislation. While the individual elements may interfere with one another, the whole has no limits; and the only right it recognizes apart from itself is the right to petition. So where is the constitution that either grants or restricts power?
It is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a parliament, unlimited powers. Election, in this case, becomes separated from representation, and the candidates are candidates for despotism.
It’s not the fact that part of the government is elected that makes it any less of a dictatorship if the people elected, like in parliament, have unlimited powers afterwards. In this case, elections become disconnected from representation, and the candidates are simply vying for dictatorship.
I cannot believe that any nation, reasoning on its own rights, would have thought of calling these things a constitution, if the cry of constitution had not been set up by the government. It has got into circulation like the words bore and quoz [quiz], by being chalked up in the speeches of parliament, as those words were on window shutters and doorposts; but whatever the constitution may be in other respects, it has undoubtedly been the most productive machine of taxation that was ever invented. The taxes in France, under the new constitution, are not quite thirteen shillings per head,*18 and the taxes in England, under what is called its present constitution, are forty-eight shillings and sixpence per head—men, women, and children—amounting to nearly seventeen millions sterling, besides the expense of collecting, which is upwards of a million more.
I can’t believe any country, thinking about its own rights, would have ever called these things a constitution if the government hadn’t promoted that idea. It has spread like the words "bore" and "quoz" [quiz], appearing in parliamentary speeches just as those words were written on windows and doors. But whatever the constitution may be in other ways, it has definitely been the most effective tax-collection system ever created. In France, under the new constitution, taxes are just under thirteen shillings per person,*18 while in England, under what’s called its current constitution, they are forty-eight shillings and sixpence per person—men, women, and children—totaling nearly seventeen million pounds, not to mention the collection costs, which exceed a million more.
In a country like England, where the whole of the civil Government is executed by the people of every town and county, by means of parish officers, magistrates, quarterly sessions, juries, and assize; without any trouble to what is called the government or any other expense to the revenue than the salary of the judges, it is astonishing how such a mass of taxes can be employed. Not even the internal defence of the country is paid out of the revenue. On all occasions, whether real or contrived, recourse is continually had to new loans and new taxes. No wonder, then, that a machine of government so advantageous to the advocates of a court, should be so triumphantly extolled! No wonder, that St. James's or St. Stephen's should echo with the continual cry of constitution; no wonder, that the French revolution should be reprobated, and the res-publica treated with reproach! The red book of England, like the red book of France, will explain the reason.*19
In a country like England, where the entire civil government is run by the people in every town and county, through parish officers, magistrates, quarterly sessions, juries, and assizes; without any hassle for what’s called the government or other expenses to the revenue besides the judges' salaries, it’s astonishing how such a huge amount of taxes can be used. Not even the country’s internal defense is funded by the revenue. Whenever there’s a need, whether genuine or made-up, new loans and new taxes are continually relied upon. It's no surprise that a government system so beneficial to the supporters of the court is celebrated so enthusiastically! It’s no wonder that St. James's or St. Stephen's is filled with the constant shout of "constitution"; no wonder the French revolution is condemned, and the republic is looked down upon! The red book of England, like the red book of France, will clarify the reason.*19
I will now, by way of relaxation, turn a thought or two to Mr. Burke. I ask his pardon for neglecting him so long.
I’ll now take a moment to relax and think about Mr. Burke. I apologize for neglecting him for so long.
"America," says he (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill), "never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man."
"America," he says (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill), "never dreamed of such ridiculous idea as the Rights of Man."
Mr. Burke is such a bold presumer, and advances his assertions and his premises with such a deficiency of judgment, that, without troubling ourselves about principles of philosophy or politics, the mere logical conclusions they produce, are ridiculous. For instance,
Mr. Burke is such an arrogant person and makes his claims and arguments with such a lack of judgment that, without getting into philosophical or political principles, the logical conclusions they lead to are just absurd. For example,
If governments, as Mr. Burke asserts, are not founded on the Rights of Man, and are founded on any rights at all, they consequently must be founded on the right of something that is not man. What then is that something?
If governments, as Mr. Burke claims, are not based on the Rights of Man, and are based on any rights at all, they must therefore be based on the right of something that is not human. So what is that something?
Generally speaking, we know of no other creatures that inhabit the earth than man and beast; and in all cases, where only two things offer themselves, and one must be admitted, a negation proved on any one, amounts to an affirmative on the other; and therefore, Mr. Burke, by proving against the Rights of Man, proves in behalf of the beast; and consequently, proves that government is a beast; and as difficult things sometimes explain each other, we now see the origin of keeping wild beasts in the Tower; for they certainly can be of no other use than to show the origin of the government. They are in the place of a constitution. O John Bull, what honours thou hast lost by not being a wild beast. Thou mightest, on Mr. Burke's system, have been in the Tower for life.
Generally speaking, we don’t know of any other creatures on earth besides humans and animals; and in cases where only two options are available, if one is proven false, it confirms the other. So, Mr. Burke, by arguing against the Rights of Man, is actually supporting the beast; and as a result, he's suggesting that government is a beast. Sometimes complex ideas can shed light on each other, and now we understand why wild animals are kept in the Tower; they clearly serve no other purpose than to illustrate the nature of the government. They are like a constitution. Oh John Bull, how much honor you've lost by not being a wild beast. According to Mr. Burke’s reasoning, you could have been in the Tower for life.
If Mr. Burke's arguments have not weight enough to keep one serious, the fault is less mine than his; and as I am willing to make an apology to the reader for the liberty I have taken, I hope Mr. Burke will also make his for giving the cause.
If Mr. Burke's arguments aren't compelling enough to keep someone engaged, the issue is more his than mine; and since I'm ready to apologize to the reader for the freedom I've taken, I hope Mr. Burke will also apologize for his reasoning.
Having thus paid Mr. Burke the compliment of remembering him, I return to the subject.
Having shown Mr. Burke the courtesy of remembering him, I’ll get back to the topic.
From the want of a constitution in England to restrain and regulate the wild impulse of power, many of the laws are irrational and tyrannical, and the administration of them vague and problematical.
Due to the lack of a constitution in England to control and manage the unchecked desire for power, many laws are unreasonable and oppressive, and their enforcement is unclear and uncertain.
The attention of the government of England (for I rather choose to call it by this name than the English government) appears, since its political connection with Germany, to have been so completely engrossed and absorbed by foreign affairs, and the means of raising taxes, that it seems to exist for no other purposes. Domestic concerns are neglected; and with respect to regular law, there is scarcely such a thing.
The focus of the government of England (I prefer to call it that instead of the English government) seems, since its political ties with Germany, to have been completely taken over by foreign affairs and ways to collect taxes, to the point that it looks like it exists for no other reason. Domestic issues are ignored, and when it comes to regular law, there’s hardly any of it.
Almost every case must now be determined by some precedent, be that precedent good or bad, or whether it properly applies or not; and the practice is become so general as to suggest a suspicion, that it proceeds from a deeper policy than at first sight appears.
Almost every case now has to be decided based on some precedent, whether that precedent is good or bad, or relevant or not; and the practice has become so common that it raises suspicion that there's a deeper policy behind it than what it seems at first glance.
Since the revolution of America, and more so since that of France, this preaching up the doctrines of precedents, drawn from times and circumstances antecedent to those events, has been the studied practice of the English government. The generality of those precedents are founded on principles and opinions, the reverse of what they ought; and the greater distance of time they are drawn from, the more they are to be suspected. But by associating those precedents with a superstitious reverence for ancient things, as monks show relics and call them holy, the generality of mankind are deceived into the design. Governments now act as if they were afraid to awaken a single reflection in man. They are softly leading him to the sepulchre of precedents, to deaden his faculties and call attention from the scene of revolutions. They feel that he is arriving at knowledge faster than they wish, and their policy of precedents is the barometer of their fears. This political popery, like the ecclesiastical popery of old, has had its day, and is hastening to its exit. The ragged relic and the antiquated precedent, the monk and the monarch, will moulder together.
Since the American Revolution, and even more since the French Revolution, promoting the doctrines of past precedents from times and situations before those events has become a common practice of the English government. Most of those precedents are based on principles and opinions that are the opposite of what they should be; the further back in time they are, the more suspicious they become. But by linking those precedents with an unreasonable reverence for old things, similar to how monks display relics and call them sacred, the majority of people are misled into accepting the idea. Governments now seem afraid to provoke any thought in people. They are gently guiding him toward the grave of precedents, dulling his abilities and diverting attention from the events of revolutions. They sense that people are gaining knowledge quicker than they want, and their use of precedents is a reflection of their anxieties. This political dogma, like the religious dogma of the past, has had its time and is quickly fading away. The tattered relics and outdated precedents, the monk and the monarch, will decay together.
Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous instances, the precedent ought to operate as a warning, and not as an example, and requires to be shunned instead of imitated; but instead of this, precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once for constitution and for law.
Government based on precedent, without considering the underlying principle of that precedent, is one of the most corrupt systems that can exist. In many cases, a precedent should serve as a warning rather than a model to follow, and it should be avoided instead of copied; however, instead of this, precedents are treated collectively and applied uniformly as if they define both the constitution and the law.
Either the doctrine of precedents is policy to keep a man in a state of ignorance, or it is a practical confession that wisdom degenerates in governments as governments increase in age, and can only hobble along by the stilts and crutches of precedents. How is it that the same persons who would proudly be thought wiser than their predecessors, appear at the same time only as the ghosts of departed wisdom? How strangely is antiquity treated! To some purposes it is spoken of as the times of darkness and ignorance, and to answer others, it is put for the light of the world.
Either the idea of legal precedents is a way to keep people in the dark, or it’s an acknowledgment that wisdom fades in governments as they get older, relying on the support of past decisions. How is it that those who want to be seen as wiser than those before them seem to be just echoes of lost knowledge? How oddly do we treat the past! For some reasons, it's referred to as a time of darkness and ignorance, while for others, it represents the light of the world.
If the doctrine of precedents is to be followed, the expenses of government need not continue the same. Why pay men extravagantly, who have but little to do? If everything that can happen is already in precedent, legislation is at an end, and precedent, like a dictionary, determines every case. Either, therefore, government has arrived at its dotage, and requires to be renovated, or all the occasions for exercising its wisdom have occurred.
If we are going to follow the doctrine of precedents, the costs of government don’t have to stay the same. Why pay people lavishly when they have so little to do? If everything that can happen is already covered by precedent, then there’s no need for new laws, and precedent, like a dictionary, settles every case. Therefore, either the government has reached a point of decline and needs to be refreshed, or all opportunities to use its wisdom have already happened.
We now see all over Europe, and particularly in England, the curious phenomenon of a nation looking one way, and the government the other—the one forward and the other backward. If governments are to go on by precedent, while nations go on by improvement, they must at last come to a final separation; and the sooner, and the more civilly they determine this point, the better.*20
We now see across Europe, especially in England, the strange situation of a nation moving forward while the government is looking backward. If governments continue to rely on past practices while nations strive for progress, they will eventually reach a complete divide; the sooner and more respectfully they address this issue, the better.*20
Having thus spoken of constitutions generally, as things distinct from actual governments, let us proceed to consider the parts of which a constitution is composed.
Having talked about constitutions in general, as separate from actual governments, let's move on to examine the components that make up a constitution.
Opinions differ more on this subject than with respect to the whole. That a nation ought to have a constitution, as a rule for the conduct of its government, is a simple question in which all men, not directly courtiers, will agree. It is only on the component parts that questions and opinions multiply.
Opinions vary more on this topic than on the whole. Whether a nation should have a constitution as a guideline for its government is a straightforward question that everyone, except for those directly involved with the monarchy, will agree on. It's only regarding the specific components that debates and differing opinions arise.
But this difficulty, like every other, will diminish when put into a train of being rightly understood.
But this difficulty, like any other, will lessen when it’s properly understood.
The first thing is, that a nation has a right to establish a constitution.
The first thing is that a nation has the right to create a constitution.
Whether it exercises this right in the most judicious manner at first is quite another case. It exercises it agreeably to the judgment it possesses; and by continuing to do so, all errors will at last be exploded.
Whether it uses this right wisely at first is a different matter. It uses it according to the judgment it has; and by continuing to do so, all mistakes will eventually be eliminated.
When this right is established in a nation, there is no fear that it will be employed to its own injury. A nation can have no interest in being wrong.
Once this right is recognized in a nation, there’s no worry that it will be used to its own detriment. A nation has no interest in being in the wrong.
Though all the constitutions of America are on one general principle, yet no two of them are exactly alike in their component parts, or in the distribution of the powers which they give to the actual governments. Some are more, and others less complex.
Though all the constitutions in America share a common principle, no two are exactly the same in their components or in how they distribute powers to the actual governments. Some are more complex, while others are less so.
In forming a constitution, it is first necessary to consider what are the ends for which government is necessary? Secondly, what are the best means, and the least expensive, for accomplishing those ends?
In creating a constitution, it’s important to first think about what the goals of government are. Secondly, what are the most effective and cost-efficient ways to achieve those goals?
Government is nothing more than a national association; and the object of this association is the good of all, as well individually as collectively. Every man wishes to pursue his occupation, and to enjoy the fruits of his labours and the produce of his property in peace and safety, and with the least possible expense. When these things are accomplished, all the objects for which government ought to be established are answered.
Government is simply a national organization, and its purpose is the well-being of everyone, both individually and as a group. Everyone wants to work in their chosen field, enjoy the rewards of their hard work, and have their property protected in peace and safety, while spending as little as possible. When these goals are achieved, all the reasons for creating a government are fulfilled.
It has been customary to consider government under three distinct general heads. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial.
It has been common to view government in three main areas: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.
But if we permit our judgment to act unincumbered by the habit of multiplied terms, we can perceive no more than two divisions of power, of which civil government is composed, namely, that of legislating or enacting laws, and that of executing or administering them. Everything, therefore, appertaining to civil government, classes itself under one or other of these two divisions.
But if we allow our judgment to operate without being weighed down by complicated terminology, we can see that there are only two divisions of power that make up civil government: the power to create or enact laws, and the power to enforce or manage them. So, everything related to civil government fits into one of these two categories.
So far as regards the execution of the laws, that which is called the judicial power, is strictly and properly the executive power of every country. It is that power to which every individual has appeal, and which causes the laws to be executed; neither have we any other clear idea with respect to the official execution of the laws. In England, and also in America and France, this power begins with the magistrate, and proceeds up through all the courts of judicature.
As far as the enforcement of the laws goes, what’s known as the judicial power is essentially the executive power of every country. It’s the authority everyone can turn to for justice and the power that ensures the laws are followed; we don't have any other clear concept regarding the official enforcement of the laws. In England, as well as in America and France, this power starts with the magistrate and moves up through all the courts.
I leave to courtiers to explain what is meant by calling monarchy the executive power. It is merely a name in which acts of government are done; and any other, or none at all, would answer the same purpose. Laws have neither more nor less authority on this account. It must be from the justness of their principles, and the interest which a nation feels therein, that they derive support; if they require any other than this, it is a sign that something in the system of government is imperfect. Laws difficult to be executed cannot be generally good.
I’ll let the courtiers explain what we mean by calling monarchy the executive power. It’s just a title for how government actions are carried out; any other title, or even none at all, would serve the same purpose. Laws don’t have any more or less authority for that reason. Their strength comes from how fair their principles are and the interest the nation has in them; if they need anything beyond that, it’s a sign that there’s something wrong with the government system. Laws that are hard to enforce can’t be considered generally good.
With respect to the organization of the legislative power, different modes have been adopted in different countries. In America it is generally composed of two houses. In France it consists but of one, but in both countries, it is wholly by representation.
Regarding the structure of legislative power, different approaches have been taken in various countries. In America, it typically consists of two houses. In France, there is only one house, but in both nations, it operates entirely through representation.
The case is, that mankind (from the long tyranny of assumed power) have had so few opportunities of making the necessary trials on modes and principles of government, in order to discover the best, that government is but now beginning to be known, and experience is yet wanting to determine many particulars.
The truth is that people, due to the long oppression of assumed authority, have had very few chances to test different systems and principles of government to find the best one. Therefore, our understanding of government is just starting to develop, and we still lack experience to clarify many details.
The objections against two houses are, first, that there is an inconsistency in any part of a whole legislature, coming to a final determination by vote on any matter, whilst that matter, with respect to that whole, is yet only in a train of deliberation, and consequently open to new illustrations.
The objections to having two houses are, first, that it's inconsistent for part of a legislature to reach a final decision on any issue while that issue is still under discussion for the whole body, and is therefore still open to new insights.
Secondly, That by taking the vote on each, as a separate body, it always admits of the possibility, and is often the case in practice, that the minority governs the majority, and that, in some instances, to a degree of great inconsistency.
Secondly, when voting on each issue separately, it always allows for the possibility, and often happens in practice, that the minority controls the majority, and in some cases, this can lead to significant inconsistency.
Thirdly, That two houses arbitrarily checking or controlling each other is inconsistent; because it cannot be proved on the principles of just representation, that either should be wiser or better than the other. They may check in the wrong as well as in the right therefore to give the power where we cannot give the wisdom to use it, nor be assured of its being rightly used, renders the hazard at least equal to the precaution.*21
Thirdly, having two houses randomly checking or controlling each other is inconsistent because it's impossible to prove, based on fair representation, that one is wiser or better than the other. They can make mistakes just as easily as they can make the right calls, so giving power to an entity without also giving it the wisdom to use that power properly means the risks are just as high as the precautions taken.*21
The objection against a single house is, that it is always in a condition of committing itself too soon.—But it should at the same time be remembered, that when there is a constitution which defines the power, and establishes the principles within which a legislature shall act, there is already a more effectual check provided, and more powerfully operating, than any other check can be. For example,
The argument against a single house is that it often makes decisions too quickly. However, it's important to remember that when there is a constitution that defines its powers and sets the principles for how the legislature should operate, there is already a stronger and more effective check in place than any other possible check. For example,
Were a Bill to be brought into any of the American legislatures similar to that which was passed into an act by the English parliament, at the commencement of George the First, to extend the duration of the assemblies to a longer period than they now sit, the check is in the constitution, which in effect says, Thus far shalt thou go and no further.
If a bill were introduced in any American legislature similar to the one passed by the English parliament at the start of George the First's reign, aiming to extend the duration of assemblies beyond their current timeframe, the constitution acts as a check, essentially stating, "You can only go this far, and not any further."
But in order to remove the objection against a single house (that of acting with too quick an impulse), and at the same time to avoid the inconsistencies, in some cases absurdities, arising from two houses, the following method has been proposed as an improvement upon both.
But to address the concern about having a single house (that it might act too impulsively), and to also sidestep the inconsistencies, and in some cases the absurdities, that come with having two houses, the following method has been suggested as a better option than both.
First, To have but one representation.
First, to have just one representation.
Secondly, To divide that representation, by lot, into two or three parts.
Secondly, to split that representation, by chance, into two or three parts.
Thirdly, That every proposed bill shall be first debated in those parts by succession, that they may become the hearers of each other, but without taking any vote. After which the whole representation to assemble for a general debate and determination by vote.
Thirdly, every proposed bill should first be discussed in parts one after the other, so that everyone can hear each other out, but without taking any votes. After that, the whole group should come together for a general discussion and decision by vote.
To this proposed improvement has been added another, for the purpose of keeping the representation in the state of constant renovation; which is, that one-third of the representation of each county, shall go out at the expiration of one year, and the number be replaced by new elections. Another third at the expiration of the second year replaced in like manner, and every third year to be a general election.*22
To this suggested improvement, another has been added to ensure that the representation is consistently refreshed. Specifically, one-third of the representatives from each county will leave after one year, and they will be replaced by new elections. Another third will be replaced in the same way after the second year, with general elections occurring every three years.*22
But in whatever manner the separate parts of a constitution may be arranged, there is one general principle that distinguishes freedom from slavery, which is, that all hereditary government over a people is to them a species of slavery, and representative government is freedom.
But no matter how the different parts of a constitution are organized, there’s one key principle that sets freedom apart from slavery: any form of hereditary government over a people is a kind of slavery, while representative government is freedom.
Considering government in the only light in which it should be considered, that of a National Association, it ought to be so constructed as not to be disordered by any accident happening among the parts; and, therefore, no extraordinary power, capable of producing such an effect, should be lodged in the hands of any individual. The death, sickness, absence or defection, of any one individual in a government, ought to be a matter of no more consequence, with respect to the nation, than if the same circumstance had taken place in a member of the English Parliament, or the French National Assembly.
Considering government solely as a National Association, it should be structured in a way that is not disrupted by any events that happen within its parts. Therefore, no extraordinary power that could cause such disruption should be given to any individual. The death, illness, absence, or failure of any one person in a government should be of no greater significance to the nation than if the same situation occurred with a member of the English Parliament or the French National Assembly.
Scarcely anything presents a more degrading character of national greatness, than its being thrown into confusion, by anything happening to or acted by any individual; and the ridiculousness of the scene is often increased by the natural insignificance of the person by whom it is occasioned. Were a government so constructed, that it could not go on unless a goose or a gander were present in the senate, the difficulties would be just as great and as real, on the flight or sickness of the goose, or the gander, as if it were called a King. We laugh at individuals for the silly difficulties they make to themselves, without perceiving that the greatest of all ridiculous things are acted in governments.*23
Scarcely anything reveals a more degrading aspect of national greatness than having it thrown into chaos by something any individual does or experiences; and the absurdity of the situation is often heightened by the triviality of the person responsible for it. If a government were structured in such a way that it could only function with a goose or gander present in the senate, the challenges would be just as significant and real during the absence or illness of the goose or gander as they would be for a king. We tend to mock individuals for the foolish troubles they create for themselves without realizing that some of the most absurd things happen in governments.*23
All the constitutions of America are on a plan that excludes the childish embarrassments which occur in monarchical countries. No suspension of government can there take place for a moment, from any circumstances whatever. The system of representation provides for everything, and is the only system in which nations and governments can always appear in their proper character.
All the constitutions of America are designed to avoid the awkward situations that happen in monarchies. There can’t be any interruptions in government for any reason, even for a moment. The system of representation covers everything and is the only way for nations and governments to consistently show their true nature.
As extraordinary power ought not to be lodged in the hands of any individual, so ought there to be no appropriations of public money to any person, beyond what his services in a state may be worth. It signifies not whether a man be called a president, a king, an emperor, a senator, or by any other name which propriety or folly may devise or arrogance assume; it is only a certain service he can perform in the state; and the service of any such individual in the routine of office, whether such office be called monarchical, presidential, senatorial, or by any other name or title, can never exceed the value of ten thousand pounds a year. All the great services that are done in the world are performed by volunteer characters, who accept nothing for them; but the routine of office is always regulated to such a general standard of abilities as to be within the compass of numbers in every country to perform, and therefore cannot merit very extraordinary recompense. Government, says Swift, is a Plain thing, and fitted to the capacity of many heads.
Extraordinary power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of any one person, and public funds shouldn't be given to anyone beyond what their contributions to the state are worth. It doesn’t matter if someone is called a president, a king, an emperor, a senator, or any other title that society might create or someone might claim; what matters is the specific service they provide to the state. The work done by anyone in an office—regardless of whether it’s called monarchical, presidential, senatorial, or something else—should never be worth more than ten thousand pounds a year. Most significant contributions in the world come from volunteers who expect nothing in return, while official positions are always held to a general level of skill that many people in every country can achieve, and therefore shouldn’t earn excessive pay. As Swift said, government is straightforward and meant to be understood by many.
It is inhuman to talk of a million sterling a year, paid out of the public taxes of any country, for the support of any individual, whilst thousands who are forced to contribute thereto, are pining with want, and struggling with misery. Government does not consist in a contrast between prisons and palaces, between poverty and pomp; it is not instituted to rob the needy of his mite, and increase the wretchedness of the wretched.—But on this part of the subject I shall speak hereafter, and confine myself at present to political observations.
It’s inhumane to mention a million pounds a year being paid from the public taxes of any country for the benefit of one individual, while thousands who are forced to contribute are suffering from want and struggling with misery. Government isn’t about the contrast between prisons and palaces, or between poverty and extravagance; it’s not meant to take from the needy and increase the suffering of the unfortunate. But I’ll address this part of the topic later, and for now, I’ll focus on political observations.
When extraordinary power and extraordinary pay are allotted to any individual in a government, he becomes the center, round which every kind of corruption generates and forms. Give to any man a million a year, and add thereto the power of creating and disposing of places, at the expense of a country, and the liberties of that country are no longer secure. What is called the splendour of a throne is no other than the corruption of the state. It is made up of a band of parasites, living in luxurious indolence, out of the public taxes.
When someone in government is given extraordinary power and pay, they become the focal point around which all sorts of corruption develop. If you give any man a million dollars a year and the ability to create and control jobs at the expense of the country, the freedoms of that country are no longer safe. What people refer to as the glory of a throne is really just the corruption of the state. It consists of a group of leeches living in luxury, funded by public taxes.
When once such a vicious system is established it becomes the guard and protection of all inferior abuses. The man who is in the receipt of a million a year is the last person to promote a spirit of reform, lest, in the event, it should reach to himself. It is always his interest to defend inferior abuses, as so many outworks to protect the citadel; and on this species of political fortification, all the parts have such a common dependence that it is never to be expected they will attack each other.*24
Once a corrupt system is in place, it becomes the shield and safeguard for all lesser wrongs. The person earning a million a year is the last one to encourage reform, for fear it might eventually target him. It's always in his best interest to protect the lesser abuses, as they serve as barriers to defend the stronghold; and in this type of political defense, all parts are so interdependent that it's unlikely they will turn against one another.*24
Monarchy would not have continued so many ages in the world, had it not been for the abuses it protects. It is the master-fraud, which shelters all others. By admitting a participation of the spoil, it makes itself friends; and when it ceases to do this it will cease to be the idol of courtiers.
Monarchy wouldn't have lasted so long in the world if it didn't protect the abuses it creates. It's the ultimate deception that covers up all others. By allowing others to share in the spoils, it gains allies; and when it stops doing this, it will stop being the favorite of the courtiers.
As the principle on which constitutions are now formed rejects all hereditary pretensions to government, it also rejects all that catalogue of assumptions known by the name of prerogatives.
As the principle on which constitutions are now based rejects all hereditary claims to government, it also dismisses the entire list of assumptions known as prerogatives.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.
If there’s any government where certain powers might safely be given to an individual, it's the federal government of America. The president of the United States is elected for just four years. He is not only accountable in a general sense, but there's a specific process outlined in the constitution for his impeachment. He must be at least thirty-five years old and a native-born citizen.
In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
In comparing these cases to the Government of England, the difference for the latter is ridiculous. In England, the person using prerogative is often a foreigner; always partially a foreigner and always married to one. They are never fully connected to the country, aren’t accountable for anything, and come of age at eighteen; yet this person is allowed to create foreign alliances without the nation's knowledge and to make decisions about war and peace without its approval.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
But there's more to it. Even though such a person can't transfer government authority like a willmaker, they still control marriage connections, which essentially achieve much of the same result. They can't directly hand over half the government to Prussia, but they can create a marriage alliance that will nearly achieve the same outcome. Given these circumstances, it's fortunate for England that she's not located on the Continent; otherwise, she might end up under Prussia's control like Holland. Holland is effectively governed by Prussia through marriage, just as if the old practice of passing down power was in play.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
The presidency in America (or the executive branch, as it’s sometimes referred to) is the only position that a foreigner is barred from, while in England, it’s the only one a foreigner can hold. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but they can be what’s known as a king. If there's a reason to exclude foreigners, it should be from roles where they could cause the most harm, and where the trust is best protected by aligning all interests and loyalties. As nations continue to create constitutions, they will look more closely at the nature and responsibilities of the executive branch. Everyone understands what the legislative and judicial branches are, but when it comes to what is called the executive in Europe, apart from those two, it either seems like an unnecessary addition or a confusing mix of unknown elements.
Some kind of official department, to which reports shall be made from the different parts of a nation, or from abroad, to be laid before the national representatives, is all that is necessary; but there is no consistency in calling this the executive; neither can it be considered in any other light than as inferior to the legislative. The sovereign authority in any country is the power of making laws, and everything else is an official department.
Some kind of official department is needed where reports from different parts of the country or from abroad can be submitted to the national representatives. However, it's inconsistent to call this the executive; it cannot be viewed as anything other than subordinate to the legislative. The ultimate authority in any country lies in the power to make laws, and everything else is simply an official department.
Next to the arrangement of the principles and the organization of the several parts of a constitution, is the provision to be made for the support of the persons to whom the nation shall confide the administration of the constitutional powers.
Next to the organization of the principles and the arrangement of the different parts of a constitution is the need to provide for the support of the individuals to whom the nation will entrust the administration of constitutional powers.
A nation can have no right to the time and services of any person at his own expense, whom it may choose to employ or entrust in any department whatever; neither can any reason be given for making provision for the support of any one part of a government and not for the other.
A country has no right to demand the time and services of anyone at their own expense, regardless of whom it decides to hire or assign to any role; nor can there be any justification for funding one part of the government while neglecting another.
But admitting that the honour of being entrusted with any part of a government is to be considered a sufficient reward, it ought to be so to every person alike. If the members of the legislature of any country are to serve at their own expense that which is called the executive, whether monarchical or by any other name, ought to serve in like manner. It is inconsistent to pay the one, and accept the service of the other gratis.
But if we agree that being given any responsibility in a government is a good enough reward, then it should be seen that way for everyone equally. If the members of a country's legislature are expected to serve at their own expense, then what we call the executive, whether it’s a monarchy or something else, should do the same. It doesn't make sense to pay one group while getting the other group's service for free.
In America, every department in the government is decently provided for; but no one is extravagantly paid. Every member of Congress, and of the Assemblies, is allowed a sufficiency for his expenses. Whereas in England, a most prodigal provision is made for the support of one part of the Government, and none for the other, the consequence of which is that the one is furnished with the means of corruption and the other is put into the condition of being corrupted. Less than a fourth part of such expense, applied as it is in America, would remedy a great part of the corruption.
In America, every government department is adequately funded; however, no one is paid excessively. Every member of Congress and the Assemblies receives enough to cover their expenses. In contrast, England allocates a huge amount of money to support one part of the government, while leaving the other part underfunded. This results in one part having the resources for corruption and the other being vulnerable to it. Spending less than a quarter of what is spent in America, if used appropriately, would significantly reduce corruption.
Another reform in the American constitution is the exploding all oaths of personality. The oath of allegiance in America is to the nation only. The putting any individual as a figure for a nation is improper. The happiness of a nation is the superior object, and therefore the intention of an oath of allegiance ought not to be obscured by being figuratively taken, to, or in the name of, any person. The oath, called the civic oath, in France, viz., "the nation, the law, and the king," is improper. If taken at all, it ought to be as in America, to the nation only. The law may or may not be good; but, in this place, it can have no other meaning, than as being conducive to the happiness of a nation, and therefore is included in it. The remainder of the oath is improper, on the ground, that all personal oaths ought to be abolished. They are the remains of tyranny on one part and slavery on the other; and the name of the Creator ought not to be introduced to witness the degradation of his creation; or if taken, as is already mentioned, as figurative of the nation, it is in this place redundant. But whatever apology may be made for oaths at the first establishment of a government, they ought not to be permitted afterwards. If a government requires the support of oaths, it is a sign that it is not worth supporting, and ought not to be supported. Make government what it ought to be, and it will support itself.
Another reform in the American constitution is the elimination of all personal oaths. The oath of allegiance in America is to the nation only. Elevating any individual as a representation of the nation is inappropriate. The happiness of the nation is the primary goal, so the purpose of an oath of allegiance shouldn’t be clouded by being taken figuratively in the name of any person. The civic oath in France, which says "the nation, the law, and the king," is incorrect. If it's taken at all, it should be like in America, to the nation only. The law may or may not be good; here, it can only mean that it contributes to the nation's happiness, and that's included in it. The rest of the oath is improper because all personal oaths should be eliminated. They are leftovers of tyranny on one side and slavery on the other; the name of the Creator should not be invoked to witness the degradation of his creation. Or if taken, as mentioned, as a representation of the nation, it’s unnecessary in this case. However, regardless of any justification for oaths when a government is first established, they should not be allowed afterward. If a government needs oaths for support, it indicates that it's not worth supporting and should not be supported. Make government what it should be, and it will support itself.
To conclude this part of the subject:—One of the greatest improvements that have been made for the perpetual security and progress of constitutional liberty, is the provision which the new constitutions make for occasionally revising, altering, and amending them.
To wrap up this section: One of the biggest advancements for the ongoing safety and development of constitutional freedom is the provision that the new constitutions include for occasionally reviewing, changing, and updating them.
The principle upon which Mr. Burke formed his political creed, that of "binding and controlling posterity to the end of time, and of renouncing and abdicating the rights of all posterity, for ever," is now become too detestable to be made a subject of debate; and therefore, I pass it over with no other notice than exposing it.
The principle that Mr. Burke used to shape his political beliefs— that of "binding and controlling future generations indefinitely, and of giving up and abandoning the rights of all future generations, forever"—has now become too repugnant to even discuss; therefore, I will just highlight it without further comment.
Government is but now beginning to be known. Hitherto it has been the mere exercise of power, which forbade all effectual enquiry into rights, and grounded itself wholly on possession. While the enemy of liberty was its judge, the progress of its principles must have been small indeed.
Government is just starting to be understood. Until now, it has simply been the use of power, which prevented any serious examination of rights and relied entirely on ownership. While the opponent of freedom was its judge, the development of its principles must have been very limited.
The constitutions of America, and also that of France, have either affixed a period for their revision, or laid down the mode by which improvement shall be made. It is perhaps impossible to establish anything that combines principles with opinions and practice, which the progress of circumstances, through a length of years, will not in some measure derange, or render inconsistent; and, therefore, to prevent inconveniences accumulating, till they discourage reformations or provoke revolutions, it is best to provide the means of regulating them as they occur. The Rights of Man are the rights of all generations of men, and cannot be monopolised by any. That which is worth following, will be followed for the sake of its worth, and it is in this that its security lies, and not in any conditions with which it may be encumbered. When a man leaves property to his heirs, he does not connect it with an obligation that they shall accept it. Why, then, should we do otherwise with respect to constitutions? The best constitution that could now be devised, consistent with the condition of the present moment, may be far short of that excellence which a few years may afford. There is a morning of reason rising upon man on the subject of government, that has not appeared before. As the barbarism of the present old governments expires, the moral conditions of nations with respect to each other will be changed. Man will not be brought up with the savage idea of considering his species as his enemy, because the accident of birth gave the individuals existence in countries distinguished by different names; and as constitutions have always some relation to external as well as to domestic circumstances, the means of benefitting by every change, foreign or domestic, should be a part of every constitution. We already see an alteration in the national disposition of England and France towards each other, which, when we look back to only a few years, is itself a Revolution. Who could have foreseen, or who could have believed, that a French National Assembly would ever have been a popular toast in England, or that a friendly alliance of the two nations should become the wish of either? It shows that man, were he not corrupted by governments, is naturally the friend of man, and that human nature is not of itself vicious. That spirit of jealousy and ferocity, which the governments of the two countries inspired, and which they rendered subservient to the purpose of taxation, is now yielding to the dictates of reason, interest, and humanity. The trade of courts is beginning to be understood, and the affectation of mystery, with all the artificial sorcery by which they imposed upon mankind, is on the decline. It has received its death-wound; and though it may linger, it will expire. Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolised from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world? Just emerging from such a barbarous condition, it is too soon to determine to what extent of improvement government may yet be carried. For what we can foresee, all Europe may form but one great Republic, and man be free of the whole.
The constitutions of America and France have either set a timeline for their revision or specified how improvements should be made. It's likely impossible to create something that effectively combines principles, opinions, and practices without it being disrupted or made inconsistent by changing circumstances over time. To avoid issues piling up that would discourage reforms or spark revolutions, it’s better to have ways to address them as they happen. The Rights of Man belong to all generations and can't be owned by anyone. What’s truly valuable will attract followers for its merit, and that’s where its security lies—not in any burdens placed upon it. When someone leaves property to their heirs, they don’t force them to accept it. So why should we treat constitutions any differently? The best constitution we could create right now, tailored to our current situation, might not reach the greatness that a few years could bring. There’s a new dawn of understanding emerging regarding government that hasn’t been seen before. As the outdated barbarism of current governments fades, the moral dynamics between nations will shift. People will no longer be raised with the savage notion of viewing their fellow humans as enemies just because they were born in different places. Since constitutions are always linked to both external and domestic situations, they should have mechanisms in place to benefit from every change, whether foreign or domestic. We already notice a shift in the national attitudes of England and France towards each other, which is, when looking back just a few years, nothing short of revolutionary. Who could have imagined, or believed, that a French National Assembly would become a popular toast in England, or that a friendly alliance between the two nations would be desired by either? This demonstrates that, if not corrupted by governments, humans are naturally inclined to be friends, and that human nature is not inherently bad. The jealousy and hostility that the governments of both countries incited, which they harnessed for tax purposes, are now giving way to reason, self-interest, and compassion. The scheming of governments is starting to be recognized, and the pretentiousness and deceptive tricks they used to manipulate people are diminishing. Their time is running out; though it may linger, it will ultimately end. Government should be just as open to improvement as anything related to humanity; instead, it has been controlled for ages by the most ignorant and corrupt individuals. Do we need any more evidence of their miserable management than the overwhelming debts and taxes that burden every nation and the conflicts they have created globally? Just emerging from such a barbaric state, it’s too soon to say how far government can still improve. For all we can predict, Europe may one day become a single great Republic, and humanity could be free as a whole.
CHAPTER V. WAYS AND MEANS OF IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF EUROPE
INTERSPERSED WITH MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS
In contemplating a subject that embraces with equatorial magnitude the whole region of humanity it is impossible to confine the pursuit in one single direction. It takes ground on every character and condition that appertains to man, and blends the individual, the nation, and the world. From a small spark, kindled in America, a flame has arisen not to be extinguished. Without consuming, like the Ultima Ratio Regum, it winds its progress from nation to nation, and conquers by a silent operation. Man finds himself changed, he scarcely perceives how. He acquires a knowledge of his rights by attending justly to his interest, and discovers in the event that the strength and powers of despotism consist wholly in the fear of resisting it, and that, in order "to be free, it is sufficient that he wills it."
When thinking about a topic that encompasses the entire human experience, it's clear that you can't limit the exploration to just one path. It touches on every aspect and condition related to humanity, combining the individual, the nation, and the world. From a small spark ignited in America, a flame has emerged that cannot be extinguished. Without destroying anything, like the Last Argument of Kings, it spreads from nation to nation and conquers through quiet influence. People find themselves changed, often without even realizing it. They become aware of their rights by focusing on their interests and discover that the strength of tyranny relies entirely on the fear of fighting back, and that to be free, all it takes is the will to be so.
Having in all the preceding parts of this work endeavoured to establish a system of principles as a basis on which governments ought to be erected, I shall proceed in this, to the ways and means of rendering them into practice. But in order to introduce this part of the subject with more propriety, and stronger effect, some preliminary observations, deducible from, or connected with, those principles, are necessary.
Having in all the earlier sections of this work tried to establish a system of principles as a foundation for how governments should be built, I will now move on to the methods and means of making them a reality. However, to introduce this part of the subject more appropriately and impactfully, some preliminary observations related to those principles are needed.
Whatever the form or constitution of government may be, it ought to have no other object than the general happiness. When, instead of this, it operates to create and increase wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary. Customary language has classed the condition of man under the two descriptions of civilised and uncivilised life. To the one it has ascribed felicity and affluence; to the other hardship and want. But, however our imagination may be impressed by painting and comparison, it is nevertheless true, that a great portion of mankind, in what are called civilised countries, are in a state of poverty and wretchedness, far below the condition of an Indian. I speak not of one country, but of all. It is so in England, it is so all over Europe. Let us enquire into the cause.
Whatever the form or structure of government may be, its only goal should be the overall happiness of the people. When it fails to do this and instead creates or increases suffering in any part of society, it is based on a flawed system that needs reform. Common language divides human conditions into two categories: civilized and uncivilized life. To the former, it assigns wealth and happiness; to the latter, it assigns struggle and need. However, no matter how much our imagination is swayed by imagery and comparisons, the reality is that a large segment of humanity in so-called civilized countries experiences poverty and misery that's much worse than that of an Indian. I’m not referring to just one country, but to all of them. It is true in England and throughout Europe. Let’s investigate the reasons behind this.
It lies not in any natural defect in the principles of civilisation, but in preventing those principles having a universal operation; the consequence of which is, a perpetual system of war and expense, that drains the country, and defeats the general felicity of which civilisation is capable. All the European governments (France now excepted) are constructed not on the principle of universal civilisation, but on the reverse of it. So far as those governments relate to each other, they are in the same condition as we conceive of savage uncivilised life; they put themselves beyond the law as well of God as of man, and are, with respect to principle and reciprocal conduct, like so many individuals in a state of nature. The inhabitants of every country, under the civilisation of laws, easily civilise together, but governments being yet in an uncivilised state, and almost continually at war, they pervert the abundance which civilised life produces to carry on the uncivilised part to a greater extent. By thus engrafting the barbarism of government upon the internal civilisation of a country, it draws from the latter, and more especially from the poor, a great portion of those earnings, which should be applied to their own subsistence and comfort. Apart from all reflections of morality and philosophy, it is a melancholy fact that more than one-fourth of the labour of mankind is annually consumed by this barbarous system. What has served to continue this evil, is the pecuniary advantage which all the governments of Europe have found in keeping up this state of uncivilisation. It affords to them pretences for power, and revenue, for which there would be neither occasion nor apology, if the circle of civilisation were rendered complete. Civil government alone, or the government of laws, is not productive of pretences for many taxes; it operates at home, directly under the eye of the country, and precludes the possibility of much imposition. But when the scene is laid in the uncivilised contention of governments, the field of pretences is enlarged, and the country, being no longer a judge, is open to every imposition, which governments please to act. Not a thirtieth, scarcely a fortieth, part of the taxes which are raised in England are either occasioned by, or applied to, the purpose of civil government. It is not difficult to see, that the whole which the actual government does in this respect, is to enact laws, and that the country administers and executes them, at its own expense, by means of magistrates, juries, sessions, and assize, over and above the taxes which it pays. In this view of the case, we have two distinct characters of government; the one the civil government, or the government of laws, which operates at home, the other the court or cabinet government, which operates abroad, on the rude plan of uncivilised life; the one attended with little charge, the other with boundless extravagance; and so distinct are the two, that if the latter were to sink, as it were, by a sudden opening of the earth, and totally disappear, the former would not be deranged. It would still proceed, because it is the common interest of the nation that it should, and all the means are in practice. Revolutions, then, have for their object a change in the moral condition of governments, and with this change the burthen of public taxes will lessen, and civilisation will be left to the enjoyment of that abundance, of which it is now deprived. In contemplating the whole of this subject, I extend my views into the department of commerce. In all my publications, where the matter would admit, I have been an advocate for commerce, because I am a friend to its effects. It is a pacific system, operating to cordialise mankind, by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other. As to the mere theoretical reformation, I have never preached it up. The most effectual process is that of improving the condition of man by means of his interest; and it is on this ground that I take my stand. If commerce were permitted to act to the universal extent it is capable, it would extirpate the system of war, and produce a revolution in the uncivilised state of governments. The invention of commerce has arisen since those governments began, and is the greatest approach towards universal civilisation that has yet been made by any means not immediately flowing from moral principles. Whatever has a tendency to promote the civil intercourse of nations by an exchange of benefits, is a subject as worthy of philosophy as of politics. Commerce is no other than the traffic of two individuals, multiplied on a scale of numbers; and by the same rule that nature intended for the intercourse of two, she intended that of all. For this purpose she has distributed the materials of manufactures and commerce, in various and distant parts of a nation and of the world; and as they cannot be procured by war so cheaply or so commodiously as by commerce, she has rendered the latter the means of extirpating the former. As the two are nearly the opposite of each other, consequently, the uncivilised state of the European governments is injurious to commerce. Every kind of destruction or embarrassment serves to lessen the quantity, and it matters but little in what part of the commercial world the reduction begins. Like blood, it cannot be taken from any of the parts, without being taken from the whole mass in circulation, and all partake of the loss. When the ability in any nation to buy is destroyed, it equally involves the seller. Could the government of England destroy the commerce of all other nations, she would most effectually ruin her own. It is possible that a nation may be the carrier for the world, but she cannot be the merchant. She cannot be the seller and buyer of her own merchandise. The ability to buy must reside out of herself; and, therefore, the prosperity of any commercial nation is regulated by the prosperity of the rest. If they are poor she cannot be rich, and her condition, be what it may, is an index of the height of the commercial tide in other nations. That the principles of commerce, and its universal operation may be understood, without understanding the practice, is a position that reason will not deny; and it is on this ground only that I argue the subject. It is one thing in the counting-house, in the world it is another. With respect to its operation it must necessarily be contemplated as a reciprocal thing; that only one-half its powers resides within the nation, and that the whole is as effectually destroyed by the destroying the half that resides without, as if the destruction had been committed on that which is within; for neither can act without the other. When in the last, as well as in former wars, the commerce of England sunk, it was because the quantity was lessened everywhere; and it now rises, because commerce is in a rising state in every nation. If England, at this day, imports and exports more than at any former period, the nations with which she trades must necessarily do the same; her imports are their exports, and vice versa. There can be no such thing as a nation flourishing alone in commerce: she can only participate; and the destruction of it in any part must necessarily affect all. When, therefore, governments are at war, the attack is made upon a common stock of commerce, and the consequence is the same as if each had attacked his own. The present increase of commerce is not to be attributed to ministers, or to any political contrivances, but to its own natural operation in consequence of peace. The regular markets had been destroyed, the channels of trade broken up, the high road of the seas infested with robbers of every nation, and the attention of the world called to other objects. Those interruptions have ceased, and peace has restored the deranged condition of things to their proper order.*25 It is worth remarking that every nation reckons the balance of trade in its own favour; and therefore something must be irregular in the common ideas upon this subject. The fact, however, is true, according to what is called a balance; and it is from this cause that commerce is universally supported. Every nation feels the advantage, or it would abandon the practice: but the deception lies in the mode of making up the accounts, and in attributing what are called profits to a wrong cause. Mr. Pitt has sometimes amused himself, by showing what he called a balance of trade from the custom-house books. This mode of calculating not only affords no rule that is true, but one that is false. In the first place, Every cargo that departs from the custom-house appears on the books as an export; and, according to the custom-house balance, the losses at sea, and by foreign failures, are all reckoned on the side of profit because they appear as exports.
It’s not because of any natural flaw in the principles of civilization, but rather in preventing those principles from functioning universally; the result is a continuous cycle of war and costs that drains the country and undermines the overall happiness that civilization can bring. All European governments (except for France right now) are not built on the principle of universal civilization but rather the opposite. In terms of their interactions with each other, they resemble what we think of as savage, uncivilized life; they act outside the laws of both God and man and, in terms of principle and mutual conduct, are like individuals in a state of nature. The people of every country, under the civilization of laws, can easily coexist peacefully, but because governments are still uncivilized and almost always at war, they misappropriate the wealth that civilized life generates to further the uncivilized aspects. By attaching the barbarism of government to the internal civilization of a country, it takes a significant share of those earnings—especially from the poor—that should go toward their own subsistence and comfort. Beyond all moral and philosophical reflection, it's a sad fact that more than a quarter of the labor of humanity is wasted annually on this brutal system. What has helped maintain this issue is the financial benefit that all European governments have found in perpetuating this state of uncivilization. It gives them excuses for power and revenue that wouldn’t be necessary or justifiable if the circle of civilization were complete. Civil government alone, or the government of laws, doesn’t create excuses for many taxes; it operates at home, directly under public scrutiny, and prevents a lot of imposition. However, when the scene shifts to the uncivilized conflicts of governments, the area for excuses expands, and the country, no longer acting as a judge, becomes open to any imposition that governments choose to enforce. Not even a thirtieth, barely a fortieth, of the taxes raised in England are either caused by or applied to civil government. It's clear that what the actual government does in this regard is to create laws, and that the country administers and enforces them at its own expense, through magistrates, juries, sessions, and assizes, in addition to the taxes it pays. In this context, we recognize two distinct types of government; one is the civil government, or the government of laws, which operates domestically, while the other is the court or cabinet government, which operates internationally, based on the rough framework of uncivilized life; one involves minimal costs, while the other is marked by limitless extravagance; and they are so different that if the latter were to suddenly collapse, it would not disrupt the former. The civil government would continue, as it is in the common interest of the nation, and all necessary means are already in place. Revolutions, therefore, aim to change the moral condition of governments, and with this change, the burden of public taxes will lessen, allowing civilization to enjoy the wealth it is currently deprived of. In examining this entire issue, I broaden my view to include commerce. In all my publications, where possible, I have championed commerce because I believe in its positive effects. It is a peaceful system that fosters harmony among people by making nations and individuals beneficial to one another. As for mere theoretical reform, I have never advocated for it. The most effective method is improving people’s conditions through their interests; this is where I take my stand. If commerce were allowed to operate to its full potential, it would eliminate the war system and cause a revolution in the uncivilized status of governments. The invention of commerce has emerged since those governments began, and it represents the greatest stride toward universal civilization that has yet been achieved by means not directly rooted in moral principles. Anything that promotes the civil interaction of nations through the exchange of benefits is as worthy of philosophical discussion as it is of political discourse. Commerce is simply the trade between two individuals, scaled up to include many; and in the same way that nature intended for the interaction between two people, she intended this for all. For this purpose, she has distributed the resources for manufacturing and commerce across various and distant parts of a nation and the world; and as these cannot be obtained through war as affordably or conveniently as they can through commerce, she has made the latter the means to eliminate the former. Since these two are nearly opposites, the uncivilized state of European governments harms commerce. Any kind of destruction or interference reduces the overall volume of commerce, and it hardly matters where in the commercial world the drop starts. Like blood, taking from one part reduces the total circulation, and everyone experiences the loss. When a nation loses its ability to buy, it equally hurts the seller. If the government of England could destroy the commerce of all other nations, it would effectively ruin its own. A nation might serve as the carrier for the world, but it cannot act as the merchant. It cannot both sell and buy its own goods. The ability to purchase must lie outside itself; therefore, the prosperity of any commercial nation depends on the prosperity of others. If they are poor, she cannot be rich, and her condition reflects the level of commercial activity in other nations. It's undeniable that the principles of commerce and its universal function can be understood without grasping the practicalities, which is the basis of my argument. It’s one thing in the office and quite another in the real world. Regarding its function, it must be considered reciprocal; only half of its potential exists within the nation, and the entire system is just as effectively destroyed by damaging the half that exists outside as if the harm occurred internally since neither can function without the other. In the last war, as in previous ones, when England's commerce declined, it was because the quantity lessened across the board; and it now thrives because commerce is on the rise in every nation. If England today is importing and exporting more than ever before, the nations she trades with must be experiencing the same; her imports are their exports, and vice versa. No nation can thrive alone in commerce: it can only share in it; and the decline of commerce in any area must inevitably affect all. Thus, when governments go to war, they attack a shared resource of commerce, and the outcome is the same as if each had attacked their own. The current rise in commerce cannot be credited to ministers or political machinations but is a result of its own natural functioning due to peace. Regular markets had been disrupted, trade routes broken, the seas filled with robbers from every nation, and the world’s focus diverted to other matters. Those disruptions have ended, and peace has restored order. It’s noteworthy that every nation counts the balance of trade in its favor; thus, something seems off in the common perceptions regarding this. However, the facts hold true according to what is termed a balance, which is why commerce is universally upheld. Every nation perceives the benefits, or it would stop practicing it; but the error lies in how the accounts are tallied and in wrongly attributing so-called profits. Mr. Pitt has sometimes entertained himself by demonstrating what he called a balance of trade from the customs records. This method of calculation not only fails to provide a true rule but produces a false one. First, every shipment that leaves the customs office is recorded as an export; and according to the customs balance, losses at sea and through foreign insolvencies are all counted as profits since they appear as exports.
Secondly, Because the importation by the smuggling trade does not appear on the custom-house books, to arrange against the exports.
Secondly, since the smuggling trade's imports aren't recorded in the customs books, they can't be balanced against the exports.
No balance, therefore, as applying to superior advantages, can be drawn from these documents; and if we examine the natural operation of commerce, the idea is fallacious; and if true, would soon be injurious. The great support of commerce consists in the balance being a level of benefits among all nations.
No balance, therefore, regarding superior advantages, can be derived from these documents; and if we look at how commerce naturally works, the idea is misleading; and if it were true, it would quickly become harmful. The main support of commerce relies on maintaining an equal level of benefits among all nations.
Two merchants of different nations trading together, will both become rich, and each makes the balance in his own favour; consequently, they do not get rich of each other; and it is the same with respect to the nations in which they reside. The case must be, that each nation must get rich out of its own means, and increases that riches by something which it procures from another in exchange.
Two merchants from different countries trading together will both get rich, and each one gains the advantage. Therefore, they don’t get rich off each other; it’s the same for their respective countries. Each nation must become wealthy through its own resources and increase that wealth by obtaining something in exchange from another nation.
If a merchant in England sends an article of English manufacture abroad which costs him a shilling at home, and imports something which sells for two, he makes a balance of one shilling in his favour; but this is not gained out of the foreign nation or the foreign merchant, for he also does the same by the articles he receives, and neither has the advantage upon the other. The original value of the two articles in their proper countries was but two shillings; but by changing their places, they acquire a new idea of value, equal to double what they had first, and that increased value is equally divided.
If a merchant in England sends a product made in England overseas that costs him a shilling at home, and then brings back something that sells for two shillings, he ends up with a profit of one shilling. However, that profit isn't coming from the foreign country or the foreigner, because they also benefit from the exchange. Both parties are doing the same with the items they receive, so neither one has the upper hand. The original price of the two items in their respective countries was only two shillings, but by moving them, they gain a new perceived value, worth double what they had before, and that increased value is shared equally.
There is no otherwise a balance on foreign than on domestic commerce. The merchants of London and Newcastle trade on the same principles, as if they resided in different nations, and make their balances in the same manner: yet London does not get rich out of Newcastle, any more than Newcastle out of London: but coals, the merchandize of Newcastle, have an additional value at London, and London merchandize has the same at Newcastle.
There’s no difference in balance between foreign and domestic trade. Merchants in London and Newcastle operate on the same principles, as if they were in different countries, and settle their accounts in the same way. However, London doesn’t profit from Newcastle any more than Newcastle profits from London. Instead, coal, which is Newcastle’s product, has extra value in London, just as goods from London have added value in Newcastle.
Though the principle of all commerce is the same, the domestic, in a national view, is the part the most beneficial; because the whole of the advantages, an both sides, rests within the nation; whereas, in foreign commerce, it is only a participation of one-half.
Though the principle of all commerce is the same, domestic trade, from a national perspective, is the most beneficial part; because all of the advantages for both sides stay within the nation, whereas in foreign trade, it is only a share of one half.
The most unprofitable of all commerce is that connected with foreign dominion. To a few individuals it may be beneficial, merely because it is commerce; but to the nation it is a loss. The expense of maintaining dominion more than absorbs the profits of any trade. It does not increase the general quantity in the world, but operates to lessen it; and as a greater mass would be afloat by relinquishing dominion, the participation without the expense would be more valuable than a greater quantity with it.
The least profitable kind of trade is the one tied to foreign rule. It might benefit a small number of individuals simply because it’s trade, but for the nation, it results in a loss. The costs of maintaining control wipe out any profits from the trade. It doesn’t increase the overall amount of resources in the world; instead, it actually reduces it. If we let go of that control, there would be a larger pool of resources available, and participating in that without the costs would be more valuable than having a larger amount with the costs.
But it is impossible to engross commerce by dominion; and therefore it is still more fallacious. It cannot exist in confined channels, and necessarily breaks out by regular or irregular means, that defeat the attempt: and to succeed would be still worse. France, since the Revolution, has been more indifferent as to foreign possessions, and other nations will become the same when they investigate the subject with respect to commerce.
But it’s impossible to control trade through dominance; that’s why it’s even more misleading. Trade can’t thrive in limited spaces and will inevitably break out through regular or irregular means, which undermines the effort. Succeeding in that regard would be even worse. Since the Revolution, France has cared less about foreign possessions, and other nations will likely feel the same once they look into the topic related to trade.
To the expense of dominion is to be added that of navies, and when the amounts of the two are subtracted from the profits of commerce, it will appear, that what is called the balance of trade, even admitting it to exist, is not enjoyed by the nation, but absorbed by the Government.
The cost of ruling includes the expense of navies, and when you take the total of both away from the profits of trade, it shows that what is known as the balance of trade, even if it does exist, isn’t benefiting the nation but is instead going to the Government.
The idea of having navies for the protection of commerce is delusive. It is putting means of destruction for the means of protection. Commerce needs no other protection than the reciprocal interest which every nation feels in supporting it—it is common stock—it exists by a balance of advantages to all; and the only interruption it meets, is from the present uncivilised state of governments, and which it is its common interest to reform.*26
The idea of having navies to protect trade is misleading. It's like using tools of destruction instead of tools for protection. Trade only needs the mutual interest that every country has in maintaining it—it's a shared resource—it thrives on the balance of benefits for everyone; and the only disruptions it faces come from the current uncivilized state of governments, which is something that all nations have a common interest in changing.*26
Quitting this subject, I now proceed to other matters.—As it is necessary to include England in the prospect of a general reformation, it is proper to inquire into the defects of its government. It is only by each nation reforming its own, that the whole can be improved, and the full benefit of reformation enjoyed. Only partial advantages can flow from partial reforms.
Now, moving on from this topic, I will address other matters. Since it's essential to involve England in the overall reform vision, we should examine the weaknesses of its government. Each nation can only improve by reforming its own system, and that’s how everyone can truly benefit from reform. Partial reforms can only lead to limited advantages.
France and England are the only two countries in Europe where a reformation in government could have successfully begun. The one secure by the ocean, and the other by the immensity of its internal strength, could defy the malignancy of foreign despotism. But it is with revolutions as with commerce, the advantages increase by their becoming general, and double to either what each would receive alone.
France and England are the only two countries in Europe where a reform in government could have successfully started. One is protected by the ocean, and the other by its immense internal strength, allowing them to resist the harmful effects of foreign tyranny. But revolutions are like commerce; the benefits grow as they become widespread, and they multiply what each could achieve on its own.
As a new system is now opening to the view of the world, the European courts are plotting to counteract it. Alliances, contrary to all former systems, are agitating, and a common interest of courts is forming against the common interest of man. This combination draws a line that runs throughout Europe, and presents a cause so entirely new as to exclude all calculations from former circumstances. While despotism warred with despotism, man had no interest in the contest; but in a cause that unites the soldier with the citizen, and nation with nation, the despotism of courts, though it feels the danger and meditates revenge, is afraid to strike.
As a new system is now becoming visible to the world, the European courts are scheming to counter it. Alliances, unlike any previous systems, are stirring things up, and a shared interest among courts is forming against the shared interest of people. This combination creates a divide that runs across Europe and presents a situation so entirely new that it disregards all previous calculations. While tyrannies fought among themselves, ordinary people had no stake in the struggle; but in a cause that brings together soldiers with citizens and nations with each other, the tyranny of the courts, although aware of the danger and contemplating revenge, is hesitant to act.
No question has arisen within the records of history that pressed with the importance of the present. It is not whether this or that party shall be in or not, or Whig or Tory, high or low shall prevail; but whether man shall inherit his rights, and universal civilisation take place? Whether the fruits of his labours shall be enjoyed by himself or consumed by the profligacy of governments? Whether robbery shall be banished from courts, and wretchedness from countries?
No question in history has been as important as the one we face today. It’s not about which political party—Whig or Tory, high class or low class—will win, but whether people will have their rights and whether we will achieve universal civilization. Will the results of our hard work be enjoyed by us or wasted by corrupt governments? Will theft be eliminated from our courts and poverty from our nations?
When, in countries that are called civilised, we see age going to the workhouse and youth to the gallows, something must be wrong in the system of government. It would seem, by the exterior appearance of such countries, that all was happiness; but there lies hidden from the eye of common observation, a mass of wretchedness, that has scarcely any other chance, than to expire in poverty or infamy. Its entrance into life is marked with the presage of its fate; and until this is remedied, it is in vain to punish.
When we see old age ending up in the workhouse and young people facing execution in so-called civilized countries, something is clearly wrong with the government system. From the outside, these countries may seem happy, but there’s a hidden depth of misery that has almost no chance of escaping a life of poverty or disgrace. The beginning of their lives foreshadows their grim fate, and until this issue is addressed, punishing individuals is pointless.
Civil government does not exist in executions; but in making such provision for the instruction of youth and the support of age, as to exclude, as much as possible, profligacy from the one and despair from the other. Instead of this, the resources of a country are lavished upon kings, upon courts, upon hirelings, impostors and prostitutes; and even the poor themselves, with all their wants upon them, are compelled to support the fraud that oppresses them.
Civil government isn't about executing punishments; it's about providing education for young people and support for the elderly to minimize corruption among the youth and hopelessness among the old. Instead, a country wastes its resources on kings, courts, hired goons, frauds, and shameless individuals; even the poor, burdened by their needs, are forced to sustain the deception that keeps them down.
Why is it that scarcely any are executed but the poor? The fact is a proof, among other things, of a wretchedness in their condition. Bred up without morals, and cast upon the world without a prospect, they are the exposed sacrifice of vice and legal barbarity. The millions that are superfluously wasted upon governments are more than sufficient to reform those evils, and to benefit the condition of every man in a nation, not included within the purlieus of a court. This I hope to make appear in the progress of this work.
Why is it that hardly anyone gets executed except for the poor? This shows, among other things, how miserable their situation is. Raised without morals and thrown into the world with no hope, they become the vulnerable victims of vice and a cruel legal system. The millions that are excessively wasted on governments are more than enough to fix these issues and improve the situation for every person in a country who isn't part of the elite. I hope to demonstrate this as this work progresses.
It is the nature of compassion to associate with misfortune. In taking up this subject I seek no recompense—I fear no consequence. Fortified with that proud integrity, that disdains to triumph or to yield, I will advocate the Rights of Man.
It's in the nature of compassion to connect with misfortune. As I address this topic, I'm not looking for a reward—I’m not afraid of the outcome. With that strong sense of integrity, which refuses to either gloat or back down, I will stand up for human rights.
It is to my advantage that I have served an apprenticeship to life. I know the value of moral instruction, and I have seen the danger of the contrary.
It's an advantage for me that I've gone through the school of life. I understand the importance of moral guidance, and I've witnessed the risks of the opposite.
At an early period—little more than sixteen years of age, raw and adventurous, and heated with the false heroism of a master*27 who had served in a man-of-war—I began the carver of my own fortune, and entered on board the Terrible Privateer, Captain Death. From this adventure I was happily prevented by the affectionate and moral remonstrance of a good father, who, from his own habits of life, being of the Quaker profession, must begin to look upon me as lost. But the impression, much as it effected at the time, began to wear away, and I entered afterwards in the King of Prussia Privateer, Captain Mendez, and went with her to sea. Yet, from such a beginning, and with all the inconvenience of early life against me, I am proud to say, that with a perseverance undismayed by difficulties, a disinterestedness that compelled respect, I have not only contributed to raise a new empire in the world, founded on a new system of government, but I have arrived at an eminence in political literature, the most difficult of all lines to succeed and excel in, which aristocracy with all its aids has not been able to reach or to rival.*28
At an early age—just over sixteen, inexperienced and eager, fired up by the false bravery of a mentor who had served on a warship—I set out to carve my own path and boarded the Terrible Privateer, Captain Death. Fortunately, I was talked out of this adventure by my loving and principled father, who, due to his Quaker beliefs, must have started to see me as lost. However, the impact of his words faded over time, and I later joined the King of Prussia Privateer, Captain Mendez, and went to sea with her. Despite such a start and all the challenges of youth, I’m proud to say that through unwavering determination and a selflessness that commanded respect, I have not only helped to establish a new empire in the world based on a new form of government, but I have also achieved distinction in political literature, which is the toughest field to succeed in, and one that aristocracy, with all its support, has failed to match or rival.
Knowing my own heart and feeling myself as I now do, superior to all the skirmish of party, the inveteracy of interested or mistaken opponents, I answer not to falsehood or abuse, but proceed to the defects of the English Government.
Knowing my own heart and feeling as I do now, above all the petty squabbles of party politics and the stubbornness of biased or mistaken opponents, I refuse to respond to lies or insults, but instead address the shortcomings of the English Government.
I begin with charters and corporations.
I start with charters and corporations.
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect—that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. If charters were constructed so as to express in direct terms, "that every inhabitant, who is not a member of a corporation, shall not exercise the right of voting," such charters would, in the face, be charters not of rights, but of exclusion. The effect is the same under the form they now stand; and the only persons on whom they operate are the persons whom they exclude. Those whose rights are guaranteed, by not being taken away, exercise no other rights than as members of the community they are entitled to without a charter; and, therefore, all charters have no other than an indirect negative operation. They do not give rights to A, but they make a difference in favour of A by taking away the right of B, and consequently are instruments of injustice.
It's a distortion of language to claim that a charter grants rights. Instead, it actually has the opposite effect: it takes rights away. Rights are inherently held by all individuals; however, charters, by nullifying these rights for most, end up concentrating rights in the hands of a few. If charters were written to plainly state, "any inhabitant who is not a member of a corporation shall not have the right to vote," those charters would obviously be about exclusion, not rights. The result is the same under their current form; they only affect those who are excluded. Those with guaranteed rights, who aren’t having their rights taken away, don’t exercise any other rights beyond those they are entitled to as community members without needing a charter. Thus, all charters serve only an indirect negative purpose. They don’t grant rights to A, but instead favor A by removing the right from B, making them tools of injustice.
But charters and corporations have a more extensive evil effect than what relates merely to elections. They are sources of endless contentions in the places where they exist, and they lessen the common rights of national society. A native of England, under the operation of these charters and corporations, cannot be said to be an Englishman in the full sense of the word. He is not free of the nation, in the same manner that a Frenchman is free of France, and an American of America. His rights are circumscribed to the town, and, in some cases, to the parish of his birth; and all other parts, though in his native land, are to him as a foreign country. To acquire a residence in these, he must undergo a local naturalisation by purchase, or he is forbidden or expelled the place. This species of feudality is kept up to aggrandise the corporations at the ruin of towns; and the effect is visible.
But charters and corporations have a wider negative impact than just on elections. They create endless conflicts in the areas where they operate, and they reduce the collective rights of society. A native of England, because of these charters and corporations, can't truly be called an Englishman. He isn't as free within his nation as a Frenchman is in France, or an American is in America. His rights are limited to his town, and in some cases, to the parish where he was born; all other areas, even though they are in his home country, feel like foreign lands to him. To live in these areas, he has to go through a local naturalization process, often involving payment, or else he is barred or kicked out. This kind of feudal system exists to benefit the corporations at the expense of towns, and the impact is clear.
The generality of corporation towns are in a state of solitary decay, and prevented from further ruin only by some circumstance in their situation, such as a navigable river, or a plentiful surrounding country. As population is one of the chief sources of wealth (for without it land itself has no value), everything which operates to prevent it must lessen the value of property; and as corporations have not only this tendency, but directly this effect, they cannot but be injurious. If any policy were to be followed, instead of that of general freedom, to every person to settle where he chose (as in France or America) it would be more consistent to give encouragement to new comers than to preclude their admission by exacting premiums from them.*29
Most corporation towns are in a state of decline, and their further deterioration is only halted by certain factors in their environment, like a navigable river or a bountiful countryside. Since population is a key source of wealth (because without people, land itself has no value), anything that prevents population growth will decrease property value. Corporations not only have this tendency, but they also have a direct negative effect, making them detrimental. If any policy were to be adopted instead of a general freedom for everyone to settle wherever they want (like in France or America), it would make more sense to encourage newcomers rather than to block their entry by demanding fees from them.*29
The persons most immediately interested in the abolition of corporations are the inhabitants of the towns where corporations are established. The instances of Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield show, by contrast, the injuries which those Gothic institutions are to property and commerce. A few examples may be found, such as that of London, whose natural and commercial advantage, owing to its situation on the Thames, is capable of bearing up against the political evils of a corporation; but in almost all other cases the fatality is too visible to be doubted or denied.
The people most affected by the elimination of corporations are the residents of the towns where these corporations exist. The examples of Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield clearly illustrate the damage that these outdated institutions cause to property and commerce. While London, due to its advantageous location on the Thames, is somewhat resilient against the negative impacts of a corporation, in almost all other cases, the harm is too obvious to ignore or deny.
Though the whole nation is not so directly affected by the depression of property in corporation towns as the inhabitants themselves, it partakes of the consequence. By lessening the value of property, the quantity of national commerce is curtailed. Every man is a customer in proportion to his ability; and as all parts of a nation trade with each other, whatever affects any of the parts must necessarily communicate to the whole.
Though the entire nation isn't as directly impacted by the decline in property values in corporate towns as the residents are, it does share in the consequences. When property values drop, the overall amount of national commerce is reduced. Every person is a customer based on their ability to spend, and since all regions of the nation trade with one another, anything that affects a particular region will inevitably impact the entire nation.
As one of the Houses of the English Parliament is, in a great measure, made up of elections from these corporations; and as it is unnatural that a pure stream should flow from a foul fountain, its vices are but a continuation of the vices of its origin. A man of moral honour and good political principles cannot submit to the mean drudgery and disgraceful arts, by which such elections are carried. To be a successful candidate, he must be destitute of the qualities that constitute a just legislator; and being thus disciplined to corruption by the mode of entering into Parliament, it is not to be expected that the representative should be better than the man.
Since one of the Houses of the English Parliament largely consists of representatives elected from these corporations, it's unreasonable to expect a clean outcome from a corrupt source; its flaws are just a continuation of the flaws from where it came. A morally upright person with sound political principles cannot engage in the petty work and disgraceful tactics that such elections involve. To win a seat, a candidate must lack the qualities that define a fair legislator; and having been conditioned for corruption by the way they enter Parliament, it's unrealistic to expect a representative to be any better than the individual.
Mr. Burke, in speaking of the English representation, has advanced as bold a challenge as ever was given in the days of chivalry. "Our representation," says he, "has been found perfectly adequate to all the purposes for which a representation of the people can be desired or devised." "I defy," continues he, "the enemies of our constitution to show the contrary."—This declaration from a man who has been in constant opposition to all the measures of parliament the whole of his political life, a year or two excepted, is most extraordinary; and, comparing him with himself, admits of no other alternative, than that he acted against his judgment as a member, or has declared contrary to it as an author.
Mr. Burke, when discussing English representation, has made a bold challenge reminiscent of the days of knights. "Our representation," he states, "has proven to be completely sufficient for all the purposes that a representation of the people could be intended for." "I challenge," he adds, "the critics of our constitution to prove otherwise." This statement from someone who has consistently opposed all parliamentary measures throughout most of his political career, with the exception of a year or two, is quite remarkable; and when comparing his own positions, it leaves no room for interpretation other than that he either acted against his own judgment as a member or has spoken against it as a writer.
But it is not in the representation only that the defects lie, and therefore I proceed in the next place to the aristocracy.
But the issues aren't just in the representation, so next, I want to discuss the aristocracy.
What is called the House of Peers, is constituted on a ground very similar to that, against which there is no law in other cases. It amounts to a combination of persons in one common interest. No better reason can be given, why a house of legislation should be composed entirely of men whose occupation consists in letting landed property, than why it should be composed of those who hire, or of brewers, or bakers, or any other separate class of men. Mr. Burke calls this house "the great ground and pillar of security to the landed interest." Let us examine this idea.
The House of Peers is formed on a basis very similar to others where there’s no law against it. It’s essentially a group of people united by a common interest. There's no better reason for a legislative body to be made up entirely of people whose job is to lease land than for it to be made up of those who rent, or of brewers, bakers, or any other distinct group. Mr. Burke refers to this house as "the great foundation and support of security for the landed interest." Let's take a closer look at this concept.
What pillar of security does the landed interest require more than any other interest in the state, or what right has it to a distinct and separate representation from the general interest of a nation? The only use to be made of this power (and which it always has made), is to ward off taxes from itself, and throw the burthen upon those articles of consumption by which itself would be least affected.
What aspect of security does land ownership need more than any other interest in the country, or what justification does it have for separate representation from the overall interest of the nation? The only purpose of this power (which it has always exercised) is to protect itself from taxes and shift the burden onto consumable goods that would least impact itself.
That this has been the consequence (and will always be the consequence) of constructing governments on combinations, is evident with respect to England, from the history of its taxes.
That this has been the result (and will always be the result) of building governments on coalitions is clear regarding England, based on the history of its taxes.
Notwithstanding taxes have increased and multiplied upon every article of common consumption, the land-tax, which more particularly affects this "pillar," has diminished. In 1778 the amount of the land-tax was L1,950,000, which is half-a-million less than it produced almost a hundred years ago,*30 notwithstanding the rentals are in many instances doubled since that period.
Despite the fact that taxes have risen and increased on every common item, the land tax, which specifically impacts this "pillar," has decreased. In 1778, the land tax amounted to £1,950,000, which is half a million less than it generated almost a hundred years ago,*30 even though rents have in many cases doubled since then.
Before the coming of the Hanoverians, the taxes were divided in nearly equal proportions between the land and articles of consumption, the land bearing rather the largest share: but since that era nearly thirteen millions annually of new taxes have been thrown upon consumption. The consequence of which has been a constant increase in the number and wretchedness of the poor, and in the amount of the poor-rates. Yet here again the burthen does not fall in equal proportions on the aristocracy with the rest of the community. Their residences, whether in town or country, are not mixed with the habitations of the poor. They live apart from distress, and the expense of relieving it. It is in manufacturing towns and labouring villages that those burthens press the heaviest; in many of which it is one class of poor supporting another.
Before the Hanoverians arrived, taxes were split almost evenly between land and consumer goods, with land typically shouldering a bigger share. Since then, about thirteen million in new taxes have been imposed on consumption each year. This has led to a steady rise in both the number and suffering of the poor, as well as an increase in poor relief costs. However, the burden isn’t equally shared by the aristocracy and the rest of society. Their homes, whether in cities or the countryside, are not intermixed with the homes of the poor. They live separately from the hardships and the costs of addressing them. It is in manufacturing towns and laboring villages where these burdens hit the hardest; in many of these places, one group of poor people ends up supporting another.
Several of the most heavy and productive taxes are so contrived, as to give an exemption to this pillar, thus standing in its own defence. The tax upon beer brewed for sale does not affect the aristocracy, who brew their own beer free from this duty. It falls only on those who have not conveniency or ability to brew, and who must purchase it in small quantities. But what will mankind think of the justice of taxation, when they know that this tax alone, from which the aristocracy are from circumstances exempt, is nearly equal to the whole of the land-tax, being in the year 1788, and it is not less now, L1,666,152, and with its proportion of the taxes on malt and hops, it exceeds it.—That a single article, thus partially consumed, and that chiefly by the working part, should be subject to a tax, equal to that on the whole rental of a nation, is, perhaps, a fact not to be paralleled in the histories of revenues.
Many of the heaviest and most productive taxes are designed to exempt this group, effectively protecting it. The tax on beer brewed for sale doesn’t impact the aristocracy, who brew their own beer without this duty. It only affects those who lack the means or ability to brew and must buy it in small amounts. But what will people think about the fairness of taxation when they realize that this tax alone, from which the aristocracy is exempt due to their situation, is almost equal to the entire land tax? In 1788, this tax amounted to £1,666,152, and it hasn’t decreased much since. Including its share of the taxes on malt and hops, it actually exceeds it. The fact that a single item, mostly consumed by the working class, is taxed at a rate comparable to that of the entire rental income of a nation is likely unmatched in the history of tax revenues.
This is one of the circumstances resulting from a house of legislation, composed on the ground of a combination of common interest; for whatever their separate politics as to parties may be, in this they are united. Whether a combination acts to raise the price of any article for sale, or rate of wages; or whether it acts to throw taxes from itself upon another class of the community, the principle and the effect are the same; and if the one be illegal, it will be difficult to show that the other ought to exist.
This is one of the situations that arises from a legislative body created based on a shared interest; because, regardless of their individual political parties, they are united in this. Whether a group works to increase the price of any product or wages, or whether it tries to shift taxes onto another segment of the community, the principle and the outcome are the same; and if one is illegal, it will be hard to argue that the other should be allowed to exist.
It is no use to say that taxes are first proposed in the House of Commons; for as the other house has always a negative, it can always defend itself; and it would be ridiculous to suppose that its acquiescence in the measures to be proposed were not understood before hand. Besides which, it has obtained so much influence by borough-traffic, and so many of its relations and connections are distributed on both sides the commons, as to give it, besides an absolute negative in one house, a preponderancy in the other, in all matters of common concern.
It's pointless to say that taxes are first suggested in the House of Commons; because since the other house can always veto, it can always protect itself. It would be silly to think that its agreement to the proposed measures wasn’t arranged in advance. Moreover, it has gained significant influence through borough dealings, and many of its relationships and connections are spread across both sides of the Commons, giving it not only a total veto in one house but also an advantage in the other in all matters of shared interest.
It is difficult to discover what is meant by the landed interest, if it does not mean a combination of aristocratical landholders, opposing their own pecuniary interest to that of the farmer, and every branch of trade, commerce, and manufacture. In all other respects it is the only interest that needs no partial protection. It enjoys the general protection of the world. Every individual, high or low, is interested in the fruits of the earth; men, women, and children, of all ages and degrees, will turn out to assist the farmer, rather than a harvest should not be got in; and they will not act thus by any other property. It is the only one for which the common prayer of mankind is put up, and the only one that can never fail from the want of means. It is the interest, not of the policy, but of the existence of man, and when it ceases, he must cease to be.
It's hard to understand what is meant by the landed interest unless it refers to a group of wealthy landowners putting their financial interests against those of farmers and every sector of trade, commerce, and manufacturing. In every other way, it's the only interest that doesn't need special protection. It has the general support of the world. Everyone, regardless of status, is invested in the produce of the land; people of all ages and backgrounds will help farmers rather than see a harvest fail, and they wouldn’t do the same for any other form of property. It's the only interest for which people collectively pray, and it’s the only one that won’t fail due to lack of resources. It’s not just about policy; it’s about human survival, and when it’s gone, humanity must also vanish.
No other interest in a nation stands on the same united support. Commerce, manufactures, arts, sciences, and everything else, compared with this, are supported but in parts. Their prosperity or their decay has not the same universal influence. When the valleys laugh and sing, it is not the farmer only, but all creation that rejoice. It is a prosperity that excludes all envy; and this cannot be said of anything else.
No other interest in a nation has the same level of support. Trade, industry, arts, sciences, and everything else, when compared to this, have support only in parts. Their success or failure doesn’t have the same universal impact. When the valleys are bustling and joyful, it's not just the farmers who feel this way, but everyone. This is a kind of prosperity that fosters no envy, and that can't be said about anything else.
Why then, does Mr. Burke talk of his house of peers as the pillar of the landed interest? Were that pillar to sink into the earth, the same landed property would continue, and the same ploughing, sowing, and reaping would go on. The aristocracy are not the farmers who work the land, and raise the produce, but are the mere consumers of the rent; and when compared with the active world are the drones, a seraglio of males, who neither collect the honey nor form the hive, but exist only for lazy enjoyment.
Why does Mr. Burke call his house of peers the foundation of the landowners' interests? If that foundation were to collapse, the same land would still exist, and farming activities like plowing, sowing, and harvesting would continue. The aristocracy aren't the farmers who cultivate the land and produce the crops; they're just the ones who collect the rent. Compared to the active world, they’re the idle ones, a group of men who neither gather the honey nor create the hive, but simply exist for their own leisurely enjoyment.
Mr. Burke, in his first essay, called aristocracy "the Corinthian capital of polished society." Towards completing the figure, he has now added the pillar; but still the base is wanting; and whenever a nation choose to act a Samson, not blind, but bold, down will go the temple of Dagon, the Lords and the Philistines.
Mr. Burke, in his first essay, referred to aristocracy as "the Corinthian capital of polished society." To finish the image, he has now added the pillar; but the base is still missing; and whenever a nation decides to act like Samson, not blind, but courageous, down will go the temple of Dagon, the Lords, and the Philistines.
If a house of legislation is to be composed of men of one class, for the purpose of protecting a distinct interest, all the other interests should have the same. The inequality, as well as the burthen of taxation, arises from admitting it in one case, and not in all. Had there been a house of farmers, there had been no game laws; or a house of merchants and manufacturers, the taxes had neither been so unequal nor so excessive. It is from the power of taxation being in the hands of those who can throw so great a part of it from their own shoulders, that it has raged without a check.
If a legislative body is made up of people from one class to protect a specific interest, then all other interests should have the same representation. The inequality and burden of taxes come from allowing this in one case and not in others. If there had been a house of farmers, there would have been no game laws; or if there had been a house of merchants and manufacturers, the taxes wouldn't have been as unfair or excessive. The unchecked power of taxation lies with those who can shift much of that burden off their own shoulders, which is why it has been so rampant.
Men of small or moderate estates are more injured by the taxes being thrown on articles of consumption, than they are eased by warding it from landed property, for the following reasons:
Men with small or moderate incomes are hurt more by taxes placed on everyday goods than they benefit from protecting land property, for these reasons:
First, They consume more of the productive taxable articles, in proportion to their property, than those of large estates.
First, they use more of the taxable goods that generate income relative to their wealth compared to those with large estates.
Secondly, Their residence is chiefly in towns, and their property in houses; and the increase of the poor-rates, occasioned by taxes on consumption, is in much greater proportion than the land-tax has been favoured. In Birmingham, the poor-rates are not less than seven shillings in the pound. From this, as is already observed, the aristocracy are in a great measure exempt.
Secondly, their homes are mainly in cities, and their assets are in houses; the rise in poor rates, caused by consumption taxes, is much higher than the benefits seen from the land tax. In Birmingham, poor rates are at least seven shillings per pound. As mentioned earlier, the aristocracy is largely exempt from this.
These are but a part of the mischiefs flowing from the wretched scheme of an house of peers.
These are just some of the problems arising from the terrible idea of a house of peers.
As a combination, it can always throw a considerable portion of taxes from itself; and as an hereditary house, accountable to nobody, it resembles a rotten borough, whose consent is to be courted by interest. There are but few of its members, who are not in some mode or other participators, or disposers of the public money. One turns a candle-holder, or a lord in waiting; another a lord of the bed-chamber, a groom of the stole, or any insignificant nominal office to which a salary is annexed, paid out of the public taxes, and which avoids the direct appearance of corruption. Such situations are derogatory to the character of man; and where they can be submitted to, honour cannot reside.
As a group, it can often avoid paying a significant amount of taxes; and as a hereditary institution that answers to no one, it’s like a corrupt electoral district, seeking favors based on self-interest. Very few of its members aren't involved in some way with the management or distribution of public funds. One might hold a minor role like a candle-holder or a lord in waiting; another might be a lord of the bedchamber, a groom of the stole, or any trivial title attached to a salary funded by public taxes, which helps dodge the appearance of corruption. These positions undermine a person's integrity; where they can be tolerated, honor cannot exist.
To all these are to be added the numerous dependants, the long list of younger branches and distant relations, who are to be provided for at the public expense: in short, were an estimation to be made of the charge of aristocracy to a nation, it will be found nearly equal to that of supporting the poor. The Duke of Richmond alone (and there are cases similar to his) takes away as much for himself as would maintain two thousand poor and aged persons. Is it, then, any wonder, that under such a system of government, taxes and rates have multiplied to their present extent?
To this, we also need to consider the many dependents, the long list of younger family members and distant relatives who need to be supported at public expense. In short, if we were to calculate the costs of supporting the aristocracy for a nation, it would be found to be nearly equal to the cost of helping the poor. The Duke of Richmond alone (and there are similar cases) takes as much for himself as would support two thousand poor and elderly individuals. So, is it any surprise that, under such a system of government, taxes and fees have increased to their current levels?
In stating these matters, I speak an open and disinterested language, dictated by no passion but that of humanity. To me, who have not only refused offers, because I thought them improper, but have declined rewards I might with reputation have accepted, it is no wonder that meanness and imposition appear disgustful. Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
In discussing these matters, I speak candidly and without bias, guided solely by a sense of humanity. For someone like me, who has turned down offers that I deemed inappropriate and has rejected rewards that I could have accepted with a good reputation, it's no surprise that I find dishonesty and exploitation repulsive. Independence is my source of happiness, and I see things as they truly are, without considering location or individual. My country is the world, and my purpose is to do good.
Mr. Burke, in speaking of the aristocratical law of primogeniture, says, "it is the standing law of our landed inheritance; and which, without question, has a tendency, and I think," continues he, "a happy tendency, to preserve a character of weight and consequence."
Mr. Burke, when discussing the aristocratic law of primogeniture, states, "It is the established law of our land inheritance, and without a doubt, it has a tendency, and I believe," he goes on, "a positive tendency, to maintain a sense of importance and influence."
Mr. Burke may call this law what he pleases, but humanity and impartial reflection will denounce it as a law of brutal injustice. Were we not accustomed to the daily practice, and did we only hear of it as the law of some distant part of the world, we should conclude that the legislators of such countries had not arrived at a state of civilisation.
Mr. Burke can label this law however he wants, but common decency and objective thinking will reject it as a law of cruel injustice. If we weren't used to seeing it happen every day, and only heard about it as the law from some far-off place, we would think that the lawmakers in those countries hadn't yet reached a civilized state.
As to its preserving a character of weight and consequence, the case appears to me directly the reverse. It is an attaint upon character; a sort of privateering on family property. It may have weight among dependent tenants, but it gives none on a scale of national, and much less of universal character. Speaking for myself, my parents were not able to give me a shilling, beyond what they gave me in education; and to do this they distressed themselves: yet, I possess more of what is called consequence, in the world, than any one in Mr. Burke's catalogue of aristocrats.
As for maintaining a sense of importance and significance, I see the situation as completely the opposite. It tarnishes one's character; it's like raiding a family's assets. It might hold some weight among those who depend on it, but it carries no significance on a national level, let alone a global one. Personally, my parents couldn't give me a penny beyond what they provided for my education, and that put them under a lot of stress. Yet, I have more of what’s considered significance in the world than anyone on Mr. Burke's list of aristocrats.
Having thus glanced at some of the defects of the two houses of parliament, I proceed to what is called the crown, upon which I shall be very concise.
Having briefly looked at some of the flaws in the two houses of parliament, I'll move on to what is referred to as the crown, and I’ll keep it very brief.
It signifies a nominal office of a million sterling a year, the business of which consists in receiving the money. Whether the person be wise or foolish, sane or insane, a native or a foreigner, matters not. Every ministry acts upon the same idea that Mr. Burke writes, namely, that the people must be hood-winked, and held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other; and what is called the crown answers this purpose, and therefore it answers all the purposes to be expected from it. This is more than can be said of the other two branches.
It represents a nominal position that pays a million pounds a year, where the main role is to collect the money. It doesn't matter if the person is wise or foolish, sane or crazy, a local or a foreigner. Every government operates on the same principle that Mr. Burke writes about, which is that the public needs to be misled and kept in a superstitious state of ignorance by some sort of scare tactic; the concept of the crown serves this purpose, and thus it fulfills all the expected roles. This is more than can be said for the other two branches.
The hazard to which this office is exposed in all countries, is not from anything that can happen to the man, but from what may happen to the nation—the danger of its coming to its senses.
The risk that this office faces in every country isn't from anything that could happen to the individual, but from what might happen to the nation—the threat of it waking up to reality.
It has been customary to call the crown the executive power, and the custom is continued, though the reason has ceased.
It’s been common to refer to the crown as the executive power, and this tradition continues, even though the reasoning behind it has faded.
It was called the executive, because the person whom it signified used, formerly, to act in the character of a judge, in administering or executing the laws. The tribunals were then a part of the court. The power, therefore, which is now called the judicial, is what was called the executive and, consequently, one or other of the terms is redundant, and one of the offices useless. When we speak of the crown now, it means nothing; it signifies neither a judge nor a general: besides which it is the laws that govern, and not the man. The old terms are kept up, to give an appearance of consequence to empty forms; and the only effect they have is that of increasing expenses.
It was called the executive because the person it referred to used to act as a judge, administering or executing the laws. The courts were then part of the court system. Therefore, the power we now call judicial was once known as executive, making one of the terms redundant and one of the roles unnecessary. When we talk about the crown today, it means nothing; it signifies neither a judge nor a general. Moreover, it’s the laws that govern, not the individuals. The old terms are maintained to create an illusion of significance around empty practices, and the only result is that they increase expenses.
Before I proceed to the means of rendering governments more conducive to the general happiness of mankind, than they are at present, it will not be improper to take a review of the progress of taxation in England.
Before I dive into how to make governments better for the overall happiness of people than they currently are, it makes sense to take a look back at the history of taxation in England.
It is a general idea, that when taxes are once laid on, they are never taken off. However true this may have been of late, it was not always so. Either, therefore, the people of former times were more watchful over government than those of the present, or government was administered with less extravagance.
It’s commonly believed that once taxes are imposed, they’re never removed. While this may be true lately, it hasn’t always been the case. So, either people in the past were more vigilant about their government than we are today, or the government was run with more restraint.
It is now seven hundred years since the Norman conquest, and the establishment of what is called the crown. Taking this portion of time in seven separate periods of one hundred years each, the amount of the annual taxes, at each period, will be as follows:
It has been seven hundred years since the Norman conquest and the establishment of what is known as the crown. Dividing this time into seven separate periods of one hundred years each, the annual tax amounts for each period will be as follows:
Annual taxes imposed by William the Conqueror, starting in the year 1066 £400,000 Annual taxes 100 years after the conquest (1166) £200,000 Annual taxes 200 years after the conquest (1266) £150,000 Annual taxes 300 years after the conquest (1366) £130,000 Annual taxes 400 years after the conquest (1466) £100,000
These statements and those which follow, are taken from Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue; by which it appears, that taxes continued decreasing for four hundred years, at the expiration of which time they were reduced three-fourths, viz., from four hundred thousand pounds to one hundred thousand. The people of England of the present day, have a traditionary and historical idea of the bravery of their ancestors; but whatever their virtues or their vices might have been, they certainly were a people who would not be imposed upon, and who kept governments in awe as to taxation, if not as to principle. Though they were not able to expel the monarchical usurpation, they restricted it to a republican economy of taxes.
These statements and the ones that follow are taken from Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue, which shows that taxes kept decreasing for four hundred years, resulting in a reduction of three-fourths, from four hundred thousand pounds to one hundred thousand. The people of England today have a traditional and historical belief in the bravery of their ancestors; however, regardless of their virtues or vices, they were definitely a group that would not be taken advantage of and kept governments in check when it came to taxation, if not in principle. Although they couldn't eliminate monarchical rule, they limited it to a republican system of taxation.
Let us now review the remaining three hundred years:
Let’s now take a look at the next three hundred years:
Annual amount of taxes at:
Yearly tax amount at:
500 years after the conquest (1566) 500,000 600 years after the conquest (1666) 1,800,000 the present time (1791) 17,000,000
The difference between the first four hundred years and the last three, is so astonishing, as to warrant an opinion, that the national character of the English has changed. It would have been impossible to have dragooned the former English, into the excess of taxation that now exists; and when it is considered that the pay of the army, the navy, and of all the revenue officers, is the same now as it was about a hundred years ago, when the taxes were not above a tenth part of what they are at present, it appears impossible to account for the enormous increase and expenditure on any other ground, than extravagance, corruption, and intrigue.*31
The difference between the first four hundred years and the last three is so striking that it suggests the national character of the English has changed. It would have been unthinkable to force the earlier English into the excessive taxation we see today. Considering that the salaries for the army, navy, and all revenue officials are the same now as they were about a hundred years ago, when taxes were only about a tenth of what they are now, it seems there’s no explanation for the massive increase in spending other than extravagance, corruption, and intrigue.*31
With the Revolution of 1688, and more so since the Hanover succession, came the destructive system of continental intrigues, and the rage for foreign wars and foreign dominion; systems of such secure mystery that the expenses admit of no accounts; a single line stands for millions. To what excess taxation might have extended had not the French revolution contributed to break up the system, and put an end to pretences, is impossible to say. Viewed, as that revolution ought to be, as the fortunate means of lessening the load of taxes of both countries, it is of as much importance to England as to France; and, if properly improved to all the advantages of which it is capable, and to which it leads, deserves as much celebration in one country as the other.
With the Revolution of 1688, and even more so since the Hanover succession, came the destructive trend of continental intrigues, along with a frenzy for foreign wars and control over other nations; these systems are so shrouded in secrecy that expenses can’t be fully accounted for; a single line can represent millions. It's impossible to say how far taxation might have gone if the French Revolution hadn't helped dismantle the system and put an end to the pretense. When viewed as it should be, that revolution is a fortunate way to lessen the tax burden for both countries, making it just as significant for England as it is for France; and if it’s leveraged properly for all the benefits it offers, it deserves as much celebration in one country as in the other.
In pursuing this subject, I shall begin with the matter that first presents itself, that of lessening the burthen of taxes; and shall then add such matter and propositions, respecting the three countries of England, France, and America, as the present prospect of things appears to justify: I mean, an alliance of the three, for the purposes that will be mentioned in their proper place.
In discussing this topic, I will start with the issue that comes to mind first, which is reducing the burden of taxes; then I will include additional information and proposals regarding the three countries of England, France, and America, as the current situation seems to support. I am referring to a partnership among the three for the purposes that will be outlined later.
What has happened may happen again. By the statement before shown of the progress of taxation, it is seen that taxes have been lessened to a fourth part of what they had formerly been. Though the present circumstances do not admit of the same reduction, yet they admit of such a beginning, as may accomplish that end in less time than in the former case.
What has happened can happen again. As mentioned earlier about the progress of taxation, it's clear that taxes have been reduced to a quarter of what they used to be. Although current circumstances don't allow for the same level of reduction, they do allow for a starting point that could achieve that goal in less time than before.
The amount of taxes for the year ending at Michaelmas 1788, was as follows:
The total taxes for the year ending at Michaelmas 1788 were as follows:
Land tax L 1,950,000 Customs 3,789,274 Excise (including old and new malt) 6,751,727 Stamps 1,278,214 Miscellaneous taxes and incidents 1,803,755 —————- L15,572,755
Since the year 1788, upwards of one million new taxes have been laid on, besides the produce of the lotteries; and as the taxes have in general been more productive since than before, the amount may be taken, in round numbers, at L17,000,000. (The expense of collection and the drawbacks, which together amount to nearly two millions, are paid out of the gross amount; and the above is the net sum paid into the exchequer). This sum of seventeen millions is applied to two different purposes; the one to pay the interest of the National Debt, the other to the current expenses of each year. About nine millions are appropriated to the former; and the remainder, being nearly eight millions, to the latter. As to the million, said to be applied to the reduction of the debt, it is so much like paying with one hand and taking out with the other, as not to merit much notice. It happened, fortunately for France, that she possessed national domains for paying off her debt, and thereby lessening her taxes; but as this is not the case with England, her reduction of taxes can only take place by reducing the current expenses, which may now be done to the amount of four or five millions annually, as will hereafter appear. When this is accomplished it will more than counter-balance the enormous charge of the American war; and the saving will be from the same source from whence the evil arose. As to the national debt, however heavy the interest may be in taxes, yet, as it serves to keep alive a capital useful to commerce, it balances by its effects a considerable part of its own weight; and as the quantity of gold and silver is, by some means or other, short of its proper proportion, being not more than twenty millions, whereas it should be sixty (foreign intrigue, foreign wars, foreign dominions, will in a great measure account for the deficiency), it would, besides the injustice, be bad policy to extinguish a capital that serves to supply that defect. But with respect to the current expense, whatever is saved therefrom is gain. The excess may serve to keep corruption alive, but it has no re-action on credit and commerce, like the interest of the debt.
Since 1788, over a million new taxes have been imposed, in addition to the revenue from lotteries. Generally, these taxes have generated more income than they did before, so we can estimate the total at around £17,000,000. (The costs of collection and the deductions, which together amount to nearly two million, are taken out of this total; what’s mentioned above is the net amount received by the exchequer). This sum of seventeen million is used for two main purposes: one portion goes toward paying the interest on the National Debt, while the other covers annual expenses. About nine million is allocated to the former, and the remaining nearly eight million goes to the latter. As for the million said to be used for reducing the debt, it feels like paying with one hand and taking away with the other, not worth much attention. Fortunately for France, they had national land to pay off their debt and lower their taxes; however, this isn’t the case for England, where tax reductions can only happen by cutting down on current expenses, which could potentially be around four or five million a year, as will be shown later. Once this is done, it will more than offset the enormous costs of the American war, and the savings will come from the same source as the problem. Regarding the national debt, no matter how heavy the tax interest is, it keeps a capital alive that's useful for commerce, which helps balance a significant part of its own burden. Since the supply of gold and silver is somehow below its proper level—only about twenty million when it should be sixty (foreign intrigue, wars, and territories partly explain the shortfall)—it would be not just unfair but also poor policy to eliminate a capital that helps address that shortcoming. On the other hand, any savings in current expenses are pure gain. While the excess might sustain corruption, it doesn’t impact credit and commerce like the interest on the debt does.
It is now very probable that the English Government (I do not mean the nation) is unfriendly to the French Revolution. Whatever serves to expose the intrigue and lessen the influence of courts, by lessening taxation, will be unwelcome to those who feed upon the spoil. Whilst the clamour of French intrigue, arbitrary power, popery, and wooden shoes could be kept up, the nation was easily allured and alarmed into taxes. Those days are now past: deception, it is to be hoped, has reaped its last harvest, and better times are in prospect for both countries, and for the world.
It is now very likely that the English Government (I don’t mean the nation) is not supportive of the French Revolution. Anything that exposes the schemes and reduces the influence of the government by cutting down on taxes will be unwelcome to those who benefit from the profits. While the noise about French schemes, authoritarian rule, Catholicism, and wooden shoes could be maintained, the country was easily drawn in and frightened into accepting taxes. Those days are now over: deception, we hope, has finished its last round, and better times are ahead for both countries and for the world.
Taking it for granted that an alliance may be formed between England, France, and America for the purposes hereafter to be mentioned, the national expenses of France and England may consequently be lessened. The same fleets and armies will no longer be necessary to either, and the reduction can be made ship for ship on each side. But to accomplish these objects the governments must necessarily be fitted to a common and correspondent principle. Confidence can never take place while an hostile disposition remains in either, or where mystery and secrecy on one side is opposed to candour and openness on the other.
Assuming that an alliance can be formed between England, France, and America for the purposes mentioned later, the national expenses of France and England could, as a result, be reduced. The same fleets and armies would no longer be needed by either side, allowing for a one-for-one reduction. However, to achieve these goals, the governments must align on a common and compatible principle. Trust cannot develop while there is hostility from either side, or when one side is shrouded in mystery and secrecy while the other is open and transparent.
These matters admitted, the national expenses might be put back, for the sake of a precedent, to what they were at some period when France and England were not enemies. This, consequently, must be prior to the Hanover succession, and also to the Revolution of 1688.*32 The first instance that presents itself, antecedent to those dates, is in the very wasteful and profligate times of Charles the Second; at which time England and France acted as allies. If I have chosen a period of great extravagance, it will serve to show modern extravagance in a still worse light; especially as the pay of the navy, the army, and the revenue officers has not increased since that time.
Considering these points, the national expenses could be reverted, as a precedent, to what they were during a time when France and England were not at odds. This must take place before the Hanover succession and before the Revolution of 1688.*32 The first period that comes to mind, before those dates, is during the excessively lavish and wasteful era of Charles the Second; at which time England and France were allies. If I have chosen a time of significant extravagance, it will highlight modern extravagance in an even worse light, especially since the pay for the navy, the army, and revenue officers has not increased since then.
The peace establishment was then as follows (see Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue):
The peace setup was then as follows (see Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue):
Navy £300,000 Army £212,000 Ordnance £40,000 Civil List £462,115 ———- £1,014,115
The parliament, however, settled the whole annual peace establishment at $1,200,000.*33 If we go back to the time of Elizabeth the amount of all the taxes was but half a million, yet the nation sees nothing during that period that reproaches it with want of consequence.
The parliament, however, set the entire annual peace budget at $1,200,000.*33 If we look back to the time of Elizabeth, the total taxes were only half a million, yet the nation doesn't see anything from that time that would embarrass it for lacking importance.
All circumstances, then, taken together, arising from the French revolution, from the approaching harmony and reciprocal interest of the two nations, the abolition of the court intrigue on both sides, and the progress of knowledge in the science of government, the annual expenditure might be put back to one million and a half, viz.:
All the factors combined, stemming from the French Revolution, the growing harmony and mutual interests of both nations, the end of court intrigues on both sides, and the advancement of knowledge in government science, the yearly spending could be reduced to one and a half million, namely:
Navy £500,000 Army £500,000 Government Expenses £500,000 ————— £1,500,000
Even this sum is six times greater than the expenses of government are in America, yet the civil internal government in England (I mean that administered by means of quarter sessions, juries and assize, and which, in fact, is nearly the whole, and performed by the nation), is less expense upon the revenue, than the same species and portion of government is in America.
Even this amount is six times higher than the government's expenses in America, yet the civil internal government in England (referring to the administration through quarter sessions, juries, and assizes, which basically accounts for the majority and is run by the people) costs less to the revenue than the same type and portion of government does in America.
It is time that nations should be rational, and not be governed like animals, for the pleasure of their riders. To read the history of kings, a man would be almost inclined to suppose that government consisted in stag-hunting, and that every nation paid a million a-year to a huntsman. Man ought to have pride, or shame enough to blush at being thus imposed upon, and when he feels his proper character he will. Upon all subjects of this nature, there is often passing in the mind, a train of ideas he has not yet accustomed himself to encourage and communicate. Restrained by something that puts on the character of prudence, he acts the hypocrite upon himself as well as to others. It is, however, curious to observe how soon this spell can be dissolved. A single expression, boldly conceived and uttered, will sometimes put a whole company into their proper feelings: and whole nations are acted on in the same manner.
It's time for nations to be rational and not run like animals for the enjoyment of their riders. Reading the history of kings, one might think that government is just about hunting and that every nation pays a million a year to a hunter. People should have enough pride or shame to feel embarrassed about being treated this way, and when they recognize their true nature, they will. On subjects like these, thoughts often pass through their minds that they haven't learned to encourage and share. Held back by what seems like caution, they end up being hypocritical both to themselves and to others. However, it's interesting to see how quickly this spell can be broken. Sometimes, a single bold statement can bring everyone back to their true feelings, and entire nations can be affected in the same way.
As to the offices of which any civil government may be composed, it matters but little by what names they are described. In the routine of business, as before observed, whether a man be styled a president, a king, an emperor, a senator, or anything else, it is impossible that any service he can perform, can merit from a nation more than ten thousand pounds a year; and as no man should be paid beyond his services, so every man of a proper heart will not accept more. Public money ought to be touched with the most scrupulous consciousness of honour. It is not the produce of riches only, but of the hard earnings of labour and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery. Not a beggar passes, or perishes in the streets, whose mite is not in that mass.
As for the positions that any civil government might have, it doesn't really matter what they're called. In the course of business, as mentioned earlier, whether someone is referred to as a president, a king, an emperor, a senator, or something else, it’s impossible for any service they provide to be worth more than ten thousand pounds a year to the nation; and since no one should be paid more than their contributions, a person with integrity won’t accept more. Public funds should be handled with the utmost honesty. They don't just come from wealth, but from the hard work of those who labor and struggle. They even come from the pain of poverty and suffering. Every penny from a beggar who passes by or dies in the streets is part of that total.
Were it possible that the Congress of America could be so lost to their duty, and to the interest of their constituents, as to offer General Washington, as president of America, a million a year, he would not, and he could not, accept it. His sense of honour is of another kind. It has cost England almost seventy millions sterling, to maintain a family imported from abroad, of very inferior capacity to thousands in the nation; and scarcely a year has passed that has not produced some new mercenary application. Even the physicians' bills have been sent to the public to be paid. No wonder that jails are crowded, and taxes and poor-rates increased. Under such systems, nothing is to be looked for but what has already happened; and as to reformation, whenever it come, it must be from the nation, and not from the government.
If it were possible that the Congress of America could be so oblivious to their responsibilities and the interests of their constituents as to offer General Washington a million dollars a year to be president of America, he would neither accept it nor could he. His sense of honor is different. It has cost England nearly seventy million pounds to support a family brought in from abroad, significantly less capable than thousands of people in the nation; and hardly a year goes by without some new request for money. Even the doctors' bills have been sent to the public to cover. It’s no wonder that jails are overcrowded, and taxes and welfare costs are rising. With such systems in place, we can expect nothing other than what has already happened, and any change that comes must be from the people, not from the government.
To show that the sum of five hundred thousand pounds is more than sufficient to defray all the expenses of the government, exclusive of navies and armies, the following estimate is added, for any country, of the same extent as England.
To demonstrate that the sum of five hundred thousand pounds is more than enough to cover all government expenses, excluding navies and armies, the following estimate is provided for any country of a similar size to England.
In the first place, three hundred representatives fairly elected, are sufficient for all the purposes to which legislation can apply, and preferable to a larger number. They may be divided into two or three houses, or meet in one, as in France, or in any manner a constitution shall direct.
First of all, three hundred fairly elected representatives are enough for all the purposes of legislation and are better than a larger group. They can be organized into two or three houses, or meet as one, like in France, or in any way that a constitution specifies.
As representation is always considered, in free countries, as the most honourable of all stations, the allowance made to it is merely to defray the expense which the representatives incur by that service, and not to it as an office.
Since representation is always seen as the most honored position in free countries, the compensation given for it is just to cover the costs that representatives incur while serving, not as a salary for the role itself.
If each representative receives an allowance of five hundred pounds per year, with deductions for non-attendance, the total expense, if everyone attended for six months each year, would be £75,000. The official departments can't reasonably go beyond the following number, with the associated salaries: Three positions at ten thousand pounds each £30,000 Ten positions at five thousand pounds each £50,000 Twenty positions at two thousand pounds each £40,000 Forty positions at one thousand pounds each £40,000 Two hundred positions at five hundred pounds each £100,000 Three hundred positions at two hundred pounds each £60,000 Five hundred positions at one hundred pounds each £50,000 Seven hundred positions at seventy-five pounds each £52,500 ———— £497,500
If a nation choose, it can deduct four per cent. from all offices, and make one of twenty thousand per annum.
If a nation chooses, it can take four percent off all offices and create one that pays twenty thousand a year.
All revenue officers are paid out of the monies they collect, and therefore, are not in this estimation.
All revenue officers are paid from the money they collect, so they are not included in this estimate.
The foregoing is not offered as an exact detail of offices, but to show the number of rate of salaries which five hundred thousand pounds will support; and it will, on experience, be found impracticable to find business sufficient to justify even this expense. As to the manner in which office business is now performed, the Chiefs, in several offices, such as the post-office, and certain offices in the exchequer, etc., do little more than sign their names three or four times a year; and the whole duty is performed by under-clerks.
The information above isn’t meant to provide a detailed list of positions, but to highlight how many salaries five hundred thousand pounds can support. Experience will show that it’s impractical to find enough work to justify this level of spending. As for how office tasks are currently handled, the heads of various offices, like the post office and some departments within the treasury, mostly just sign their names three or four times a year; the actual work is carried out by junior clerks.
Taking, therefore, one million and a half as a sufficient peace establishment for all the honest purposes of government, which is three hundred thousand pounds more than the peace establishment in the profligate and prodigal times of Charles the Second (notwithstanding, as has been already observed, the pay and salaries of the army, navy, and revenue officers, continue the same as at that period), there will remain a surplus of upwards of six millions out of the present current expenses. The question then will be, how to dispose of this surplus.
Taking one and a half million as a sufficient peace budget for all the legitimate purposes of government, which is three hundred thousand pounds more than the peace budget during the extravagant times of Charles the Second (although, as has been noted, the pay and salaries of the army, navy, and revenue officers remain the same as they were then), there will be a surplus of over six million from the current expenses. The question now is how to use this surplus.
Whoever has observed the manner in which trade and taxes twist themselves together, must be sensible of the impossibility of separating them suddenly.
Whoever has noticed how trade and taxes are interconnected must understand how impossible it is to separate them abruptly.
First. Because the articles now on hand are already charged with the duty, and the reduction cannot take place on the present stock.
First. Because the items we currently have are already assigned the duty, and we can't reduce the duty on the existing stock.
Secondly. Because, on all those articles on which the duty is charged in the gross, such as per barrel, hogshead, hundred weight, or ton, the abolition of the duty does not admit of being divided down so as fully to relieve the consumer, who purchases by the pint, or the pound. The last duty laid on strong beer and ale was three shillings per barrel, which, if taken off, would lessen the purchase only half a farthing per pint, and consequently, would not reach to practical relief.
Secondly, the way that tax is applied on items sold in bulk, like by the barrel, hogshead, hundredweight, or ton, means that removing the tax doesn't really help the consumer who buys by the pint or pound. The last tax on strong beer and ale was three shillings per barrel, and if that tax were removed, the price would only go down by half a farthing per pint, which wouldn’t provide any real relief.
This being the condition of a great part of the taxes, it will be necessary to look for such others as are free from this embarrassment and where the relief will be direct and visible, and capable of immediate operation.
This being the situation with a large portion of the taxes, it will be necessary to seek out others that are free from this issue and where the relief will be direct and noticeable, and able to take effect immediately.
In the first place, then, the poor-rates are a direct tax which every house-keeper feels, and who knows also, to a farthing, the sum which he pays. The national amount of the whole of the poor-rates is not positively known, but can be procured. Sir John Sinclair, in his History of the Revenue has stated it at L2,100,587. A considerable part of which is expended in litigations, in which the poor, instead of being relieved, are tormented. The expense, however, is the same to the parish from whatever cause it arises.
Firstly, the poor rates are a direct tax that every homeowner feels, and they know exactly how much they pay down to the last penny. The total national amount for all poor rates isn’t definitively known but can be obtained. Sir John Sinclair, in his History of the Revenue, has stated it at £2,100,587. A significant portion of this is spent on legal battles, where instead of being helped, the poor are made to suffer. However, the cost to the parish remains the same regardless of the reason.
In Birmingham, the amount of poor-rates is fourteen thousand pounds a year. This, though a large sum, is moderate, compared with the population. Birmingham is said to contain seventy thousand souls, and on a proportion of seventy thousand to fourteen thousand pounds poor-rates, the national amount of poor-rates, taking the population of England as seven millions, would be but one million four hundred thousand pounds. It is, therefore, most probable, that the population of Birmingham is over-rated. Fourteen thousand pounds is the proportion upon fifty thousand souls, taking two millions of poor-rates, as the national amount.
In Birmingham, the annual poor rates amount to fourteen thousand pounds. While this is a significant sum, it's relatively moderate considering the population. Birmingham is said to have seventy thousand residents, and based on a ratio of seventy thousand to fourteen thousand pounds in poor rates, the total poor rates for the entire country, with England's population at seven million, would be just one million four hundred thousand pounds. Therefore, it's likely that Birmingham's population figures are inflated. Fourteen thousand pounds corresponds to a population of fifty thousand, based on a national total of two million in poor rates.
Be it, however, what it may, it is no other than the consequence of excessive burthen of taxes, for, at the time when the taxes were very low, the poor were able to maintain themselves; and there were no poor-rates.*34 In the present state of things a labouring man, with a wife or two or three children, does not pay less than between seven and eight pounds a year in taxes. He is not sensible of this, because it is disguised to him in the articles which he buys, and he thinks only of their dearness; but as the taxes take from him, at least, a fourth part of his yearly earnings, he is consequently disabled from providing for a family, especially, if himself, or any of them, are afflicted with sickness.
No matter what, it's just the result of excessive tax burdens because, when taxes were really low, the poor could support themselves, and there were no poor rates.*34 Nowadays, a working man with a wife or two or three kids pays at least seven to eight pounds a year in taxes. He isn't really aware of this because it's hidden in the prices of the things he buys, and he only thinks about how expensive they are; but since taxes take away at least a quarter of his yearly earnings, he can’t provide for a family, especially if he or any of them gets sick.
The first step, therefore, of practical relief, would be to abolish the poor-rates entirely, and in lieu thereof, to make a remission of taxes to the poor of double the amount of the present poor-rates, viz., four millions annually out of the surplus taxes. By this measure, the poor would be benefited two millions, and the house-keepers two millions. This alone would be equal to a reduction of one hundred and twenty millions of the National Debt, and consequently equal to the whole expense of the American War.
The first practical step to help would be to completely eliminate the poor rates and, instead, to provide a tax reduction for the poor that is double the current amount of the poor rates, which is four million annually from the surplus taxes. With this measure, the poor would gain two million, and the homeowners would gain two million as well. This action alone would be equivalent to a reduction of one hundred twenty million of the National Debt, effectively covering the entire cost of the American War.
It will then remain to be considered, which is the most effectual mode of distributing this remission of four millions.
It will then be necessary to consider the most effective way to distribute this relief of four million.
It is easily seen, that the poor are generally composed of large families of children, and old people past their labour. If these two classes are provided for, the remedy will so far reach to the full extent of the case, that what remains will be incidental, and, in a great measure, fall within the compass of benefit clubs, which, though of humble invention, merit to be ranked among the best of modern institutions.
It’s clear that poor households often consist of many children and elderly people who can no longer work. If we support these two groups, we’ll address most of the problem, leaving only a few remaining issues that can mostly be managed through benefit clubs. These clubs, while simple in design, deserve to be recognized as some of the best modern institutions.
Admitting England to contain seven millions of souls; if one-fifth thereof are of that class of poor which need support, the number will be one million four hundred thousand. Of this number, one hundred and forty thousand will be aged poor, as will be hereafter shown, and for which a distinct provision will be proposed.
Admitting that England has seven million people; if one-fifth of them are in the class of poor who need support, the number will be one million four hundred thousand. Out of this number, one hundred and forty thousand will be elderly poor, as will be shown later, and for whom a separate provision will be proposed.
There will then remain one million two hundred and sixty thousand which, at five souls to each family, amount to two hundred and fifty-two thousand families, rendered poor from the expense of children and the weight of taxes.
There will then be one million two hundred sixty thousand people, which, at five people per family, equals two hundred fifty-two thousand families who have become poor due to the cost of raising children and the burden of taxes.
The number of children under fourteen years of age, in each of those families, will be found to be about five to every two families; some having two, and others three; some one, and others four: some none, and others five; but it rarely happens that more than five are under fourteen years of age, and after this age they are capable of service or of being apprenticed.
The number of children under fourteen years old in these families is about five for every two families; some have two, others three; some have one, and others four: some have none, and some have five; but it's uncommon for more than five to be under fourteen, and after this age, they can work or be apprenticed.
Allowing five children (under fourteen years) to every two families,
Allowing five kids (under fourteen years old) for every two families,
The number of children will be 630,000
The number of children will be 630,000.
The number of parents, were they all living, would be 504,000
The number of parents, if they were all alive, would be 504,000.
It is certain, that if the children are provided for, the parents are relieved of consequence, because it is from the expense of bringing up children that their poverty arises.
It’s clear that if the children are taken care of, the parents are freed from the burden, because their poverty stems from the costs of raising kids.
Having thus ascertained the greatest number that can be supposed to need support on account of young families, I proceed to the mode of relief or distribution, which is,
Having figured out the largest number that might need support because of young families, I will now discuss the way to provide assistance or distribute it, which is,
To pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age; enjoining the parents of such children to send them to school, to learn reading, writing, and common arithmetic; the ministers of every parish, of every denomination to certify jointly to an office, for that purpose, that this duty is performed. The amount of this expense will be,
To provide tax relief to every low-income family, from the surplus taxes and instead of poor-rates, four pounds a year for each child under fourteen; requiring the parents of these children to enroll them in school to learn reading, writing, and basic math; and having the ministers of each parish, regardless of denomination, jointly confirm to a designated office that this obligation is fulfilled. The total cost of this will be,
For six hundred thirty thousand children at four pounds a year each L2,520,000
By adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and the number of poor will hereafter become less, because their abilities, by the aid of education, will be greater. Many a youth, with good natural genius, who is apprenticed to a mechanical trade, such as a carpenter, joiner, millwright, shipwright, blacksmith, etc., is prevented getting forward the whole of his life from the want of a little common education when a boy.
By using this approach, not only will the parents' poverty be eased, but ignorance will also be eliminated from the younger generation, leading to a decrease in the number of people in poverty in the future, as their skills, supported by education, will improve. Many young people with natural talent who train in trades like carpentry, joinery, millwork, shipbuilding, blacksmithing, etc., struggle for their entire lives simply because they lacked a bit of basic education when they were kids.
I now proceed to the case of the aged.
I will now discuss the case of the elderly.
I divide age into two classes. First, the approach of age, beginning at fifty. Secondly, old age commencing at sixty.
I divide age into two categories. First, the onset of age, which starts at fifty. Second, old age, which begins at sixty.
At fifty, though the mental faculties of man are in full vigour, and his judgment better than at any preceding date, the bodily powers for laborious life are on the decline. He cannot bear the same quantity of fatigue as at an earlier period. He begins to earn less, and is less capable of enduring wind and weather; and in those more retired employments where much sight is required, he fails apace, and sees himself, like an old horse, beginning to be turned adrift.
At fifty, while a man's mental faculties are still strong and his judgment is better than ever before, his physical abilities for hard work are starting to decline. He can't handle the same level of fatigue as he once could. He starts to earn less and is less able to cope with harsh weather; in jobs that require good eyesight, he quickly begins to struggle and feels like an aging horse, starting to be put out to pasture.
At sixty his labour ought to be over, at least from direct necessity. It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread.
At sixty, he should be done working, at least out of necessity. It’s sad to see old age struggling to survive in what are called civilized countries, just to earn a living.
To form some judgment of the number of those above fifty years of age, I have several times counted the persons I met in the streets of London, men, women, and children, and have generally found that the average is about one in sixteen or seventeen. If it be said that aged persons do not come much into the streets, so neither do infants; and a great proportion of grown children are in schools and in work-shops as apprentices. Taking, then, sixteen for a divisor, the whole number of persons in England of fifty years and upwards, of both sexes, rich and poor, will be four hundred and twenty thousand.
To get an idea of how many people over fifty are out there, I've counted the individuals I see on the streets of London—men, women, and children—and I've generally found that the average is about one in sixteen or seventeen. If someone argues that older people don’t go out much, then neither do infants; plus, a significant number of older kids are in school or working as apprentices. So, if we use sixteen for calculation, the total number of people in England aged fifty and older, regardless of gender or social class, is four hundred and twenty thousand.
The persons to be provided for out of this gross number will be husbandmen, common labourers, journeymen of every trade and their wives, sailors, and disbanded soldiers, worn out servants of both sexes, and poor widows.
The people who will be supported from this total number will include farmers, general laborers, skilled workers of all trades and their spouses, sailors, and retired soldiers, exhausted servants of both genders, and needy widows.
There will be also a considerable number of middling tradesmen, who having lived decently in the former part of life, begin, as age approaches, to lose their business, and at last fall to decay.
There will also be a significant number of average tradespeople who, after having lived decently earlier in life, start to lose their business as they get older and eventually fall into decline.
Besides these there will be constantly thrown off from the revolutions of that wheel which no man can stop nor regulate, a number from every class of life connected with commerce and adventure.
Besides these, there will constantly be ejected from the revolutions of that wheel, which no one can stop or control, a number of people from every class of life associated with commerce and adventure.
To provide for all those accidents, and whatever else may befall, I take the number of persons who, at one time or other of their lives, after fifty years of age, may feel it necessary or comfortable to be better supported, than they can support themselves, and that not as a matter of grace and favour, but of right, at one-third of the whole number, which is one hundred and forty thousand, as stated in a previous page, and for whom a distinct provision was proposed to be made. If there be more, society, notwithstanding the show and pomposity of government, is in a deplorable condition in England.
To account for all those unexpected events and anything else that happens, I consider the number of individuals who, at some point in their lives after turning fifty, might feel they need or want better support than they can provide for themselves, and this should not be seen as a privilege, but as a right. I estimate this group to be one-third of the total population, which is one hundred and forty thousand, as mentioned earlier, for whom specific provisions were supposed to be made. If there are more, then society, despite the appearance and grandeur of government, is in a terrible state in England.
Of this one hundred and forty thousand, I take one half, seventy thousand, to be of the age of fifty and under sixty, and the other half to be sixty years and upwards. Having thus ascertained the probable proportion of the number of aged persons, I proceed to the mode of rendering their condition comfortable, which is:
Of this one hundred and forty thousand, I take half, seventy thousand, to be between the ages of fifty and sixty, and the other half to be sixty years and older. Having figured out the likely proportion of older individuals, I will now discuss how to make their situation comfortable, which is:
To pay to every such person of the age of fifty years, and until he shall arrive at the age of sixty, the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty. The expense of which will be,
To pay every person who is fifty years old, and until they turn sixty, the amount of six pounds per year from the excess taxes, and ten pounds per year for life after they reach sixty. The cost of this will be,
Seventy thousand people, at £6 per year £420,000 Seventy thousand people, at £10 per year £700,000 ———- £1,120,000
This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right. Every person in England, male and female, pays on an average in taxes two pounds eight shillings and sixpence per annum from the day of his (or her) birth; and, if the expense of collection be added, he pays two pounds eleven shillings and sixpence; consequently, at the end of fifty years he has paid one hundred and twenty-eight pounds fifteen shillings; and at sixty one hundred and fifty-four pounds ten shillings. Converting, therefore, his (or her) individual tax in a tontine, the money he shall receive after fifty years is but little more than the legal interest of the net money he has paid; the rest is made up from those whose circumstances do not require them to draw such support, and the capital in both cases defrays the expenses of government. It is on this ground that I have extended the probable claims to one-third of the number of aged persons in the nation.—Is it, then, better that the lives of one hundred and forty thousand aged persons be rendered comfortable, or that a million a year of public money be expended on any one individual, and him often of the most worthless or insignificant character? Let reason and justice, let honour and humanity, let even hypocrisy, sycophancy and Mr. Burke, let George, let Louis, Leopold, Frederic, Catherine, Cornwallis, or Tippoo Saib, answer the question.*35
This support, as mentioned before, is not a charity but a right. Every person in England, both men and women, pays an average of two pounds eight shillings and sixpence in taxes each year from the day they are born. If you include the cost of collecting those taxes, it adds up to two pounds eleven shillings and sixpence; therefore, after fifty years, a person has paid one hundred and twenty-eight pounds fifteen shillings, and by sixty, that amount is one hundred and fifty-four pounds ten shillings. If we treat their individual tax like a tontine, the amount they would get after fifty years is only slightly more than the legal interest on the net money they have contributed; the rest comes from those who don’t need to draw that support, and the capital in both cases covers government expenses. This is why I have estimated the likely claims to be one-third of the number of elderly people in the country. Is it better for one hundred and forty thousand elderly people to have a comfortable life, or for a million pounds a year of public money to be spent on a single individual, often someone who is completely unworthy or insignificant? Let reason and justice, let honor and humanity, let even hypocrisy, sycophancy, and Mr. Burke, let George, Louis, Leopold, Frederic, Catherine, Cornwallis, or Tippoo Saib answer this question.*35
The sum thus remitted to the poor will be,
The total sent to the needy will be,
To250,000 poor families, with 630,000 children £2,520,000 To 140,000 elderly people £1,120,000 ————— £3,640,000
There will then remain three hundred and sixty thousand pounds out of the four millions, part of which may be applied as follows:—
There will then be three hundred and sixty thousand pounds left out of the four million, some of which can be used as follows:—
After all the above cases are provided for there will still be a number of families who, though not properly of the class of poor, yet find it difficult to give education to their children; and such children, under such a case, would be in a worse condition than if their parents were actually poor. A nation under a well-regulated government should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
After all the cases mentioned, there will still be some families who, while not technically part of the poor class, struggle to afford education for their children. In such situations, those children would be worse off than if their parents were actually poor. A nation with a well-organized government should allow no one to go without education. Only monarchical and aristocratic governments need ignorance to maintain their power.
Suppose, then, four hundred thousand children to be in this condition, which is a greater number than ought to be supposed after the provisions already made, the method will be:
Suppose there are four hundred thousand children in this situation, which is more than should be expected given the measures already in place, the approach will be:
To allow for each of those children ten shillings a year for the expense of schooling for six years each, which will give them six months schooling each year, and half a crown a year for paper and spelling books.
To provide each of those children ten shillings a year for school expenses for six years, which will give them six months of schooling each year, and half a crown a year for paper and spelling books.
There will then remain one hundred and ten thousand pounds.
There will then be one hundred and ten thousand pounds left.
Notwithstanding the great modes of relief which the best instituted and best principled government may devise, there will be a number of smaller cases, which it is good policy as well as beneficence in a nation to consider.
Despite the excellent ways of providing relief that a well-structured and principled government may come up with, there will still be numerous smaller cases that are important for a nation to address both for good policy and for the sake of kindness.
Were twenty shillings to be given immediately on the birth of a child, to every woman who should make the demand, and none will make it whose circumstances do not require it, it might relieve a great deal of instant distress.
If twenty shillings were given right away when a child is born to any woman who asks for it, and only those who really need it would ask, it could help relieve a lot of immediate hardship.
There are about two hundred thousand births yearly in England; and if claimed by one fourth,
There are around two hundred thousand births each year in England; and if one fourth of them are claimed,
The amount would be £50,000
And twenty shillings to every new-married couple who should claim in like manner. This would not exceed the sum of L20,000.
And twenty shillings to every newly married couple who would claim it in the same way. This wouldn't go over the total of £20,000.
Also twenty thousand pounds to be appropriated to defray the funeral expenses of persons, who, travelling for work, may die at a distance from their friends. By relieving parishes from this charge, the sick stranger will be better treated.
Also, twenty thousand pounds will be allocated to cover the funeral expenses of individuals who die away from home while traveling for work. By relieving local parishes of this cost, sick travelers will receive better care.
I shall finish this part of the subject with a plan adapted to the particular condition of a metropolis, such as London.
I will wrap up this part of the topic with a plan tailored to the specific situation of a city like London.
Cases are continually occurring in a metropolis, different from those which occur in the country, and for which a different, or rather an additional, mode of relief is necessary. In the country, even in large towns, people have a knowledge of each other, and distress never rises to that extreme height it sometimes does in a metropolis. There is no such thing in the country as persons, in the literal sense of the word, starved to death, or dying with cold from the want of a lodging. Yet such cases, and others equally as miserable, happen in London.
Cases continually arise in a city that are different from those in rural areas, and they require a different, or rather an additional, way of providing help. In the countryside, even in large towns, people know one another, and hardship rarely reaches the extreme levels it sometimes does in a city. There is no reality in rural areas where people, in the literal sense, starve to death or die from the cold due to lack of housing. Yet, such situations, along with others just as tragic, occur in London.
Many a youth comes up to London full of expectations, and with little or no money, and unless he get immediate employment he is already half undone; and boys bred up in London without any means of a livelihood, and as it often happens of dissolute parents, are in a still worse condition; and servants long out of place are not much better off. In short, a world of little cases is continually arising, which busy or affluent life knows not of, to open the first door to distress. Hunger is not among the postponable wants, and a day, even a few hours, in such a condition is often the crisis of a life of ruin.
Many young people arrive in London filled with hopes and dreams, often with little or no money. If they don't find a job right away, they are already at a disadvantage. Boys raised in London without any means to support themselves, often from troubled families, are in an even worse situation. And those who have been unemployed for a long time aren't much better off either. In short, countless small issues keep popping up that those living busy or wealthy lives don't realize, and they can lead to serious trouble. Hunger can't be ignored, and spending even a day, or just a few hours, in that state can be the turning point towards a life of despair.
These circumstances which are the general cause of the little thefts and pilferings that lead to greater, may be prevented. There yet remain twenty thousand pounds out of the four millions of surplus taxes, which with another fund hereafter to be mentioned, amounting to about twenty thousand pounds more, cannot be better applied than to this purpose. The plan will then be:
These circumstances, which generally cause small thefts and petty crimes that escalate into bigger issues, can be prevented. There are still twenty thousand pounds left from the four million in surplus taxes, and with another fund, which will be mentioned later, amounting to about twenty thousand pounds more, this money can be better used for this purpose. The plan will then be:
First, To erect two or more buildings, or take some already erected, capable of containing at least six thousand persons, and to have in each of these places as many kinds of employment as can be contrived, so that every person who shall come may find something which he or she can do.
First, to build two or more buildings, or use some that are already built, that can hold at least six thousand people, and to ensure that each of these locations offers a variety of jobs so that everyone who comes can find something they can do.
Secondly, To receive all who shall come, without enquiring who or what they are. The only condition to be, that for so much, or so many hours' work, each person shall receive so many meals of wholesome food, and a warm lodging, at least as good as a barrack. That a certain portion of what each person's work shall be worth shall be reserved, and given to him or her, on their going away; and that each person shall stay as long or as short a time, or come as often as he choose, on these conditions.
Secondly, the goal is to welcome everyone who arrives, without asking about who they are or what their background is. The only requirement is that for a certain amount of work, each person will receive a set number of meals that are healthy and a warm place to sleep, at least as good as a barrack. A portion of what each person's work is valued at will be set aside and given to them when they leave. Each person can stay for as long or as short a time as they like, or come back as often as they choose, under these conditions.
If each person stayed three months, it would assist by rotation twenty-four thousand persons annually, though the real number, at all times, would be but six thousand. By establishing an asylum of this kind, such persons to whom temporary distresses occur, would have an opportunity to recruit themselves, and be enabled to look out for better employment.
If each person stayed for three months, it would help rotate twenty-four thousand people each year, even though the actual number at any given time would only be six thousand. By setting up this type of shelter, people experiencing temporary hardships would have a chance to recover and find better job opportunities.
Allowing that their labour paid but one half the expense of supporting them, after reserving a portion of their earnings for themselves, the sum of forty thousand pounds additional would defray all other charges for even a greater number than six thousand.
Considering that their work covers only half the cost of supporting them, after saving some of their earnings for themselves, an extra sum of forty thousand pounds would cover all other expenses for even more than six thousand people.
The fund very properly convertible to this purpose, in addition to the twenty thousand pounds, remaining of the former fund, will be the produce of the tax upon coals, so iniquitously and wantonly applied to the support of the Duke of Richmond. It is horrid that any man, more especially at the price coals now are, should live on the distresses of a community; and any government permitting such an abuse, deserves to be dismissed. This fund is said to be about twenty thousand pounds per annum.
The fund is rightfully being set up for this purpose, along with the remaining twenty thousand pounds from the previous fund, will come from the tax on coal, which is unfairly and recklessly used to support the Duke of Richmond. It's terrible that anyone, especially with the current price of coal, should profit from the suffering of the community; and any government that allows such exploitation deserves to be removed. This fund is said to amount to about twenty thousand pounds a year.
I shall now conclude this plan with enumerating the several particulars, and then proceed to other matters.
I will now wrap up this plan by listing the various details and then move on to other topics.
The enumeration is as follows:—
The list is as follows:—
First, Abolition of two millions poor-rates.
First, the elimination of two million poor rates.
Secondly, Provision for two hundred and fifty thousand poor families.
Secondly, support for two hundred fifty thousand low-income families.
Thirdly, Education for one million and thirty thousand children.
Thirdly, education for one million and thirty thousand kids.
Fourthly, Comfortable provision for one hundred and forty thousand aged persons.
Fourth, comfortable arrangements for one hundred forty thousand elderly people.
Fifthly, Donation of twenty shillings each for fifty thousand births.
Fifthly, a donation of twenty shillings each for fifty thousand births.
Sixthly, Donation of twenty shillings each for twenty thousand marriages.
Sixthly, a donation of twenty shillings each for twenty thousand marriages.
Seventhly, Allowance of twenty thousand pounds for the funeral expenses of persons travelling for work, and dying at a distance from their friends.
Seventhly, an allowance of twenty thousand pounds for the funeral expenses of people who travel for work and die away from their loved ones.
Eighthly, Employment, at all times, for the casual poor in the cities of London and Westminster.
Eighthly, employment at all times for the casual poor in the cities of London and Westminster.
By the operation of this plan, the poor laws, those instruments of civil torture, will be superseded, and the wasteful expense of litigation prevented. The hearts of the humane will not be shocked by ragged and hungry children, and persons of seventy and eighty years of age, begging for bread. The dying poor will not be dragged from place to place to breathe their last, as a reprisal of parish upon parish. Widows will have a maintenance for their children, and not be carted away, on the death of their husbands, like culprits and criminals; and children will no longer be considered as increasing the distresses of their parents. The haunts of the wretched will be known, because it will be to their advantage; and the number of petty crimes, the offspring of distress and poverty, will be lessened. The poor, as well as the rich, will then be interested in the support of government, and the cause and apprehension of riots and tumults will cease.—Ye who sit in ease, and solace yourselves in plenty, and such there are in Turkey and Russia, as well as in England, and who say to yourselves, "Are we not well off?" have ye thought of these things? When ye do, ye will cease to speak and feel for yourselves alone.
Through this plan, the outdated poor laws, which have caused so much suffering, will be replaced, and we'll avoid the costly legal battles. People won’t have to see ragged and hungry children, or elderly adults in their seventies and eighties begging for food. The dying won’t be moved from place to place just to make a point between parishes. Widows will get support for their children instead of being treated like criminals after their husbands die, and children won’t be seen as burdens to their parents anymore. The places where the destitute gather will be recognized, as it will benefit them, and the number of petty crimes born from hardship will decrease. Both the poor and the rich will have a stake in supporting the government, and the fear of riots and unrest will diminish. —You who live comfortably, enjoying your abundance, as people do in Turkey and Russia as well as in England, and who think, "Aren't we doing well?" have you considered these issues? When you do, you'll stop thinking only of yourselves.
The plan is easy in practice. It does not embarrass trade by a sudden interruption in the order of taxes, but effects the relief by changing the application of them; and the money necessary for the purpose can be drawn from the excise collections, which are made eight times a year in every market town in England.
The plan is simple to implement. It doesn’t disrupt trade with a sudden change in tax order but provides relief by altering how they’re applied. The funds needed for this can be sourced from the excise collections, which are collected eight times a year in every market town in England.
Having now arranged and concluded this subject, I proceed to the next.
Now that I've wrapped up this topic, I’ll move on to the next one.
Taking the present current expenses at seven millions and an half, which is the least amount they are now at, there will remain (after the sum of one million and an half be taken for the new current expenses and four millions for the before-mentioned service) the sum of two millions; part of which to be applied as follows:
Taking the current expenses at seven and a half million, which is the lowest amount they are at now, there will be two million left after subtracting one and a half million for the new current expenses and four million for the previously mentioned service; part of which will be allocated as follows:
Though fleets and armies, by an alliance with France, will, in a great measure, become useless, yet the persons who have devoted themselves to those services, and have thereby unfitted themselves for other lines of life, are not to be sufferers by the means that make others happy. They are a different description of men from those who form or hang about a court.
Although fleets and armies may become largely useless due to an alliance with France, the individuals who have dedicated themselves to those services, and have thus made themselves unsuitable for other careers, should not be made to suffer while others benefit. They are different types of people from those who are part of or linger around a court.
A part of the army will remain, at least for some years, and also of the navy, for which a provision is already made in the former part of this plan of one million, which is almost half a million more than the peace establishment of the army and navy in the prodigal times of Charles the Second.
A portion of the army will stay for several years, and so will the navy, for which there's already a budget set in the earlier section of this plan for one million, which is nearly half a million more than the peacetime forces of the army and navy during the extravagant era of Charles the Second.
Suppose, then, fifteen thousand soldiers to be disbanded, and that an allowance be made to each of three shillings a week during life, clear of all deductions, to be paid in the same manner as the Chelsea College pensioners are paid, and for them to return to their trades and their friends; and also that an addition of fifteen thousand sixpences per week be made to the pay of the soldiers who shall remain; the annual expenses will be:
Suppose then that we disband fifteen thousand soldiers and provide each of them with a weekly allowance of three shillings for life, free of all deductions, paid in the same way that the Chelsea College pensioners receive their pensions. They would return to their trades and reunite with their friends. Additionally, let’s say we increase the pay of the remaining soldiers by fifteen thousand sixpences per week; the annual expenses will be:
```html To the pay of fifteen thousand disbanded soldiers at three shillings per week £117,000 Additional pay to the remaining soldiers £19,500 Assume the pay for the officers of the disbanded corps is the same amount as the sum allowed to the men £117,000 ———— £253,500 To avoid large estimations, include the same sum for the disbanded navy as for the army, and the same pay increase £253,500 ———— Total £507,000 ```
Every year some part of this sum of half a million (I omit the odd seven thousand pounds for the purpose of keeping the account unembarrassed) will fall in, and the whole of it in time, as it is on the ground of life annuities, except the increased pay of twenty-nine thousand pounds. As it falls in, part of the taxes may be taken off; and as, for instance, when thirty thousand pounds fall in, the duty on hops may be wholly taken off; and as other parts fall in, the duties on candles and soap may be lessened, till at last they will totally cease. There now remains at least one million and a half of surplus taxes.
Every year, some part of this total amount of half a million (I’ll leave out the odd seven thousand pounds to keep things simple) will come in, and eventually the whole amount will, since it’s based on life annuities, except for the additional pay of twenty-nine thousand pounds. As it comes in, part of the taxes can be reduced; for example, when thirty thousand pounds comes in, the tax on hops might be completely eliminated; and as other amounts come in, the taxes on candles and soap could be reduced until they eventually stop entirely. There’s still at least one and a half million in excess taxes left.
The tax on houses and windows is one of those direct taxes, which, like the poor-rates, is not confounded with trade; and, when taken off, the relief will be instantly felt. This tax falls heavy on the middle class of people. The amount of this tax, by the returns of 1788, was:
The tax on houses and windows is one of those direct taxes that, like welfare contributions, isn't mixed up with business; and when it's removed, the relief will be immediately noticeable. This tax burdens the middle class significantly. According to the returns from 1788, the amount of this tax was:
Houses and windows: L s. d. By the act of 1766 385,459 11 7 By the act of 1779 130,739 14 5 1/2 ——————————— Total 516,199 6 0 1/2
If this tax be struck off, there will then remain about one million of surplus taxes; and as it is always proper to keep a sum in reserve, for incidental matters, it may be best not to extend reductions further in the first instance, but to consider what may be accomplished by other modes of reform.
If this tax is removed, there will be about one million in surplus taxes left; and since it’s always wise to keep some money set aside for unexpected expenses, it might be better not to make any further cuts right away, but to think about what other kinds of reforms might be possible.
Among the taxes most heavily felt is the commutation tax. I shall therefore offer a plan for its abolition, by substituting another in its place, which will effect three objects at once: 1, that of removing the burthen to where it can best be borne; 2, restoring justice among families by a distribution of property; 3, extirpating the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, which is one of the principal sources of corruption at elections. The amount of commutation tax by the returns of 1788, was L771,657.
Among the taxes that hit hardest is the commutation tax. I will therefore propose a plan to abolish it by replacing it with something else that will achieve three goals at once: 1. moving the burden to where it can be better handled; 2. restoring fairness among families through property distribution; 3. eliminating the excessive influence caused by the unfair law of primogeniture, which is one of the main sources of corruption in elections. The amount of commutation tax according to the returns of 1788 was £771,657.
When taxes are proposed, the country is amused by the plausible language of taxing luxuries. One thing is called a luxury at one time, and something else at another; but the real luxury does not consist in the article, but in the means of procuring it, and this is always kept out of sight.
When taxes are suggested, people find it funny how they talk about taxing luxuries. Something is considered a luxury at one moment, and then something else later on; but the true luxury isn't in the item itself, but in the ability to afford it, which is always hidden from view.
I know not why any plant or herb of the field should be a greater luxury in one country than another; but an overgrown estate in either is a luxury at all times, and, as such, is the proper object of taxation. It is, therefore, right to take those kind tax-making gentlemen up on their own word, and argue on the principle themselves have laid down, that of taxing luxuries. If they or their champion, Mr. Burke, who, I fear, is growing out of date, like the man in armour, can prove that an estate of twenty, thirty, or forty thousand pounds a year is not a luxury, I will give up the argument.
I don't understand why any plant or herb should be considered a bigger luxury in one country than another; however, a large estate is a luxury no matter where it is, and that's definitely something we should tax. So, it's fair to hold those tax-loving gentlemen to their own standards and argue based on the principle they've established—taxing luxuries. If they, or their spokesperson, Mr. Burke, who I fear is becoming outdated like a knight in armor, can prove that an estate worth twenty, thirty, or forty thousand pounds a year isn't a luxury, I'll concede the argument.
Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest. It should pass in some other line. The richest in every nation have poor relations, and those often very near in consanguinity.
Acknowledging that an annual amount, let’s say one thousand pounds, is necessary or adequate for supporting a family, we can conclude that any amount over that is more of a luxury. The second thousand is a luxury, the third is even more so, and as we continue this way, we'll eventually reach a sum that could reasonably be considered an excessive luxury. It would be unwise to establish limits on property gained through hard work, so it's appropriate to set the prohibition beyond what hard work can realistically achieve. However, there should be a cap on property or its accumulation through inheritance. It should be passed down in a different way. The wealthiest individuals in every nation often have poor relatives, and those relatives are frequently very closely related.
The following table of progressive taxation is constructed on the above principles, and as a substitute for the commutation tax. It will reach the point of prohibition by a regular operation, and thereby supersede the aristocratical law of primogeniture.
The following table of progressive taxation is built on the principles mentioned above and serves as an alternative to the commutation tax. It will effectively lead to prohibition through a systematic approach, thus replacing the aristocratic law of primogeniture.
TABLE I A tax on all estates with a clear yearly value of £50, after deducting the land tax, and up To £500 3p per pound From £500 to £1,000 6p On the second thousand 9p On the third " £1.00 On the fourth " £1.60 On the fifth " £2.00 On the sixth " £3.00 On the seventh " £4.00 On the eighth " £5.00 On the ninth " 6s 0d per pound On the tenth " £7.00 On the eleventh " £8.00 On the twelfth " £9.00 On the thirteenth " £10.00 On the fourteenth " £11.00 On the fifteenth " £12.00 On the sixteenth " £13.00 On the seventeenth " £14.00 On the eighteenth " £15.00 On the nineteenth " £16.00 On the twentieth " £17.00 On the twenty-first " £18.00 On the twenty-second " £19.00 On the twenty-third " £20.00
The foregoing table shows the progression per pound on every progressive thousand. The following table shows the amount of the tax on every thousand separately, and in the last column the total amount of all the separate sums collected.
The table above shows the increase per pound for each thousand. The next table details the tax amount for each thousand individually, and the last column shows the total of all the individual amounts collected.
TABLE II An estate of: £50 per year at 3d per pound pays £0 12 6 £100 " " " " £1 5 0 £200 " " " " £2 10 0 £300 " " " " £3 15 0 £400 " " " " £5 0 0 £500 " " " " £7 5 0
After L500, the tax of 6d. per pound takes place on the second L500; consequently an estate of L1,000 per annum pays L2l, 15s., and so on.
After £500, the tax of 6d. per pound applies to the second £500; consequently, an estate of £1,000 per year pays £21.15, and so on.
``` Total amount For the 1st L500 at 0s 3d per pound L7 5s 2nd " 0 6 14 10 L21 15s 2nd 1000 at 0 9 37 11 59 5 3rd " 1 0 50 0 109 5 (Total amount) 4th 1000 at 1s 6d per pound L75 0s L184 5s 5th " 2 0 100 0 284 5 6th " 3 0 150 0 434 5 7th " 4 0 200 0 634 5 8th " 5 0 250 0 880 5 9th " 6 0 300 0 1100 5 10th " 7 0 350 0 1530 5 11th " 8 0 400 0 1930 5 12th " 9 0 450 0 2380 5 13th " 10 0 500 0 2880 5 14th " 11 0 550 0 3430 5 15th " 12 0 600 0 4030 5 16th " 13 0 650 0 4680 5 17th " 14 0 700 0 5380 5 18th " 15 0 750 0 6130 5 19th " 16 0 800 0 6930 5 20th " 17 0 850 0 7780 5 21st " 18 0 900 0 8680 5 (Total amount) 22nd 1000 at 19s 0d per pound L950 0s L9630 5s 23rd " 20 0 1000 0 10630 5 ```
At the twenty-third thousand the tax becomes 20s. in the pound, and consequently every thousand beyond that sum can produce no profit but by dividing the estate. Yet formidable as this tax appears, it will not, I believe, produce so much as the commutation tax; should it produce more, it ought to be lowered to that amount upon estates under two or three thousand a year.
At the twenty-third thousand, the tax is 20s. per pound, and as a result, every thousand beyond that amount can't generate any profit unless the estate is divided. However, despite how daunting this tax seems, I don't think it will generate as much as the commutation tax; if it does generate more, it should be reduced to that level for estates earning under two or three thousand a year.
On small and middling estates it is lighter (as it is intended to be) than the commutation tax. It is not till after seven or eight thousand a year that it begins to be heavy. The object is not so much the produce of the tax as the justice of the measure. The aristocracy has screened itself too much, and this serves to restore a part of the lost equilibrium.
On small and medium estates, it’s less burdensome (as it’s meant to be) than the commutation tax. It doesn’t start to feel heavy until you reach around seven or eight thousand a year. The goal isn’t just to raise money from the tax, but to make the measure fair. The aristocracy has protected itself too much, and this helps to bring back some of the balance that’s been lost.
As an instance of its screening itself, it is only necessary to look back to the first establishment of the excise laws, at what is called the Restoration, or the coming of Charles the Second. The aristocratical interest then in power, commuted the feudal services itself was under, by laying a tax on beer brewed for sale; that is, they compounded with Charles for an exemption from those services for themselves and their heirs, by a tax to be paid by other people. The aristocracy do not purchase beer brewed for sale, but brew their own beer free of the duty, and if any commutation at that time were necessary, it ought to have been at the expense of those for whom the exemptions from those services were intended;*37 instead of which, it was thrown on an entirely different class of men.
As an example of its own filtering process, we just need to look back at the first establishment of the excise laws during what’s known as the Restoration, or the arrival of Charles the Second. The aristocratic interest in power at that time replaced the feudal obligations it was subject to by imposing a tax on beer sold commercially; that is, they negotiated with Charles for a break from those obligations for themselves and their descendants, in exchange for a tax that other people would pay. The aristocracy doesn’t buy commercially brewed beer; they brew their own without the tax. If any kind of compensation was needed back then, it should have come from those who were meant to benefit from the exemptions, instead of being placed on a completely different group of people.*37
But the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to extirpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principal sources of corruption at elections.
But the main goal of this progressive tax (besides making taxes fairer) is, as mentioned earlier, to eliminate the excessive influence caused by the outdated law of primogeniture, which is one of the key sources of corruption in elections.
It would be attended with no good consequences to enquire how such vast estates as thirty, forty, or fifty thousand a year could commence, and that at a time when commerce and manufactures were not in a state to admit of such acquisitions. Let it be sufficient to remedy the evil by putting them in a condition of descending again to the community by the quiet means of apportioning them among all the heirs and heiresses of those families. This will be the more necessary, because hitherto the aristocracy have quartered their younger children and connections upon the public in useless posts, places and offices, which when abolished will leave them destitute, unless the law of primogeniture be also abolished or superseded.
It wouldn’t be helpful to question how massive estates worth thirty, forty, or fifty thousand a year could start, especially when commerce and manufacturing weren't in a position to support such wealth. Instead, let’s just focus on solving the problem by redistributing them among all the heirs and heiresses of those families. This is especially important because, so far, the aristocracy has placed their younger children and relatives into unproductive public positions and offices, which, if removed, will leave them without support unless the law of primogeniture is also changed or replaced.
A progressive tax will, in a great measure, effect this object, and that as a matter of interest to the parties most immediately concerned, as will be seen by the following table; which shows the net produce upon every estate, after subtracting the tax. By this it will appear that after an estate exceeds thirteen or fourteen thousand a year, the remainder produces but little profit to the holder, and consequently, Will pass either to the younger children, or to other kindred.
A progressive tax will largely achieve this goal, which is important for those most directly affected, as shown in the following table; it displays the net income from each estate after the tax is deducted. It will become clear that once an estate exceeds thirteen or fourteen thousand a year, the remaining income yields very little profit for the owner, and as a result, it will likely be passed on to younger children or other relatives.
TABLE III Showing the net income of each estate from one thousand to twenty-three thousand pounds a year No of thousand Total tax per year subtracted Net income L1000 L21 L979 2000 59 1941 3000 109 2891 4000 184 3816 5000 284 4716 6000 434 5566 7000 634 6366 8000 880 7120 9000 1100 7900 10,000 1530 8470 11,000 1930 9070 12,000 2380 9620 13,000 2880 10,120 (No of thousand (Total tax per year) subtracted) (Net income) 14,000 3430 10,570 15,000 4030 10,970 16,000 4680 11,320 17,000 5380 11,620 18,000 6130 11,870 19,000 6930 12,170 20,000 7780 12,220 21,000 8680 12,320 22,000 9630 12,370 23,000 10,630 12,370
N.B. The odd shillings are dropped in this table.
N.B. The odd shillings are excluded from this table.
According to this table, an estate cannot produce more than L12,370 clear of the land tax and the progressive tax, and therefore the dividing such estates will follow as a matter of family interest. An estate of L23,000 a year, divided into five estates of four thousand each and one of three, will be charged only L1,129 which is but five per cent., but if held by one possessor, will be charged L10,630.
According to this table, an estate can't produce more than L12,370 after land tax and the progressive tax. As a result, dividing such estates will be a matter of family interest. An estate worth L23,000 a year, split into five estates of four thousand each and one of three, will only be taxed L1,129, which is just five percent. However, if held by a single owner, the tax will be L10,630.
Although an enquiry into the origin of those estates be unnecessary, the continuation of them in their present state is another subject. It is a matter of national concern. As hereditary estates, the law has created the evil, and it ought also to provide the remedy. Primogeniture ought to be abolished, not only because it is unnatural and unjust, but because the country suffers by its operation. By cutting off (as before observed) the younger children from their proper portion of inheritance, the public is loaded with the expense of maintaining them; and the freedom of elections violated by the overbearing influence which this unjust monopoly of family property produces. Nor is this all. It occasions a waste of national property. A considerable part of the land of the country is rendered unproductive, by the great extent of parks and chases which this law serves to keep up, and this at a time when the annual production of grain is not equal to the national consumption.*38—In short, the evils of the aristocratical system are so great and numerous, so inconsistent with every thing that is just, wise, natural, and beneficent, that when they are considered, there ought not to be a doubt that many, who are now classed under that description, will wish to see such a system abolished.
Although an inquiry into the origin of those estates is unnecessary, maintaining them in their current state is another issue. It's a matter of national concern. As hereditary estates, the law has created the problem, and it should also provide the solution. Primogeniture should be abolished, not only because it is unnatural and unfair, but also because the country suffers because of it. By cutting off (as previously mentioned) the younger children from their rightful share of inheritance, the public ends up bearing the cost of supporting them; and the freedom of elections is undermined by the overwhelming influence this unjust monopoly of family property creates. And that’s not all. It leads to a waste of national resources. A significant portion of the country’s land becomes unproductive due to the extensive parks and hunting grounds that this law maintains, especially when the annual grain production does not meet the national demand.*38—In summary, the problems of the aristocratic system are so vast and numerous, so at odds with everything that is fair, wise, natural, and beneficial, that upon reflection, it’s hard to believe that many who currently fall into that category wouldn’t want to see such a system ended.
What pleasure can they derive from contemplating the exposed condition, and almost certain beggary of their younger offspring? Every aristocratical family has an appendage of family beggars hanging round it, which in a few ages, or a few generations, are shook off, and console themselves with telling their tale in almshouses, workhouses, and prisons. This is the natural consequence of aristocracy. The peer and the beggar are often of the same family. One extreme produces the other: to make one rich many must be made poor; neither can the system be supported by other means.
What pleasure can they get from thinking about the impoverished state and almost certain destitution of their younger relatives? Every aristocratic family has a group of family beggars hanging around it, who, after a few centuries or generations, are cast off and find solace in sharing their stories in almshouses, workhouses, and prisons. This is the natural outcome of aristocracy. The noble and the beggar are often from the same family. One extreme creates the other: to make one wealthy, many must be made poor; the system can't be upheld by any other means.
There are two classes of people to whom the laws of England are particularly hostile, and those the most helpless; younger children, and the poor. Of the former I have just spoken; of the latter I shall mention one instance out of the many that might be produced, and with which I shall close this subject.
There are two groups of people that the laws of England are especially against, and they are the most vulnerable: young children and the poor. I have just addressed the first group; now, I will share one example from the many that could be mentioned about the second, and then I will wrap up this topic.
Several laws are in existence for regulating and limiting work-men's wages. Why not leave them as free to make their own bargains, as the law-makers are to let their farms and houses? Personal labour is all the property they have. Why is that little, and the little freedom they enjoy, to be infringed? But the injustice will appear stronger, if we consider the operation and effect of such laws. When wages are fixed by what is called a law, the legal wages remain stationary, while every thing else is in progression; and as those who make that law still continue to lay on new taxes by other laws, they increase the expense of living by one law, and take away the means by another.
Several laws exist that regulate and limit workers' wages. Why not allow them the same freedom to negotiate their own deals as lawmakers have with their farms and homes? Personal labor is all they possess. Why should that limited freedom be restricted? The injustice becomes even clearer when we look at how these laws operate and their effects. When wages are set by what's called a law, the legal wages stay the same while everything else rises; and since those who create these laws continue to impose new taxes through other laws, they raise the cost of living with one law while taking away people's ability to afford it with another.
But if these gentlemen law-makers and tax-makers thought it right to limit the poor pittance which personal labour can produce, and on which a whole family is to be supported, they certainly must feel themselves happily indulged in a limitation on their own part, of not less than twelve thousand a-year, and that of property they never acquired (nor probably any of their ancestors), and of which they have made never acquire so ill a use.
But if these lawmakers and tax creators believed it was okay to restrict the small amount of money that personal labor can earn, which is what a whole family depends on, they must surely feel fortunate with a limitation on their own income of at least twelve thousand a year, all from property they never earned (and likely neither did their ancestors), and of which they have made such a poor use.
Having now finished this subject, I shall bring the several particulars into one view, and then proceed to other matters.
Having now finished this topic, I will put all the details together and then move on to other things.
The first eight articles, mentioned earlier, are;
The first eight articles mentioned earlier are:
1. Abolition of two millions poor-rates.
1. Elimination of two million poor relief payments.
2. Provision for two hundred and fifty-two thousand poor families, at the rate of four pounds per head for each child under fourteen years of age; which, with the addition of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, provides also education for one million and thirty thousand children.
2. Support for two hundred and fifty-two thousand low-income families, at a rate of four pounds for each child under fourteen years old; this, along with an additional two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, also funds education for one million and thirty thousand children.
3. Annuity of six pounds (per annum) each for all poor persons, decayed tradesmen, and others (supposed seventy thousand) of the age of fifty years, and until sixty.
3. An annuity of six pounds per year for all poor people, retired tradespeople, and others (estimated to be seventy thousand) who are fifty years old and up to sixty.
4. Annuity of ten pounds each for life for all poor persons, decayed tradesmen, and others (supposed seventy thousand) of the age of sixty years.
4. An annuity of ten pounds each for life for all poor people, struggling tradesmen, and others (estimated at seventy thousand) who are sixty years old.
5. Donation of twenty shillings each for fifty thousand births.
5. Donation of twenty shillings each for fifty thousand births.
6. Donation of twenty shillings each for twenty thousand marriages.
6. Donate twenty shillings each for twenty thousand weddings.
7. Allowance of twenty thousand pounds for the funeral expenses of persons travelling for work, and dying at a distance from their friends.
7. An allowance of twenty thousand pounds for the funeral expenses of individuals who die while traveling for work and are away from their loved ones.
8. Employment at all times for the casual poor in the cities of London and Westminster.
8. Job opportunities at all times for the temporary needy in the cities of London and Westminster.
Second Enumeration
Second Count
9. Abolition of the tax on houses and windows.
9. Elimination of the tax on homes and windows.
10. Allowance of three shillings per week for life to fifteen thousand disbanded soldiers, and a proportionate allowance to the officers of the disbanded corps.
10. A weekly allowance of three shillings for life will be given to fifteen thousand disbanded soldiers, along with a proportional allowance for the officers of the disbanded corps.
11. Increase of pay to the remaining soldiers of L19,500 annually.
11. Raise the pay for the remaining soldiers to £19,500 a year.
12. The same allowance to the disbanded navy, and the same increase of pay, as to the army.
12. The same benefits to the disbanded navy, and the same pay raise, as to the army.
13. Abolition of the commutation tax.
13. Elimination of the commutation tax.
14. Plan of a progressive tax, operating to extirpate the unjust and unnatural law of primogeniture, and the vicious influence of the aristocratical system.*39
14. Plan for a progressive tax that aims to eliminate the unfair and unnatural law of primogeniture, along with the harmful effects of the aristocratic system.*39
There yet remains, as already stated, one million of surplus taxes. Some part of this will be required for circumstances that do not immediately present themselves, and such part as shall not be wanted, will admit of a further reduction of taxes equal to that amount.
There is still, as mentioned earlier, a million in surplus taxes. Some of this will be needed for unexpected situations, and any part that isn’t needed can lead to a further tax reduction equal to that amount.
Among the claims that justice requires to be made, the condition of the inferior revenue-officers will merit attention. It is a reproach to any government to waste such an immensity of revenue in sinecures and nominal and unnecessary places and officers, and not allow even a decent livelihood to those on whom the labour falls. The salary of the inferior officers of the revenue has stood at the petty pittance of less than fifty pounds a year for upwards of one hundred years. It ought to be seventy. About one hundred and twenty thousand pounds applied to this purpose, will put all those salaries in a decent condition.
Among the claims that justice demands to be addressed, the situation of lower revenue officers needs attention. It's a shame for any government to waste such a vast amount of revenue on useless positions and unnecessary titles while not providing a reasonable livelihood for those doing the actual work. The salaries of these lower revenue officers have been a measly amount of less than fifty pounds a year for over a hundred years. They should be set at seventy. About one hundred and twenty thousand pounds allocated for this purpose would improve all those salaries to a fair level.
This was proposed to be done almost twenty years ago, but the treasury-board then in being, startled at it, as it might lead to similar expectations from the army and navy; and the event was, that the King, or somebody for him, applied to parliament to have his own salary raised an hundred thousand pounds a year, which being done, every thing else was laid aside.
This was suggested nearly twenty years ago, but the treasury board at the time was alarmed by the idea, fearing it might lead to similar demands from the army and navy. As a result, the King, or someone on his behalf, asked Parliament to increase his salary by a hundred thousand pounds a year, and once that was granted, everything else was put on hold.
With respect to another class of men, the inferior clergy, I forbear to enlarge on their condition; but all partialities and prejudices for, or against, different modes and forms of religion aside, common justice will determine, whether there ought to be an income of twenty or thirty pounds a year to one man, and of ten thousand to another. I speak on this subject with the more freedom, because I am known not to be a Presbyterian; and therefore the cant cry of court sycophants, about church and meeting, kept up to amuse and bewilder the nation, cannot be raised against me.
Regarding another group of people, the lower clergy, I won't go into detail about their situation; but setting aside any bias or opinions for or against various religions, basic fairness will decide whether one person should earn twenty or thirty pounds a year while another receives ten thousand. I discuss this topic more openly because I'm recognized as not being a Presbyterian; therefore, the usual noise from sycophants about church and gatherings meant to distract and confuse the public can't be used against me.
Ye simple men on both sides the question, do you not see through this courtly craft? If ye can be kept disputing and wrangling about church and meeting, ye just answer the purpose of every courtier, who lives the while on the spoils of the taxes, and laughs at your credulity. Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that instructs him to be bad.
You simple people on both sides of the issue, don't you see through this clever deception? If you can be kept arguing and fighting about church and gatherings, you’re just serving the interests of every courtier, who thrives on the spoils of taxes and laughs at your gullibility. Every religion is good that teaches people to be good; and I don’t know of any that teaches them to be bad.
All the before-mentioned calculations suppose only sixteen millions and an half of taxes paid into the exchequer, after the expense of collection and drawbacks at the custom-house and excise-office are deducted; whereas the sum paid into the exchequer is very nearly, if not quite, seventeen millions. The taxes raised in Scotland and Ireland are expended in those countries, and therefore their savings will come out of their own taxes; but if any part be paid into the English exchequer, it might be remitted. This will not make one hundred thousand pounds a year difference.
All the calculations mentioned earlier assume that only sixteen and a half million in taxes are paid into the treasury after deducting collection costs and refunds at the customs and excise offices. However, the actual amount paid into the treasury is very close to, if not exactly, seventeen million. The taxes collected in Scotland and Ireland are used in those countries, so their savings will come from their own taxes. But if any part is paid into the English treasury, it could be refunded. This won't create a difference of more than one hundred thousand pounds a year.
There now remains only the national debt to be considered. In the year 1789, the interest, exclusive of the tontine, was L9,150,138. How much the capital has been reduced since that time the minister best knows. But after paying the interest, abolishing the tax on houses and windows, the commutation tax, and the poor-rates; and making all the provisions for the poor, for the education of children, the support of the aged, the disbanded part of the army and navy, and increasing the pay of the remainder, there will be a surplus of one million.
There’s only the national debt left to discuss. In 1789, the interest, not including the tontine, was £9,150,138. The minister knows best how much the capital has decreased since then. However, after covering the interest, getting rid of the tax on houses and windows, the commutation tax, and the poor rates; and making all the provisions for the poor, for children's education, for supporting the elderly, for the disbanded parts of the army and navy, and for increasing the pay of the remaining soldiers, there will be a surplus of one million.
The present scheme of paying off the national debt appears to me, speaking as an indifferent person, to be an ill-concerted, if not a fallacious job. The burthen of the national debt consists not in its being so many millions, or so many hundred millions, but in the quantity of taxes collected every year to pay the interest. If this quantity continues the same, the burthen of the national debt is the same to all intents and purposes, be the capital more or less. The only knowledge which the public can have of the reduction of the debt, must be through the reduction of taxes for paying the interest. The debt, therefore, is not reduced one farthing to the public by all the millions that have been paid; and it would require more money now to purchase up the capital, than when the scheme began.
The current plan for paying off the national debt seems to me, as someone who isn't too invested, to be poorly thought out, if not completely misleading. The burden of the national debt isn’t just about how many millions or hundreds of millions it is, but rather the amount of taxes collected each year to cover the interest. If that amount stays the same, the burden of the national debt effectively remains unchanged, no matter how much the total capital fluctuates. The only way the public can truly see a reduction in the debt is through lower taxes used to pay the interest. So, despite all the millions that have been paid, the public hasn’t seen the debt reduced by even a penny; it would actually take more money now to buy back the capital than it did when the plan first started.
Digressing for a moment at this point, to which I shall return again, I look back to the appointment of Mr. Pitt, as minister.
Digressing for a moment here, which I will come back to, I think about the appointment of Mr. Pitt as minister.
I was then in America. The war was over; and though resentment had ceased, memory was still alive.
I was in America at that time. The war was over, and while the resentment had faded, the memories still lingered.
When the news of the coalition arrived, though it was a matter of no concern to I felt it as a man. It had something in it which shocked, by publicly sporting with decency, if not with principle. It was impudence in Lord North; it was a want of firmness in Mr. Fox.
When the news about the coalition came in, even though it didn't really affect me, I felt it as a person. There was something about it that was shocking, as it openly mocked decency, if not principle. It showed Lord North's audacity and Mr. Fox's lack of resolve.
Mr. Pitt was, at that time, what may be called a maiden character in politics. So far from being hackneyed, he appeared not to be initiated into the first mysteries of court intrigue. Everything was in his favour. Resentment against the coalition served as friendship to him, and his ignorance of vice was credited for virtue. With the return of peace, commerce and prosperity would rise of itself; yet even this increase was thrown to his account.
Mr. Pitt was, at that time, what you could call a newcomer in politics. Instead of being experienced, he seemed to be completely unaware of the first secrets of court intrigue. Everything was working in his favor. People’s resentment against the coalition seemed like friendship to him, and his lack of knowledge about corruption was mistaken for virtue. With the return of peace, commerce and prosperity would naturally improve; yet even this growth was attributed to him.
When he came to the helm, the storm was over, and he had nothing to interrupt his course. It required even ingenuity to be wrong, and he succeeded. A little time showed him the same sort of man as his predecessors had been. Instead of profiting by those errors which had accumulated a burthen of taxes unparalleled in the world, he sought, I might almost say, he advertised for enemies, and provoked means to increase taxation. Aiming at something, he knew not what, he ransacked Europe and India for adventures, and abandoning the fair pretensions he began with, he became the knight-errant of modern times.
When he took charge, the storm had passed, and nothing was in his way. It took a real effort to mess things up, but he managed it. Before long, he turned out to be just like his predecessors. Rather than learning from the mistakes that had piled up an unmatched burden of taxes, he seemed to actively seek out enemies and find ways to raise taxes even more. Chasing after something he couldn't even define, he scoured Europe and India for adventures, and abandoning the noble intentions he started with, he became the modern-day knight-errant.
It is unpleasant to see character throw itself away. It is more so to see one's-self deceived. Mr. Pitt had merited nothing, but he promised much. He gave symptoms of a mind superior to the meanness and corruption of courts. His apparent candour encouraged expectations; and the public confidence, stunned, wearied, and confounded by a chaos of parties, revived and attached itself to him. But mistaking, as he has done, the disgust of the nation against the coalition, for merit in himself, he has rushed into measures which a man less supported would not have presumed to act.
It's disheartening to watch someone waste their character. It's even worse to feel deceived by oneself. Mr. Pitt hadn't earned anything, but he promised a lot. He showed signs of having a mind that was above the pettiness and corruption of the government. His seeming honesty raised hopes, and the public, exhausted and confused by a mess of political factions, found renewed confidence in him. But by misinterpreting the public's disdain for the coalition as a reflection of his own worth, he's taken actions that someone with less support wouldn't have dared to attempt.
All this seems to show that change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices, and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court government, and ever will.
All of this suggests that changing ministers doesn’t really make a difference. One leaves, another takes their place, and the same policies, issues, and excesses continue. It doesn’t matter who the minister is. The problem lies within the system. The core and structure of the government are flawed. No matter how you support it, it keeps collapsing into court politics, and it always will.
I return, as I promised, to the subject of the national debt, that offspring of the Dutch-Anglo revolution, and its handmaid the Hanover succession.
I’m coming back, as I said I would, to the topic of the national debt, that product of the Dutch-Anglo revolution, along with its companion, the Hanover succession.
But it is now too late to enquire how it began. Those to whom it is due have advanced the money; and whether it was well or ill spent, or pocketed, is not their crime. It is, however, easy to see, that as the nation proceeds in contemplating the nature and principles of government, and to understand taxes, and make comparisons between those of America, France, and England, it will be next to impossible to keep it in the same torpid state it has hitherto been. Some reform must, from the necessity of the case, soon begin. It is not whether these principles press with little or much force in the present moment. They are out. They are abroad in the world, and no force can stop them. Like a secret told, they are beyond recall; and he must be blind indeed that does not see that a change is already beginning.
But now it’s too late to ask how it started. Those who provided the funds have already done so; whether the money was spent wisely, wasted, or pocketed isn’t their fault. It’s clear that as the nation thinks more about the nature and principles of government, as well as taxes, and makes comparisons between those in America, France, and England, it will be nearly impossible to keep people in the same passive state as before. Some form of reform will inevitably have to start soon. It doesn't matter whether these principles are pushing hard or lightly right now. They’re out there. They’re in the world, and nothing can stop them. Like a secret that’s been revealed, they can’t be taken back; and one must be truly blind not to see that a change is already underway.
Nine millions of dead taxes is a serious thing; and this not only for bad, but in a great measure for foreign government. By putting the power of making war into the hands of the foreigners who came for what they could get, little else was to be expected than what has happened.
Nine million in dead taxes is a serious issue; and this is not only due to internal problems, but largely because of foreign influences. By handing over the power to wage war to outsiders who came for their own gain, it was predictable that the outcome would be as it has been.
Reasons are already advanced in this work, showing that whatever the reforms in the taxes may be, they ought to be made in the current expenses of government, and not in the part applied to the interest of the national debt. By remitting the taxes of the poor, they will be totally relieved, and all discontent will be taken away; and by striking off such of the taxes as are already mentioned, the nation will more than recover the whole expense of the mad American war.
Reasons are already provided in this work, stating that any reforms in taxes should be focused on the current government expenses, rather than on the portion used to pay the national debt. By eliminating the taxes on the poor, they will be completely relieved, and all discontent will disappear; and by removing the taxes mentioned before, the nation will more than make up for the total cost of the disastrous American war.
There will then remain only the national debt as a subject of discontent; and in order to remove, or rather to prevent this, it would be good policy in the stockholders themselves to consider it as property, subject like all other property, to bear some portion of the taxes. It would give to it both popularity and security, and as a great part of its present inconvenience is balanced by the capital which it keeps alive, a measure of this kind would so far add to that balance as to silence objections.
There will only be the national debt left as a source of frustration; to address or even prevent this, it’s smart for the stockholders to view it as an asset, like all other assets, that should contribute to taxes. This would make it more acceptable and secure, and since much of its current hassle is offset by the capital it sustains, a move like this would enhance that balance enough to quiet any complaints.
This may be done by such gradual means as to accomplish all that is necessary with the greatest ease and convenience.
This can be done in a way that allows everything needed to be achieved with the utmost ease and convenience.
Instead of taxing the capital, the best method would be to tax the interest by some progressive ratio, and to lessen the public taxes in the same proportion as the interest diminished.
Instead of taxing capital, a better approach would be to tax the interest at a progressive rate and reduce public taxes by the same amount as the interest decreases.
Suppose the interest was taxed one halfpenny in the pound the first year, a penny more the second, and to proceed by a certain ratio to be determined upon, always less than any other tax upon property. Such a tax would be subtracted from the interest at the time of payment, without any expense of collection.
Suppose the interest was taxed half a penny per pound in the first year, a penny more in the second, and then continued to increase at a certain ratio to be decided, but always lower than any other property tax. This tax would be deducted from the interest when it's paid, without any collection costs.
One halfpenny in the pound would lessen the interest and consequently the taxes, twenty thousand pounds. The tax on wagons amounts to this sum, and this tax might be taken off the first year. The second year the tax on female servants, or some other of the like amount might also be taken off, and by proceeding in this manner, always applying the tax raised from the property of the debt toward its extinction, and not carry it to the current services, it would liberate itself.
One halfpenny per pound would reduce the interest and therefore the taxes by twenty thousand pounds. The tax on wagons adds up to that amount, and this tax could be eliminated in the first year. In the second year, the tax on female servants, or another tax of similar value, could also be removed. By continuing this way, consistently using the tax revenue from the property of the debt to pay it off, rather than applying it to current expenses, it would eventually free itself.
The stockholders, notwithstanding this tax, would pay less taxes than they do now. What they would save by the extinction of the poor-rates, and the tax on houses and windows, and the commutation tax, would be considerably greater than what this tax, slow, but certain in its operation, amounts to.
The shareholders, despite this tax, would pay less in taxes than they do now. The savings from eliminating the poor rates, the tax on houses and windows, and the commutation tax would be significantly more than what this tax, which is slow but sure in its effect, adds up to.
It appears to me to be prudence to look out for measures that may apply under any circumstances that may approach. There is, at this moment, a crisis in the affairs of Europe that requires it. Preparation now is wisdom. If taxation be once let loose, it will be difficult to re-instate it; neither would the relief be so effectual, as if it proceeded by some certain and gradual reduction.
It seems wise to consider strategies that might be useful in any upcoming situations. Right now, Europe is facing a crisis that demands attention. Taking steps now is smart. Once taxes are increased, it will be hard to go back; and any relief wouldn't be as effective if it was done through some steady and gradual reduction.
The fraud, hypocrisy, and imposition of governments, are now beginning to be too well understood to promise them any long career. The farce of monarchy and aristocracy, in all countries, is following that of chivalry, and Mr. Burke is dressing aristocracy, in all countries, is following that of chivalry, and Mr. Burke is dressing for the funeral. Let it then pass quietly to the tomb of all other follies, and the mourners be comforted.
The fraud, hypocrisy, and imposition of governments are starting to be recognized too clearly to expect them to last much longer. The farce of monarchy and aristocracy in all countries is following the example of chivalry, and Mr. Burke is preparing for the funeral of aristocracy. Let it then quietly move to the grave alongside all other foolishness, and may the mourners find comfort.
The time is not very distant when England will laugh at itself for sending to Holland, Hanover, Zell, or Brunswick for men, at the expense of a million a year, who understood neither her laws, her language, nor her interest, and whose capacities would scarcely have fitted them for the office of a parish constable. If government could be trusted to such hands, it must be some easy and simple thing indeed, and materials fit for all the purposes may be found in every town and village in England.
The time isn't far off when England will look back and laugh at itself for hiring people from Holland, Hanover, Zell, or Brunswick, spending a million a year on folks who didn’t understand its laws, language, or interests, and whose skills were barely enough for the role of a local constable. If the government can be entrusted to such individuals, it must be something really easy and straightforward, and the right people for the job can be found in every town and village across England.
When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government.
When it's said in any country around the world that my poor are happy; that there’s neither ignorance nor suffering among them; that my jails are empty of prisoners and my streets are free of beggars; that the elderly aren’t struggling; and that taxes aren’t burdensome; when the rational world is my ally because I support its happiness: only then can that country take pride in its constitution and government.
Within the space of a few years we have seen two revolutions, those of America and France. In the former, the contest was long, and the conflict severe; in the latter, the nation acted with such a consolidated impulse, that having no foreign enemy to contend with, the revolution was complete in power the moment it appeared. From both those instances it is evident, that the greatest forces that can be brought into the field of revolutions, are reason and common interest. Where these can have the opportunity of acting, opposition dies with fear, or crumbles away by conviction. It is a great standing which they have now universally obtained; and we may hereafter hope to see revolutions, or changes in governments, produced with the same quiet operation by which any measure, determinable by reason and discussion, is accomplished.
In just a few years, we've witnessed two revolutions: those in America and France. In the former, the struggle was long and intense; in the latter, the country moved with such unified energy that, without a foreign enemy to fight against, the revolution fully emerged the moment it started. From these examples, it's clear that the most powerful forces in revolutions are reason and shared interests. When these forces can take action, opposition fades away out of fear or dissolves through persuasion. They have now achieved significant recognition, and we can hope to see future revolutions or government changes happen as smoothly as any decision reached through reasoned discussion.
When a nation changes its opinion and habits of thinking, it is no longer to be governed as before; but it would not only be wrong, but bad policy, to attempt by force what ought to be accomplished by reason. Rebellion consists in forcibly opposing the general will of a nation, whether by a party or by a government. There ought, therefore, to be in every nation a method of occasionally ascertaining the state of public opinion with respect to government. On this point the old government of France was superior to the present government of England, because, on extraordinary occasions, recourse could be had what was then called the States General. But in England there are no such occasional bodies; and as to those who are now called Representatives, a great part of them are mere machines of the court, placemen, and dependants.
When a country changes its views and ways of thinking, it can’t be ruled the same way as before; trying to force things that should be resolved through reason would be both wrong and poor policy. Rebellion happens when people oppose the collective will of a nation by force, whether that's from a political party or the government. Therefore, every nation should have a way to periodically gauge public opinion regarding the government. In this respect, the old French government was better than the current English government because, in exceptional situations, they could turn to what was then known as the States General. However, in England, there are no such occasional assemblies, and regarding those who are now called Representatives, many of them are just tools of the court, government appointees, and dependents.
I presume, that though all the people of England pay taxes, not an hundredth part of them are electors, and the members of one of the houses of parliament represent nobody but themselves. There is, therefore, no power but the voluntary will of the people that has a right to act in any matter respecting a general reform; and by the same right that two persons can confer on such a subject, a thousand may. The object, in all such preliminary proceedings, is to find out what the general sense of a nation is, and to be governed by it. If it prefer a bad or defective government to a reform or choose to pay ten times more taxes than there is any occasion for, it has a right so to do; and so long as the majority do not impose conditions on the minority, different from what they impose upon themselves, though there may be much error, there is no injustice. Neither will the error continue long. Reason and discussion will soon bring things right, however wrong they may begin. By such a process no tumult is to be apprehended. The poor, in all countries, are naturally both peaceable and grateful in all reforms in which their interest and happiness is included. It is only by neglecting and rejecting them that they become tumultuous.
I assume that even though everyone in England pays taxes, only a small fraction of them can vote, and the members of one of the houses of parliament only represent themselves. Therefore, the only authority that has the right to take action on any matter regarding general reform is the voluntary will of the people. Just as two individuals can give their consent on such a matter, a thousand can do the same. The goal of all these preliminary discussions is to understand the general opinion of the nation and to be guided by it. If the nation prefers a poor or flawed government over reform, or chooses to pay ten times more in taxes than necessary, it has the right to do so; as long as the majority does not impose different conditions on the minority than they do on themselves, even if there is much misunderstanding, there is no injustice. This misunderstanding won't last long. Reason and discussion will quickly set things right, no matter how wrong they may start. This process will not lead to turmoil. The poor, in every country, are naturally peaceful and appreciative of any reforms that benefit their interests and happiness. They only become unruly when they are ignored and rejected.
The objects that now press on the public attention are, the French revolution, and the prospect of a general revolution in governments. Of all nations in Europe there is none so much interested in the French revolution as England. Enemies for ages, and that at a vast expense, and without any national object, the opportunity now presents itself of amicably closing the scene, and joining their efforts to reform the rest of Europe. By doing this they will not only prevent the further effusion of blood, and increase of taxes, but be in a condition of getting rid of a considerable part of their present burthens, as has been already stated. Long experience however has shown, that reforms of this kind are not those which old governments wish to promote, and therefore it is to nations, and not to such governments, that these matters present themselves.
The issues that are currently grabbing public attention are the French Revolution and the possibility of widespread political change across governments. Of all the nations in Europe, none is as affected by the French Revolution as England. Historically enemies, at great cost and without any clear national goal, now is the chance to peacefully resolve their differences and work together to reform the rest of Europe. By doing this, they will not only stop further bloodshed and rising taxes, but also relieve themselves of a significant portion of their current burdens, as has already been mentioned. However, long experience has shown that old governments are not keen on promoting these kinds of reforms, which is why these issues are relevant to nations rather than to such governments.
In the preceding part of this work, I have spoken of an alliance between England, France, and America, for purposes that were to be afterwards mentioned. Though I have no direct authority on the part of America, I have good reason to conclude, that she is disposed to enter into a consideration of such a measure, provided, that the governments with which she might ally, acted as national governments, and not as courts enveloped in intrigue and mystery. That France as a nation, and a national government, would prefer an alliance with England, is a matter of certainty. Nations, like individuals, who have long been enemies, without knowing each other, or knowing why, become the better friends when they discover the errors and impositions under which they had acted.
In the earlier part of this work, I discussed a partnership between England, France, and America for purposes that will be detailed later. Although I don’t have direct authority from America, I have strong reasons to believe that they are open to considering such a measure, as long as the governments they would partner with act as national governments and not as courts shrouded in intrigue and mystery. It is certain that France, as a nation and a national government, would prefer to ally with England. Just like individuals, nations that have been long-time enemies, often without really knowing each other or the reasons for their enmity, tend to become better friends once they recognize the misunderstandings and manipulations that led to their discord.
Admitting, therefore, the probability of such a connection, I will state some matters by which such an alliance, together with that of Holland, might render service, not only to the parties immediately concerned, but to all Europe.
Acknowledging the likelihood of such a connection, I will outline some points by which this alliance, along with that of Holland, could benefit not only those directly involved but also all of Europe.
It is, I think, certain, that if the fleets of England, France, and Holland were confederated, they could propose, with effect, a limitation to, and a general dismantling of, all the navies in Europe, to a certain proportion to be agreed upon.
I believe it's clear that if the naval forces of England, France, and Holland joined together, they could effectively suggest limits and a general reduction of all the navies in Europe, to a proportion that everyone could agree on.
First, That no new ship of war shall be built by any power in Europe, themselves included.
First, no new warship will be built by any power in Europe, including themselves.
Second, That all the navies now in existence shall be put back, suppose to one-tenth of their present force. This will save to France and England, at least two millions sterling annually to each, and their relative force be in the same proportion as it is now. If men will permit themselves to think, as rational beings ought to think, nothing can appear more ridiculous and absurd, exclusive of all moral reflections, than to be at the expense of building navies, filling them with men, and then hauling them into the ocean, to try which can sink each other fastest. Peace, which costs nothing, is attended with infinitely more advantage, than any victory with all its expense. But this, though it best answers the purpose of nations, does not that of court governments, whose habited policy is pretence for taxation, places, and offices.
Second, all the navies currently in existence should be reduced to about one-tenth of their current size. This would save France and England at least two million pounds each year, while maintaining their relative strength as it is now. If people would allow themselves to think, as rational beings should, nothing seems more ridiculous and absurd, aside from all moral considerations, than spending money to build navies, staffing them with sailors, and then sending them into the ocean to see which one can sink the other faster. Peace, which costs nothing, brings far more benefits than any victory, despite all its costs. However, this approach, while beneficial for nations, doesn't suit the interests of government courts, whose typical strategy relies on justifying taxation, jobs, and positions.
It is, I think, also certain, that the above confederated powers, together with that of the United States of America, can propose with effect, to Spain, the independence of South America, and the opening those countries of immense extent and wealth to the general commerce of the world, as North America now is.
I believe it's also clear that the united powers mentioned above, along with the United States of America, can effectively propose to Spain the independence of South America and open up those vast and wealthy countries to global trade, just like North America is today.
With how much more glory, and advantage to itself, does a nation act, when it exerts its powers to rescue the world from bondage, and to create itself friends, than when it employs those powers to increase ruin, desolation, and misery. The horrid scene that is now acting by the English government in the East-Indies, is fit only to be told of Goths and Vandals, who, destitute of principle, robbed and tortured the world they were incapable of enjoying.
How much more glory and benefit does a nation gain when it uses its power to free the world from oppression and make allies, compared to when it uses that power to cause destruction, desolation, and suffering? The terrible situation currently unfolding under the English government in the East Indies is something that could only be compared to the actions of the Goths and Vandals, who, lacking principles, plundered and tormented a world they were unable to appreciate.
The opening of South America would produce an immense field of commerce, and a ready money market for manufactures, which the eastern world does not. The East is already a country full of manufactures, the importation of which is not only an injury to the manufactures of England, but a drain upon its specie. The balance against England by this trade is regularly upwards of half a million annually sent out in the East-India ships in silver; and this is the reason, together with German intrigue, and German subsidies, that there is so little silver in England.
The opening of South America would create a huge marketplace for trade and a cash-ready market for manufactured goods, something the eastern world can't provide. The East is already filled with factories, and importing their products hurts England's own manufacturing sector and drains its supply of silver. Each year, over half a million pounds in silver is consistently sent out on East India ships, contributing to the trade imbalance against England. This, along with German manipulation and financial support, is why there's so little silver left in England.
But any war is harvest to such governments, however ruinous it may be to a nation. It serves to keep up deceitful expectations which prevent people from looking into the defects and abuses of government. It is the lo here! and the lo there! that amuses and cheats the multitude.
But any war is beneficial to such governments, no matter how destructive it might be to a nation. It helps maintain false hopes that stop people from seeing the flaws and abuses in government. It’s the “look here!” and the “look there!” that entertains and deceives the masses.
Never did so great an opportunity offer itself to England, and to all Europe, as is produced by the two Revolutions of America and France. By the former, freedom has a national champion in the western world; and by the latter, in Europe. When another nation shall join France, despotism and bad government will scarcely dare to appear. To use a trite expression, the iron is becoming hot all over Europe. The insulted German and the enslaved Spaniard, the Russ and the Pole, are beginning to think. The present age will hereafter merit to be called the Age of Reason, and the present generation will appear to the future as the Adam of a new world.
Never before has such a great opportunity arisen for England and all of Europe as the ones created by the two Revolutions in America and France. With the American Revolution, freedom has found a national champion in the western world; and with the French Revolution, in Europe. When another nation aligns with France, tyranny and poor governance will hardly dare to show up. To use a common phrase, the iron is getting hot all over Europe. The wronged German and the oppressed Spaniard, the Russian and the Pole, are starting to think. This age will one day be recognized as the Age of Reason, and this generation will be seen by future generations as the Adam of a new world.
When all the governments of Europe shall be established on the representative system, nations will become acquainted, and the animosities and prejudices fomented by the intrigue and artifice of courts, will cease. The oppressed soldier will become a freeman; and the tortured sailor, no longer dragged through the streets like a felon, will pursue his mercantile voyage in safety. It would be better that nations should wi continue the pay of their soldiers during their lives, and give them their discharge and restore them to freedom and their friends, and cease recruiting, than retain such multitudes at the same expense, in a condition useless to society and to themselves. As soldiers have hitherto been treated in most countries, they might be said to be without a friend. Shunned by the citizen on an apprehension of their being enemies to liberty, and too often insulted by those who commanded them, their condition was a double oppression. But where genuine principles of liberty pervade a people, every thing is restored to order; and the soldier civilly treated, returns the civility.
When all the governments in Europe adopt a representative system, nations will get to know each other, and the rivalries and biases stirred up by the manipulations of courts will come to an end. The oppressed soldier will gain his freedom, and the mistreated sailor, no longer dragged through the streets like a criminal, will safely pursue his trade. It would be better for nations to continue paying their soldiers for life, granting them discharge and restoring their freedom and connections, rather than keeping so many in a state that's useless for society and themselves at the same cost. Given how soldiers have typically been treated in most countries, they seem to be friendless. Citizens often avoid them out of fear they might be threats to freedom, and they are too frequently insulted by their superiors, causing them to experience double oppression. But where true principles of liberty are embraced by the people, everything is set right; a soldier treated with respect will respond with respect.
In contemplating revolutions, it is easy to perceive that they may arise from two distinct causes; the one, to avoid or get rid of some great calamity; the other, to obtain some great and positive good; and the two may be distinguished by the names of active and passive revolutions. In those which proceed from the former cause, the temper becomes incensed and soured; and the redress, obtained by danger, is too often sullied by revenge. But in those which proceed from the latter, the heart, rather animated than agitated, enters serenely upon the subject. Reason and discussion, persuasion and conviction, become the weapons in the contest, and it is only when those are attempted to be suppressed that recourse is had to violence. When men unite in agreeing that a thing is good, could it be obtained, such for instance as relief from a burden of taxes and the extinction of corruption, the object is more than half accomplished. What they approve as the end, they will promote in the means.
When thinking about revolutions, it's easy to see that they can come from two different motivations: one is to avoid or escape a major disaster, and the other is to achieve something significant and positive. We can call these active and passive revolutions. In revolutions that stem from the first cause, people tend to become angry and resentful, and the solutions they fight for, while dangerous, often get tainted by revenge. On the other hand, revolutions that arise from the second cause are driven by a hopeful mindset; people approach the issue calmly. Reason, debate, persuasion, and understanding become the tools of the struggle, and it’s only when these are silenced that people resort to violence. When individuals come together to agree that something is good and worth pursuing—like relief from heavy taxes or the elimination of corruption—then the goal is already more than halfway achieved. What they see as the desired outcome will guide them in choosing the right means to get there.
Will any man say, in the present excess of taxation, falling so heavily on the poor, that a remission of five pounds annually of taxes to one hundred and four thousand poor families is not a good thing? Will he say that a remission of seven pounds annually to one hundred thousand other poor families—of eight pounds annually to another hundred thousand poor families, and of ten pounds annually to fifty thousand poor and widowed families, are not good things? And, to proceed a step further in this climax, will he say that to provide against the misfortunes to which all human life is subject, by securing six pounds annually for all poor, distressed, and reduced persons of the age of fifty and until sixty, and of ten pounds annually after sixty, is not a good thing?
Will anyone say, with the current burden of taxes weighing so heavily on the poor, that reducing taxes by five pounds a year for one hundred and four thousand low-income families isn't a good idea? Will anyone argue that cutting taxes by seven pounds a year for another one hundred thousand low-income families—or by eight pounds a year for yet another one hundred thousand poor families, and ten pounds annually for fifty thousand poor and widowed families—isn't beneficial? And to take it a step further, will anyone claim that setting aside six pounds a year for all impoverished, distressed, and struggling people between fifty and sixty years old, and ten pounds a year after sixty, isn't a good plan?
Will he say that an abolition of two millions of poor-rates to the house-keepers, and of the whole of the house and window-light tax and of the commutation tax is not a good thing? Or will he say that to abolish corruption is a bad thing?
Will he argue that getting rid of two million in poor rates for homeowners, along with eliminating the entire house and window-light tax and the commutation tax, isn't a good thing? Or will he claim that ending corruption is a bad thing?
If, therefore, the good to be obtained be worthy of a passive, rational, and costless revolution, it would be bad policy to prefer waiting for a calamity that should force a violent one. I have no idea, considering the reforms which are now passing and spreading throughout Europe, that England will permit herself to be the last; and where the occasion and the opportunity quietly offer, it is better than to wait for a turbulent necessity. It may be considered as an honour to the animal faculties of man to obtain redress by courage and danger, but it is far greater honour to the rational faculties to accomplish the same object by reason, accommodation, and general consent.*40
If the benefits to be gained are worth a peaceful, rational, and effortless change, it would be unwise to wait for a disaster that forces a violent one. Given the reforms currently happening and spreading across Europe, I can’t imagine that England will allow itself to be the last one to adapt. When the chance and opportunity present themselves quietly, it’s better to take action than to wait for a tumultuous necessity. While it may seem honorable for humans to seek justice through courage and risk, it is a far greater honor for our rational abilities to achieve the same outcome through reason, compromise, and collective agreement.*40
As reforms, or revolutions, call them which you please, extend themselves among nations, those nations will form connections and conventions, and when a few are thus confederated, the progress will be rapid, till despotism and corrupt government be totally expelled, at least out of two quarters of the world, Europe and America. The Algerine piracy may then be commanded to cease, for it is only by the malicious policy of old governments, against each other, that it exists.
As reforms, or revolutions, call them what you want, spread among countries, those countries will establish connections and agreements. When a few are united like this, progress will be swift, until despotism and corrupt governments are completely removed, at least from two parts of the world: Europe and America. Then, Algerian piracy can be forced to stop, because it only exists due to the harmful policies of old governments against one another.
Throughout this work, various and numerous as the subjects are, which I have taken up and investigated, there is only a single paragraph upon religion, viz. "that every religion is good that teaches man to be good."
Throughout this work, despite the many different subjects I have explored and investigated, there is only one paragraph about religion: "any religion is good if it teaches people to be good."
I have carefully avoided to enlarge upon the subject, because I am inclined to believe that what is called the present ministry, wish to see contentions about religion kept up, to prevent the nation turning its attention to subjects of government. It is as if they were to say, "Look that way, or any way, but this."
I have carefully avoided expanding on the topic because I believe the current government wants to keep religious disputes going to distract the public from important issues of governance. It's as if they’re saying, "Look in any direction, just not this one."
But as religion is very improperly made a political machine, and the reality of it is thereby destroyed, I will conclude this work with stating in what light religion appears to me.
But since religion is wrongly used as a political tool, and its true essence is lost as a result, I'll finish this work by expressing how I see religion.
If we suppose a large family of children, who, on any particular day, or particular circumstance, made it a custom to present to their parents some token of their affection and gratitude, each of them would make a different offering, and most probably in a different manner. Some would pay their congratulations in themes of verse and prose, by some little devices, as their genius dictated, or according to what they thought would please; and, perhaps, the least of all, not able to do any of those things, would ramble into the garden, or the field, and gather what it thought the prettiest flower it could find, though, perhaps, it might be but a simple weed. The parent would be more gratified by such a variety, than if the whole of them had acted on a concerted plan, and each had made exactly the same offering. This would have the cold appearance of contrivance, or the harsh one of control. But of all unwelcome things, nothing could more afflict the parent than to know, that the whole of them had afterwards gotten together by the ears, boys and girls, fighting, scratching, reviling, and abusing each other about which was the best or the worst present.
If we imagine a big family of kids who, on a certain day or in a specific situation, decided to show their parents some sign of their love and appreciation, each of them would give a different gift, probably in a unique way. Some would express their congratulations in poems or stories, using their creativity or trying to pick something that would make their parents happy; and maybe the one who could do the least would wander into the garden or the field to pick what they thought was the prettiest flower, even if it turned out to be just a common weed. The parents would appreciate this variety much more than if all the kids had followed the same plan and given identical gifts. That would feel cold and scripted, or overly controlled. However, nothing would upset the parents more than to realize that all the kids ended up arguing and fighting with each other over which present was the best or the worst.
Why may we not suppose, that the great Father of all is pleased with variety of devotion; and that the greatest offence we can act, is that by which we seek to torment and render each other miserable? For my own part, I am fully satisfied that what I am now doing, with an endeavour to conciliate mankind, to render their condition happy, to unite nations that have hitherto been enemies, and to extirpate the horrid practice of war, and break the chains of slavery and oppression is acceptable in his sight, and being the best service I can perform, I act it cheerfully.
Why shouldn't we believe that the great Father of all is happy with different forms of devotion? The worst thing we can do is try to torment and make each other miserable. Personally, I am completely convinced that my efforts to bring people together, make their lives better, unite nations that have been enemies, and eliminate the terrible practice of war, as well as end slavery and oppression, are pleasing to Him. Since this is the best service I can provide, I do it with joy.
I do not believe that any two men, on what are called doctrinal points, think alike who think at all. It is only those who have not thought that appear to agree. It is in this case as with what is called the British constitution. It has been taken for granted to be good, and encomiums have supplied the place of proof. But when the nation comes to examine into its principles and the abuses it admits, it will be found to have more defects than I have pointed out in this work and the former.
I don't believe that any two people, on what are called doctrinal issues, think the same way if they think at all. It's only those who haven't really thought things through that seem to agree. This is similar to how people talk about the British constitution. It's assumed to be great, and praises have taken the place of actual evidence. But when people finally look into its principles and the problems it allows, they'll realize it has more flaws than I've already mentioned in this work and the previous one.
As to what are called national religions, we may, with as much propriety, talk of national Gods. It is either political craft or the remains of the Pagan system, when every nation had its separate and particular deity. Among all the writers of the English church clergy, who have treated on the general subject of religion, the present Bishop of Llandaff has not been excelled, and it is with much pleasure that I take this opportunity of expressing this token of respect.
When it comes to what are called national religions, we might just as well talk about national gods. It's either political manipulation or a holdover from the Pagan system, where each nation had its own specific deity. Among all the English church writers who have discussed the general topic of religion, the current Bishop of Llandaff has been unmatched, and I am very pleased to take this chance to show my respect.
I have now gone through the whole of the subject, at least, as far as it appears to me at present. It has been my intention for the five years I have been in Europe, to offer an address to the people of England on the subject of government, if the opportunity presented itself before I returned to America. Mr. Burke has thrown it in my way, and I thank him. On a certain occasion, three years ago, I pressed him to propose a national convention, to be fairly elected, for the purpose of taking the state of the nation into consideration; but I found, that however strongly the parliamentary current was then setting against the party he acted with, their policy was to keep every thing within that field of corruption, and trust to accidents. Long experience had shown that parliaments would follow any change of ministers, and on this they rested their hopes and their expectations.
I have now covered the entire topic, at least as I see it right now. For the five years I've been in Europe, I’ve intended to give a speech to the people of England about government if the chance came up before I went back to America. Mr. Burke has provided that opportunity, and I’m grateful to him. Three years ago, I urged him to propose a national convention that would be genuinely elected, aimed at discussing the nation’s situation; however, I discovered that, despite the strong opposition in Parliament against his party, their strategy was to keep everything within that corrupt system and rely on random events. Long experience had shown that parliaments would follow any changes in ministers, and that’s where they pinned their hopes and expectations.
Formerly, when divisions arose respecting governments, recourse was had to the sword, and a civil war ensued. That savage custom is exploded by the new system, and reference is had to national conventions. Discussion and the general will arbitrates the question, and to this, private opinion yields with a good grace, and order is preserved uninterrupted.
In the past, when disagreements about governments occurred, people resorted to fighting, leading to civil war. That brutal practice has been replaced by the new system, which turns to national conventions. Discussion and the collective will settle the matter, and private opinions accept this willingly, maintaining uninterrupted order.
Some gentlemen have affected to call the principles upon which this work and the former part of Rights of Man are founded, "a new-fangled doctrine." The question is not whether those principles are new or old, but whether they are right or wrong. Suppose the former, I will show their effect by a figure easily understood.
Some people have pretended to label the ideas behind this work and the earlier part of Rights of Man as "a modern doctrine." The real question isn’t whether these ideas are new or old, but whether they are correct or incorrect. If they are indeed new, I will illustrate their impact with a straightforward example.
It is now towards the middle of February. Were I to take a turn into the country, the trees would present a leafless, wintery appearance. As people are apt to pluck twigs as they walk along, I perhaps might do the same, and by chance might observe, that a single bud on that twig had begun to swell. I should reason very unnaturally, or rather not reason at all, to suppose this was the only bud in England which had this appearance. Instead of deciding thus, I should instantly conclude, that the same appearance was beginning, or about to begin, every where; and though the vegetable sleep will continue longer on some trees and plants than on others, and though some of them may not blossom for two or three years, all will be in leaf in the summer, except those which are rotten. What pace the political summer may keep with the natural, no human foresight can determine. It is, however, not difficult to perceive that the spring is begun.—Thus wishing, as I sincerely do, freedom and happiness to all nations, I close the Second Part.
It’s now around the middle of February. If I were to take a stroll in the countryside, the trees would look bare and wintry. As people often pick twigs while they walk, I might do the same and might notice that a single bud on that twig has started to swell. It would be irrational, or rather not rational at all, to think that this was the only bud in England with that appearance. Instead of concluding that, I would immediately think that the same thing is starting or about to start everywhere. And while some trees and plants might stay dormant longer than others, and some may not blossom for two or three years, all will be green in the summer, except for those that are rotten. No one can predict how closely aligned the political summer will be with the natural one. However, it’s not hard to see that spring has begun. So, wishing freedom and happiness to all nations, I wrap up the Second Part.
APPENDIX
As the publication of this work has been delayed beyond the time intended, I think it not improper, all circumstances considered, to state the causes that have occasioned delay.
Since the release of this work has been pushed back longer than we planned, I believe it's appropriate, given the situation, to explain the reasons for the delay.
The reader will probably observe, that some parts in the plan contained in this work for reducing the taxes, and certain parts in Mr. Pitt's speech at the opening of the present session, Tuesday, January 31, are so much alike as to induce a belief, that either the author had taken the hint from Mr. Pitt, or Mr. Pitt from the author.—I will first point out the parts that are similar, and then state such circumstances as I am acquainted with, leaving the reader to make his own conclusion.
The reader will likely notice that some sections of the plan in this work for reducing taxes and certain parts of Mr. Pitt's speech at the start of this session on Tuesday, January 31, are so similar that it could lead to the belief that either the author was inspired by Mr. Pitt or Mr. Pitt was inspired by the author. I will first highlight the similar sections and then share the circumstances I know, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Considering it as almost an unprecedented case, that taxes should be proposed to be taken off, it is equally extraordinary that such a measure should occur to two persons at the same time; and still more so (considering the vast variety and multiplicity of taxes) that they should hit on the same specific taxes. Mr. Pitt has mentioned, in his speech, the tax on Carts and Wagons—that on Female Servantsthe lowering the tax on Candles and the taking off the tax of three shillings on Houses having under seven windows.
Considering it an almost unprecedented situation that taxes would be proposed to be removed, it's even more surprising that two people would come up with the same idea at the same time; and even more so (given the wide variety and numerous types of taxes) that they would focus on the same specific taxes. Mr. Pitt mentioned in his speech the tax on carts and wagons, the tax on female servants, the reduction of the tax on candles, and the elimination of the three-shilling tax on houses with fewer than seven windows.
Every one of those specific taxes are a part of the plan contained in this work, and proposed also to be taken off. Mr. Pitt's plan, it is true, goes no further than to a reduction of three hundred and twenty thousand pounds; and the reduction proposed in this work, to nearly six millions. I have made my calculations on only sixteen millions and an half of revenue, still asserting that it was "very nearly, if not quite, seventeen millions." Mr. Pitt states it at 16,690,000. I know enough of the matter to say, that he has not overstated it. Having thus given the particulars, which correspond in this work and his speech, I will state a chain of circumstances that may lead to some explanation.
Every one of those specific taxes is part of the plan outlined in this work and is also proposed to be removed. Mr. Pitt's plan, it is true, only reduces the amount by three hundred twenty thousand pounds, while the reduction suggested in this work is nearly six million. I have based my calculations on just sixteen and a half million in revenue, still claiming it was "very nearly, if not quite, seventeen million." Mr. Pitt states it as 16,690,000. I know enough about the situation to say that he has not exaggerated it. Having provided these details, which align with both this work and his speech, I will outline a series of events that may offer some clarification.
The first hint for lessening the taxes, and that as a consequence flowing from the French revolution, is to be found in the Address and Declaration of the Gentlemen who met at the Thatched-House Tavern, August 20, 1791. Among many other particulars stated in that Address, is the following, put as an interrogation to the government opposers of the French Revolution. "Are they sorry that the pretence for new oppressive taxes, and the occasion for continuing many old taxes will be at an end?"
The first hint for lowering taxes, which resulted from the French Revolution, can be found in the Address and Declaration of the gentlemen who gathered at the Thatched-House Tavern on August 20, 1791. Among many other details mentioned in that Address, there is a question posed to the government opponents of the French Revolution: "Are they upset that the excuse for new heavy taxes and the reason for keeping many old taxes will be gone?"
It is well known that the persons who chiefly frequent the Thatched-House Tavern, are men of court connections, and so much did they take this Address and Declaration respecting the French Revolution, and the reduction of taxes in disgust, that the Landlord was under the necessity of informing the Gentlemen, who composed the meeting of the 20th of August, and who proposed holding another meeting, that he could not receive them.*41
It’s well known that the main customers at the Thatched-House Tavern are men with court connections. They were so put off by the Address and Declaration regarding the French Revolution and the tax cuts that the landlord had to tell the gentlemen who made up the meeting on August 20th and suggested holding another meeting that he couldn’t accommodate them.*41
What was only hinted in the Address and Declaration respecting taxes and principles of government, will be found reduced to a regular system in this work. But as Mr. Pitt's speech contains some of the same things respecting taxes, I now come to give the circumstances before alluded to.
What was only suggested in the Address and Declaration about taxes and government principles will be fully laid out in this work. However, since Mr. Pitt's speech includes some of the same points about taxes, I will now discuss the circumstances mentioned earlier.
The case is: This work was intended to be published just before the meeting of Parliament, and for that purpose a considerable part of the copy was put into the printer's hands in September, and all the remaining copy, which contains the part to which Mr. Pitt's speech is similar, was given to him full six weeks before the meeting of Parliament, and he was informed of the time at which it was to appear. He had composed nearly the whole about a fortnight before the time of Parliament meeting, and had given me a proof of the next sheet. It was then in sufficient forwardness to be out at the time proposed, as two other sheets were ready for striking off. I had before told him, that if he thought he should be straitened for time, I could get part of the work done at another press, which he desired me not to do. In this manner the work stood on the Tuesday fortnight preceding the meeting of Parliament, when all at once, without any previous intimation, though I had been with him the evening before, he sent me, by one of his workmen, all the remaining copy, declining to go on with the work on any consideration.
The situation is this: This work was meant to be published just before the Parliament meeting, so a significant portion of the manuscript was handed over to the printer in September, and the rest of the manuscript, which includes the section similar to Mr. Pitt's speech, was given to him a full six weeks before the Parliament meeting. He was informed of the publication date. He had nearly finished it about two weeks before the Parliament meeting and had provided me with a proof of the next sheet. It was advanced enough to be published on the planned date, as two other sheets were ready to be printed. I had previously told him that if he thought he would be short on time, I could get part of the work done at another press, but he asked me not to do that. This is how the work stood on the Tuesday two weeks before the Parliament meeting, when suddenly, without any warning—though I had been with him the night before—he sent me all the remaining copy via one of his workers, refusing to continue with the work under any circumstances.
To account for this extraordinary conduct I was totally at a loss, as he stopped at the part where the arguments on systems and principles of government closed, and where the plan for the reduction of taxes, the education of children, and the support of the poor and the aged begins; and still more especially, as he had, at the time of his beginning to print, and before he had seen the whole copy, offered a thousand pounds for the copy-right, together with the future copy-right of the former part of the Rights of Man. I told the person who brought me this offer that I should not accept it, and wished it not to be renewed, giving him as my reason, that though I believed the printer to be an honest man, I would never put it in the power of any printer or publisher to suppress or alter a work of mine, by making him master of the copy, or give to him the right of selling it to any minister, or to any other person, or to treat as a mere matter of traffic, that which I intended should operate as a principle.
I was completely confused by his strange behavior, especially since he stopped at the part where the arguments about systems and principles of government ended, and where the plans for reducing taxes, educating children, and supporting the poor and elderly began. It was even more surprising because, when he started printing, before he had seen the entire text, he offered a thousand pounds for the copyright, along with the future copyright of the first part of the Rights of Man. I told the person who brought me that offer that I would not accept it and asked him not to renew it. I explained that, while I believed the printer was an honest person, I would never give any printer or publisher the power to suppress or change my work by giving them control of the copyright, or allow them the right to sell it to any minister or anyone else, or treat something that was meant to be a guiding principle as just a business transaction.
His refusal to complete the work (which he could not purchase) obliged me to seek for another printer, and this of consequence would throw the publication back till after the meeting of Parliament, otherways it would have appeared that Mr. Pitt had only taken up a part of the plan which I had more fully stated.
His refusal to finish the work (which he couldn't afford) forced me to look for another printer, and as a result, this would delay the publication until after Parliament met; otherwise, it would have seemed like Mr. Pitt had only tackled a portion of the plan I had explained in more detail.
Whether that gentleman, or any other, had seen the work, or any part of it, is more than I have authority to say. But the manner in which the work was returned, and the particular time at which this was done, and that after the offers he had made, are suspicious circumstances. I know what the opinion of booksellers and publishers is upon such a case, but as to my own opinion, I choose to make no declaration. There are many ways by which proof sheets may be procured by other persons before a work publicly appears; to which I shall add a certain circumstance, which is,
Whether that gentleman, or anyone else, had seen the work or any part of it, is something I can't confirm. However, the way the work was returned, along with the timing of this and the offers he made, raises some red flags. I know how booksellers and publishers view situations like this, but as for my own opinion, I prefer not to make any statements. There are numerous ways that proof sheets can be obtained by others before a work is publicly released; to which I will add one specific detail, which is,
A ministerial bookseller in Piccadilly who has been employed, as common report says, by a clerk of one of the boards closely connected with the ministry (the board of trade and plantation, of which Hawkesbury is president) to publish what he calls my Life, (I wish his own life and those of the cabinet were as good), used to have his books printed at the same printing-office that I employed; but when the former part of Rights of Man came out, he took his work away in dudgeon; and about a week or ten days before the printer returned my copy, he came to make him an offer of his work again, which was accepted. This would consequently give him admission into the printing-office where the sheets of this work were then lying; and as booksellers and printers are free with each other, he would have the opportunity of seeing what was going on.—Be the case, however, as it may, Mr. Pitt's plan, little and diminutive as it is, would have made a very awkward appearance, had this work appeared at the time the printer had engaged to finish it.
A ministerial bookseller in Piccadilly, who is said to have been hired by a clerk from one of the boards closely linked to the ministry (the Board of Trade and Plantations, with Hawkesbury as the president), has been publishing what he calls my Life (I wish his own life and those of the cabinet were as impressive). He used to have his books printed at the same printing office I used, but after the first part of Rights of Man was released, he took his work elsewhere in a huff. About a week or ten days before the printer finished my copy, he came back to make the printer an offer for his work again, which was accepted. This would naturally allow him access to the printing office where the sheets of my work were then lying. Since booksellers and printers are usually on friendly terms, he would have the chance to see what was happening. However, no matter how it plays out, Mr. Pitt's plan, as small and unimpressive as it is, would have looked quite awkward if this work had come out at the time the printer had promised to finish it.
I have now stated the particulars which occasioned the delay, from the proposal to purchase, to the refusal to print. If all the Gentlemen are innocent, it is very unfortunate for them that such a variety of suspicious circumstances should, without any design, arrange themselves together.
I have now laid out the details that caused the delay, from the purchase proposal to the decision not to print. If all the gentlemen are innocent, it’s quite unfortunate for them that such a collection of suspicious circumstances happened to line up together without any intention.
Having now finished this part, I will conclude with stating another circumstance.
Having now finished this part, I will wrap up by mentioning another detail.
About a fortnight or three weeks before the meeting of Parliament, a small addition, amounting to about twelve shillings and sixpence a year, was made to the pay of the soldiers, or rather their pay was docked so much less. Some Gentlemen who knew, in part, that this work would contain a plan of reforms respecting the oppressed condition of soldiers, wished me to add a note to the work, signifying that the part upon that subject had been in the printer's hands some weeks before that addition of pay was proposed. I declined doing this, lest it should be interpreted into an air of vanity, or an endeavour to excite suspicion (for which perhaps there might be no grounds) that some of the government gentlemen had, by some means or other, made out what this work would contain: and had not the printing been interrupted so as to occasion a delay beyond the time fixed for publication, nothing contained in this appendix would have appeared.
About two weeks or three weeks before the meeting of Parliament, a small raise, which amounted to about twelve shillings and sixpence a year, was added to the soldiers' pay, or rather their pay was reduced by that amount. Some people who knew, at least partially, that this work would detail a plan for reforming the poor treatment of soldiers wanted me to include a note in the work stating that the section on that topic had been with the printer for several weeks before that pay increase was proposed. I chose not to do this, as it might come across as self-important or suggest that there were grounds for suspicion that certain government officials had somehow figured out what this work would cover. If the printing hadn't been interrupted, causing a delay past the scheduled publication date, nothing in this appendix would have been published.
Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
THE AUTHOR'S NOTES FOR PART ONE AND PART TWO
1 (return)
[ The main and uniform maxim
of the judges is, the greater the truth the greater the libel.]
1 (return)
[ The main and consistent rule of the judges is, the greater the truth, the greater the libel.]
2 (return)
[ Since writing the above,
two other places occur in Mr. Burke's pamphlet in which the name of the
Bastille is mentioned, but in the same manner. In the one he introduces it
in a sort of obscure question, and asks: "Will any ministers who now serve
such a king, with but a decent appearance of respect, cordially obey the
orders of those whom but the other day, in his name, they had committed to
the Bastille?" In the other the taking it is mentioned as implying
criminality in the French guards, who assisted in demolishing it. "They
have not," says he, "forgot the taking the king's castles at Paris." This
is Mr. Burke, who pretends to write on constitutional freedom.]
2 (return)
[ Since writing the above, two other instances in Mr. Burke's pamphlet mention the Bastille in a similar way. One instance introduces it in an obscure question, where he asks: "Will any ministers serving such a king, with a decent appearance of respect, genuinely follow the orders of those whom just the other day, in his name, they had sent to the Bastille?" In the other, he refers to its destruction as suggesting wrongdoing by the French guards who helped tear it down. "They have not," he says, "forgot the taking of the king's castles in Paris." This is Mr. Burke, who claims to write about constitutional freedom.]
3 (return)
[ I am warranted in
asserting this, as I had it personally from M. de la Fayette, with whom I
lived in habits of friendship for fourteen years.]
3 (return)
[ I can confidently say this because I heard it directly from M. de la Fayette, with whom I maintained a friendship for fourteen years.]
4 (return)
[ An account of the
expedition to Versailles may be seen in No. 13 of the Revolution de Paris
containing the events from the 3rd to the 10th of October, 1789.]
4 (return)
[You can find a report on the trip to Versailles in No. 13 of the Revolution de Paris, covering the events from October 3rd to 10th, 1789.]
5 (return)
[ It is a practice in some
parts of the country, when two travellers have but one horse, which, like
the national purse, will not carry double, that the one mounts and rides
two or three miles ahead, and then ties the horse to a gate and walks on.
When the second traveller arrives he takes the horse, rides on, and passes
his companion a mile or two, and ties again, and so on—Ride and
tie.]
5 (return)
[ In some areas of the country, when two travelers share one horse, which, like the national budget, can’t manage two riders at once, one person rides ahead for two or three miles, then ties the horse to a gate and walks. When the second traveler arrives, they take the horse, ride ahead, and then tie it up again after a mile or two, and this continues—Ride and tie.]
6 (return)
[ The word he used was
renvoye, dismissed or sent away.]
6 (return)
[ The word he used was
renvoye, which means dismissed or sent away.]
7 (return)
[ When in any country we see
extraordinary circumstances taking place, they naturally lead any man who
has a talent for observation and investigation, to enquire into the
causes. The manufacturers of Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, are
the principal manufacturers in England. From whence did this arise? A
little observation will explain the case. The principal, and the
generality of the inhabitants of those places, are not of what is called
in England, the church established by law: and they, or their fathers,
(for it is within but a few years) withdrew from the persecution of the
chartered towns, where test-laws more particularly operate, and
established a sort of asylum for themselves in those places. It was the
only asylum that then offered, for the rest of Europe was worse.—But
the case is now changing. France and America bid all comers welcome, and
initiate them into all the rights of citizenship. Policy and interest,
therefore, will, but perhaps too late, dictate in England, what reason and
justice could not. Those manufacturers are withdrawing, and arising in
other places. There is now erecting in Passey, three miles from Paris, a
large cotton manufactory, and several are already erected in America. Soon
after the rejecting the Bill for repealing the test-law, one of the
richest manufacturers in England said in my hearing, "England, Sir, is not
a country for a dissenter to live in,—we must go to France." These
are truths, and it is doing justice to both parties to tell them. It is
chiefly the dissenters that have carried English manufactures to the
height they are now at, and the same men have it in their power to carry
them away; and though those manufactures would afterwards continue in
those places, the foreign market will be lost. There frequently appear in
the London Gazette, extracts from certain acts to prevent machines and
persons, as far as they can extend to persons, from going out of the
country. It appears from these that the ill effects of the test-laws and
church-establishment begin to be much suspected; but the remedy of force
can never supply the remedy of reason. In the progress of less than a
century, all the unrepresented part of England, of all denominations,
which is at least an hundred times the most numerous, may begin to feel
the necessity of a constitution, and then all those matters will come
regularly before them.]
7 (return)
[ When we see extraordinary events happening in any country, it naturally prompts anyone with a knack for observation and investigation to look into the reasons behind them. The main manufacturers in England are located in Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield. How did this happen? A bit of observation will clarify things. The majority of the people in these areas do not belong to what is known in England as the established church. They, or their ancestors (as this is only a few years ago), fled from the persecution in chartered towns where test laws were especially enforced, and created a refuge for themselves in these places. It was the only refuge available at the time, as the rest of Europe was in even worse shape. However, the situation is now changing. France and America welcome everyone and grant them all the rights of citizenship. Therefore, for reasons of policy and self-interest, England will likely act on what reason and justice could not achieve, albeit perhaps too late. These manufacturers are moving on and establishing themselves elsewhere. A large cotton manufacturing facility is currently being built in Passey, just three miles from Paris, and several have already been established in America. Shortly after the rejection of the Bill to repeal the test law, one of England's wealthiest manufacturers remarked in my hearing, "England, sir, is not a place for a dissenter to live in—we must go to France." These are truths, and it's fair to acknowledge them on both sides. It is mainly the dissenters who have elevated English manufacturing to its current height, and those same individuals have the ability to take it away. While those industries would continue in those locations, the foreign market would be lost. There are often extracts in the London Gazette from certain acts aimed at preventing machines and individuals, as much as possible, from leaving the country. These extracts suggest that the negative effects of the test laws and church establishment are beginning to be seriously questioned; however, force can never replace the need for reason. Within less than a century, the unrepresented segment of England, which includes all denominations and is at least a hundred times larger, may start to recognize the need for a constitution, bringing all these issues to light.]
8 (return)
[ When the English Minister,
Mr. Pitt, mentions the French finances again in the English Parliament, it
would be well that he noticed this as an example.]
8 (return)
[ When the English Minister, Mr. Pitt, brings up the French finances again in the English Parliament, it would be wise for him to point this out as an example.]
9 (return)
[ Mr. Burke, (and I must
take the liberty of telling him that he is very unacquainted with French
affairs), speaking upon this subject, says, "The first thing that struck
me in calling the States-General, was a great departure from the ancient
course";—and he soon after says, "From the moment I read the list, I
saw distinctly, and very nearly as it has happened, all that was to
follow."—Mr. Burke certainly did not see an that was to follow. I
endeavoured to impress him, as well before as after the States-General
met, that there would be a revolution; but was not able to make him see
it, neither would he believe it. How then he could distinctly see all the
parts, when the whole was out of sight, is beyond my comprehension. And
with respect to the "departure from the ancient course," besides the
natural weakness of the remark, it shows that he is unacquainted with
circumstances. The departure was necessary, from the experience had upon
it, that the ancient course was a bad one. The States-General of 1614 were
called at the commencement of the civil war in the minority of Louis
XIII.; but by the class of arranging them by orders, they increased the
confusion they were called to compose. The author of L'Intrigue du
Cabinet, (Intrigue of the Cabinet), who wrote before any revolution was
thought of in France, speaking of the States-General of 1614, says, "They
held the public in suspense five months; and by the questions agitated
therein, and the heat with which they were put, it appears that the great
(les grands) thought more to satisfy their particular passions, than to
procure the goods of the nation; and the whole time passed away in
altercations, ceremonies and parade."—L'Intrigue du Cabinet, vol. i.
p. 329.]
9 (return)
[ Mr. Burke, (and I have to point out that he is quite unfamiliar with French matters), discusses this topic and says, "The first thing that struck me about calling the States-General was a significant departure from the traditional approach";—and he shortly afterward states, "From the moment I read the list, I clearly saw, almost exactly as it happened, everything that was to follow."—Mr. Burke clearly did not foresee everything that was to follow. I tried to make him understand, both before and after the States-General convened, that a revolution was imminent; but I couldn't convince him, nor would he accept it. How he could clearly see all the details when the bigger picture was out of sight is beyond my understanding. And regarding the "departure from the traditional approach," besides the inherent weakness of that comment, it shows that he lacks awareness of the circumstances. The departure was necessary, given the experiences that showed the traditional approach was flawed. The States-General of 1614 were called at the beginning of the civil war during the minority of Louis XIII.; however, by organizing them by order, they only heightened the confusion they were supposed to resolve. The author of L'Intrigue du Cabinet, who wrote before anyone contemplated a revolution in France, refers to the States-General of 1614 and says, "They kept the public in suspense for five months; and by the issues raised there, and the intensity of the discussions, it is evident that the elites were more focused on satisfying their personal interests than on seeking the welfare of the nation; and the entire time was squandered in arguments, ceremonies, and spectacle."—L'Intrigue du Cabinet, vol. i. p. 329.]
10 (return)
[ There is a single idea,
which, if it strikes rightly upon the mind, either in a legal or a
religious sense, will prevent any man or any body of men, or any
government, from going wrong on the subject of religion; which is, that
before any human institutions of government were known in the world, there
existed, if I may so express it, a compact between God and man, from the
beginning of time: and that as the relation and condition which man in his
individual person stands in towards his Maker cannot be changed by any
human laws or human authority, that religious devotion, which is a part of
this compact, cannot so much as be made a subject of human laws; and that
all laws must conform themselves to this prior existing compact, and not
assume to make the compact conform to the laws, which, besides being
human, are subsequent thereto. The first act of man, when he looked around
and saw himself a creature which he did not make, and a world furnished
for his reception, must have been devotion; and devotion must ever
continue sacred to every individual man, as it appears, right to him; and
governments do mischief by interfering.]
10 (return)
[ There’s one idea that, if it resonates with someone in a legal or religious context, will stop any person, group, or government from making mistakes about religion. That idea is that, long before any human governments existed, there was a kind of agreement between God and humanity from the very beginning. The relationship and condition that each person has with their Creator can’t be altered by human laws or authority. Therefore, religious devotion, which is part of this agreement, shouldn’t even be subject to human laws. All laws must align with this prior existing agreement and should not try to make the agreement fit into the laws, which, being human, came later. When a person first looks around and realizes they are a creation—existing in a world that they didn’t create—they must feel devotion. This devotion must always remain sacred to each individual as they see fit, and governments cause harm by interfering.]
11 (return)
[ See this work, Part I
starting at line number 254.—N.B. Since the taking of the Bastille,
the occurrences have been published: but the matters recorded in this
narrative, are prior to that period; and some of them, as may be easily
seen, can be but very little known.]
11 (return)
[ See this work, Part I
starting at line number 254.—Note: Since the storming of the Bastille,
the events have been published, but the events noted in this narrative are from before that time; and some of them, as is clear, are likely to be very poorly known.]
12 (return)
[ See "Estimate of the
Comparative Strength of Great Britain," by G. Chalmers.]
12 (return)
[See "Estimate of the Comparative Strength of Great Britain," by G. Chalmers.]
13 (return)
[ See "Administration of
the Finances of France," vol. iii, by M. Neckar.]
13 (return)
[ See "Administration of the Finances of France," vol. iii, by M. Neckar.]
14 (return)
[ "Administration of the
Finances of France," vol. iii.]
14 (return)
[ "Managing the Finances of France," vol. iii.]
15 (return)
[ Whether the English
commerce does not bring in money, or whether the government sends it out
after it is brought in, is a matter which the parties concerned can best
explain; but that the deficiency exists, is not in the power of either to
disprove. While Dr. Price, Mr. Eden, (now Auckland), Mr. Chalmers, and
others, were debating whether the quantity of money in England was greater
or less than at the Revolution, the circumstance was not adverted to, that
since the Revolution, there cannot have been less than four hundred
millions sterling imported into Europe; and therefore the quantity in
England ought at least to have been four times greater than it was at the
Revolution, to be on a proportion with Europe. What England is now doing
by paper, is what she would have been able to do by solid money, if gold
and silver had come into the nation in the proportion it ought, or had not
been sent out; and she is endeavouring to restore by paper, the balance
she has lost by money. It is certain, that the gold and silver which
arrive annually in the register-ships to Spain and Portugal, do not remain
in those countries. Taking the value half in gold and half in silver, it
is about four hundred tons annually; and from the number of ships and
galloons employed in the trade of bringing those metals from South-America
to Portugal and Spain, the quantity sufficiently proves itself, without
referring to the registers.
15 (return)
[ Whether English trade is bringing in money or whether the government is sending it out after it arrives is something the involved parties can explain best; but the fact that there is a shortfall cannot be denied by either side. While Dr. Price, Mr. Eden (now Auckland), Mr. Chalmers, and others debated whether the amount of money in England was greater or less than it was at the time of the Revolution, they overlooked the fact that since the Revolution, at least four hundred million pounds have been imported into Europe. Therefore, the amount in England should be at least four times what it was at the Revolution to be in line with Europe. What England is currently doing with paper money is what it could have accomplished with hard currency if gold and silver had come into the country in the right amounts or hadn't been sent out; she is trying to restore with paper the balance she has lost with money. It’s clear that the gold and silver arriving each year on the registered ships to Spain and Portugal doesn’t stay in those countries. The value is around four hundred tons annually, half in gold and half in silver, and the number of ships and galleons involved in bringing those metals from South America to Portugal and Spain adequately demonstrates this, without needing to check the records.
In the situation England now is, it is impossible she can increase in money. High taxes not only lessen the property of the individuals, but they lessen also the money capital of the nation, by inducing smuggling, which can only be carried on by gold and silver. By the politics which the British Government have carried on with the Inland Powers of Germany and the Continent, it has made an enemy of all the Maritime Powers, and is therefore obliged to keep up a large navy; but though the navy is built in England, the naval stores must be purchased from abroad, and that from countries where the greatest part must be paid for in gold and silver. Some fallacious rumours have been set afloat in England to induce a belief in money, and, among others, that of the French refugees bringing great quantities. The idea is ridiculous. The general part of the money in France is silver; and it would take upwards of twenty of the largest broad wheel wagons, with ten horses each, to remove one million sterling of silver. Is it then to be supposed, that a few people fleeing on horse-back or in post-chaises, in a secret manner, and having the French Custom-House to pass, and the sea to cross, could bring even a sufficiency for their own expenses?
In England's current situation, it's impossible for her to increase her wealth. High taxes not only reduce individuals' property but also diminish the nation's money supply by encouraging smuggling, which relies on gold and silver. Through the policies pursued by the British Government with the inland powers of Germany and the Continent, they have made enemies of all the maritime powers, which forces them to maintain a large navy. However, while the navy is built in England, naval supplies need to be purchased from abroad, and most of that must be paid for in gold and silver. Some misleading rumors have circulated in England to create a belief in an influx of money, including claims that French refugees are bringing in large amounts. This idea is absurd. The majority of money in France is silver, and it would take over twenty of the largest wagons, each pulled by ten horses, to transport one million pounds in silver. So, is it realistic to think that a few people fleeing on horseback or in carriages, secretly passing through French customs and crossing the sea, could bring enough for their own expenses?
When millions of money are spoken of, it should be recollected, that such sums can only accumulate in a country by slow degrees, and a long procession of time. The most frugal system that England could now adopt, would not recover in a century the balance she has lost in money since the commencement of the Hanover succession. She is seventy millions behind France, and she must be in some considerable proportion behind every country in Europe, because the returns of the English mint do not show an increase of money, while the registers of Lisbon and Cadiz show an European increase of between three and four hundred millions sterling.]
When millions of dollars are mentioned, it should be remembered that such amounts can only build up in a country gradually over a long period of time. The most economical approach that England could take now wouldn’t recover in a century the money it has lost since the start of the Hanoverian reign. It is seventy million behind France, and it’s likely significantly behind every country in Europe, because the figures from the English mint don’t indicate any increase in money, while the records from Lisbon and Cadiz show a European growth of between three and four hundred million pounds.
16 (return)
[ That part of America
which is generally called New-England, including New-Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode-Island, and Connecticut, is peopled chiefly by
English descendants. In the state of New-York about half are Dutch, the
rest English, Scotch, and Irish. In New-jersey, a mixture of English and
Dutch, with some Scotch and Irish. In Pennsylvania about one third are
English, another Germans, and the remainder Scotch and Irish, with some
Swedes. The States to the southward have a greater proportion of English
than the middle States, but in all of them there is a mixture; and besides
those enumerated, there are a considerable number of French, and some few
of all the European nations, lying on the coast. The most numerous
religious denomination are the Presbyterians; but no one sect is
established above another, and all men are equally citizens.]
16 (return)
[ The part of America known as New England, which includes New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, is mostly populated by descendants of the English. In New York, about half the people are Dutch, while the rest are English, Scottish, and Irish. In New Jersey, there’s a mix of English and Dutch, along with some Scottish and Irish. In Pennsylvania, about a third are English, another third are German, and the rest are Scottish and Irish, with a few Swedes. The Southern States have a higher proportion of English than the middle States, but all of them have a mix; in addition to those mentioned, there’s a significant number of French and a few individuals from all over Europe along the coast. The largest religious group is the Presbyterians; however, no single denomination is prioritized over others, and all people are regarded as equal citizens.]
17 (return)
[ For a character of
aristocracy, the reader is referred to Rights of Man, Part I., starting at
line number 1457.]
17 (return)
[For a noble character, check out Rights of Man, Part I., starting at line number 1457.]
18 (return)
[ The whole amount of the
assessed taxes of France, for the present year, is three hundred millions
of francs, which is twelve millions and a half sterling; and the
incidental taxes are estimated at three millions, making in the whole
fifteen millions and a half; which among twenty-four millions of people,
is not quite thirteen shillings per head. France has lessened her taxes
since the revolution, nearly nine millions sterling annually. Before the
revolution, the city of Paris paid a duty of upwards of thirty per cent.
on all articles brought into the city. This tax was collected at the city
gates. It was taken off on the first of last May, and the gates taken
down.]
18 (return)
The total amount of assessed taxes in France for this year is three hundred million francs, which is twelve and a half million pounds sterling; and incidental taxes are estimated at three million, making a total of fifteen and a half million pounds. This amount, spread across twenty-four million people, comes to just under thirteen shillings per person. Since the revolution, France has reduced its taxes by nearly nine million pounds annually. Before the revolution, the city of Paris taxed over thirty percent on all goods brought into the city. This tax was collected at the city gates. It was removed on May 1st of last year, and the gates were taken down.
19 (return)
[ What was called the
livre rouge, or the red book, in France, was not exactly similar to the
Court Calendar in England; but it sufficiently showed how a great part of
the taxes was lavished.]
19 (return)
[What was known as the red book in France wasn't exactly the same as the Court Calendar in England; however, it clearly indicated how a significant portion of the taxes was wasted.]
20 (return)
[ In England the
improvements in agriculture, useful arts, manufactures, and commerce, have
been made in opposition to the genius of its government, which is that of
following precedents. It is from the enterprise and industry of the
individuals, and their numerous associations, in which, tritely speaking,
government is neither pillow nor bolster, that these improvements have
proceeded. No man thought about government, or who was in, or who was out,
when he was planning or executing those things; and all he had to hope,
with respect to government, was, that it would let him alone. Three or
four very silly ministerial newspapers are continually offending against
the spirit of national improvement, by ascribing it to a minister. They
may with as much truth ascribe this book to a minister.]
20 (return)
[ In England, advancements in agriculture, useful arts, manufacturing, and commerce have happened despite the government's tendency to adhere to traditions. These improvements have stemmed from the initiative and hard work of individuals and their many collaborations, where, to put it simply, the government played no supportive role. When people were planning or carrying out these advancements, they didn’t think about the government or who was in power; their only hope regarding the government was that it would leave them alone. A few silly government newspapers continuously undermine the spirit of national progress by crediting it to a minister. They might as well claim this book was written by a minister.]
21 (return)
[ With respect to the two
houses, of which the English parliament is composed, they appear to be
effectually influenced into one, and, as a legislature, to have no temper
of its own. The minister, whoever he at any time may be, touches it as
with an opium wand, and it sleeps obedience.
21 (return)
[ Regarding the two houses that make up the English parliament, they seem to be effectively merged into one and, as a legislature, don't have a personality of their own. The minister, whoever that may be at any given time, influences it with a kind of magic, and it responds with blind obedience.
But if we look at the distinct abilities of the two houses, the difference will appear so great, as to show the inconsistency of placing power where there can be no certainty of the judgment to use it. Wretched as the state of representation is in England, it is manhood compared with what is called the house of Lords; and so little is this nick-named house regarded, that the people scarcely enquire at any time what it is doing. It appears also to be most under influence, and the furthest removed from the general interest of the nation. In the debate on engaging in the Russian and Turkish war, the majority in the house of peers in favor of it was upwards of ninety, when in the other house, which was more than double its numbers, the majority was sixty-three.]
But if we look at the unique strengths of the two houses, the difference will be so significant that it reveals the inconsistency of giving power to a group that lacks reliable judgment in using it. As poor as the system of representation is in England, it’s still a step up compared to what’s called the House of Lords; and this so-called house is regarded so little that the public barely checks on what it’s up to. It also seems to be heavily influenced and is farthest removed from the general interests of the nation. During the debate about getting involved in the Russian and Turkish war, the majority in the House of Peers in favor of it was over ninety, while in the other house, which has more than double its members, the majority was sixty-three.
The proceedings on Mr. Fox's bill, respecting the rights of juries, merits also to be noticed. The persons called the peers were not the objects of that bill. They are already in possession of more privileges than that bill gave to others. They are their own jury, and if any one of that house were prosecuted for a libel, he would not suffer, even upon conviction, for the first offense. Such inequality in laws ought not to exist in any country. The French constitution says, that the law is the same to every individual, whether to Protect or to punish. All are equal in its sight.]
The discussions around Mr. Fox's bill concerning the rights of juries should also be mentioned. The people referred to as peers were not the focus of that bill. They already have more privileges than what that bill grants to others. They serve as their own jury, and if anyone from that group were prosecuted for libel, they wouldn't face consequences, even if convicted, for the first offense. Such inequality in laws shouldn't exist in any country. The French constitution states that the law treats everyone the same, whether it's to protect or punish. All are equal in its eyes.
22 (return)
[ As to the state of
representation in England, it is too absurd to be reasoned upon. Almost
all the represented parts are decreasing in population, and the
unrepresented parts are increasing. A general convention of the nation is
necessary to take the whole form of government into consideration.]
22 (return)
[When it comes to representation in England, it's just too ridiculous to even discuss. Almost all the represented areas are losing population, while the unrepresented areas are gaining people. A nationwide convention is needed to rethink the entire system of government.]
23 (return)
[ It is related that in
the canton of Berne, in Switzerland, it has been customary, from time
immemorial, to keep a bear at the public expense, and the people had been
taught to believe that if they had not a bear they should all be undone.
It happened some years ago that the bear, then in being, was taken sick,
and died too suddenly to have his place immediately supplied with another.
During this interregnum the people discovered that the corn grew, and the
vintage flourished, and the sun and moon continued to rise and set, and
everything went on the same as before, and taking courage from these
circumstances, they resolved not to keep any more bears; for, said they,
"a bear is a very voracious expensive animal, and we were obliged to pull
out his claws, lest he should hurt the citizens." The story of the bear of
Berne was related in some of the French newspapers, at the time of the
flight of Louis Xvi., and the application of it to monarchy could not be
mistaken in France; but it seems that the aristocracy of Berne applied it
to themselves, and have since prohibited the reading of French
newspapers.]
23 (return)
[ It's said that in the canton of Berne, Switzerland, it has been a long-standing custom to keep a bear at public expense, and the people had been led to believe that without a bear, everyone would be doomed. Some years ago, the bear they had got sick and died too suddenly for them to replace it right away. During this time, the people realized that the crops continued to grow, the wine harvest was successful, and the sun and moon still rose and set, and everything went on just like before. Encouraged by these observations, they decided not to keep any more bears; for, as they said, "a bear is a very greedy, costly animal, and we had to remove its claws to prevent it from harming the citizens." The story of the bear of Berne was featured in some French newspapers during the flight of Louis XVI, and its relevance to monarchy was obvious in France; however, it seems the aristocracy of Berne interpreted it differently and subsequently banned the reading of French newspapers.]
24 (return)
[ It is scarcely possible
to touch on any subject, that will not suggest an allusion to some
corruption in governments. The simile of "fortifications," unfortunately
involves with it a circumstance, which is directly in point with the
matter above alluded to.]
24 (return)
[ It's nearly impossible to discuss any topic without hinting at some kind of corruption in governments. The analogy of "fortifications" unfortunately includes a detail that directly relates to the previous point mentioned.]
Among the numerous instances of abuse which have been acted or protected by governments, ancient or modern, there is not a greater than that of quartering a man and his heirs upon the public, to be maintained at its expense.
Among the many examples of abuse that have been carried out or supported by governments, both ancient and modern, none is greater than forcing a man and his heirs to rely on the public for their support.
Humanity dictates a provision for the poor; but by what right, moral or political, does any government assume to say, that the person called the Duke of Richmond, shall be maintained by the public? Yet, if common report is true, not a beggar in London can purchase his wretched pittance of coal, without paying towards the civil list of the Duke of Richmond. Were the whole produce of this imposition but a shilling a year, the iniquitous principle would be still the same; but when it amounts, as it is said to do, to no less than twenty thousand pounds per annum, the enormity is too serious to be permitted to remain. This is one of the effects of monarchy and aristocracy.
Humanity sets a standard for helping the poor; but what right, whether moral or political, does any government have to claim that the person known as the Duke of Richmond should be supported by the public? Yet, if common reports are true, not a single beggar in London can afford his meager amount of coal without contributing to the civil list of the Duke of Richmond. Even if the total from this burden were just a shilling a year, the unfairness would still stand; but when it reportedly adds up to as much as twenty thousand pounds a year, the issue is too serious to ignore. This is one of the consequences of monarchy and aristocracy.
In stating this case I am led by no personal dislike. Though I think it mean in any man to live upon the public, the vice originates in the government; and so general is it become, that whether the parties are in the ministry or in the opposition, it makes no difference: they are sure of the guarantee of each other.]
In presenting this situation, I am motivated by no personal resentment. While I believe it is low for anyone to rely on the public for support, the real issue lies with the government; and it has become so widespread that it doesn’t matter whether the individuals are part of the ministry or the opposition: they can always count on each other's backing.
25 (return)
[ In America the increase
of commerce is greater in proportion than in England. It is, at this time,
at least one half more than at any period prior to the revolution. The
greatest number of vessels cleared out of the port of Philadelphia, before
the commencement of the war, was between eight and nine hundred. In the
year 1788, the number was upwards of twelve hundred. As the State of
Pennsylvania is estimated at an eighth part of the United States in
population, the whole number of vessels must now be nearly ten thousand.]
25 (return)
[ In America, the growth of commerce is rising faster compared to England. Right now, it's at least 50% more than it was at any time before the revolution. Before the war began, the highest number of ships that left the port of Philadelphia was between eight and nine hundred. In 1788, that number rose to over twelve hundred. Since Pennsylvania is estimated to be about one-eighth of the total U.S. population, the total number of ships must now be almost ten thousand.]
26 (return)
[ When I saw Mr. Pitt's
mode of estimating the balance of trade, in one of his parliamentary
speeches, he appeared to me to know nothing of the nature and interest of
commerce; and no man has more wantonly tortured it than himself. During a
period of peace it has been havocked with the calamities of war. Three
times has it been thrown into stagnation, and the vessels unmanned by
impressing, within less than four years of peace.]
26 (return)
[ When I listened to Mr. Pitt discussing how he assesses the balance of trade in one of his parliamentary speeches, it seemed to me that he didn't really understand the nature and importance of commerce; no one has misused it more than he has. During a time of peace, it has been devastated by the troubles of war. It has been left in a standstill three times, with ships left crewless due to impressing, all within less than four years of peace.]
27 (return)
[ Rev. William Knowle,
master of the grammar school of Thetford, in Norfolk.]
27 (return)
[ Rev. William Knowle, master of the grammar school in Thetford, Norfolk.]
28 (return)
[ Politics and
self-interest have been so uniformly connected that the world, from being
so often deceived, has a right to be suspicious of public characters, but
with regard to myself I am perfectly easy on this head. I did not, at my
first setting out in public life, nearly seventeen years ago, turn my
thoughts to subjects of government from motives of interest, and my
conduct from that moment to this proves the fact. I saw an opportunity in
which I thought I could do some good, and I followed exactly what my heart
dictated. I neither read books, nor studied other people's opinion. I
thought for myself. The case was this:—
28 (return)
[ Politics and self-interest have been so closely linked that people have every right to be wary of public figures, but I feel completely at ease about this when it comes to myself. When I first started my public life nearly seventeen years ago, I didn’t get involved in government out of personal gain, and my actions since then prove that. I saw a chance where I believed I could make a difference, and I followed what my heart told me to do. I didn’t read books or rely on others' opinions. I thought for myself. Here’s the situation:—
During the suspension of the old governments in America, both prior to and at the breaking out of hostilities, I was struck with the order and decorum with which everything was conducted, and impressed with the idea that a little more than what society naturally performed was all the government that was necessary, and that monarchy and aristocracy were frauds and impositions upon mankind. On these principles I published the pamphlet Common Sense. The success it met with was beyond anything since the invention of printing. I gave the copyright to every state in the Union, and the demand ran to not less than one hundred thousand copies. I continued the subject in the same manner, under the title of The Crisis, till the complete establishment of the Revolution.
During the suspension of the old governments in America, both before and at the start of conflicts, I was impressed by the order and respect with which everything was handled. It made me realize that a bit more than what society naturally organized was all the government needed, and that monarchy and aristocracy were scams and burdens on people. Based on these ideas, I published the pamphlet Common Sense. Its success was greater than anything since the invention of printing. I granted the copyright to every state in the Union, and the demand reached at least one hundred thousand copies. I continued to explore the topic in the same way under the title of The Crisis until the Revolution was fully established.
After the declaration of independence Congress unanimously, and unknown to me, appointed me Secretary in the Foreign Department. This was agreeable to me, because it gave me the opportunity of seeing into the abilities of foreign courts, and their manner of doing business. But a misunderstanding arising between Congress and me, respecting one of their commissioners then in Europe, Mr. Silas Deane, I resigned the office, and declined at the same time the pecuniary offers made by the Ministers of France and Spain, M. Gerald and Don Juan Mirralles.] I had by this time so completely gained the ear and confidence of America, and my own independence was become so visible, as to give me a range in political writing beyond, perhaps, what any man ever possessed in any country, and, what is more extraordinary, I held it undiminished to the end of the war, and enjoy it in the same manner to the present moment. As my object was not myself, I set out with the determination, and happily with the disposition, of not being moved by praise or censure, friendship or calumny, nor of being drawn from my purpose by any personal altercation, and the man who cannot do this is not fit for a public character.
After the declaration of independence, Congress unanimously appointed me Secretary in the Foreign Department without my knowledge. I was pleased with this because it allowed me to understand the capabilities of foreign governments and their way of conducting business. However, a misunderstanding arose between Congress and me regarding one of their commissioners in Europe, Mr. Silas Deane, which led me to resign from the position. At the same time, I turned down financial offers from the Ministers of France and Spain, M. Gerald and Don Juan Mirralles. By this point, I had gained the ear and trust of America, and my own independence had become so apparent that I could engage in political writing to a degree that perhaps no one else has had in any country. Remarkably, I maintained this status until the end of the war and continue to enjoy it to this day. Since my aim was not personal gain, I began with the intention—and fortunately with the mindset—of not being swayed by praise or criticism, friendship or slander, nor being distracted from my goals by any personal disputes; anyone who can’t do this is not suited for public service.
When the war ended I went from Philadelphia to Borden-Town, on the east bank of the Delaware, where I have a small place. Congress was at this time at Prince-Town, fifteen miles distant, and General Washington had taken his headquarters at Rocky Hill, within the neighbourhood of Congress, for the purpose of resigning up his commission (the object for which he accepted it being accomplished), and of retiring to private life. While he was on this business he wrote me the letter which I here subjoin:
When the war ended, I traveled from Philadelphia to Bordentown, on the east bank of the Delaware, where I have a small property. Congress was meeting in Princeton, fifteen miles away, and General Washington had set up his headquarters at Rocky Hill, close to Congress, with the intention of resigning his commission (since the purpose for which he had accepted it was accomplished) and stepping back into private life. While he was working on this, he wrote me the letter that I am enclosing here:
"Rocky-Hill, Sept. 10, 1783.
Rocky Hill, Sept. 10, 1783.
"I have learned since I have been at this place that you are at Borden-Town. Whether for the sake of retirement or economy I know not. Be it for either, for both, or whatever it may, if you will come to this place, and partake with me, I shall be exceedingly happy to see you at it.
"I’ve learned since being here that you're at Borden-Town. I’m not sure if it's for relaxation or to save money. Whether it's for one, the other, or both, if you come to this place and join me, I would be really happy to see you."
"Your presence may remind Congress of your past services to this country, and if it is in my power to impress them, command my best exertions with freedom, as they will be rendered cheerfully by one who entertains a lively sense of the importance of your works, and who, with much pleasure, subscribes himself, Your sincere friend,
"Your presence might remind Congress of your past contributions to this country, and if I can influence them, I’ll give it my all without hesitation, as I will do so gladly because I truly appreciate the significance of your work, and I am happy to sign off as, Your sincere friend,"
G. Washington."
G. Washington.
During the war, in the latter end of the year 1780, I formed to myself a design of coming over to England, and communicated it to General Greene, who was then in Philadelphia on his route to the southward, General Washington being then at too great a distance to communicate with immediately. I was strongly impressed with the idea that if I could get over to England without being known, and only remain in safety till I could get out a publication, that I could open the eyes of the country with respect to the madness and stupidity of its Government. I saw that the parties in Parliament had pitted themselves as far as they could go, and could make no new impressions on each other. General Greene entered fully into my views, but the affair of Arnold and Andre happening just after, he changed his mind, under strong apprehensions for my safety, wrote very pressingly to me from Annapolis, in Maryland, to give up the design, which, with some reluctance, I did. Soon after this I accompanied Colonel Lawrens, son of Mr. Lawrens, who was then in the Tower, to France on business from Congress. We landed at L'orient, and while I remained there, he being gone forward, a circumstance occurred that renewed my former design. An English packet from Falmouth to New York, with the Government dispatches on board, was brought into L'orient. That a packet should be taken is no extraordinary thing, but that the dispatches should be taken with it will scarcely be credited, as they are always slung at the cabin window in a bag loaded with cannon-ball, and ready to be sunk at a moment. The fact, however, is as I have stated it, for the dispatches came into my hands, and I read them. The capture, as I was informed, succeeded by the following stratagem:—The captain of the "Madame" privateer, who spoke English, on coming up with the packet, passed himself for the captain of an English frigate, and invited the captain of the packet on board, which, when done, he sent some of his own hands back, and he secured the mail. But be the circumstance of the capture what it may, I speak with certainty as to the Government dispatches. They were sent up to Paris to Count Vergennes, and when Colonel Lawrens and myself returned to America we took the originals to Congress.
During the war, towards the end of 1780, I decided to go over to England and shared this plan with General Greene, who was in Philadelphia on his way south, as General Washington was too far away to contact immediately. I strongly believed that if I could get to England without being noticed and stay safe until I could publish something, I could make the country aware of the government's madness and stupidity. I saw that the parties in Parliament had reached a stalemate and could no longer influence each other. General Greene fully supported my idea, but after the incident with Arnold and Andre occurred, he became concerned for my safety and urged me from Annapolis, Maryland, to abandon the plan, which I reluctantly did. Soon after, I traveled to France with Colonel Lawrens, the son of Mr. Lawrens, who was then in the Tower, on business for Congress. We landed at L'orient, and while I was there waiting for him, an event occurred that reignited my original plan. An English packet from Falmouth to New York, carrying government dispatches, was captured and brought into L'orient. While it's not unusual for a packet to be taken, it is hard to believe that the dispatches went with it, as they are usually secured at the cabin window in a bag loaded with cannonballs, ready to be sunk at a moment's notice. However, the facts are as I’ve stated, because I got my hands on the dispatches and read them. I was informed that the capture happened through this tactic: the captain of the "Madame" privateer, who spoke English, pretended to be the captain of an English frigate and invited the packet captain aboard. Once aboard, he sent some of his own crew back and secured the mail. Regardless of how the capture happened, I can confirm the government dispatches' existence. They were sent to Paris for Count Vergennes, and when Colonel Lawrens and I returned to America, we brought the originals back to Congress.
By these dispatches I saw into the stupidity of the English Cabinet far more than I otherwise could have done, and I renewed my former design. But Colonel Lawrens was so unwilling to return alone, more especially as, among other matters, we had a charge of upwards of two hundred thousand pounds sterling in money, that I gave in to his wishes, and finally gave up my plan. But I am now certain that if I could have executed it that it would not have been altogether unsuccessful.]
By these messages, I gained insight into the foolishness of the English Cabinet much more than I would have otherwise, and I revisited my previous plan. However, Colonel Lawrens was so hesitant to go back alone, especially since we had over two hundred thousand pounds in cash to manage, that I gave in to his preferences and ultimately abandoned my plan. But I’m now convinced that if I had been able to carry it out, it wouldn’t have been completely unsuccessful.
29 (return)
[ It is difficult to
account for the origin of charter and corporation towns, unless we suppose
them to have arisen out of, or been connected with, some species of
garrison service. The times in which they began justify this idea. The
generality of those towns have been garrisons, and the corporations were
charged with the care of the gates of the towns, when no military garrison
was present. Their refusing or granting admission to strangers, which has
produced the custom of giving, selling, and buying freedom, has more of
the nature of garrison authority than civil government. Soldiers are free
of all corporations throughout the nation, by the same propriety that
every soldier is free of every garrison, and no other persons are. He can
follow any employment, with the permission of his officers, in any
corporation towns throughout the nation.]
29 (return)
[ It's hard to explain how charter and corporation towns came about without thinking they were somehow linked to military garrison duties. The era in which they emerged supports this notion. Most of these towns served as garrisons, and the corporations were responsible for managing the town gates when there was no military presence. Their ability to allow or deny entry to outsiders led to the practice of granting, selling, and purchasing freedom, which resembles garrison authority more than civil governance. Soldiers are free from all corporations across the country, just like every soldier is free in any garrison, while others are not. They can pursue any occupation, with their officers' approval, in any corporation town throughout the country.]
30 (return)
[ See Sir John Sinclair's
History of the Revenue. The land-tax in 1646 was L2,473,499.]
30 (return)
[ See Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue. The land tax in 1646 was £2,473,499.]
31 (return)
[ Several of the court
newspapers have of late made frequent mention of Wat Tyler. That his
memory should be traduced by court sycophants and an those who live on the
spoil of a public is not to be wondered at. He was, however, the means of
checking the rage and injustice of taxation in his time, and the nation
owed much to his valour. The history is concisely this:—In the time
of Richard Ii. a poll tax was levied of one shilling per head upon every
person in the nation of whatever estate or condition, on poor as well as
rich, above the age of fifteen years. If any favour was shown in the law
it was to the rich rather than to the poor, as no person could be charged
more than twenty shillings for himself, family and servants, though ever
so numerous; while all other families, under the number of twenty were
charged per head. Poll taxes had always been odious, but this being also
oppressive and unjust, it excited as it naturally must, universal
detestation among the poor and middle classes. The person known by the
name of Wat Tyler, whose proper name was Walter, and a tiler by trade,
lived at Deptford. The gatherer of the poll tax, on coming to his house,
demanded tax for one of his daughters, whom Tyler declared was under the
age of fifteen. The tax-gatherer insisted on satisfying himself, and began
an indecent examination of the girl, which, enraging the father, he struck
him with a hammer that brought him to the ground, and was the cause of his
death. This circumstance served to bring the discontent to an issue. The
inhabitants of the neighbourhood espoused the cause of Tyler, who in a few
days was joined, according to some histories, by upwards of fifty thousand
men, and chosen their chief. With this force he marched to London, to
demand an abolition of the tax and a redress of other grievances. The
Court, finding itself in a forlorn condition, and, unable to make
resistance, agreed, with Richard at its head, to hold a conference with
Tyler in Smithfield, making many fair professions, courtier-like, of its
dispositions to redress the oppressions. While Richard and Tyler were in
conversation on these matters, each being on horseback, Walworth, then
Mayor of London, and one of the creatures of the Court, watched an
opportunity, and like a cowardly assassin, stabbed Tyler with a dagger,
and two or three others falling upon him, he was instantly sacrificed.
Tyler appears to have been an intrepid disinterested man with respect to
himself. All his proposals made to Richard were on a more just and public
ground than those which had been made to John by the Barons, and
notwithstanding the sycophancy of historians and men like Mr. Burke, who
seek to gloss over a base action of the Court by traducing Tyler, his fame
will outlive their falsehood. If the Barons merited a monument to be
erected at Runnymede, Tyler merited one in Smithfield.]
31 (return)
[ Recently, several court newspapers have frequently mentioned Wat Tyler. It's not surprising that his memory is slandered by court sycophants and those profiting from the public. However, he played a significant role in curbing the anger and injustice of taxation during his time, and the nation owes a lot to his bravery. Here’s the story: In the time of Richard II, a poll tax of one shilling per person was imposed on everyone in the country, regardless of their social status, affecting both the poor and the rich, as long as they were over fifteen years old. If there was any leniency in the law, it favored the rich over the poor, as no individual could be charged more than twenty shillings for their family and servants, no matter how large; meanwhile, all other families with fewer than twenty members were taxed per person. Poll taxes had always been disliked, but this one was particularly oppressive and unfair, naturally leading to widespread resentment among the poor and middle classes. The man known as Wat Tyler, whose real name was Walter and who worked as a tiler, lived in Deptford. When the tax collector came to his house, he demanded taxes for one of Tyler’s daughters, whom Tyler said was under fifteen. The tax collector insisted on verifying this and began to inappropriately examine the girl, which enraged her father. In the heat of the moment, Tyler struck him with a hammer, killing him instantly. This incident pushed the discontent to a breaking point. The people in the area rallied to Tyler’s cause, which quickly gathered, according to some accounts, over fifty thousand men, who elected him as their leader. With this force, he marched to London to demand the tax's abolition and address other grievances. The Court, realizing its hopeless situation and unable to resist, agreed, with Richard leading the way, to meet Tyler in Smithfield, making numerous appealing promises typical of courtiers about their intent to rectify the injustices. While Richard and Tyler were discussing these issues, both on horseback, Walworth, the then Mayor of London and one of the court's pawns, seized an opportunity and, acting like a cowardly assassin, stabbed Tyler with a dagger. Two or three others then attacked him, and he was quickly killed. Tyler seems to have been a fearless and selfless man. All his demands made to Richard were based on a fair and public rationale, unlike those proposed to King John by the Barons. Despite the sycophantic narratives of historians and people like Mr. Burke, who attempt to tarnish Tyler’s reputation to excuse the Court’s disgraceful actions, his legacy will endure beyond their deceit. If the Barons deserved a monument at Runnymede, Tyler deserves one in Smithfield.]
32 (return)
[ I happened to be in
England at the celebration of the centenary of the Revolution of 1688. The
characters of William and Mary have always appeared to be detestable; the
one seeking to destroy his uncle, and the other her father, to get
possession of power themselves; yet, as the nation was disposed to think
something of that event, I felt hurt at seeing it ascribe the whole
reputation of it to a man who had undertaken it as a job and who, besides
what he otherwise got, charged six hundred thousand pounds for the expense
of the fleet that brought him from Holland. George the First acted the
same close-fisted part as William had done, and bought the Duchy of Bremen
with the money he got from England, two hundred and fifty thousand pounds
over and above his pay as king, and having thus purchased it at the
expense of England, added it to his Hanoverian dominions for his own
private profit. In fact, every nation that does not govern itself is
governed as a job. England has been the prey of jobs ever since the
Revolution.]
32 (return)
[ I happened to be in England for the 100th anniversary of the Revolution of 1688. The figures of William and Mary have always seemed awful to me; one trying to eliminate his uncle and the other her father to seize power for themselves. Still, since the nation was inclined to reflect on that event, I was bothered to see it giving all the credit to a man who treated it like a side gig, and who, besides what he gained otherwise, charged six hundred thousand pounds for the costs of the fleet that brought him from Holland. George the First played the same stingy role as William did and purchased the Duchy of Bremen with money he received from England, two hundred and fifty thousand pounds beyond his salary as king, and having bought it at England's expense, added it to his Hanoverian lands for his own gain. In reality, every nation that doesn't govern itself is governed as a side job. England has been exploited by jobs ever since the Revolution.]
33 (return)
[ Charles, like his
predecessors and successors, finding that war was the harvest of
governments, engaged in a war with the Dutch, the expense of which
increased the annual expenditure to L1,800,000 as stated under the date of
1666; but the peace establishment was but L1,200,000.]
33 (return)
[ Charles, like his predecessors and successors, realizing that war was the way governments profited, got involved in a war with the Dutch, which raised the annual spending to £1,800,000 as noted in 1666; however, the budget for peace was only £1,200,000.]
34 (return)
[ Poor-rates began about
the time of Henry VIII., when the taxes began to increase, and they have
increased as the taxes increased ever since.]
34 (return)
[ Poor-rates started around the time of Henry VIII, when taxes began to rise, and they have continued to rise as taxes have increased ever since.]
35 (return)
[ Reckoning the taxes by
families, five to a family, each family pays on an average L12 7s. 6d. per
annum. To this sum are to be added the poor-rates. Though all pay taxes in
the articles they consume, all do not pay poor-rates. About two millions
are exempted: some as not being house-keepers, others as not being able,
and the poor themselves who receive the relief. The average, therefore, of
poor-rates on the remaining number, is forty shillings for every family of
five persons, which make the whole average amount of taxes and rates L14
17s. 6d. For six persons L17 17s. For seven persons L2O 16s. 6d. The
average of taxes in America, under the new or representative system of
government, including the interest of the debt contracted in the war, and
taking the population at four millions of souls, which it now amounts to,
and it is daily increasing, is five shillings per head, men, women, and
children. The difference, therefore, between the two governments is as
under:
35 (return)
[ Calculating taxes by families, with five members in each household, each family pays an average of £12 7s. 6d. per year. This amount needs to be increased by the poor-rates. While everyone pays taxes on the goods they buy, not everyone pays poor-rates. Around two million people are exempt: some because they don’t own a home, others due to inability to pay, and the poor themselves who receive support. Therefore, the average poor-rate for the remaining families is forty shillings for every household of five people, making the overall average of taxes and rates £14 17s. 6d. For six people, it's £17 17s. For seven people, it's £20 16s. 6d. The average tax in America, under the new representative government system, including interest on the debt incurred during the war, with the population now at four million and growing daily, is five shillings per person, including men, women, and children. The difference between the two governments is as follows:
England America L s. d. L s. d. For a family of five people 14 17 6 1 5 0 For a family of six people 17 17 0 1 10 0 For a family of seven people 20 16 6 1 15 0
36 (return)
[ Public schools do not
answer the general purpose of the poor. They are chiefly in corporation
towns from which the country towns and villages are excluded, or, if
admitted, the distance occasions a great loss of time. Education, to be
useful to the poor, should be on the spot, and the best method, I believe,
to accomplish this is to enable the parents to pay the expenses
themselves. There are always persons of both sexes to be found in every
village, especially when growing into years, capable of such an
undertaking. Twenty children at ten shillings each (and that not more than
six months each year) would be as much as some livings amount to in the
remotest parts of England, and there are often distressed clergymen's
widows to whom such an income would be acceptable. Whatever is given on
this account to children answers two purposes. To them it is education—to
those who educate them it is a livelihood.]
36 (return)
[ Public schools don't really meet the needs of the poor. They're mainly in corporate towns while rural towns and villages are often left out, or if they're included, the travel times waste a lot of time. Education needs to be available locally to benefit the poor, and I believe the best way to achieve this is by allowing parents to cover the costs themselves. There are always capable individuals of both genders in every village, especially as they get older, who can take on this responsibility. Twenty children at ten shillings each (for no more than six months a year) would be as much as some clergy make in the farthest corners of England, and there are often widows of struggling clergymen who would find such an income helpful. Whatever is provided for children serves two purposes: it’s education for them and a source of income for those teaching them.]
37 (return)
[ The tax on beer brewed
for sale, from which the aristocracy are exempt, is almost one million
more than the present commutation tax, being by the returns of 1788,
L1,666,152—and, consequently, they ought to take on themselves the
amount of the commutation tax, as they are already exempted from one which
is almost a million greater.]
37 (return)
[ The tax on beer made for sale, which the aristocracy doesn’t have to pay, is nearly one million higher than the current commutation tax. According to the 1788 returns, it amounts to L1,666,152—therefore, they should cover the commutation tax since they are already exempt from one that is almost a million more.]
39 (return)
[ When enquiries are made
into the condition of the poor, various degrees of distress will most
probably be found, to render a different arrangement preferable to that
which is already proposed. Widows with families will be in greater want
than where there are husbands living. There is also a difference in the
expense of living in different counties: and more so in fuel.
39 (return)
[ When questions are raised about the situation of the poor, you'll likely find different levels of hardship that make a new approach more suitable than the one that's currently suggested. Families headed by widows will be in greater need compared to those with husbands. There's also a difference in the cost of living across different counties, especially regarding fuel.
Suppose then fifty thousand extraordinary cases, at the rate of ten pounds per family per year £500,000 100,000 families, at £8 per family per year £800,000 100,000 families, at £7 per family per year £700,000 104,000 families, at £5 per family per year £520,000 And instead of ten shillings per person for the education of other children, to allow fifty shillings per family for that purpose to fifty thousand families £250,000 ————— £2,770,000 140,000 elderly individuals as before £1,120,000 ————— £3,890,000
This arrangement amounts to the same sum as stated in this work, Part II, line number 1068, including the L250,000 for education; but it provides (including the aged people) for four hundred and four thousand families, which is almost one third of an the families in England.]
This arrangement totals the same amount as mentioned in this work, Part II, line number 1068, including the L250,000 for education; but it supports four hundred and four thousand families, including the elderly, which is nearly one third of all the families in England.
40 (return)
[ I know it is the opinion
of many of the most enlightened characters in France (there always will be
those who see further into events than others), not only among the general
mass of citizens, but of many of the principal members of the former
National Assembly, that the monarchical plan will not continue many years
in that country. They have found out, that as wisdom cannot be made
hereditary, power ought not; and that, for a man to merit a million
sterling a year from a nation, he ought to have a mind capable of
comprehending from an atom to a universe, which, if he had, he would be
above receiving the pay. But they wished not to appear to lead the nation
faster than its own reason and interest dictated. In all the conversations
where I have been present upon this subject, the idea always was, that
when such a time, from the general opinion of the nation, shall arrive,
that the honourable and liberal method would be, to make a handsome
present in fee simple to the person, whoever he may be, that shall then be
in the monarchical office, and for him to retire to the enjoyment of
private life, possessing his share of general rights and privileges, and
to be no more accountable to the public for his time and his conduct than
any other citizen.]
40 (return)
[ I know that many of the most insightful people in France believe (there will always be those who see things more clearly than others), not just among the general public but also among many key members of the former National Assembly, that the monarchy won't last many more years in that country. They've realized that just as wisdom can't be inherited, neither should power; and for someone to deserve a million pounds a year from the nation, they should have a mind capable of comprehending everything from the smallest details to the grandest ideas, which, if they did, they would be above accepting such pay. However, they didn’t want to appear to push the nation faster than its own reason and interests allowed. In every discussion I’ve been part of on this topic, the common belief has been that when the time comes—based on the general opinion of the nation—the honorable and fair approach would be to give a substantial gift outright to whoever is in the monarchy at that time, allowing them to step back into private life while keeping their share of rights and privileges, and not being held accountable to the public for their time and actions any more than any other citizen.]
41 (return)
[ The gentleman who signed
the address and declaration as chairman of the meeting, Mr. Horne Tooke,
being generally supposed to be the person who drew it up, and having
spoken much in commendation of it, has been jocularly accused of praising
his own work. To free him from this embarrassment, and to save him the
repeated trouble of mentioning the author, as he has not failed to do, I
make no hesitation in saying, that as the opportunity of benefiting by the
French Revolution easily occurred to me, I drew up the publication in
question, and showed it to him and some other gentlemen, who, fully
approving it, held a meeting for the purpose of making it public, and
subscribed to the amount of fifty guineas to defray the expense of
advertising. I believe there are at this time, in England, a greater
number of men acting on disinterested principles, and determined to look
into the nature and practices of government themselves, and not blindly
trust, as has hitherto been the case, either to government generally, or
to parliaments, or to parliamentary opposition, than at any former period.
Had this been done a century ago, corruption and taxation had not arrived
to the height they are now at.]
41 (return)
[ The man who signed the address and declaration as the chairman of the meeting, Mr. Horne Tooke, is widely believed to have written it and has talked a lot about it positively, which has led to some playful teasing about him praising his own work. To spare him from this awkward situation and to avoid his repeated need to mention the author, which he's done, I will openly say that, recognizing the opportunity to benefit from the French Revolution, I put together the publication in question and showed it to him and some other gentlemen, who, agreeing with it entirely, held a meeting to make it public and contributed fifty guineas to cover the advertising costs. I believe that there are more individuals in England right now who are motivated by selfless principles and committed to understanding the nature and actions of government themselves, rather than blindly relying on the government as has mostly been the case, whether it’s the government itself, parliaments, or parliamentary opposition, than at any previous time. If this had been done a century ago, we would not have seen corruption and taxation reach the levels they have today.]
-END OF PART II.-
THE WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE
Common Sense |
Volume One |
Volume Two |
Volume Three |
Volume Four |
VOLUME III.
1791-1804
G. P. Putnam's Sons
New York London
Copyright, 1895
By G. P. Putnam's Sons

CONTENTS
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD VOLUME.
I. THE REPUBLICAN PROCLAMATION
II. TO THE AUTHORS OF "LE RIPUBLICAIN."
III. TO THE ABBI SIHYES
IV. TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
V. TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS
VI. LETTERS TO ONSLOW CRANLEY
VII. TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SUSSEX,
VIII. TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS
IX. LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ADDRESSERS ON THE LATE PROCLAMATION
X. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE
XI. ANTI-MONARCHAL ESSAY FOR THE USE OF NEW REPUBLICANS
XII. TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON THE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE SECOND PART
XIII. ON THE PROPRIETY OF BRINGING LOUIS XVI. TO TRIAL
XIV. REASONS FOR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF LOUIS CAPET,
XV. SHALL LOUIS XVI. HAVE RESPITE?
XVI. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
XVII. PRIVATE LETTERS TO JEFFERSON
XVIII. LETTER TO DANTON
XIX. A CITIZEN OF AMERICA TO THE CITIZENS OF EUROPE
XX. APPEAL TO THE CONVENTION
XXI. THE MEMORIAL TO MONROE
XXII. LETTER TO GEORGE WASHINGTON
XXIII. OBSERVATIONS
XXIV. DISSERTATION ON FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT
XXV. THE CONSTITUTION OF 1795
XXVI. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF FINANCE
XXVII. FORGETFULNESS
XXVIII. AGRARIAN JUSTICE
XXIX. THE EIGHTEENTH FRUCTIDOR
XXX. THE RECALL OF MONROE
XXXI. PRIVATE LETTER TO PRESIDENT JEFFERSON
XXXII. PROPOSAL THAT LOUISIANA BE PURCHASED
XXXIII. THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
XXXIV. TO THE FRENCH INHABITANTS OF LOUISIANA
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ THE REPUBLICAN PROCLAMATION
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__ TO THE AUTHORS OF "LE RIPUBLICAIN."
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__ TO THE ABBI SIHYES
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__ TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__ TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_6__ LETTERS TO ONSLOW CRANLEY
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_7__ TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SUSSEX,
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_8__ TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_9__ LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ADDRESSERS ON THE LATE PROCLAMATION
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_10__ ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_11__ ANTI-MONARCHAL ESSAY FOR THE USE OF NEW REPUBLICANS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_12__ TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON THE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE SECOND PART
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_13__ ON THE PROPRIETY OF BRINGING LOUIS XVI. TO TRIAL
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_14__ REASONS FOR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF LOUIS CAPET,
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_15__ SHALL LOUIS XVI. HAVE RESPITE?
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_16__ DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_17__ PRIVATE LETTERS TO JEFFERSON
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_18__ LETTER TO DANTON
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_19__ A CITIZEN OF AMERICA TO THE CITIZENS OF EUROPE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_20__ APPEAL TO THE CONVENTION
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_21__ THE MEMORIAL TO MONROE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_22__ LETTER TO GEORGE WASHINGTON
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_23__ OBSERVATIONS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_24__ DISSERTATION ON FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_25__ THE CONSTITUTION OF 1795
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_26__ THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF FINANCE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_27__ FORGETFULNESS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_28__ AGRARIAN JUSTICE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_29__ THE EIGHTEENTH FRUCTIDOR
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_30__ THE RECALL OF MONROE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_31__ PRIVATE LETTER TO PRESIDENT JEFFERSON
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_32__ PROPOSAL THAT LOUISIANA BE PURCHASED
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_33__ THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_34__ TO THE FRENCH INHABITANTS OF LOUISIANA
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD VOLUME.
WITH HISTORICAL NOTES AND DOCUMENTS.
In a letter of Lafayette to Washington ("Paris, 12 Jan., 1790") he writes: "Common Sense is writing for you a brochure where you will see a part of my adventures." It thus appears that the narrative embodied in the reply to Burke ("Rights of Man," Part I.), dedicated to Washington, was begun with Lafayette's collaboration fourteen months before its publication (March 13, 1791).
In a letter from Lafayette to Washington ("Paris, January 12, 1790"), he writes: "Common Sense is creating a pamphlet for you where you’ll see a part of my adventures." This indicates that the narrative included in the response to Burke ("Rights of Man," Part I.), dedicated to Washington, started with Lafayette's collaboration fourteen months before its publication (March 13, 1791).
In another letter of Lafayette to Washington (March 17, 1790) he writes:
In another letter from Lafayette to Washington (March 17, 1790), he writes:
"To Mr. Paine, who leaves for London, I entrust the care of sending you my news.... Permit me, my dear General, to offer you a picture representing the Bastille as it was some days after I gave the order for its demolition. I also pay you the homage of sending you the principal Key of that fortress of despotism. It is a tribute I owe as a son to my adoptive father, as aide-de-camp to my General, as a missionary of liberty to his Patriarch."
"To Mr. Paine, who is heading to London, I'm trusting him to send you my news.... Allow me, my dear General, to give you a picture of the Bastille as it looked a few days after I ordered its destruction. I'm also honored to send you the main Key of that fortress of tyranny. It's a tribute I owe as a son to my adoptive father, as aide-de-camp to my General, and as a champion of freedom to his Patriarch."
The Key was entrusted to Paine, and by him to J. Rut-ledge, Jr., who sailed from London in May. I have found in the manuscript despatches of Louis Otto, Chargi d' Affaires, several amusing paragraphs, addressed to his govern-ment at Paris, about this Key.
The Key was given to Paine, who then passed it on to J. Rutledge, Jr., who set sail from London in May. I found some entertaining paragraphs in the manuscript dispatches from Louis Otto, Chargé d'Affaires, addressed to his government in Paris, regarding this Key.
"August 4, 1790. In attending yesterday the public audience of the President, I was surprised by a question from the Chief Magistrate, 'whether I would like to see the Key of the Bastille?' One of his secretaries showed me at the same moment a large Key, which had been sent to the President by desire of the Marquis de la Fayette. I dissembled my surprise in observing to the President that 'the time had not yet come in America to do ironwork equal to that before him.' The Americans present looked at the key with indifference, and as if wondering why it had been sent But the serene face of the President showed that he regarded it as an homage from the French nation." "December 13, 1790. The Key of the Bastille, regularly shown at the President's audiences, is now also on exhibition in Mrs. Washington's salon, where it satisfies the curiosity of the Philadelphians. I am persuaded, Monseigneur, that it is only their vanity that finds pleasure in the exhibition of this trophy, but Frenchmen here are not the less piqued, and many will not enter the President's house on this account."
"August 4, 1790. During my visit to the public audience with the President yesterday, I was caught off guard by a question from him, asking if I would like to see the Key of the Bastille. At the same time, one of his secretaries showed me a large key that had been sent to the President at the request of the Marquis de la Fayette. I masked my surprise by telling the President that 'the time has not yet come in America for ironwork matching what was before us.' The Americans present looked at the key with indifference, as if confused about why it was sent. However, the calm expression on the President’s face showed that he saw it as a tribute from the French nation." "December 13, 1790. The Key of the Bastille, which is regularly displayed at the President's audiences, is now also on display in Mrs. Washington's salon, where it piques the curiosity of the people in Philadelphia. I’m convinced, Monseigneur, that it is only their vanity that enjoys the display of this trophy, but Frenchmen here are still annoyed, and many refuse to enter the President's house because of it."
In sending the key Paine, who saw farther than these distant Frenchmen, wrote to Washington: "That the principles of America opened the Bastille is not to be doubted, and therefore the Key comes to the right place."
In sending the key, Paine, who understood more than these distant Frenchmen, wrote to Washington: "There's no doubt that America's principles helped open the Bastille, so the Key is going to the right place."
Early in May, 1791 (the exact date is not given), Lafayette writes Washington: "I send you the rather indifferent translation of Mr. Paine as a kind of preservative and to keep me near you." This was a hasty translation of "Rights of Man," Part I., by F. So{les, presently superseded by that of Lanthenas.
Early in May 1791 (the exact date isn’t mentioned), Lafayette writes to Washington: "I’m sending you the rather poor translation of Mr. Paine as a way to preserve it and to keep me connected to you." This was a quick translation of "Rights of Man," Part I., by F. So{les, which was later replaced by that of Lanthenas.
The first convert of Paine to pure republicanism in France was Achille Duchbtelet, son of the Duke, and grandson of the authoress,—the friend of Voltaire. It was he and Paine who, after the flight of Louis XVI., placarded Paris with the Proclamation of a Republic, given as the first chapter of this volume. An account of this incident is here quoted from Etienne Dumont's "Recollections of Mirabeau":
The first person Paine converted to pure republicanism in France was Achille Duchbtelet, the son of the Duke and the grandson of the authoress, who was a friend of Voltaire. It was he and Paine who, after Louis XVI's escape, put up posters all over Paris declaring a Republic, as presented in the first chapter of this volume. An account of this event is quoted here from Etienne Dumont's "Recollections of Mirabeau":
"The celebrated Paine was at this time in Paris, and intimate in Condorcet's family. Thinking that he had effected the American Revolution, he fancied himself called upon to bring about one in France. Duchbtelet called on me, and after a little preface placed in my hand an English manuscript—a Proclamation to the French People. It was nothing less than an anti-royalist Manifesto, and summoned the nation to seize the opportunity and establish a Republic. Paine was its author. Duchbtelet had adopted and was resolved to sign, placard the walls of Paris with it, and take the consequences. He had come to request me to translate and develop it. I began discussing the strange proposal, and pointed out the danger of raising a republican standard without concurrence of the National Assembly, and nothing being as yet known of the king's intentions, resources, alliances, and possibilities of support by the army, and in the provinces. I asked if he had consulted any of the most influential leaders,—Sieves, Lafayette, etc. He had not: he and Paine had acted alone. An American and an impulsive nobleman had put themselves forward to change the whole governmental system of France. Resisting his entreaties, I refused to translate the Proclamation. Next day the republican Proclamation appeared on the walls in every part of Paris, and was denounced to the Assembly. The idea of a Republic had previously presented itself to no one: this first intimation filled with consternation the Right and the moderates of the Left. Malouet, Cazales, and others proposed prosecution of the author, but Chapelier, and a numerous party, fearing to add fuel to the fire instead of extinguishing it, prevented this. But some of the seed sown by the audacious hand of Paine were now budding in leading minds."
"The renowned Paine was in Paris at this time, closely connected with Condorcet's family. Believing he had played a key role in the American Revolution, he thought it was his duty to spark a similar change in France. Duchbtelet visited me and, after a brief introduction, handed me an English manuscript—a Proclamation to the French People. It was essentially an anti-royalist Manifesto, urging the nation to seize the moment and establish a Republic. Paine was the author. Duchbtelet had embraced it and was determined to sign it, post it throughout Paris, and face the consequences. He came to ask me to translate and expand upon it. I started discussing this unusual proposal and pointed out the risks of raising a republican banner without the backing of the National Assembly, especially since we still didn’t know the king’s intentions, resources, alliances, or potential support from the army and provinces. I asked if he had consulted any of the key leaders—like Sieves, Lafayette, etc. He had not; he and Paine had acted independently. An American and an impulsive nobleman had taken the initiative to change the entire government system of France. Despite his pleas, I declined to translate the Proclamation. The next day, the republican Proclamation appeared on walls all over Paris and was brought to the Assembly's attention. The idea of a Republic had never been proposed before; this first announcement shocked both the Right and the moderates of the Left. Malouet, Cazales, and others suggested prosecuting the author, but Chapelier and a large group, fearing that such action would only exacerbate the situation, stopped this. However, some of the seeds sown by Paine's bold hand were now taking root in the minds of influential leaders."
A Republican Club was formed in July, consisting of five members, the others who joined themselves to Paine and Duchbtelet being Condorcet, and probably Lanthenas (translator of Paine's works), and Nicolas de Bonneville. They advanced so far as to print "Le Ripublicain," of which, however, only one number ever appeared. From it is taken the second piece in this volume.
A Republican Club was established in July, made up of five members, including Condorcet and possibly Lanthenas (the translator of Paine's works) and Nicolas de Bonneville, who joined Paine and Duchbtelet. They managed to publish "Le Ripublicain," but only one issue was ever released. The second piece in this volume is taken from it.
Early in the year 1792 Paine lodged in the house and book-shop of Thomas "Clio" Rickman, now as then 7 Upper Marylebone Street. Among his friends was the mystical artist and poet, William Blake. Paine had become to him a transcendental type; he is one of the Seven who appear in Blake's "Prophecy" concerning America (1793):
Early in 1792, Paine stayed at the house and bookstore of Thomas "Clio" Rickman, located at 7 Upper Marylebone Street, just like it is today. One of his friends was the mystical artist and poet, William Blake. Paine had become for Blake a transcendental figure; he is one of the Seven who appear in Blake's "Prophecy" about America (1793):
"The Guardian Prince of Albion burns in his nightly tent Dull fires across the Atlantic shine on America's shore; Piercing the souls of fierce men, who rise in the quiet night:— Washington, Franklin, Paine, and Warren, Gates, Hancock, and Greene, Gather on the coast glowing with blood from Albion's fiery Prince."
The Seven are wrapt in the flames of their enthusiasm. Albion's Prince sends to America his thirteen Angels, who, however, there become Governors of the thirteen States. It is difficult to discover from Blake's mystical visions how much political radicalism was in him, but he certainly saved Paine from the scaffold by forewarning him (September 13, 1792) that an order had been issued for his arrest. Without repeating the story told in Gilchrist's "Life of Blake," and in my "Life of Paine," I may add here my belief that Paine also appears in one of Blake's pictures. The picture is in the National Gallery (London), and called "The spiritual form of Pitt guiding Behemoth." The monster jaws of Behemoth are full of struggling men, some of whom stretch imploring hands to another spiritual form, who reaches down from a crescent moon in the sky, as if to rescue them. This face and form appear to me certainly meant for Paine.
The Seven are engulfed in the flames of their passion. Albion's Prince sends his thirteen Angels to America, who then become Governors of the thirteen States. It's hard to tell from Blake's mystical visions how much political radicalism he had, but he definitely saved Paine from execution by warning him (September 13, 1792) that an order had been issued for his arrest. Without repeating the story told in Gilchrist's "Life of Blake" and my "Life of Paine," I can add my belief that Paine also appears in one of Blake's paintings. The painting is in the National Gallery (London) and is called "The Spiritual Form of Pitt Guiding Behemoth." The monstrous jaws of Behemoth are filled with struggling men, some of whom stretch out their hands in desperation to another spiritual form that reaches down from a crescent moon in the sky, as if to save them. This face and form definitely seem to represent Paine.
Acting on Blake's warning Paine's friends got him off to Dover, where, after some trouble, related in a letter to Dundas (see p. 41 of this volume), he reached Calais. He had been elected by four departments to the National Convention, and selected Calais, where he was welcomed with grand civic parades. On September 19, 1792, he arrived in Paris, stopping at "White's Hotel," 7 Passage des Pitits Phres, about five minutes' walk from the Salle de Manige, where, on September 21st, the National Convention opened its sessions. The spot is now indicated by a tablet on the wall of the Tuileries Garden, Rue de Rivoli. On that day Paine was introduced to the Convention by the Abbi Grigoire, and received with acclamation.
Acting on Blake's warning, Paine's friends got him to Dover, where, after some trouble described in a letter to Dundas (see p. 41 of this volume), he made it to Calais. He had been elected by four departments to the National Convention and chose Calais, where he was welcomed with grand civic parades. On September 19, 1792, he arrived in Paris, staying at "White's Hotel," 7 Passage des Petits Pères, about a five-minute walk from the Salle de Manège, where the National Convention began its sessions on September 21st. The location is now marked by a plaque on the wall of the Tuileries Garden, Rue de Rivoli. On that day, Paine was presented to the Convention by the Abbé Grégoire and received with cheers.
The French Minister in London, Chauvelin, had sent to his government (still royalist) a despatch unfavorable to Paine's work in England, part of which I translate:
The French Minister in London, Chauvelin, had sent a report to his government (still royalist) that was critical of Paine's work in England, part of which I translate:
"May 23, 1792. An Association [for Parliamentary Reform, see pp. 78, 93, of this volume] has been formed to seek the means of forwarding the demand. It includes some distinguished members of the Commons, and a few peers. The writings of M. Payne which preceded this Association by a few days have done it infinite harm. People suspect under the veil of a reform long demanded by justice and reason an intention to destroy a constitution equally dear to the peers whose privileges it consecrates, to the wealthy whom it protects, and to the entire nation, to which it assures all the liberty desired by a people methodical and slow in character, and who, absorbed in their commercial interests, do not like being perpetually worried about the imbecile George III. or public affairs. Vainly have the friends of reform protested their attachment to the Constitution. Vainly they declare that they desire to demand nothing, to obtain nothing, save in lawful ways. They are persistently disbelieved. Payne alone is seen in all their movements; and this author has not, like Mackintosh, rendered imposing his refutation of Burke. The members of the Association, although very different in principles, find themselves involved in the now almost general disgrace of Payne."
"May 23, 1792. An Association [for Parliamentary Reform, see pp. 78, 93, of this volume] has been created to push forward the demand. It includes some notable members of the Commons and a few peers. The writings of M. Payne, which came out just days before this Association, have caused significant harm. People suspect that behind the long-awaited reform lies an intention to undermine a constitution that is equally valued by the peers whose privileges it protects, by the wealthy whom it safeguards, and by the entire nation, which relies on it for the freedoms desired by a methodical and slow-to-change populace, who, focused on their commercial interests, do not appreciate being constantly troubled by the foolish George III or public issues. Despite their protests asserting their loyalty to the Constitution, the reform advocates are not believed. They insist that they seek nothing outside of lawful means, yet they remain discredited. Only Payne is recognized in all their actions, and this author has not, like Mackintosh, crafted a compelling rebuttal to Burke. The members of the Association, despite their differing principles, find themselves tarnished by the widespread disgrace associated with Payne."
M. Nokl writes from London, November 2, 1792, to the republican Minister, Le Brun, concerning the approaching trial of Paine, which had been fixed for December 18th.
M. Nokl writes from London, November 2, 1792, to the republican Minister, Le Brun, about the upcoming trial of Paine, scheduled for December 18th.
"This matter above all excites the liveliest interest. People desire to know whether they live in a free country, where criticism even of government is a right of every citizen. Whatever may be the decision in this interesting trial, the result can only be fortunate for the cause of liberty. But the government cannot conceal from itself that it is suspended over a volcano. The wild dissipations of the King's sons add to the discontent, and if something is overlooked in the Prince of Wales, who is loved enough, it is not so with the Duke of York, who has few friends. The latter has so many debts that at this moment the receivers are in his house, and the creditors wish even his bed to be seized. You perceive, Citizen, what a text fruitful in reflexions this conduct presents to a people groaning under the weight of taxes for the support of such whelps (louvetaux)."
"This issue, above all, sparks the most interest. People want to know if they live in a free country where everyone has the right to criticize the government. No matter what the outcome of this intriguing trial is, it will ultimately benefit the cause of liberty. However, the government cannot ignore the fact that it's hanging over a volcano. The reckless behavior of the King's sons only fuels the discontent, and while many love the Prince of Wales, the same cannot be said for the Duke of York, who has few allies. The Duke is so deep in debt that creditors are currently in his house, wanting even his bed seized. You see, Citizen, what a thought-provoking situation this behavior presents to a people suffering under heavy taxes to support such worthless individuals (louvetaux).”
Under date of December 22, 1792, M. Nokl writes:
Under the date of December 22, 1792, M. Nokl writes:
"London is perfectly tranquil. The arbitrary measures taken by the government in advance [of Paine's trial] cause no anxiety to the mass of the nation about its liberties. Some dear-headed people see well that the royal prerogative will gain in this crisis, and that it is dangerous to leave executive power to become arbitrary at pleasure; but this very small number groan in silence, and dare not speak for fear of seeing their property pillaged or burned by what the miserable hirelings of government call 'Loyal Mob,' or 'Church and King Mob.' To the 'Addressers,' of whom I wrote you, are added the associations for maintaining the Constitution they are doing all they can to destroy. There is no corporation, no parish, which is not mustered for this object. All have assembled, one on the other, to press against those whom they call 'The Republicans and the Levellers,' the most inquisitorial measures. Among other parishes, one (S. James' Vestry Room) distinguishes itself by a decree worthy of the sixteenth century. It promises twenty guineas reward to any one who shall denounce those who in conversation or otherwise propagate opinions contrary to the public tranquillity, and places the denouncer under protection of the parish. The inhabitants of London are now placed under a new kind of Test, and those who refuse it will undoubtedly be persecuted. Meantime these papers are carried from house to house to be signed, especially by those lodging as strangers. This Test causes murmurs, and some try to evade signature, but the number is few. The example of the capital is generally followed. The trial of Payne, which at one time seemed likely to cause events, has ended in the most peaceful way. Erskine has been borne to his house by people shouting God Save the King! Erskine forever! The friends of liberty generally are much dissatisfied with the way in which he has defended his client. They find that he threw himself into commonplaces which could make his eloquence shine, but guarded himself well from going to the bottom of the question. Vane especially, a distinguished advocate and zealous democrat, is furious against Erskine. It is now for Payne to defend himself. But whatever he does, he will have trouble enough to reverse the opinion. The Jury's verdict is generally applauded: a mortal blow is dealt to freedom of thought. People sing in the streets, even at midnight, God save the King and damn Tom Payne!" (1)
"London is completely calm. The random actions taken by the government ahead of Paine's trial aren't making most people anxious about their freedoms. Some clear-headed individuals recognize that the royal authority will benefit from this situation and that it’s risky to let executive power become arbitrary at will; however, this very small number grumble quietly and don’t dare to speak up for fear of having their property stolen or burned by what the miserable government agents call the 'Loyal Mob' or 'Church and King Mob.' The 'Addressers,' whom I mentioned to you, are joined by groups committed to preserving the Constitution that they are actually trying to destroy. No corporation or parish is left out in this effort. Everyone has come together, one after the other, to push against those they label 'The Republicans and the Levellers' with the most invasive measures. Among various parishes, one (S. James' Vestry Room) stands out with a decree worthy of the sixteenth century. It offers a twenty-guinea reward to anyone who denounces those who express opinions that go against public peace and ensures the denouncer’s protection from the parish. The people of London are now subjected to a new kind of Test, and those who refuse it will surely face persecution. Meanwhile, these papers are being taken from house to house for signatures, especially targeting those staying as guests. This Test is causing unrest, and some are trying to evade signing it, but their numbers are few. The example set by the capital is usually followed. The trial of Paine, which once seemed likely to lead to significant events, ended in the most peaceful manner. Erskine was carried home by supporters shouting God Save the King! Erskine forever! Friends of liberty are quite disappointed with how he defended his client. They believe he focused on common ideas that made his oratory impress, but avoided addressing the core of the matter. Vane, in particular, a noted lawyer and passionate democrat, is furious with Erskine. Now it's up to Paine to defend himself. But whatever he does, he’ll have a tough time changing public opinion. The jury’s verdict has been widely praised: a serious blow has been dealt to freedom of thought. People sing in the streets, even at midnight, God save the King and damn Tom Paine!" (1)
1 The messages these translations are based on are in the Archives of the Department of State in Paris, in the series labeled Angleterre vol. 581.
The student of that period will find some instruction in a collection, now in the British Museum, of coins and medals mostly struck after the trial and outlawry of Paine. A halfpenny, January 21,1793: obverse, a man hanging on a gibbet, with church in the distance; motto "End of Pain"; reverse, open book inscribed "The Wrongs of Man." A token: bust of Paine, with his name; reverse, "The Mountain in Labour, 1793." Farthing: Paine gibbeted; reverse, breeches burning, legend, "Pandora's breeches"; beneath, serpent decapitated by a dagger, the severed head that of Paine. Similar farthing, but reverse, combustibles intermixed with labels issuing from a globe marked "Fraternity"; the labels inscribed "Regicide," "Robbery," "Falsity," "Requisition"; legend, "French Reforms, 1797"; near by, a church with flag, on it a cross. Half-penny without date, but no doubt struck in 1794, when a rumor reached London that Paine had been guillotined: Paine gibbeted; above, devil smoking a pipe; reverse, monkey dancing; legend, "We dance, Paine swings." Farthing: three men hanging on a gallows; "The three Thomases, 1796." Reverse, "May the three knaves of Jacobin Clubs never get a trick." The three Thomases were Thomas Paine, Thomas Muir, and Thomas Spence. In 1794 Spence was imprisoned seven months for publishing some of Paine's works at his so-called "Hive of Liberty." Muir, a Scotch lawyer, was banished to Botany Bay for fourteen years for having got up in Edinburgh (1792) a "Convention," in imitation of that just opened in Paris; two years later he escaped from Botany Bay on an American ship, and found his way to Paine in Paris. Among these coins there are two of opposite character. A farthing represents Pitt on a gibbet, against which rests a ladder; inscription, "End of P [here an eye] T." Reverse, face of Pitt conjoined with that of the devil, and legend, "Even Fellows." Another farthing like the last, except an added legend, "Such is the reward of tyrants, 1796." These anti-Pitt farthings were struck by Thomas Spence.
The student from that time will find some lessons in a collection, now in the British Museum, of coins and medals, mostly made after the trial and exile of Paine. A halfpenny, January 21, 1793: obverse, a man hanging on a gallows, with a church in the background; motto "End of Pain"; reverse, an open book inscribed "The Wrongs of Man." A token: a bust of Paine, with his name; reverse, "The Mountain in Labour, 1793." A farthing: Paine hanging; reverse, burning breeches, legend, "Pandora's breeches"; beneath, a serpent decapitated by a dagger, the severed head that of Paine. A similar farthing, but the reverse features combustibles mixed with labels coming from a globe marked "Fraternity"; the labels read "Regicide," "Robbery," "Falsity," "Requisition"; legend, "French Reforms, 1797"; nearby, a church with a flag displaying a cross. A halfpenny with no date, but certainly made in 1794, when rumors reached London that Paine had been guillotined: Paine hanging; above, a devil smoking a pipe; reverse, a monkey dancing; legend, "We dance, Paine swings." A farthing: three men hanging from a gallows; "The three Thomases, 1796." Reverse, "May the three knaves of Jacobin Clubs never get a trick." The three Thomases were Thomas Paine, Thomas Muir, and Thomas Spence. In 1794 Spence was imprisoned for seven months for publishing some of Paine's works at his so-called "Hive of Liberty." Muir, a Scottish lawyer, was exiled to Botany Bay for fourteen years for organizing a "Convention" in Edinburgh (1792), inspired by the one just started in Paris; two years later, he escaped from Botany Bay on an American ship and made his way to Paine in Paris. Among these coins, there are two of a different nature. A farthing shows Pitt hanging from a gallows, with a ladder leaning against it; inscription, "End of P [here an eye] T." Reverse, the face of Pitt combined with that of the devil, and legend, "Even Fellows." Another farthing like the previous one, except with an added legend, "Such is the reward of tyrants, 1796." These anti-Pitt farthings were made by Thomas Spence.
In the winter of 1792-3 the only Reign of Terror was in England. The Ministry had replied to Paine's "Rights of Man" by a royal proclamation against seditious literature, surrounding London with militia, and calling a meeting of Parliament (December, 1792) out of season. Even before the trial of Paine his case was prejudged by the royal proclamation, and by the Addresses got up throughout the country in response,—documents which elicited Paine's Address to the Addressers, chapter IX. in this volume. The Tory gentry employed roughs to burn Paine in effigy throughout the country, and to harry the Nonconformists. Dr. Priestley's house was gutted. Mr. Fox (December 14, 1792) reminded the House of Commons that all the mobs had "Church and King" for their watchword, no mob having been heard of for "The Rights of Man"; and he vainly appealed to the government to prosecute the dangerous libels against Dissenters as they were prosecuting Paine's work. Burke, who in the extra session of Parliament for the first time took his seat on the Treasury Bench, was reminded that he had once "exulted at the victories of that rebel Washington," and welcomed Franklin. "Franklin," he said, "was a native of America; Paine was born in England, and lived under the protection of our laws; but, instigated by his evil genius, he conspired against the very country which gave him birth, by attempting to introduce the new and pernicious doctrines of republicans."
In the winter of 1792-3, the only true Reign of Terror was in England. The government responded to Paine's "Rights of Man" with a royal proclamation against seditious literature, surrounding London with militia and calling for an off-season meeting of Parliament in December 1792. Even before Paine's trial, his case was prejudged by the royal proclamation and the Addresses organized across the country in response—documents that prompted Paine's Address to the Addressers, found in chapter IX of this volume. The Tory gentry hired thugs to burn Paine in effigy all over the country and to intimidate Nonconformists. Dr. Priestley's house was destroyed. Mr. Fox, on December 14, 1792, reminded the House of Commons that all the mobs shouted "Church and King," with no mob ever heard advocating for "The Rights of Man"; he unsuccessfully urged the government to prosecute the harmful libels against Dissenters as they were going after Paine's work. Burke, who took his seat for the first time on the Treasury Bench during the extra session of Parliament, was reminded that he had once "celebrated the victories of that rebel Washington" and welcomed Franklin. "Franklin," he said, "was an American; Paine was born in England and lived under the protection of our laws. But, driven by his evil genius, he conspired against the very country that gave him birth by trying to introduce the new and dangerous ideas of republicans."
In the course of the same harangue, Burke alluded to the English and Irish deputations, then in Paris, which had congratulated the Convention on the defeat of the invaders of the Republic. Among them he named Lord Semphill, John Frost, D. Adams, and "Joel—Joel the Prophet" (Joel Barlow). These men were among those who, towards the close of 1792, formed a sort of Paine Club at "Philadelphia House"—as White's Hotel was now called. The men gathered around Paine, as the exponent of republican principles, were animated by a passion for liberty which withheld no sacrifice. Some of them threw away wealth and rank as trifles. At a banquet of the Club, at Philadelphia House, November 18, 1792, where Paine presided, Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Sir Robert Smyth, Baronet, formally renounced their titles. Sir Robert proposed the toast, "A speedy abolition of all hereditary titles and feudal distinctions." Another toast was, "Paine—and the new way of making good books known by a Royal proclamation and a King's Bench prosecution."
During the same speech, Burke mentioned the English and Irish delegations that were in Paris at the time, who congratulated the Convention on defeating the invaders of the Republic. He specifically named Lord Semphill, John Frost, D. Adams, and "Joel—Joel the Prophet" (Joel Barlow). These individuals were part of a sort of Paine Club formed towards the end of 1792 at "Philadelphia House"—which was the new name for White's Hotel. The members who rallied around Paine, as a champion of republican values, were driven by a strong desire for freedom that they were willing to sacrifice anything for. Some even discarded their wealth and social status as if they were insignificant. At a gathering of the Club at Philadelphia House on November 18, 1792, where Paine was the host, Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Sir Robert Smyth, Baronet, officially gave up their titles. Sir Robert raised a toast to "a quick end to all hereditary titles and feudal distinctions." Another toast honored "Paine—and the new method of making good books known through a Royal proclamation and a King's Bench prosecution."
There was also Franklin's friend, Benjamin Vaughan, Member of Parliament, who, compromised by an intercepted letter, took refuge in Paris under the name of Jean Martin. Other Englishmen were Rev. Jeremiah Joyce, a Unitarian minister and author (coadjutor of Dr. Gregory in his "Cyclopaedia "); Henry Redhead Yorke, a West Indian with some negro blood (afterwards an agent of Pitt, under whom he had been imprisoned); Robert Merry, husband of the actress "Miss Brunton"; Sayer, Rayment, Macdonald, Perry.
There was also Franklin's friend, Benjamin Vaughan, a Member of Parliament, who, after an intercepted letter compromised him, escaped to Paris using the name Jean Martin. Other Englishmen included Rev. Jeremiah Joyce, a Unitarian minister and author (assistant to Dr. Gregory in his "Cyclopaedia"); Henry Redhead Yorke, a West Indian with some African ancestry (who later became an agent for Pitt, under whom he had been imprisoned); Robert Merry, the husband of the actress "Miss Brunton"; and Sayer, Rayment, Macdonald, and Perry.
Sampson Perry of London, having attacked the government in his journal, "The Argus," fled from an indictment, and reached Paris in January, 1793. These men, who for a time formed at Philadelphia House their Parliament of Man, were dashed by swift storms on their several rocks. Sir Robert Smyth was long a prisoner under the Reign of Terror, and died (1802) of the illness thereby contracted. Lord Edward Fitzgerald was slain while trying to kindle a revolution in Ireland. Perry was a prisoner in the Luxembourg, and afterwards in London. John Frost, a lawyer (struck off the roll), ventured back to London, where he was imprisoned six months in Newgate, sitting in the pillory at Charing Cross one hour per day. Robert Merry went to Baltimore, where he died in 1798. Nearly all of these men suffered griefs known only to the "man without a country."
Sampson Perry from London, having criticized the government in his journal, "The Argus," fled from an indictment and arrived in Paris in January 1793. These men, who for a time created their Parliament of Man at Philadelphia House, were quickly overwhelmed by fierce challenges. Sir Robert Smyth was imprisoned for a long time during the Reign of Terror and died in 1802 from an illness he caught there. Lord Edward Fitzgerald was killed while trying to ignite a revolution in Ireland. Perry was imprisoned in the Luxembourg and later in London. John Frost, a lawyer (disbarred), returned to London, where he was imprisoned for six months in Newgate, spending one hour each day in the pillory at Charing Cross. Robert Merry moved to Baltimore, where he died in 1798. Almost all of these men endured sorrows known only to the "man without a country."
Sampson Perry, who in 1796 published an interesting "History of the French Revolution," has left an account of his visit to Paine in January, 1793:
Sampson Perry, who published an interesting "History of the French Revolution" in 1796, shared a description of his visit with Paine in January 1793:
"I breakfasted with Paine about this time at the Philadelphia Hotel, and asked him which province in America he conceived the best calculated for a fugitive to settle in, and, as it were, to begin the world with no other means or pretensions than common sense and common honesty. Whether he saw the occasion and felt the tendency of this question I know not; but he turned it aside by the political news of the day, and added that he was going to dine with Petion, the mayor, and that he knew I should be welcome and be entertained. We went to the mayoralty in a hackney coach, and were seated at a table about which were placed the following persons: Petion, the mayor of Paris, with his female relation who did the honour of the table; Dumourier, the commander-in-chief of the French forces, and one of his aides-de-camp; Santerre, the commandant of the armed force of Paris, and an aide-de-camp; Condorcet; Brissot; Gaudet; Genson-net; Danton; Rersaint; Clavihre; Vergniaud; and Syhyes; which, with three other persons, whose names I do not now recollect, and including Paine and myself, made in all nineteen."
"I had breakfast with Paine around this time at the Philadelphia Hotel and asked him which province in America he thought would be the best place for a runaway to settle down and start fresh with nothing but common sense and honesty. I'm not sure if he understood the significance of my question, but he brushed it off by talking about the political news of the day and mentioned that he was going to have dinner with Petion, the mayor, and that I would be welcome and would be entertained. We took a hackney coach to the mayor's residence and sat down at a table with the following people: Petion, the mayor of Paris, who had a female relative hosting the dinner; Dumourier, the commander-in-chief of the French forces, along with one of his aides; Santerre, who commanded the armed forces of Paris, and another aide; Condorcet; Brissot; Gaudet; Genson-net; Danton; Rersaint; Clavihre; Vergniaud; and Syhyes; along with three other people whose names I can’t remember, which, including Paine and me, made a total of nineteen."
Paine found warm welcome in the home of Achille Du-chbtelet, who with him had first proclaimed the Republic, and was now a General. Madame Duchbtelet was an English lady of rank, Charlotte Comyn, and English was fluently spoken in the family. They resided at Auteuil, not far from the Abbi Moulet, who preserved an arm-chair with the inscription, Benjamin Franklin hic sedebat, Paine was a guest of the Duchbtelets soon after he got to work in the Convention, as I have just discovered by a letter addressed "To Citizen Le Brun, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paris."
Paine received a warm welcome in the home of Achille Du-châtelet, who had first announced the Republic alongside him and was now a General. Madame Du-châtelet was an English lady of status, Charlotte Comyn, and the family spoke English fluently. They lived in Auteuil, not far from Abbi Moulet, who kept an armchair with the inscription, Benjamin Franklin hic sedebat. Paine was a guest of the Du-châtelets shortly after he began working in the Convention, as I have just found out from a letter addressed "To Citizen Le Brun, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paris."
"Auteuil, Friday, the 4th December, 1792. I enclose an Irish newspaper which has been sent me from Belfast. It contains the Address of the Society of United Irishmen of Dublin (of which Society I am a member) to the volunteers of Ireland. None of the English newspapers that I have seen have ventured to republish this Address, and as there is no other copy of it than this which I send you, I request you not to let it go out of your possession. Before I received this newspaper I had drawn up a statement of the affairs of Ireland, which I had communicated to my friend General Duchbtelet at Auteuil, where I now am. I wish to confer with you on that subject, but as I do not speak French, and as the matter requires confidence, General Duchbtelet has desired me to say that if you can make it convenient to dine with him and me at Auteuil, he will with pleasure do the office of interpreter. I send this letter by my servant, but as it may not be convenient to you to give an answer directly, I have told him not to wait—Thomas Paine."
"Auteuil, Friday, December 4, 1792. I'm sending you an Irish newspaper that was sent to me from Belfast. It includes the Address from the Society of United Irishmen of Dublin (which I’m a member of) to the volunteers of Ireland. None of the English newspapers I've seen have dared to republish this Address, and since this is the only copy I have, I ask that you keep it safe. Before I got this newspaper, I had prepared a statement regarding the situation in Ireland, which I shared with my friend General Duchbtelet here in Auteuil. I want to discuss this with you, but since I don't speak French and the matter needs discretion, General Duchbtelet has asked me to say that if you can join us for dinner at Auteuil, he would gladly act as interpreter. I’m sending this letter with my servant, but if it's not possible for you to reply directly, I've instructed him not to wait—Thomas Paine."
It will be noticed that Paine now keeps his servant, and drives to the Mayor's dinner in a hackney coach. A portrait painted in Paris about this time, now owned by Mr. Alfred Howlett of Syracuse, N. Y., shows him in elegant costume.
It will be noticed that Paine now has a servant and takes a cab to the Mayor's dinner. A portrait painted in Paris around this time, currently owned by Mr. Alfred Howlett of Syracuse, N.Y., depicts him in stylish attire.
It is mournful to reflect, even at this distance, that only a little later both Paine and his friend General Duchbtelet were prisoners. The latter poisoned himself in prison (1794).
It’s sad to think that not long after that, both Paine and his friend General Duchbtelet became prisoners. Duchbtelet ended up poisoning himself in prison (1794).
The illustrative notes and documents which it seems best to set before the reader at the outset may here terminate. As in the previous volumes the writings are, as a rule, given in chronological sequence, but an exception is now made in respect of Paine's religious writings, some of which antedate essays in the present volume. The religious writings are reserved for the fourth and final volume, to which will be added an Appendix containing Paine's poems, scientific fragments, and several letters of general interest.
The introductory notes and documents that seem best to present to the reader at this point may now conclude. As in the earlier volumes, the writings are generally arranged in chronological order, but there is now an exception for Paine's religious writings, some of which were written before the essays in this volume. The religious writings will be saved for the fourth and final volume, which will include an Appendix with Paine's poems, scientific writings, and several letters of general interest.
I. THE REPUBLICAN PROCLAMATION.(1)
"Brethren and Fellow Citizens:
"The serene tranquillity, the mutual confidence which prevailed amongst us, during the time of the late King's escape, the indifference with which we beheld him return, are unequivocal proofs that the absence of a King is more desirable than his presence, and that he is not only a political superfluity, but a grievous burden, pressing hard on the whole nation.
"The calm peace and mutual trust we shared during the late King’s escape, along with the indifference we showed when he returned, clearly prove that the absence of a King is more desirable than his presence and that he is not just unnecessary politically, but a heavy burden weighing down the entire nation."
"Let us not be imposed on by sophisms; all that concerns this is reduced to four points.
"Let's not be fooled by misleading arguments; everything related to this boils down to four main points."
"He has abdicated the throne in having fled from his post. Abdication and desertion are not characterized by the length of absence; but by the single act of flight. In the present instance, the act is everything, and the time nothing.
"He has given up the throne by fleeing from his position. Abdication and desertion aren't defined by how long someone is gone; they're defined by the single act of running away. In this case, the act matters most, and the time away means nothing."
"The nation can never give back its confidence to a man who, false to his trust, perjured to his oath, conspires a clandestine flight, obtains a fraudulent passport, conceals a King of France under the disguise of a valet, directs his course towards a frontier covered with traitors and deserters, and evidently meditates a return into our country, with a force capable of imposing his own despotic laws.
"The country can never restore its trust in a person who, betraying his duty, lied under oath, plotted a secret escape, got a fake passport, hid a King of France as a servant, headed towards a border filled with traitors and deserters, and clearly planned to come back to our nation with the power to enforce his own tyrannical laws."
"Should his flight be considered as his own act, or the act of those who fled with him? Was it a spontaneous resolution of his own, or was it inspired by others? The alternative is immaterial; whether fool or hypocrite, idiot or traitor, he has proved himself equally unworthy of the important functions that had been delegated to him.
"Should his escape be seen as his own decision or as the decision of those who left with him? Was it a sudden choice he made, or was it influenced by others? It doesn't really matter; whether he's a fool or a hypocrite, an idiot or a traitor, he has shown himself unworthy of the important responsibilities that were given to him."
1 See Introduction to this volume. This manifesto, which was posted around Paris on July 1, 1791, is called a "Republican Proclamation" by Dumont, but I have not found its exact title.—Editor.
"In every sense in which the question can be considered, the reciprocal obligation which subsisted between us is dissolved. He holds no longer any authority. We owe him no longer obedience. We see in him no more than an indifferent person; we can regard him only as Louis Capet.
"In every way the question can be viewed, the mutual obligation between us is over. He no longer has any authority. We no longer owe him obedience. We see him as nothing more than an indifferent person; we can only view him as Louis Capet."
"The history of France presents little else than a long series of public calamity, which takes its source from the vices of Kings; we have been the wretched victims that have never ceased to suffer either for them or by them. The catalogue of their oppressions was complete, but to complete the sum of their crimes, treason was yet wanting. Now the only vacancy is filled up, the dreadful list is full; the system is exhausted; there are no remaining errors for them to commit; their reign is consequently at an end.
The history of France shows nothing but a long string of public disasters, rooted in the flaws of its kings. We have been the miserable victims who have constantly suffered because of them or for them. The list of their oppressions was already complete, but there was one crime missing: treason. Now that gap has been filled, and the horrific list is complete; the system is drained; there are no more mistakes left for them to make; their reign is therefore over.
"What kind of office must that be in a government which requires for its execution neither experience nor ability, that may be abandoned to the desperate chance of birth, that may be filled by an idiot, a madman, a tyrant, with equal effect as by the good, the virtuous, and the wise? An office of this nature is a mere nonentity; it is a place of show, not of use. Let France then, arrived at the age of reason, no longer be deluded by the sound of words, and let her deliberately examine, if a King, however insignificant and contemptible in himself, may not at the same time be extremely dangerous.
What kind of office exists in a government that can function without any experience or ability, that can be left to the random chance of birth, that could be filled by a fool, a madman, or a tyrant, with the same impact as by the good, the virtuous, and the wise? An office like this is just a meaningless title; it's a role for show, not for action. Let France, now come of age, not be fooled by empty words, and let her carefully consider whether a King, no matter how insignificant and contemptible he may be, can still be very dangerous.
"The thirty millions which it costs to support a King in the eclat of stupid brutal luxury, presents us with an easy method of reducing taxes, which reduction would at once relieve the people, and stop the progress of political corruption. The grandeur of nations consists, not, as Kings pretend, in the splendour of thrones, but in a conspicuous sense of their own dignity, and in a just disdain of those barbarous follies and crimes which, under the sanction of Royalty, have hitherto desolated Europe.
"The thirty million it costs to maintain a king in the flashy, mindless luxury offers us a straightforward way to lower taxes, which would immediately ease the burden on the people and curb the rise of political corruption. The greatness of nations does not lie, as kings claim, in the splendor of thrones, but in a clear understanding of their own dignity and a rightful disdain for the brutal foolishness and crimes that, under the approval of royalty, have devastated Europe until now."
"As to the personal safety of Louis Capet, it is so much the more confirmed, as France will not stoop to degrade herself by a spirit of revenge against a wretch who has dishonoured himself. In defending a just and glorious cause, it is not possible to degrade it, and the universal tranquillity which prevails is an undeniable proof that a free people know how to respect themselves."
"As for the personal safety of Louis Capet, it’s even more assured, as France will not lower herself by seeking revenge against someone who has brought shame upon himself. In standing up for a just and noble cause, it’s impossible to tarnish it, and the overall peace that exists is clear evidence that a free people understand how to hold themselves in high regard."
II. TO THE AUTHORS OF "LE RIPUBLICAIN."(1)
Gentlemen:
Folks:
M. Duchbtelet has mentioned to me the intention of some persons to commence a work under the title of "The Republican."
M. Duchbtelet has told me about some people's intention to start a project called "The Republican."
As I am a Citizen of a country which knows no other Majesty than that of the People; no other Government than that of the Representative body; no other sovereignty than that of the Laws, and which is attached to France both by alliance and by gratitude, I voluntarily offer you my services in support of principles as honorable to a nation as they are adapted to promote the happiness of mankind. I offer them to you with the more zeal, as I know the moral, literary, and political character of those who are engaged in the undertaking, and find myself honoured in their good opinion.
As a citizen of a country that recognizes no other authority than that of the People, no other government than that of the elected representatives, and no other sovereignty than that of the Laws, and which is connected to France through both alliance and gratitude, I wholeheartedly offer you my services to support principles that are as honorable for a nation as they are capable of promoting the happiness of humanity. I offer my assistance with even more enthusiasm, knowing the moral, literary, and political qualities of those involved in this effort, and I feel honored by their positive regard.
But I must at the same time observe, that from ignorance of the French language, my works must necessarily undergo a translation; they can of course be of but little utility, and my offering must consist more of wishes than services. I must add, that I am obliged to pass a part of this summer in England and Ireland.
But I should also note that because I don't know French, my works will need to be translated; they won't be very useful, and what I have to offer will be more about wishes than actual help. I should add that I have to spend part of this summer in England and Ireland.
As the public has done me the unmerited favor of recognizing me under the appellation of "Common Sense," which is my usual signature, I shall continue it in this publication to avoid mistakes, and to prevent my being supposed the author of works not my own. As to my political principles, I shall endeavour, in this letter, to trace their general features in such a manner, as that they cannot be misunderstood.
Since the public has kindly referred to me as "Common Sense," which is my usual signature, I will continue to use it in this publication to avoid any confusion and to make sure I'm not thought to be the author of works that aren't mine. Regarding my political beliefs, I will try, in this letter, to outline their general characteristics clearly so that they cannot be misinterpreted.
1 "The Republican; or the Defender of the Representative Government. By a Society of Republicans. In Paris. July, 1791." See Introduction to this volume.—Editor.
It is desirable in most instances to avoid that which may give even the least suspicion as to the part meant to be adopted, and particularly on the present occasion, where a perfect clearness of expression is necessary to the avoidance of any possible misinterpretation. I am happy, therefore, to find, that the work in question is entitled "The Republican." This word expresses perfectly the idea which we ought to have of Government in general—Res Publico,—the public affairs of a nation.
It's usually best to steer clear of anything that might raise even the slightest doubt about the intended meaning, especially now, when we need complete clarity to avoid any possible misunderstandings. So, I'm pleased to see that the work in question is called "The Republican." This term perfectly captures the concept we should have of government in general—Res Publico—the public affairs of a nation.
As to the word Monarchy, though the address and intrigue of Courts have rendered it familiar, it does not contain the less of reproach or of insult to a nation. The word, in its immediate or original sense, signifies the absolute power of a single individual, who may prove a fool, an hypocrite, or a tyrant. The appellation admits of no other interpretation than that which is here given. France is therefore not a Monarchy; it is insulted when called by that name. The servile spirit which characterizes this species of government is banished from France, and this country, like AMERICA, can now afford to Monarchy no more than a glance of disdain.
As for the word Monarchy, although the charm and intrigue of courts have made it common, it still carries a sense of reproach or insult to a nation. The word, in its original sense, means the absolute power of a single individual, who could be a fool, a hypocrite, or a tyrant. There’s no other interpretation of it than the one I’ve just provided. Therefore, France is not a Monarchy; it is insulted when referred to by that name. The submissive spirit that defines this type of government has been expelled from France, and this country, like AMERICA, can now regard Monarchy with nothing more than a look of disdain.
Of the errors which monarchic ignorance or knavery has spread through the world, the one which bears the marks of the most dexterous invention, is the opinion that the system of Republicanism is only adapted to a small country, and that a Monarchy is suited, on the contrary, to those of greater extent. Such is the language of Courts, and such the sentiments which they have caused to be adopted in monarchic countries; but the opinion is contrary, at the same time, to principle and to experience.
Among the mistakes that royal ignorance or deceit has spread throughout the world, the one that stands out as the most cleverly crafted is the belief that the system of Republicanism only works for small countries, while Monarchy is more suitable for larger ones. This is the narrative promoted by courts and the mindset they have encouraged in monarchic nations; however, this belief is, at the same time, opposed to both principle and experience.
The Government, to be of real use, should possess a complete knowledge of all the parties, all the circumstances, and all the interests of a nation. The monarchic system, in consequence, instead of being suited to a country of great extent, would be more admissible in a small territory, where an individual may be supposed to know the affairs and the interests of the whole. But when it is attempted to extend this individual knowledge to the affairs of a great country, the capacity of knowing bears no longer any proportion to the extent or multiplicity of the objects which ought to be known, and the government inevitably falls from ignorance into tyranny. For the proof of this position we need only look to Spain, Russia, Germany, Turkey, and the whole of the Eastern Continent,—countries, for the deliverance of which I offer my most sincere wishes.
The government, to be truly effective, should have a comprehensive understanding of all parties, situations, and interests within a nation. Therefore, a monarchy is better suited for a small territory where one person might be expected to understand the issues and interests of everyone. However, trying to apply this individual knowledge to a large nation means that the ability to be informed no longer matches the vastness and complexity of what needs to be known, leading to ignorance and ultimately tyranny. To prove this point, we only need to look at Spain, Russia, Germany, Turkey, and countries throughout the East—nations for which I offer my sincerest hopes for freedom.
On the contrary, the true Republican system, by Election and Representation, offers the only means which are known, and, in my opinion, the only means which are possible, of proportioning the wisdom and the information of a Government to the extent of a country.
On the other hand, the genuine Republican system, through elections and representation, provides the only known way and, in my view, the only feasible way to align the knowledge and insight of a government with the size of a country.
The system of Representation is the strongest and most powerful center that can be devised for a nation. Its attraction acts so powerfully, that men give it their approbation even without reasoning on the cause; and France, however distant its several parts, finds itself at this moment an whole, in its central Representation. The citizen is assured that his rights are protected, and the soldier feels that he is no longer the slave of a Despot, but that he is become one of the Nation, and interested of course in its defence.
The system of Representation is the strongest and most effective framework that can be created for a nation. Its appeal is so compelling that people support it without even thinking about the reasons; and France, despite the distances between its regions, currently feels whole through its central Representation. The citizen knows that his rights are safeguarded, and the soldier realizes that he is no longer a subject of a tyrant, but rather a part of the Nation, naturally invested in its defense.
The states at present styled Republican, as Holland, Genoa, Venice, Berne, &c. are not only unworthy the name, but are actually in opposition to every principle of a Republican government, and the countries submitted to their power are, truly speaking, subject to an Aristocratic slavery!
The states now called Republican, like Holland, Genoa, Venice, Berne, etc., are not only unworthy of the name but are actually against every principle of a Republican government. The countries under their control are, to be honest, subjected to an Aristocratic slavery!
It is, perhaps, impossible, in the first steps which are made in a Revolution, to avoid all kind of error, in principle or in practice, or in some instances to prevent the combination of both. Before the sense of a nation is sufficiently enlightened, and before men have entered into the habits of a free communication with each other of their natural thoughts, a certain reserve—a timid prudence seizes on the human mind, and prevents it from obtaining its level with that vigor and promptitude that belongs to right.—An example of this influence discovers itself in the commencement of the present Revolution: but happily this discovery has been made before the Constitution was completed, and in time to provide a remedy.
It’s probably impossible, during the early stages of a revolution, to avoid all kinds of mistakes—whether in theory or practice, and in some cases, both. Before a nation becomes truly aware and before people get into the habit of openly sharing their genuine thoughts, a certain hesitance—a cautious timidity—takes hold of the human mind, preventing it from achieving the clarity and decisiveness that is essential for what is right. An example of this influence can be seen at the start of the current revolution; however, fortunately, this realization was made before the Constitution was finalized, allowing time to find a solution.
The hereditary succession can never exist as a matter of right; it is a nullity—a nothing. To admit the idea is to regard man as a species of property belonging to some individuals, either born or to be born! It is to consider our descendants, and all posterity, as mere animals without a right or will! It is, in fine, the most base and humiliating idea that ever degraded the human species, and which, for the honor of Humanity, should be destroyed for ever.
The hereditary succession can never be considered a matter of right; it is a nullity—a nothing. Accepting this idea means seeing people as a type of property belonging to certain individuals, whether they were born or are yet to be born! It implies viewing our children, and all future generations, as just animals without rights or will of their own! Ultimately, it is the most despicable and degrading notion that has ever tarnished humanity, and, for the sake of human dignity, it must be eradicated forever.
The idea of hereditary succession is so contrary to the rights of man, that if we were ourselves to be recalled to existence, instead of being replaced by our posterity, we should not have the right of depriving ourselves beforehand of those rights which would then properly belong to us. On what ground, then, or by what authority, do we dare to deprive of their rights those children who will soon be men? Why are we not struck with the injustice which we perpetrate on our descendants, by endeavouring to transmit them as a vile herd to masters whose vices are all that can be foreseen.
The idea of passing down power through heredity is so against the rights of individuals that if we were to come back to life instead of being replaced by our descendants, we wouldn’t have the right to take away from ourselves those rights that would justly belong to us. So, on what basis or with what authority do we have the audacity to take away the rights of those children who will soon become adults? Why aren’t we aware of the injustice we inflict on our future generations by trying to hand them over like a worthless group to leaders whose flaws are all that we can predict?
Whenever the French constitution shall be rendered conformable to its Declaration of Rights, we shall then be enabled to give to France, and with justice, the appellation of a civic Empire; for its government will be the empire of laws founded on the great republican principles of Elective Representation, and the Rights of Man.—But Monarchy and Hereditary Succession are incompatible with the basis of its constitution.
Whenever the French constitution aligns with its Declaration of Rights, we will be able to justly call France a civic Empire; because its government will be an empire of laws based on the core republican principles of Elective Representation and the Rights of Man.—However, Monarchy and Hereditary Succession are not compatible with the foundation of its constitution.
I hope that I have at present sufficiently proved to you that I am a good Republican; and I have such a confidence in the truth of the principles, that I doubt not they will soon be as universal in France as in America. The pride of human nature will assist their evidence, will contribute to their establishment, and men will be ashamed of Monarchy.
I hope I've clearly shown you that I'm a true Republican, and I believe so strongly in these principles that I'm confident they will soon spread throughout France just like they have in America. The pride of human nature will support their validity, help them take root, and people will feel ashamed of Monarchy.
I am, with respect, Gentlemen, your friend,
I am, respectfully, your friend, gentlemen,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
Paris, June, 1791.
Paris, June 1791.
III. TO THE ABBI SIHYES.(1)
Paris, 8th July, 1791.
Sir,
Hey,
At the moment of my departure for England, I read, in the Moniteur of Tuesday last, your letter, in which you give the challenge, on the subject of Government, and offer to defend what is called the Monarchical opinion against the Republican system.
At the time I was leaving for England, I read your letter in the Moniteur from last Tuesday, where you challenged me on the topic of Government and offered to defend what’s known as the Monarchical opinion against the Republican system.
I accept of your challenge with pleasure; and I place such a confidence in the superiority of the Republican system over that nullity of a system, called Monarchy, that I engage not to exceed the extent of fifty pages, and to leave you the liberty of taking as much latitude as you may think proper.
I gladly accept your challenge and have such confidence in the superiority of the Republican system over the useless system called Monarchy that I promise not to exceed fifty pages and will allow you the freedom to take as much liberty as you think is appropriate.
The respect which I bear your moral and literary reputation, will be your security for my candour in the course of this discussion; but, notwithstanding that I shall treat the subject seriously and sincerely, let me promise, that I consider myself at liberty to ridicule, as they deserve, Monarchical absurdities, whensoever the occasion shall present itself.
The respect I have for your moral and literary reputation will ensure my honesty throughout this discussion; however, even though I will approach the topic seriously and sincerely, I want to promise that I feel free to mock, as they deserve, the absurdities of monarchy whenever the opportunity arises.
By Republicanism, I do not understand what the name signifies in Holland, and in some parts of Italy. I understand simply a government by representation—a government founded upon the principles of the Declaration of Rights; principles to which several parts of the French Constitution arise in contradiction. The Declaration of Rights of France and America are but one and the same thing in principles, and almost in expressions; and this is the Republicanism which I undertake to defend against what is called Monarchy and Aristocracy.
By Republicanism, I don't mean what the term signifies in Holland or in some regions of Italy. I simply mean a government by representation—a government based on the principles of the Declaration of Rights; principles that contradict several aspects of the French Constitution. The Declaration of Rights of France and America are essentially the same in principles and nearly identical in wording; and this is the Republicanism that I aim to defend against what is referred to as Monarchy and Aristocracy.
1 Written to the Moniteur in response to a letter from the Abbi (July 8) prompted by Paine's letter to "Le Ripublicain" (II.). Since the Abbi is now avoiding further debate, Paine addressed his perspectives in "Rights of Man," Part II, ch. 3.— Editor.
I see with pleasure that in respect to one point we are already agreed; and that is, the extreme danger of a civil list of thirty millions. I can discover no reason why one of the parts of the government should be supported with so extravagant a profusion, whilst the other scarcely receives what is sufficient for its common wants.
I’m glad to see that we already agree on one point: the huge risk of a civil list of thirty million. I can't find any reason why one branch of the government should be funded so lavishly while the other barely gets enough to meet its basic needs.
This dangerous and dishonourable disproportion at once supplies the one with the means of corrupting, and throws the other into the predicament of being corrupted. In America there is but little difference, with regard to this point, between the legislative and the executive part of our government; but the first is much better attended to than it is in France.
This dangerous and dishonorable imbalance gives one side the ability to corrupt the other, putting the latter in a position to be corrupted. In America, there isn't much difference, regarding this issue, between the legislative and executive branches of our government; however, the legislative branch is taken much more seriously than it is in France.
In whatsoever manner, Sir, I may treat the subject of which you have proposed the investigation, I hope that you will not doubt my entertaining for you the highest esteem. I must also add, that I am not the personal enemy of Kings. Quite the contrary. No man more heartily wishes than myself to see them all in the happy and honourable state of private individuals; but I am the avowed, open, and intrepid enemy of what is called Monarchy; and I am such by principles which nothing can either alter or corrupt—by my attachment to humanity; by the anxiety which I feel within myself, for the dignity and the honour of the human race; by the disgust which I experience, when I observe men directed by children, and governed by brutes; by the horror which all the evils that Monarchy has spread over the earth excite within my breast; and by those sentiments which make me shudder at the calamities, the exactions, the wars, and the massacres with which Monarchy has crushed mankind: in short, it is against all the hell of monarchy that I have declared war.
In any way, Sir, that I might approach the topic you've suggested for discussion, I hope you know that I hold you in the highest regard. I should also mention that I don't consider myself an enemy of kings. Quite the opposite. No one wishes more than I do to see them all happy and respected as private citizens. However, I am a clear, open, and fearless opponent of what is called monarchy, and my stance is based on principles that nothing can change or corrupt—my commitment to humanity; my deep concern for the dignity and honor of the human race; my disgust when I see men being led by children and ruled by brutes; my horror at all the suffering that monarchy has brought to the world; and my feelings of dread at the disasters, injustices, wars, and massacres that monarchy has inflicted upon humanity. In short, I have declared war against the entire nightmare of monarchy.
Thomas Paine.(1)
Thomas Paine.
1 In the sixth paragraph of the letter above, there’s a footnote that says: "A delegate to Congress makes about a guinea and a half a day, and food is cheaper in America than in France." The American Declaration of Rights mentioned, unless it refers to the Declaration of Independence, was likely that of Pennsylvania, which Paine played a key role in drafting.—Editor.
IV. TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
[Undated, but probably late in May, 1793.]
[Undated, but likely late May, 1793.]
Sir,
Sir,
Though I have some reason for believing that you were not the original promoter or encourager of the prosecution commenced against the work entitled "Rights of Man" either as that prosecution is intended to affect the author, the publisher, or the public; yet as you appear the official person therein, I address this letter to you, not as Sir Archibald Macdonald, but as Attorney General.
Though I have some reason to believe that you weren't the original instigator or supporter of the prosecution against the work titled "Rights of Man," whether it impacts the author, the publisher, or the public, I am addressing this letter to you not as Sir Archibald Macdonald, but in your role as Attorney General.
You began by a prosecution against the publisher Jordan, and the reason assigned by Mr. Secretary Dundas, in the House of Commons, in the debate on the Proclamation, May 25, for taking that measure, was, he said, because Mr. Paine could not be found, or words to that effect. Mr. Paine, sir, so far from secreting himself, never went a step out of his way, nor in the least instance varied from his usual conduct, to avoid any measure you might choose to adopt with respect to him. It is on the purity of his heart, and the universal utility of the principles and plans which his writings contain, that he rests the issue; and he will not dishonour it by any kind of subterfuge. The apartments which he occupied at the time of writing the work last winter, he has continued to occupy to the present hour, and the solicitors of the prosecution knew where to find him; of which there is a proof in their own office, as far back as the 21st of May, and also in the office of my own Attorney.(1)
You started a legal action against the publisher Jordan, and the reason given by Mr. Secretary Dundas in the House of Commons during the debate on the Proclamation on May 25 was that Mr. Paine could not be found, or something similar. Mr. Paine, sir, far from hiding away, never went out of his way or changed his usual behavior to avoid any actions you might take against him. The outcome relies on the integrity of his heart and the widespread value of the ideas and plans in his writings, which he refuses to undermine with any kind of trickery. The place he was staying while writing the work last winter is the same one he’s in now, and the solicitors for the prosecution knew where to find him; this is evidenced by their own records dating back to May 21, as well as in the records of my own Attorney.(1)
1 Paine was staying at the home of one of his publishers, Thomas Rickman, 7 Upper Marylebone Street, London. His attorney was the Hon. Thomas Erskine.—Editor.
But admitting, for the sake of the case, that the reason for proceeding against the publisher was, as Mr. Dundas stated, that Mr. Paine could not be found, that reason can now exist no longer.
But for the sake of this case, let's assume, as Mr. Dundas said, that the reason for going after the publisher was that Mr. Paine couldn't be found; that reason no longer applies.
The instant that I was informed that an information was preparing to be filed against me, as the author of, I believe, one of the most useful and benevolent books ever offered to mankind, I directed my Attorney to put in an appearance; and as I shall meet the prosecution fully and fairly, and with a good and upright conscience, I have a right to expect that no act of littleness will be made use of on the part of the prosecution towards influencing the future issue with respect to the author. This expression may, perhaps, appear obscure to you, but I am in the possession of some matters which serve to shew that the action against the publisher is not intended to be a real action. If, therefore, any persons concerned in the prosecution have found their cause so weak, as to make it appear convenient to them to enter into a negociation with the publisher, whether for the purpose of his submitting to a verdict, and to make use of the verdict so obtained as a circumstance, by way of precedent, on a future trial against myself; or for any other purpose not fully made known to me; if, I say, I have cause to suspect this to be the case, I shall most certainly withdraw the defence I should otherwise have made, or promoted on his (the publisher's) behalf, and leave the negociators to themselves, and shall reserve the whole of the defence for the real trial.(1)
The moment I was told that a charge was getting ready to be filed against me, as the author of what I believe is one of the most helpful and kind-hearted books ever offered to humanity, I instructed my attorney to get involved. Since I plan to face the prosecution honestly and with a clear conscience, I expect that no petty tactics will be used by the prosecution to sway the future outcome regarding the author. This statement may seem unclear to you, but I possess information that shows the action against the publisher isn't intended to be a *real* action. If anyone involved in the prosecution has found their case so weak that it seems convenient for them to negotiate with the publisher—whether for him to accept a verdict and use that verdict as precedent in a future trial against me, or for any other undisclosed reason—then I will definitely withdraw the defense I would have otherwise made or supported on his (the publisher's) behalf, leaving the negotiators to handle it themselves, and I will reserve all defense for the *real* trial.(1)
But, sir, for the purpose of conducting this matter with at least the appearance of fairness and openness, that shall justify itself before the public, whose cause it really is, (for it is the right of public discussion and investigation that is questioned,) I have to propose to you to cease the prosecution against the publisher; and as the reason or pretext can no longer exist for continuing it against him because Mr. Paine could not be found, that you would direct the whole process against me, with whom the prosecuting party will not find it possible to enter into any private negociation.
But, sir, to handle this matter with at least an appearance of fairness and transparency, which the public deserves, I propose that we stop the prosecution against the publisher. Since there’s no longer a valid reason for pursuing it against him because Mr. Paine cannot be found, I ask that you direct the entire process against me, as the prosecuting party won't be able to negotiate privately with me.
1 A detailed account of the proceedings regarding the publisher will be found below, in ix., Letter to the Addressers.—Editor.
I will do the cause full justice, as well for the sake of the nation, as for my own reputation.
I will thoroughly serve this cause, both for the good of the nation and for my own reputation.
Another reason for discontinuing the process against the publisher is, because it can amount to nothing. First, because a jury in London cannot decide upon the fact of publishing beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of London, and therefore the work may be republished over and over again in every county in the nation, and every case must have a separate process; and by the time that three or four hundred prosecutions have been had, the eyes of the nation will then be fully open to see that the work in question contains a plan the best calculated to root out all the abuses of government, and to lessen the taxes of the nation upwards of six millions annually.
Another reason to stop the process against the publisher is that it can lead to nothing. First, a jury in London can't determine the fact of publishing outside of London's jurisdiction, so the work could be republished repeatedly in every county across the nation, and each case would need a separate legal process. By the time there have been three or four hundred prosecutions, the nation will realize that the work in question has the best plan to eliminate all government abuses and reduce the nation’s taxes by over six million annually.
Secondly, Because though the gentlemen of London may be very expert in understanding their particular professions and occupations, and how to make business contracts with government beneficial to themselves as individuals, the rest of the nation may not be disposed to consider them sufficiently qualified nor authorized to determine for the whole Nation on plans of reform, and on systems and principles of Government. This would be in effect to erect a jury into a National Convention, instead of electing a Convention, and to lay a precedent for the probable tyranny of juries, under the pretence of supporting their rights.
Secondly, while the gentlemen of London may be quite skilled in their specific professions and how to negotiate business deals with the government for their personal gain, the rest of the country might not view them as qualified or authorized to decide on reforms and the principles of governance for the entire nation. This would effectively turn a jury into a National Convention instead of electing a Convention and set a dangerous precedent for possible jury tyranny under the guise of defending their rights.
That the possibility always exists of packing juries will not be denied; and, therefore, in all cases, where Government is the prosecutor, more especially in those where the right of public discussion and investigation of principles and systems of Government is attempted to be suppressed by a verdict, or in those where the object of the work that is prosecuted is the reform of abuse and the abolition of sinecure places and pensions, in all these cases the verdict of a jury will itself become a subject of discussion; and therefore, it furnishes an additional reason for discontinuing the prosecution against the publisher, more especially as it is not a secret that there has been a negociation with him for secret purposes, and for proceeding against me only. I shall make a much stronger defence than what I believe the Treasury Solicitor's agreement with him will permit him to do.
The possibility of rigging juries definitely exists; and therefore, in cases where the government is the one prosecuting, especially where the right to publicly discuss and investigate governmental principles and systems is being suppressed by a verdict, or where the aim of the prosecution is to reform abuses and eliminate unnecessary jobs and pensions, the jury's verdict will become a topic of discussion. This provides another strong reason to drop the case against the publisher, particularly since it’s no secret that there have been negotiations with him for hidden purposes, and only me is being targeted. I will present a much stronger defense than what I believe the Treasury Solicitor's deal with him will allow.
I believe that Mr. Burke, finding himself defeated, and not being able to make any answer to the Rights of Man, has been one of the promoters of this prosecution; and I shall return the compliment to him by shewing, in a future publication, that he has been a masked pensioner at 1500L. per annum for about ten years.
I believe that Mr. Burke, feeling defeated and unable to respond to the Rights of Man, has been one of the people pushing for this prosecution. I will return the favor by showing, in a future publication, that he has been secretly receiving a pension of £1,500 a year for about ten years.
Thus it is that the public money is wasted, and the dread of public investigation is produced.
So, public funds get wasted, and fear of public scrutiny arises.
I am, sir, Your obedient humble servant,
I am, sir, your obedient and humble servant,
Thomas Paine.(1)
Thomas Paine.
1 Paine's case was scheduled for June 8th, and on that day he showed up in court; however, much to his frustration, the trial was postponed to December 18th, when he was attending the National Convention in Paris.—Editor.
V. TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS.(1)
London, June 6, 1793.
London, June 6, 1793.
Sir,
Dude,
As you opened the debate in the House of Commons, May 25th, on the proclamation for suppressing publications, which that proclamation (without naming any) calls wicked and seditious: and as you applied those opprobious epithets to the works entitled "RIGHTS OF MAN," I think it unnecessary to offer any other reason for addressing this letter to you.
As you started the debate in the House of Commons on May 25th about the announcement to ban certain publications, which the announcement (without naming any specifically) described as immoral and rebellious: and as you used those harsh terms to refer to the works called "RIGHTS OF MAN," I believe it's unnecessary to provide any other reason for writing this letter to you.
I begin, then, at once, by declaring, that I do not believe there are found in the writings of any author, ancient or modern, on the subject of government, a spirit of greater benignity, and a stronger inculcation of moral principles than in those which I have published. They come, Sir, from a man, who, by having lived in different countries, and under different systems of government, and who, being intimate in the construction of them, is a better judge of the subject than it is possible that you, from the want of those opportunities, can be:—And besides this, they come from a heart that knows not how to beguile.
I’ll start by saying that I don’t think there are any writings, whether from ancient or modern authors, on the topic of government that show a spirit of greater kindness and a stronger emphasis on moral principles than those I’ve published. These works come from a person who, having lived in various countries and under different government systems, and who has been closely involved in their construction, is a better judge of the subject than you could be, due to lacking those experiences. Furthermore, they come from a heart that doesn’t know how to deceive.
I will farther say, that when that moment arrives in which the best consolation that shall be left will be looking back on some past actions, more virtuous and more meritorious than the rest, I shall then with happiness remember, among other things, I have written the RIGHTS OF MAN.—-As to what proclamations, or prosecutions, or place-men, and place-expectants,—those who possess, or those who are gaping for office,—may say of them, it will not alter their character, either with the world or with me.
I want to add that when that moment comes where the only comfort left will be reflecting on some past actions, which are more virtuous and commendable than others, I will happily remember, among other things, that I wrote the RIGHTS OF MAN. As for what those in power, those being prosecuted, or those who want to be in power might say about it, it won't change how they are viewed, either by the world or by me.
1 Henry D. (later Viscount Melville) was appointed Secretary for the Home Department in 1791. In 1805, he was impeached by the Commons for "serious misconduct" while serving as Treasurer of the Navy; he was acquitted by the Lords in 1806, but not by public opinion or by history.— Editor.
Having, Sir, made this declaration, I shall proceed to remark, not particularly on your speech on that occasion, but on any one to which your motion on that day gave rise; and I shall begin with that of Mr. Adam.
Having made this statement, Sir, I will now comment, not specifically on your speech from that occasion, but on any remarks that your motion that day inspired; and I will start with Mr. Adam's.
This Gentleman accuses me of not having done the very thing that I have done, and which, he says, if I had done, he should not have accused me.
This guy is accusing me of not doing exactly what I have done, and he claims that if I had done it, he wouldn't have accused me.
Mr. Adam, in his speech, (see the Morning Chronicle of May 26,) says,
Mr. Adam, in his speech, (see the Morning Chronicle of May 26,) says,
"That he had well considered the subject of Constitutional Publications, and was by no means ready to say (but the contrary) that books of science upon government though recommending a doctrine or system different from the form of our constitution (meaning that of England) were fit objects of prosecution; that if he did, he must condemn Harrington for his Oceana, Sir Thomas More for his Eutopia, and Hume for his Idea of a perfect Commonwealth. But (continued Mr. Adam) the publication of Mr. Paine was very different; for it reviled what was most sacred in the constitution, destroyed every principle of subordination, and established nothing in their room."
"That he had thoroughly thought about the topic of Constitutional Publications, and he wasn’t at all ready to say (quite the opposite) that scientific books on government, even if they suggested a doctrine or system different from our constitution (referring to that of England), should be subject to prosecution; if he did, he would have to condemn Harrington for his Oceana, Sir Thomas More for his Utopia, and Hume for his Idea of a perfect Commonwealth. But (Mr. Adam continued) the publication by Mr. Paine was very different; it attacked what was most sacred in the constitution, undermined every principle of authority, and established nothing in their place."
I readily perceive that Mr. Adam has not read the Second Part of Rights of Man, and I am put under the necessity, either of submitting to an erroneous charge, or of justifying myself against it; and certainly shall prefer the latter.—If, then, I shall prove to Mr. Adam, that in my reasoning upon systems of government, in the Second Part of Rights of Man, I have shown as clearly, I think, as words can convey ideas, a certain system of government, and that not existing in theory only, but already in full and established practice, and systematically and practically free from all the vices and defects of the English government, and capable of producing more happiness to the people, and that also with an eightieth part of the taxes, which the present English system of government consumes; I hope he will do me the justice, when he next goes to the House, to get up and confess he had been mistaken in saying, that I had established nothing, and that I had destroyed every principle of subordination. Having thus opened the case, I now come to the point.
I can see that Mr. Adam hasn't read the Second Part of Rights of Man, and I feel I have to either accept an unfair accusation or defend myself against it; I definitely prefer the latter. So, if I can show Mr. Adam that my arguments about government systems in the Second Part of Rights of Man are as clear as words can express, describing a specific system of government that isn't just theoretical but is already fully established and practically free from the flaws and issues of the English government, and that can provide greater happiness for the people while costing just an eighth of the taxes that the current English government takes, then I hope he will have the fairness to stand up in the House next time and admit he was wrong when he said I had established nothing, and that I had destroyed every principle of subordination. Having laid out my case, I now get to the main point.
In the Second Part of the Rights of Man, I have distinguished government into two classes or systems: the one the hereditary system, the other the representative system.
In the Second Part of the Rights of Man, I've categorized government into two types or systems: one being the hereditary system, and the other the representative system.
In the First Part of Rights of Man, I have endeavoured to shew, and I challenge any man to refute it, that there does not exist a right to establish hereditary government; or, in other words, hereditary governors; because hereditary government always means a government yet to come, and the case always is, that the people who are to live afterwards, have always the same right to choose a government for themselves, as the people had who lived before them.
In the First Part of Rights of Man, I have tried to show, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong, that there is no right to establish hereditary government; in other words, hereditary leaders. This is because hereditary government always refers to a government that will exist in the future, and the people who will live later have the same right to choose their own government as those who lived before them.
In the Second Part of Rights of Man, I have not repeated those arguments, because they are irrefutable; but have confined myself to shew the defects of what is called hereditary government, or hereditary succession, that it must, from the nature of it, throw government into the hands of men totally unworthy of it, from want of principle, or unfitted for it from want of capacity.—James the IId. is recorded as an instance of the first of these cases; and instances are to be found almost all over Europe to prove the truth of the latter.
In the Second Part of Rights of Man, I haven't repeated those arguments because they're undeniable; instead, I've focused on pointing out the flaws of what's known as hereditary government or hereditary succession, which, by its very nature, places power in the hands of individuals who are completely unqualified for it, either due to lack of principles or because they simply don't have the ability. James II is noted as a clear example of the first case, and there are numerous examples throughout Europe that demonstrate the truth of the latter.
To shew the absurdity of the Hereditary System still more strongly, I will now put the following case:—Take any fifty men promiscuously, and it will be very extraordinary, if, out of that number, one man should be found, whose principles and talents taken together (for some might have principles, and others might have talents) would render him a person truly fitted to fill any very extraordinary office of National Trust. If then such a fitness of character could not be expected to be found in more than one person out of fifty, it would happen but once in a thousand years to the eldest son of any one family, admitting each, on an average, to hold the office twenty years. Mr. Adam talks of something in the Constitution which he calls most sacred; but I hope he does not mean hereditary succession, a thing which appears to me a violation of every order of nature, and of common sense.
To highlight the absurdity of the Hereditary System even more clearly, let’s consider this example: If you randomly pick fifty men, it would be quite surprising if you found even one man whose combined principles and talents make him truly suited for any exceptional position of National Trust. If such a quality of character is only expected to be present in one out of fifty men, it means that the eldest son in any given family would only be that qualified once every thousand years, assuming each holds the position for an average of twenty years. Mr. Adam mentions something in the Constitution that he calls most sacred; however, I hope he isn’t referring to hereditary succession, as that seems like a violation of all natural order and common sense.
When I look into history and see the multitudes of men, otherwise virtuous, who have died, and their families been ruined, in the defence of knaves and fools, and which they would not have done, had they reasoned at all upon the system; I do not know a greater good that an individual can render to mankind, than to endeavour to break the chains of political superstition. Those chains are now dissolving fast, and proclamations and persecutions will serve but to hasten that dissolution.
When I look back at history and see the countless good men who have died and whose families have been destroyed defending idiots and crooks, which they wouldn’t have done if they had thought about the situation at all, I can’t think of a greater contribution one can make to humanity than trying to break the chains of political superstition. Those chains are falling apart quickly now, and proclamations and persecutions will only speed up that process.
Having thus spoken of the Hereditary System as a bad System, and subject to every possible defect, I now come to the Representative System, and this Mr. Adam will find stated in the Second Part of Rights of Man, not only as the best, but as the only Theory of Government under which the liberties of the people can be permanently secure.
Having discussed the Hereditary System as a flawed system with various defects, I now turn to the Representative System, which Mr. Adam will find outlined in the Second Part of Rights of Man, not only as the best but as the only Theory of Government that can permanently secure the liberties of the people.
But it is needless now to talk of mere theory, since there is already a government in full practice, established upon that theory; or in other words, upon the Rights of Man, and has been so for almost twenty years. Mr. Pitt, in a speech of his some short time since, said, "That there never did, and never could exist a Government established upon those Rights, and that if it began at noon, it would end at night." Mr. Pitt has not yet arrived at the degree of a school-boy in this species of knowledge; his practice has been confined to the means of extorting revenue, and his boast has been—how much! Whereas the boast of the system of government that I am speaking of, is not how much, but how little.
But there's no need to discuss just theory now, since there's already a government in full operation based on that theory; in other words, based on the Rights of Man, and it has been for almost twenty years. Mr. Pitt, in a speech he gave recently, said, "That there has never been, and never could be, a government based on those Rights, and if it started at noon, it would end by night." Mr. Pitt hasn’t yet reached the level of even a schoolboy in this type of understanding; his experience has been limited to finding ways of extorting revenue, and his claim has been—how much! Meanwhile, the claim of the government system I’m referring to isn’t about how much, but how little.
The system of government purely representative, unmixed with any thing of hereditary nonsense, began in America. I will now compare the effects of that system of government with the system of government in England, both during, and since the close of the war.
The government system that is purely representative, with no mix of hereditary nonsense, started in America. I will now compare the effects of that government system with the system of government in England, both during and since the end of the war.
So powerful is the Representative system, first, by combining and consolidating all the parts of a country together, however great the extent; and, secondly, by admitting of none but men properly qualified into the government, or dismissing them if they prove to be otherwise, that America was enabled thereby totally to defeat and overthrow all the schemes and projects of the hereditary government of England against her. As the establishment of the Revolution and Independence of America is a proof of this fact, it is needless to enlarge upon it.
The Representative system is incredibly powerful, first, because it brings together and unifies all parts of a country, no matter how large; and second, because it only allows qualified individuals into government, removing anyone who doesn’t meet those standards. This system enabled America to completely defeat and overthrow all the plans and projects of the hereditary government of England against her. Since the establishment of the Revolution and Independence of America demonstrates this fact, there’s no need to elaborate further.
I now come to the comparative effect of the two systems since the close of the war, and I request Mr. Adam to attend to it.
I now address the comparative effect of the two systems since the end of the war, and I ask Mr. Adam to pay attention to it.
America had internally sustained the ravages of upwards of seven years of war, which England had not. England sustained only the expence of the war; whereas America sustained not only the expence, but the destruction of property committed by both armies. Not a house was built during that period, and many thousands were destroyed. The farms and plantations along the coast of the country, for more than a thousand miles, were laid waste. Her commerce was annihilated. Her ships were either taken, or had rotted within her own harbours. The credit of her funds had fallen upwards of ninety per cent., that is, an original hundred pounds would not sell for ten pounds. In fine, she was apparently put back an hundred years when the war closed, which was not the case with England.
America had endured the consequences of over seven years of war, while England had not. England only faced the costs of the war; meanwhile, America dealt with not just the expenses but also the destruction caused by both armies. No new houses were built during that time, and many thousands were destroyed. The farms and plantations along the coast, stretching over a thousand miles, were devastated. Her commerce was wiped out. Her ships were either captured or had decayed in her own harbors. The value of her funds had plummeted by more than ninety percent; in other words, a hundred pounds originally would now only sell for ten pounds. Essentially, it felt like she had been pushed back a hundred years when the war ended, which was not the case for England.
But such was the event, that the same representative system of government, though since better organized, which enabled her to conquer, enabled her also to recover, and she now presents a more flourishing condition, and a more happy and harmonized society, under that system of government, than any country in the world can boast under any other. Her towns are rebuilt, much better than before; her farms and plantations are in higher improvement than ever; her commerce is spread over the world, and her funds have risen from less than ten pounds the hundred to upwards of one hundred and twenty. Mr. Pitt and his colleagues talk of the things that have happened in his boyish administration, without knowing what greater things have happened elsewhere, and under other systems of government.
But such was the situation that the same system of representative government, which is now better organized and allowed her to conquer, also allowed her to recover. Now, she presents a more prosperous state and a happier, more harmonious society under that government system than any other country in the world can claim under any different system. Her towns are rebuilt and much better than before; her farms and plantations are in better condition than ever; her trade reaches all over the world, and her financial assets have risen from less than ten pounds per hundred to over one hundred and twenty. Mr. Pitt and his colleagues discuss the events from his earlier administration without realizing the greater changes that have occurred elsewhere and under different forms of government.
I now come to state the expence of the two systems, as they now stand in each of the countries; but it may first be proper to observe, that government in America is what it ought to be, a matter of honour and trust, and not made a trade of for the purpose of lucre.
I will now discuss the cost of the two systems as they currently exist in each country. But first, it's important to note that the government in America is, as it should be, a matter of honor and trust, not a business venture for profit.
The whole amount of the nett(sic) taxes in England (exclusive of the expence of collection, of drawbacks, of seizures and condemnation, of fines and penalties, of fees of office, of litigations and informers, which are some of the blessed means of enforcing them) is seventeen millions. Of this sum, about nine millions go for the payment of the interest of the national debt, and the remainder, being about eight millions, is for the current annual expences. This much for one side of the case. I now come to the other.
The total amount of net taxes in England (not including the cost of collection, refunds, seizures and punishments, fines and penalties, office fees, lawsuits, and informers, which are some of the unfortunate methods of enforcing them) is seventeen million. Out of this, around nine million is used to pay the interest on the national debt, and the rest, which is about eight million, covers the current annual expenses. That’s one side of the situation. Now, let's move on to the other side.
The expence of the several departments of the general Representative Government of the United States of America, extending over a space of country nearly ten times larger than England, is two hundred and ninety-four thousand, five hundred and fifty-eight dollars, which, at 4s. 6d. per dollar, is 66,305L. 11s. sterling, and is thus apportioned;
The expenses of the various departments of the general representative government of the United States, which covers an area nearly ten times larger than England, total $294,558. At 4s. 6d. per dollar, that amounts to £66,305 11s. sterling, and it is distributed as follows;


On account of the incursions of the Indians on the back settlements, Congress is at this time obliged to keep six thousand militia in pay, in addition to a regiment of foot, and a battalion of artillery, which it always keeps; and this increases the expence of the War Department to 390,000 dollars, which is 87,795L. sterling, but when peace shall be concluded with the Indians, the greatest part of this expence will cease, and the total amount of the expence of government, including that of the army, will not amount to 100,000L. sterling, which, as has been already stated, is but an eightieth part of the expences of the English government.
Due to the attacks by the Native Americans on the western settlements, Congress currently needs to pay for six thousand militia, along with a regiment of infantry and a battalion of artillery that it always maintains. This raises the War Department's expenses to $390,000, which is £87,795 sterling. However, once peace is reached with the Native Americans, most of this expense will come to an end, and the total cost of the government, including the army, will not exceed £100,000 sterling. As mentioned before, this is only one-eightieth of the expenses of the English government.
I request Mr. Adam and Mr. Dundas, and all those who are talking of Constitutions, and blessings, and Kings, and Lords, and the Lord knows what, to look at this statement. Here is a form and system of government, that is better organized and better administered than any government in the world, and that for less than one hundred thousand pounds per annum, and yet every Member of Congress receives, as a compensation for his time and attendance on public business, one pound seven shillings per day, which is at the rate of nearly five hundred pounds a year.
I ask Mr. Adam, Mr. Dundas, and everyone discussing Constitutions, blessings, Kings, Lords, and who knows what else, to consider this statement. Here’s a government system that is better organized and managed than any in the world, costing less than one hundred thousand pounds a year. Yet, every Member of Congress earns one pound seven shillings per day as compensation for their time and attendance on public matters, which amounts to nearly five hundred pounds a year.
This is a government that has nothing to fear. It needs no proclamations to deter people from writing and reading. It needs no political superstition to support it; it was by encouraging discussion and rendering the press free upon all subjects of government, that the principles of government became understood in America, and the people are now enjoying the present blessings under it. You hear of no riots, tumults, and disorders in that country; because there exists no cause to produce them. Those things are never the effect of Freedom, but of restraint, oppression, and excessive taxation.
This is a government that has nothing to fear. It doesn’t need any announcements to stop people from writing or reading. It doesn’t rely on political myths to support it; by encouraging discussion and allowing the press to cover all topics related to government, the principles of government became clear in America, and the people are now enjoying the benefits that come from it. You don’t hear about riots, chaos, and disturbances in that country because there’s no reason for them to happen. Those things are never the result of Freedom, but of restriction, oppression, and high taxes.
In America, there is not that class of poor and wretched people that are so numerously dispersed all over England, who are to be told by a proclamation, that they are happy; and this is in a great measure to be accounted for, not by the difference of proclamations, but by the difference of governments and the difference of taxes between that country and this. What the labouring people of that country earn, they apply to their own use, and to the education of their children, and do not pay it away in taxes as fast as they earn it, to support Court extravagance, and a long enormous list of place-men and pensioners; and besides this, they have learned the manly doctrine of reverencing themselves, and consequently of respecting each other; and they laugh at those imaginary beings called Kings and Lords, and all the fraudulent trumpery of Court.
In America, there isn't a class of poor and miserable people that are so widely spread across England, who need to be told by a proclamation that they are happy; this is largely due not just to the proclamations themselves, but to the differences in government and taxation between the two countries. The working people there keep what they earn for themselves and their children's education, rather than quickly paying it away in taxes to support extravagant spending by the court and a long list of officials and pensioners. Moreover, they have embraced the strong belief in self-respect, which leads them to respect each other; they mock those imaginary figures called Kings and Lords, as well as all the deceitful nonsense of the court.
When place-men and pensioners, or those who expect to be such, are lavish in praise of a government, it is not a sign of its being a good one. The pension list alone in England (see sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue, p. 6, of the Appendix) is one hundred and seven thousand four hundred and four pounds, which is more than the expences of the whole Government of America amount to. And I am now more convinced than before, that the offer that was made to me of a thousand pounds for the copy-right of the second part of the Rights of Man, together with the remaining copyright of the first part, was to have effected, by a quick suppression, what is now attempted to be done by a prosecution. The connection which the person, who made the offer, has with the King's printing-office, may furnish part of the means of inquiring into this affair, when the ministry shall please to bring their prosecution to issue.(1) But to return to my subject.—
When government employees and pensioners, or those who hope to become one, are overly complimentary about a government, it doesn’t mean it's a good one. The pension list in England alone (see Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue, p. 6, of the Appendix) is one hundred and seven thousand four hundred and four pounds, which is more than the total expenses of the entire American government. I'm now even more convinced than before that the offer of a thousand pounds for the copyright of the second part of the Rights of Man, along with the remaining copyright of the first part, was meant to achieve, through quick suppression, what is now being attempted through prosecution. The connection that the person who made the offer has with the King's printing office might provide some means of investigating this matter when the government decides to move forward with the prosecution.(1) But let me get back to my point.—
I have said in the second part of the Rights of Man, and I repeat it here, that the service of any man, whether called King, President, Senator, Legislator, or any thing else, cannot be worth more to any country, in the regular routine of office, than ten thousand pounds per annum. We have a better man in America, and more of a gentleman, than any King I ever knew of, who does not occasion half that ex-pence; for, though the salary is fixed at #5625 he does not accept it, and it is only the incidental expences that are paid out of it.(2) The name by which a man is called is of itself but an empty thing. It is worth and character alone which can render him valuable, for without these, Kings, and Lords, and Presidents, are but jingling names.
I mentioned in the second part of the Rights of Man, and I'll say it again here, that the service of any person, whether called King, President, Senator, Legislator, or anything else, can't possibly be worth more to any country in the regular course of duty than ten thousand pounds a year. We have a better person in America, and a more decent one, than any King I've ever heard of, who doesn’t cost even half of that; because, although the salary is set at #5625, he doesn’t take it, and only the incidental expenses are covered from it. The title someone holds is just an empty label. It’s worth and character that truly make someone valuable, because without those, Kings, Lords, and Presidents are just meaningless titles.
But without troubling myself about Constitutions of Government, I have shewn in the Second Part of Rights of Man, that an alliance may be formed between England, France, and America, and that the expences of government in England may be put back to one million and a half, viz.:
But without worrying about the Government Constitutions, I've shown in the Second Part of Rights of Man that an alliance can be formed between England, France, and America, and that the costs of government in England can be reduced to one million and a half, namely:
Civil expense of Government...... 500,000£ Army............................. 500,000 Navy............................. 500,000 ————— 1,500,000£
And even this sum is fifteen times greater than the expences of government are in America; and it is also greater than the whole peace establishment of England amounted to about an hundred years ago. So much has the weight and oppression of taxes increased since the Revolution, and especially since the year 1714.
And even this amount is fifteen times greater than the government expenses in America, and it's also more than the entire peacetime budget of England was about a hundred years ago. This shows how much the burden of taxes has increased since the Revolution, particularly since 1714.
1 During Paine's trial, Chapman, the printer, responded to a question from the Solicitor General, saying: "I made him three separate offers at different stages of the work; the first was a hundred guineas, the second five hundred, and the last was a thousand."—Editor. 2 Error. See also earlier, and in vol. ii., p. 435. Washington had taken back his original announcement and received his salary regularly.—Editor.
To shew that the sum of 500,000L. is sufficient to defray all civil expences of government, I have, in that work, annexed the following estimate for any country of the same extent as England.—
To show that the sum of £500,000 is enough to cover all civil expenses of government, I have included the following estimate for any country the same size as England in that work.—
In the first place, three hundred Representatives, fairly elected, are sufficient for all the purposes to which Legislation can apply, and preferable to a larger number.
In the first place, three hundred elected Representatives are enough for all the purposes of Legislation and are better than having a larger group.
If, then, an allowance, at the rate of 500L. per annum be made to every Representative, deducting for non-attendance, the expence, if the whole number attended six months each year, would be.......75,000L.
If a salary of 500L per year is given to each Representative, with deductions for non-attendance, the total cost, assuming all of them attended six months each year, would be.......75,000L.
The Official Departments could not possibly exceed the following number, with the salaries annexed, viz.:
The Official Departments can't go over the following number, along with the attached salaries, namely:
[ILLUSTRATION: Table]
[ILLUSTRATION: Table]
Three offices at 10,000L each 30,000
Ten ditto at 5,000 u 50,000
Twenty ditto at 2,000 u 40,000
Forty the same at 1,000 it 40,000
Two hundred copies at 500 u 100,000
Three hundred of the same at 200 u 60,000
Five hundred the same at 100 u 50,000
Seven hundred of those at 75 each makes it 52,500.
497,500L.
497,500L
If a nation chose, it might deduct four per cent, from all the offices, and make one of twenty thousand pounds per annum, and style the person who should fill it, King or Madjesty, (1) or give him any other title.
If a nation wanted to, it could cut four percent from all the offices, create a position that pays twenty thousand pounds a year, and call the person who holds it King or Majesty, or give them any other title.
Taking, however, this sum of one million and a half, as an abundant supply for all the expences of government under any form whatever, there will remain a surplus of nearly six millions and a half out of the present taxes, after paying the interest of the national debt; and I have shewn in the Second Part of Rights of Man, what appears to me, the best mode of applying the surplus money; for I am now speaking of expences and savings, and not of systems of government.
However, if we consider this total of one and a half million as more than enough to cover all government expenses under any form, there will be a surplus of nearly six and a half million from the current taxes after paying the interest on the national debt. I've explained in the Second Part of Rights of Man what I believe is the best way to use the surplus money, since I am currently discussing expenses and savings, not government systems.
1 A friend of Paine warned him against this pun, saying it was too personal of a reference to George the Third, to whom, however, a lot has been forgiven because of his mental health issues. Yorke, in his account of his visit to Paine in 1802, mentions Paine's anecdotes "of humor and kindness" about George III. —Editor.
I have, in the first place, estimated the poor-rates at two millions annually, and shewn that the first effectual step would be to abolish the poor-rates entirely (which would be a saving of two millions to the house-keepers,) and to remit four millions out of the surplus taxes to the poor, to be paid to them in money, in proportion to the number of children in each family, and the number of aged persons.
I have, first of all, estimated the welfare costs at two million each year and shown that the most effective solution would be to completely eliminate these costs (which would save householders two million) and to redistribute four million from the surplus taxes to the needy, paying them in cash based on the number of children in each family and the number of elderly individuals.
I have estimated the number of persons of both sexes in England, of fifty years of age and upwards, at 420,000, and have taken one third of this number, viz. 140,000, to be poor people.
I have calculated that there are about 420,000 people of both genders in England aged fifty and older, and I have taken one third of that number, which is 140,000, to be people in poverty.
To save long calculations, I have taken 70,000 of them to be upwards of fifty years of age, and under sixty, and the others to be sixty years and upwards; and to allow six pounds per annum to the former class, and ten pounds per annum to the latter. The expence of which will be,
To avoid lengthy calculations, I've assumed that 70,000 of them are between fifty and sixty years old, and the rest are sixty years or older; I plan to allocate six pounds a year to the first group and ten pounds a year to the second. The cost of this will be,
Seventy thousand people at £6 per year..... £420,000. Seventy thousand people at £10 per year.... £700,000 —————- £1,120,000.
There will then remain of the four millions, 2,880,000L. I have stated two different methods of appropriating this money. The one is to pay it in proportion to the number of children in each family, at the rate of three or four pounds per annum for each child; the other is to apportion it according to the expence of living in different counties; but in either of these cases it would, together with the allowance to be made to the aged, completely take off taxes from one third of all the families in England, besides relieving all the other families from the burthen of poor-rates.
There will then be 2,880,000 pounds left from the four million. I've outlined two different ways to allocate this money. One is to distribute it based on the number of children in each family, at three or four pounds a year for each child; the other is to divide it according to the cost of living in different counties. In either case, together with the support for the elderly, it would completely eliminate taxes for one-third of all families in England and also relieve all other families from the burden of poor rates.
The whole number of families in England, allotting five souls to each family, is one million four hundred thousand, of which I take one third, viz. 466,666 to be poor families who now pay four millions of taxes, and that the poorest pays at least four guineas a year; and that the other thirteen millions are paid by the other two-thirds. The plan, therefore, as stated in the work, is, first, to remit or repay, as is already stated, this sum of four millions to the poor, because it is impossible to separate them from the others in the present mode of collecting taxes on articles of consumption; and, secondly, to abolish the poor-rates, the house and window-light tax, and to change the commutation tax into a progressive tax on large estates, the particulars of all which are set forth in the work, to which I desire Mr. Adam to refer for particulars. I shall here content myself with saying, that to a town of the population of Manchester, it will make a difference in its favour, compared with the present state of things, of upwards of fifty thousand pounds annually, and so in proportion to all other places throughout the nation. This certainly is of more consequence than that the same sums should be collected to be afterwards spent by riotous and profligate courtiers, and in nightly revels at the Star and Garter tavern, Pall Mall.
The total number of families in England, assuming five people per family, is one million four hundred thousand. I estimate that one third of these, which is 466,666, are poor families that currently pay four million in taxes, with each of the poorest at least paying four guineas a year; the remaining thirteen million is covered by the other two-thirds. The plan outlined in the work is first to refund this four million to the poor, since it's impossible to separate them from others under the current system of taxing consumer goods. Secondly, it proposes eliminating poor rates, the house and window tax, and switching the commutation tax to a progressive tax on large estates, with all the details laid out in the work, which I ask Mr. Adam to review for specifics. I will simply say that for a city like Manchester, this will result in an annual benefit of over fifty thousand pounds compared to the current situation, and similarly for other areas across the country. This is certainly more significant than collecting these sums only to have them spent by corrupt and extravagant courtiers during their nightly parties at the Star and Garter tavern in Pall Mall.
I will conclude this part of my letter with an extract from the Second Part of the Rights of Man, which Mr. Dundas (a man rolling in luxury at the expence of the nation) has branded with the epithet of "wicked."
I’ll wrap up this section of my letter with a quote from the Second Part of the Rights of Man, which Mr. Dundas (a guy living in luxury at the expense of the country) has labeled as “wicked.”
"By the operation of this plan, the poor laws, those instruments of civil torture, will be superseded, and the wasteful ex-pence of litigation prevented. The hearts of the humane will not be shocked by ragged and hungry children, and persons of seventy and eighty years of age begging for bread. The dying poor will not be dragged from place to place to breathe their last, as a reprisal of parish upon parish. Widows will have a maintenance for their children, and not be carted away, on the death of their husbands, like culprits and criminals; and children will no longer be considered as increasing the distresses of their parents. The haunts of the wretched will be known, because it will be to their advantage; and the number of petty crimes, the offspring of poverty and distress, will be lessened. The poor as well as the rich will then be interested in the support of Government, and the cause and apprehension of riots and tumults will cease. Ye who sit in ease, and solace yourselves in plenty, and such there are in Turkey and Russia, as well as in England, and who say to yourselves, are we not well off have ye thought of these things? When ye do, ye will cease to speak and feel for yourselves alone."
"By implementing this plan, the outdated poor laws—those instruments of civil suffering—will be replaced, preventing the unnecessary costs of legal disputes. People with compassion won’t be shocked by ragged, hungry children or elderly folks in their seventies and eighties begging for food. The dying poor won’t be moved from place to place to take their last breaths as a punishment between parishes. Widows will receive support for their children instead of being treated like criminals and cast aside after their husbands die; kids won’t be seen as a burden increasing their parents’ struggles. The places where the desperate gather will be recognized because it will benefit them, and the number of petty crimes arising from poverty and hardship will decrease. Both the poor and the rich will be invested in supporting the government, and the fear of riots and upheavals will vanish. Those of you who live comfortably and indulge in abundance—whether you’re in Turkey, Russia, or England—who say to yourselves, aren't we doing well, have you considered these issues? Once you do, you’ll stop thinking only of yourselves."
After this remission of four millions be made, and the poor-rates and houses and window-light tax be abolished, and the commutation tax changed, there will still remain nearly one million and a half of surplus taxes; and as by an alliance between England, France and America, armies and navies will, in a great measure, be rendered unnecessary; and as men who have either been brought up in, or long habited to, those lines of life, are still citizens of a nation in common with the rest, and have a right to participate in all plans of national benefit, it is stated in that work (Rights of Man, Part ii.) to apply annually 507,000L. out of the surplus taxes to this purpose, in the following manner:
After this reduction of four million is made, and the poor rates and the tax on houses and window light are abolished, and the commutation tax is changed, there will still be about one and a half million in surplus taxes left; and since an alliance between England, France, and America will largely make armies and navies unnecessary; and since men who have either been raised in or have long been accustomed to those ways of life are still citizens of a nation in common with everyone else, and have the right to participate in all national benefit plans, it is stated in that work (Rights of Man, Part ii.) to allocate 507,000L. annually from the surplus taxes for this purpose, in the following way:

The limits to which it is proper to confine this letter, will not admit of my entering into further particulars. I address it to Mr. Dundas because he took the lead in the debate, and he wishes, I suppose, to appear conspicuous; but the purport of it is to justify myself from the charge which Mr. Adam has made.
The limits of this letter don't allow me to go into more detail. I'm addressing it to Mr. Dundas because he led the debate, and I assume he wants to stand out; however, the purpose of this letter is to defend myself against the accusation made by Mr. Adam.
This Gentleman, as has been observed in the beginning of this letter, considers the writings of Harrington, More and Hume, as justifiable and legal publications, because they reasoned by comparison, though in so doing they shewed plans and systems of government, not only different from, but preferable to, that of England; and he accuses me of endeavouring to confuse, instead of producing a system in the room of that which I had reasoned against; whereas, the fact is, that I have not only reasoned by comparison of the representative system against the hereditary system, but I have gone further; for I have produced an instance of a government established entirely on the representative system, under which greater happiness is enjoyed, much fewer taxes required, and much higher credit is established, than under the system of government in England. The funds in England have risen since the war only from 54L. to 97L. and they have been down since the proclamation, to 87L. whereas the funds in America rose in the mean time from 10L. to 120L.
This gentleman, as noted at the beginning of this letter, views the writings of Harrington, More, and Hume as valid and legal publications because they argued through comparison. In doing so, they presented plans and systems of government that are not only different from but better than England's. He accuses me of trying to create confusion instead of offering a system to replace the one I challenged. The truth is, I haven’t just compared the representative system to the hereditary system; I’ve gone further. I’ve provided an example of a government based entirely on the representative system, where people enjoy greater happiness, face much lower taxes, and have much higher credit than under England's system. In England, funds have increased since the war from £54 to £97, and after the proclamation, they've dropped to £87. Meanwhile, in America, funds rose from £10 to £120 during the same time.
His charge against me of "destroying every principle of subordination," is equally as groundless; which even a single paragraph from the work will prove, and which I shall here quote:
His accusation against me of "destroying every principle of subordination" is just as unfounded; even a single paragraph from the work will prove this, and I will quote it here:
"Formerly when divisions arose respecting Governments, recourse was had to the sword, and a civil war ensued. That savage custom is exploded by the new system, and recourse is had to a national convention. Discussion, and the general will, arbitrates the question, and to this private opinion yields with a good grace, and order is preserved uninterrupted."
"Back in the day, when disputes about governments arose, people turned to violence, leading to civil wars. That brutal practice has been replaced by the new system, where a national convention is called. Discussions and the collective will resolve the issue, and private opinions are accepted respectfully, ensuring that order is maintained without interruption."
That two different charges should be brought at the same time, the one by a Member of the Legislative, for not doing a certain thing, and the other by the Attorney General for doing it, is a strange jumble of contradictions. I have now justified myself, or the work rather, against the first, by stating the case in this letter, and the justification of the other will be undertaken in its proper place. But in any case the work will go on.
That two different charges are being filed at the same time, one by a Member of the Legislature for NOT doing something, and the other by the Attorney General for doing it, is a bizarre mix of contradictions. I've now defended myself, or rather the work, against the first charge in this letter, and I will address the other charge in its proper context. But in any case, the work will continue.
I shall now conclude this letter with saying, that the only objection I found against the plan and principles contained in the Second Part of Rights of Man, when I had written the book, was, that they would beneficially interest at least ninety-nine persons out of every hundred throughout the nation, and therefore would not leave sufficient room for men to act from the direct and disinterested principles of honour; but the prosecution now commenced has fortunately removed that objection, and the approvers and protectors of that work now feel the immediate impulse of honour added to that of national interest.
I’ll wrap up this letter by saying that the only drawback I found against the plan and principles in the Second Part of *Rights of Man*, when I finished writing the book, was that they would likely benefit at least ninety-nine out of every hundred people in the country, leaving little space for people to act solely based on the principles of honor. However, the prosecution that’s started has fortunately cleared that issue, and those who support and defend that work now feel a strong sense of honor alongside their national interest.
I am, Mr. Dundas,
I'm Mr. Dundas,
Not your obedient humble Servant,
Not your obedient servant,
But the contrary,
But on the contrary,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
VI. LETTERS TO ONSLOW CRANLEY,
Lord Lieutenant of the county of Surry; on the subject of the late excellent proclamation:—or the chairman who shall preside at the meeting to be held at Epsom, June 18.
Lord Lieutenant of Surrey County; regarding the recent excellent proclamation:—or the chairman who will lead the meeting in Epsom on June 18.
FIRST LETTER.
FIRST LETTER.
London, June 17th, 1792.
London, June 17, 1792.
SIR,
SIR,
I have seen in the public newspapers the following advertisement, to wit—
I have seen the following advertisement in the public newspapers:
"To the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy, Freeholders, and other Inhabitants of the county of Surry.
"To the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy, Freeholders, and other Residents of the county of Surrey."
"At the requisition and desire of several of the freeholders of the county, I am, in the absence of the Sheriff, to desire the favour of your attendance, at a meeting to be held at Epsom, on Monday, the 18th instant, at 12 o'clock at noon, to consider of an humble address to his majesty, to express our grateful approbation of his majesty's paternal, and well-timed attendance to the public welfare, in his late most gracious Proclamation against the enemies of our happy Constitution.
"At the request and desire of several local landowners, I am, in the absence of the Sheriff, asking for your presence at a meeting to be held in Epsom on Monday, the 18th of this month, at 12 noon. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss a humble address to the king, to express our sincere appreciation for his timely attention to the public good in his recent gracious Proclamation against those who threaten our beloved Constitution."
"(Signed.) Onslow Cranley."
"(Signed.) Onslow Cranley."
Taking it for granted, that the aforesaid advertisement, equally as obscure as the proclamation to which it refers, has nevertheless some meaning, and is intended to effect some purpose; and as a prosecution (whether wisely or unwisely, justly or unjustly) is already commenced against a work intitled RIGHTS OF MAN, of which I have the honour and happiness to be the author; I feel it necessary to address this letter to you, and to request that it may be read publicly to the gentlemen who shall meet at Epsom in consequence of the advertisement.
Assuming that the aforementioned advertisement, just as unclear as the proclamation it mentions, still carries some meaning and aims to achieve something; and since a prosecution (whether it's smart or not, fair or unfair) has already begun against a work titled RIGHTS OF MAN, of which I am proud to be the author; I find it important to write this letter to you and to ask that it be read publicly to the gentlemen who will gather at Epsom as a result of the advertisement.
The work now under prosecution is, I conceive, the same work which is intended to be suppressed by the aforesaid proclamation. Admitting this to be the case, the gentlemen of the county of Surry are called upon by somebody to condemn a work, and they are at the same time forbidden by the proclamation to know what that work is; and they are further called upon to give their aid and assistance to prevent other people from knowing it also. It is therefore necessary that the author, for his own justification, as well as to prevent the gentlemen who shall meet from being imposed upon by misrepresentation, should give some outlines of the principles and plans which that work contains.
The work currently being addressed is, I believe, the same work that the previously mentioned proclamation aims to suppress. If that's the case, the gentlemen of Surry County are being urged by someone to condemn a work without being allowed to know what that work actually is, as the proclamation prohibits them from that knowledge. They are also being asked to help stop others from learning about it too. Therefore, it is essential for the author, for his own defense and to prevent the gentlemen attending from being misled by false information, to provide some outlines of the principles and plans contained in that work.
The work, Sir, in question, contains, first, an investigation of general principles of government.
The work, Sir, in question, includes, first, an examination of the fundamental principles of government.
It also distinguishes government into two classes or systems, the one the hereditary system; the other the representative system; and it compares these two systems with each other.
It also divides government into two types or systems: the hereditary system and the representative system, and it compares these two systems with one another.
It shews that what is called hereditary government cannot exist as a matter of right; because hereditary government always means a government yet to come; and the case always is, that those who are to live afterwards have always the same right to establish a government for themselves as the people who had lived before them.
It shows that what we call hereditary government cannot exist as a matter of right because hereditary government always refers to a government that is yet to come. The reality is that those who will live in the future have the same right to establish a government for themselves as the people who lived before them.
It also shews the defect to which hereditary government is unavoidably subject: that it must, from the nature of it, throw government into the hands of men totally unworthy of it from the want of principle, and unfitted for it from want of capacity. James II. and many others are recorded in the English history as proofs of the former of those cases, and instances are to be found all over Europe to prove the truth of the latter.
It also shows the flaw that hereditary government can't escape: it inevitably places power in the hands of people who are completely unworthy of it due to a lack of principles, and ill-suited for it because of a lack of ability. James II and many others are noted in English history as examples of the first issue, and there are plenty of instances across Europe to demonstrate the truth of the second.
It then shews that the representative system is the only true system of government; that it is also the only system under which the liberties of any people can be permanently secure; and, further, that it is the only one that can continue the same equal probability at all times of admitting of none but men properly qualified, both by principles and abilities, into government, and of excluding such as are otherwise.
It then shows that the representative system is the only true form of government; that it is also the only system under which the freedoms of any people can be securely maintained over time; and, furthermore, that it is the only one that can consistently ensure that only those who are properly qualified, both in principles and abilities, are allowed into government, while excluding those who do not meet these standards.
The work shews also, by plans and calculations not hitherto denied nor controverted, not even by the prosecution that is commenced, that the taxes now existing may be reduced at least six millions, that taxes may be entirely taken off from the poor, who are computed at one third of the nation; and that taxes on the other two thirds may be considerably reduced; that the aged poor may be comfortably provided for, and the children of poor families properly educated; that fifteen thousand soldiers, and the same number of sailors, may be allowed three shillings per week during life out of the surplus taxes; and also that a proportionate allowance may be made to the officers, and the pay of the remaining soldiers and sailors be raised; and that it is better to apply the surplus taxes to those purposes, than to consume them on lazy and profligate placemen and pensioners; and that the revenue, said to be twenty thousand pounds per annum, raised by a tax upon coals, and given to the Duke of Richmond, is a gross imposition upon all the people of London, and ought to be instantly abolished.
The work also shows, through plans and calculations that have not been denied or contested, not even by the ongoing prosecution, that the existing taxes could be cut by at least six million, that taxes could be completely removed for the poor, who make up about one third of the population; and that taxes on the other two thirds could be significantly reduced. It argues that the elderly poor can be comfortably supported, and that children from low-income families can receive proper education. It suggests that fifteen thousand soldiers and the same number of sailors could receive three shillings per week for life from the surplus taxes, and that a proportional allowance could be given to officers while the pay for the remaining soldiers and sailors could be increased. It claims it's better to use surplus taxes for these purposes rather than waste them on lazy and corrupt officials and pensioners. It also states that the revenue, estimated to be twenty thousand pounds per year, raised by a tax on coal and given to the Duke of Richmond, is a blatant burden on all the people of London and should be abolished immediately.
This, Sir, is a concise abstract of the principles and plans contained in the work that is now prosecuted, and for the suppression of which the proclamation appears to be intended; but as it is impossible that I can, in the compass of a letter, bring into view all the matters contained in the work, and as it is proper that the gentlemen who may compose that meeting should know what the merits or demerits of it are, before they come to any resolutions, either directly or indirectly relating thereto, I request the honour of presenting them with one hundred copies of the second part of the Rights of Man, and also one thousand copies of my letter to Mr. Dundas, which I have directed to be sent to Epsom for that purpose; and I beg the favour of the Chairman to take the trouble of presenting them to the gentlemen who shall meet on that occasion, with my sincere wishes for their happiness, and for that of the nation in general.
This, Sir, is a brief summary of the principles and plans included in the work that is currently being pursued, and which the proclamation seems intended to suppress; however, since it’s impossible for me, in the scope of a letter, to cover all the issues presented in the work, and since it’s important that the gentlemen attending that meeting understand the merits or drawbacks of it before making any decisions related to it, I would like to present them with one hundred copies of the second part of the Rights of Man, as well as one thousand copies of my letter to Mr. Dundas, which I have arranged to be sent to Epsom for that purpose. I kindly ask the Chairman to take the time to distribute these to the gentlemen who will meet on that occasion, along with my best wishes for their well-being and for the nation as a whole.
Having now closed thus much of the subject of my letter, I next come to speak of what has relation to me personally. I am well aware of the delicacy that attends it, but the purpose of calling the meeting appears to me so inconsistent with that justice that is always due between man and man, that it is proper I should (as well on account of the gentlemen who may meet, as on my own account) explain myself fully and candidly thereon.
Having now covered this part of my letter, I want to address what relates to me personally. I know this is a sensitive topic, but I feel that the reason for calling the meeting is so unfair that I should be honest and clear about my thoughts—both for the gentlemen who may attend and for myself.
I have already informed the gentlemen, that a prosecution is commenced against a work of which I have the honour and happiness to be the author; and I have good reasons for believing that the proclamation which the gentlemen are called to consider, and to present an address upon, is purposely calculated to give an impression to the jury before whom that matter is to come. In short, that it is dictating a verdict by proclamation; and I consider the instigators of the meeting to be held at Epsom, as aiding and abetting the same improper, and, in my opinion, illegal purpose, and that in a manner very artfully contrived, as I shall now shew.
I have already informed the gentlemen that a legal case has been started against a work that I am proud and happy to say I wrote. I have strong reasons to believe that the announcement the gentlemen are asked to consider and respond to is intentionally designed to influence the jury that will be handling this matter. In short, it feels like it is trying to dictate a verdict through this announcement; and I view the organizers of the meeting in Epsom as supporting and encouraging this same improper and, in my opinion, illegal objective, and in a way that is very cleverly planned, as I will now demonstrate.
Had a meeting been called of the Freeholders of the county of Middlesex, the gentlemen who had composed that meeting would have rendered themselves objectionable as persons to serve on a Jury, before whom the judicial case was afterwards to come. But by calling a meeting out of the county of Middlesex, that matter is artfully avoided, and the gentlemen of Surry are summoned, as if it were intended thereby to give a tone to the sort of verdict which the instigators of the meeting no doubt wish should be brought in, and to give countenance to the Jury in so doing. I am, sir,
If a meeting had been called for the Freeholders of Middlesex County, the gentlemen attending that meeting would have disqualified themselves from serving on the jury for the upcoming case. However, by holding a meeting outside of Middlesex County, this issue is cleverly sidestepped, and the gentlemen from Surrey are called in, as if to influence the kind of verdict that those who organized the meeting clearly hope for, and to encourage the jury to reach that conclusion. I am, sir,
With much respect to the
With great respect to the
Gentlemen who shall meet, Their and your obedient and humble Servant,
Gentlemen who will meet, Your obedient and humble servant,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
TO ONSLOW CRANLEY, COMMONLY CALLED LORD ONSLOW. SECOND LETTER. SIR,
TO ONSLOW CRANLEY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS LORD ONSLOW. SECOND LETTER. SIR,
London, June 21st 1792.
London, June 21, 1792.
WHEN I wrote you the letter which Mr. Home Tooke did me the favour to present to you, as chairman of the meeting held at Epsom, Monday, June 18, it was not with much expectation that you would do me the justice of permitting, or recommending it to be publicly read. I am well aware that the signature of Thomas Paine has something in it dreadful to sinecure Placemen and Pensioners; and when you, on seeing the letter opened, informed the meeting that it was signed Thomas Paine, and added in a note of exclamation, "the common enemy of us all." you spoke one of the greatest truths you ever uttered, if you confine the expression to men of the same description with yourself; men living in indolence and luxury, on the spoil and labours of the public.
WHEN I wrote you the letter that Mr. Home Tooke kindly delivered to you, as chairman of the meeting at Epsom on Monday, June 18, I did not expect that you would do me the favor of allowing it to be read publicly, or recommending it for such. I understand that the name Thomas Paine carries a certain dread for those with sinecure positions and pensions; and when you, upon seeing the letter opened, informed the meeting that it was signed Thomas Paine and added with an exclamation, "the common enemy of us all," you spoke one of the greatest truths you ever said, if you limit that expression to people like yourself; those who live in comfort and luxury on the exploitation and hard work of the public.
The letter has since appeared in the "Argus," and probably in other papers.(1) It will justify itself; but if any thing on that account hath been wanting, your conduct at the meeting would have supplied the omission. You there sufficiently proved that I was not mistaken in supposing that the meeting was called to give an indirect aid to the prosecution commenced against a work, the reputation of which will long outlive the memory of the Pensioner I am writing to.
The letter has since been published in the "Argus," and probably in other papers.(1) It will stand on its own; but if anything was missing, your actions at the meeting filled that gap. You clearly demonstrated that I was correct in thinking that the meeting was meant to indirectly support the prosecution started against a work whose reputation will far outlast the memory of the Pensioner I am writing to.
When meetings, Sir, are called by the partisans of the Court, to preclude the nation the right of investigating systems and principles of government, and of exposing errors and defects, under the pretence of prosecuting an individual—it furnishes an additional motive for maintaining sacred that violated right.
When meetings, Sir, are organized by the supporters of the Court to prevent the nation from investigating government systems and principles, and from pointing out mistakes and flaws, under the guise of pursuing an individual—it provides another reason to protect that violated right.
The principles and arguments contained in the work in question, Rights OF Man, have stood, and they now stand, and I believe ever will stand, unrefuted. They are stated in a fair and open manner to the world, and they have already received the public approbation of a greater number of men, of the best of characters, of every denomination of religion, and of every rank in life, (placemen and pensioners excepted,) than all the juries that shall meet in England, for ten years to come, will amount to; and I have, moreover, good reasons for believing that the approvers of that work, as well private as public, are already more numerous than all the present electors throughout the nation.
The principles and arguments in the work in question, Rights of Man, have remained unrefuted and will continue to be so, in my opinion. They are presented honestly and openly to the world, and they have already gained the approval of a larger number of people, of the highest character, from all religious backgrounds and social classes (with the exception of those in government positions or on pensions), than all the juries that will sit in England over the next ten years combined. Additionally, I have good reason to believe that the supporters of this work, both private individuals and public figures, already outnumber all the current voters in the country.
1 The Argus was edited by Sampson Perry, who was prosecuted shortly after.—Editor.
Not less than forty pamphlets, intended as answers thereto, have appeared, and as suddenly disappeared: scarcely are the titles of any of them remembered, notwithstanding their endeavours have been aided by all the daily abuse which the Court and Ministerial newspapers, for almost a year and a half, could bestow, both upon the work and the author; and now that every attempt to refute, and every abuse has failed, the invention of calling the work a libel has been hit upon, and the discomfited party has pusillanimously retreated to prosecution and a jury, and obscure addresses.
At least forty pamphlets, meant to respond to this, have come out and just as quickly faded away: hardly anyone remembers their titles, even though their efforts have been supported by relentless criticism from the Court and government newspapers for almost a year and a half, targeting both the work and the author. Now that every attempt to disprove it and every insult has failed, they've resorted to calling the work a libel, and the defeated side has cowardly retreated to seeking legal action, a jury, and vague statements.
As I well know that a long letter from me will not be agreeable to you, I will relieve your uneasiness by making it as short as I conveniently can; and will conclude it with taking up the subject at that part where Mr. HORNE TOOKE was interrupted from going on when at the meeting.
As I know you won't like a lengthy letter from me, I'll try to make it as short as possible. I'll wrap it up by picking up on the topic from where Mr. HORNE TOOKE was interrupted at the meeting.
That gentleman was stating, that the situation you stood in rendered it improper for you to appear actively in a scene in which your private interest was too visible: that you were a Bedchamber Lord at a thousand a year, and a Pensioner at three thousand pounds a year more—and here he was stopped by the little but noisy circle you had collected round. Permit me then, Sir, to add an explanation to his words, for the benefit of your neighbours, and with which, and a few observations, I shall close my letter.
That guy was saying that the situation you were in made it inappropriate for you to be openly involved in a scene where your personal interest was too obvious. You were a Bedchamber Lord earning a thousand a year, and a Pensioner making three thousand pounds a year on top of that—and he was interrupted by the small but loud group you had gathered around you. So, let me add an explanation to what he said, for the sake of your neighbors, and with that and a few comments, I'll wrap up my letter.
When it was reported in the English Newspapers, some short time since, that the empress of RUSSIA had given to one of her minions a large tract of country and several thousands of peasants as property, it very justly provoked indignation and abhorrence in those who heard it. But if we compare the mode practised in England, with that which appears to us so abhorrent in Russia, it will be found to amount to very near the same thing;—for example—
When it was reported in the English newspapers a little while ago that the empress of Russia had given one of her favorites a large piece of land and several thousand peasants as property, it rightfully sparked outrage and disgust among those who heard it. However, if we compare the practices in England with what seems so appalling in Russia, we’ll find they are quite similar; for example—
As the whole of the revenue in England is drawn by taxes from the pockets of the people, those things called gifts and grants (of which kind are all pensions and sinecure places) are paid out of that stock. The difference, therefore, between the two modes is, that in England the money is collected by the government, and then given to the Pensioner, and in Russia he is left to collect it for himself. The smallest sum which the poorest family in a county so near London as Surry, can be supposed to pay annually, of taxes, is not less than five pounds; and as your sinecure of one thousand, and pension of three thousand per annum, are made up of taxes paid by eight hundred such poor families, it comes to the same thing as if the eight hundred families had been given to you, as in Russia, and you had collected the money on your account. Were you to say that you are not quartered particularly on the people of Surrey, but on the nation at large, the objection would amount to nothing; for as there are more pensioners than counties, every one may be considered as quartered on that in which he lives.
Since all the revenue in England comes from taxes paid by the people, things like gifts and grants—which include all pensions and sinecure positions—are funded by that money. The key difference is that in England, the government collects the money and then pays it to the Pensioner, while in Russia, the Pensioner has to collect it themselves. The smallest amount that the poorest family in a county as close to London as Surrey can be expected to pay in taxes each year is at least five pounds. Your sinecure of one thousand and pension of three thousand per year are funded by the taxes from eight hundred such poor families. It’s like those eight hundred families were given to you, as in Russia, and you collected the money on your behalf. If you claim that you’re not specifically burdening the people of Surrey but the whole nation, that argument doesn’t hold up; since there are more pensioners than counties, each person can be seen as drawing from the community where they reside.
What honour or happiness you can derive from being the PRINCIPAL PAUPER of the neighbourhood, and occasioning a greater expence than the poor, the aged, and the infirm, for ten miles round you, I leave you to enjoy. At the same time I can see that it is no wonder you should be strenuous in suppressing a book which strikes at the root of those abuses. No wonder that you should be against reforms, against the freedom of the press, and the right of investigation. To you, and to others of your description, these are dreadful things; but you should also consider, that the motives which prompt you to act, ought, by reflection, to compel you to be silent.
What honor or happiness can you really get from being the MAIN PAUPER in your neighborhood and costing more than all the poor, elderly, and sick people within a ten-mile radius? I guess you’re fine with that. At the same time, it makes sense that you’d go out of your way to stop a book that challenges those wrongs. It’s no surprise you're against reforms, against a free press, and against the right to investigate. For you and others like you, these ideas are terrifying; but you should also think about how the reasons behind your actions should actually make you want to be quiet.
Having now returned your compliment, and sufficiently tired your patience, I take my leave of you, with mentioning, that if you had not prevented my former letter from being read at the meeting, you would not have had the trouble of reading this; and also with requesting, that the next time you call me "a common enemy," you would add, "of us sinecure placemen and pensioners."
Having now returned your compliment and worn out your patience, I’ll take my leave. I should mention that if you hadn’t stopped my earlier letter from being read at the meeting, you wouldn’t have had to read this one. Also, I’d like to request that the next time you call me "a common enemy," you add, "of us sinecure placemen and pensioners."
I am, Sir, &c. &c. &c.
I am, Sir, etc. etc. etc.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
VII. TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SUSSEX,
OR, THE GENTLEMAN WHO SHALL PRESIDE AT THE MEETING TO BE HELD AT LEWES, JULY 4.
OR, THE PERSON WHO WILL CHAIR THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN LEWES, JULY 4.
London, June 30, 1792.
London, June 30, 1792.
Sir,
Hey,
I have seen in the Lewes newspapers, of June 25, an advertisement, signed by sundry persons, and also by the sheriff, for holding a meeting at the Town-hall of Lewes, for the purpose, as the advertisement states, of presenting an Address on the late Proclamation for suppressing writings, books, &c. And as I conceive that a certain publication of mine, entitled "Rights of Man," in which, among other things, the enormous increase of taxes, placemen, and pensioners, is shewn to be unnecessary and oppressive, is the particular writing alluded to in the said publication; I request the Sheriff, or in his absence, whoever shall preside at the meeting, or any other person, to read this letter publicly to the company who shall assemble in consequence of that advertisement.
I saw an ad in the Lewes newspapers on June 25, signed by various people, including the sheriff, announcing a meeting at the Town Hall in Lewes. The ad states that the purpose of the meeting is to present an Address regarding the recent Proclamation aimed at suppressing writings, books, etc. I believe that my publication titled "Rights of Man," which discusses the unnecessary and oppressive rise in taxes, government jobs, and pensions, is the specific writing referred to in that publication. I ask the Sheriff, or whoever is in charge of the meeting in his absence, or any other person, to read this letter aloud to everyone who attends because of that advertisement.
Gentlemen—It is now upwards of eighteen years since I was a resident inhabitant of the town of Lewes. My situation among you, as an officer of the revenue, for more than six years, enabled me to see into the numerous and various distresses which the weight of taxes even at that time of day occasioned; and feeling, as I then did, and as it is natural for me to do, for the hard condition of others, it is with pleasure I can declare, and every person then under my survey, and now living, can witness, the exceeding candour, and even tenderness, with which that part of the duty that fell to my share was executed. The name of Thomas Paine is not to be found in the records of the Lewes' justices, in any one act of contention with, or severity of any kind whatever towards, the persons whom he surveyed, either in the town, or in the country; of this, Mr. Fuller and Mr. Shelley, who will probably attend the meeting, can, if they please, give full testimony. It is, however, not in their power to contradict it.
Gentlemen—It has been over eighteen years since I became a resident of the town of Lewes. My role as a revenue officer for more than six years allowed me to witness the many and varied hardships caused by the burden of taxes even back then. Understanding, as I naturally do, the difficult situations of others, I am pleased to say that everyone I supervised, who is still around today, can confirm the exceptional kindness and even compassion with which I carried out my duties. The name of Thomas Paine does not appear in the records of the Lewes justices regarding any disputes or harshness towards the people I represented, whether in the town or the countryside; Mr. Fuller and Mr. Shelley, who will likely attend the meeting, can provide full confirmation if they wish. However, they cannot dispute this fact.
Having thus indulged myself in recollecting a place where I formerly had, and even now have, many friends, rich and poor, and most probably some enemies, I proceed to the more important purport of my letter.
Having taken some time to remember a place where I used to have and still have many friends, both rich and poor, and probably some enemies as well, I will now move on to the main point of my letter.
Since my departure from Lewes, fortune or providence has thrown me into a line of action, which my first setting out into life could not possibly have suggested to me.
Since I left Lewes, luck or destiny has led me down a path that I could never have imagined when I first started out in life.
I have seen the fine and fertile country of America ravaged and deluged in blood, and the taxes of England enormously increased and multiplied in consequence thereof; and this, in a great measure, by the instigation of the same class of placemen, pensioners, and Court dependants, who are now promoting addresses throughout England, on the present unintelligible Proclamation.
I have witnessed the beautiful and productive land of America torn apart and soaked in blood, and as a result, England's taxes have gone up significantly. This is largely due to the same group of officials, pensioners, and court hangers-on who are now pushing for petitions all over England regarding the current unintelligible Proclamation.
I have also seen a system of Government rise up in that country, free from corruption, and now administered over an extent of territory ten times as large as England, for less expence than the pensions alone in England amount to; and under which more freedom is enjoyed, and a more happy state of society is preserved, and a more general prosperity is promoted, than under any other system of Government now existing in the world. Knowing, as I do, the things I now declare, I should reproach myself with want of duty and affection to mankind, were I not in the most undismayed manner to publish them, as it were, on the house-tops, for the good of others.
I have also seen a government system emerge in that country, free from corruption, and now managing a territory ten times larger than England, for less expense than just the pensions in England; under which people enjoy more freedom, a happier society is maintained, and greater prosperity is promoted than under any other government system in the world today. Knowing what I do, I would feel guilty for not fulfilling my responsibility and care for humanity if I didn’t boldly share this information, almost like shouting it from the rooftops, for the benefit of others.
Having thus glanced at what has passed within my knowledge, since my leaving Lewes, I come to the subject more immediately before the meeting now present.
Having looked back at what I know since leaving Lewes, I now turn to the topic at hand for this meeting.
Mr. Edmund Burke, who, as I shall show, in a future publication, has lived a concealed pensioner, at the expence of the public, of fifteen hundred pounds per annum, for about ten years last past, published a book the winter before last, in open violation of the principles of liberty, and for which he was applauded by that class of men who are now promoting addresses. Soon after his book appeared, I published the first part of the work, entitled "Rights of Man," as an answer thereto, and had the happiness of receiving the public thanks of several bodies of men, and of numerous individuals of the best character, of every denomination in religion, and of every rank in life—placemen and pensioners excepted.
Mr. Edmund Burke, who, as I will demonstrate in a future publication, has been secretly supported by a public pension of fifteen hundred pounds a year for about the last ten years, published a book the winter before last that openly contradicted the principles of liberty, and for which he was praised by the very people who are currently promoting addresses. Shortly after his book was released, I published the first part of my work, titled "Rights of Man," in response, and I was fortunate to receive public gratitude from various groups and many individuals of outstanding character, from all different religious backgrounds and social ranks—excluding government officials and pensioners.
In February last, I published the Second Part of "Rights of Man," and as it met with still greater approbation from the true friends of national freedom, and went deeper into the system of Government, and exposed the abuses of it, more than had been done in the First Part, it consequently excited an alarm among all those, who, insensible of the burthen of taxes which the general mass of the people sustain, are living in luxury and indolence, and hunting after Court preferments, sinecure places, and pensions, either for themselves, or for their family connections.
In February last year, I published the Second Part of "Rights of Man," and it received even more praise from the true supporters of national freedom. This part delved deeper into the government system and revealed its abuses more than the First Part did. As a result, it caused concern among those who, oblivious to the heavy tax burden that the general population bears, are living in luxury and laziness while seeking court favors, easy jobs, and pensions, either for themselves or their relatives.
I have shewn in that work, that the taxes may be reduced at least six millions, and even then the expences of Government in England would be twenty times greater than they are in the country I have already spoken of. That taxes may be entirely taken off from the poor, by remitting to them in money at the rate of between three and four pounds per head per annum, for the education and bringing up of the children of the poor families, who are computed at one third of the whole nation, and six pounds per annum to all poor persons, decayed tradesmen, or others, from the age of fifty until sixty, and ten pounds per annum from after sixty. And that in consequence of this allowance, to be paid out of the surplus taxes, the poor-rates would become unnecessary, and that it is better to apply the surplus taxes to these beneficent purposes, than to waste them on idle and profligate courtiers, placemen, and pensioners.
I have shown in that work that taxes can be cut by at least six million, and even then, the expenses of government in England would be twenty times higher than those in the country I mentioned earlier. Taxes could be completely removed for the poor by giving them money at a rate of between three and four pounds per person each year, for the education and upbringing of the children from poor families, which make up about a third of the total population. Additionally, six pounds a year could be given to all poor individuals, retired tradespeople, or others aged fifty to sixty, and ten pounds a year for those over sixty. As a result of this financial support, funded by excess tax revenue, poor rates would no longer be necessary, and it would be better to use the surplus taxes for these charitable purposes than to waste them on lazy and extravagant courtiers, government officials, and pensioners.
These, gentlemen, are a part of the plans and principles contained in the work, which this meeting is now called upon, in an indirect manner, to vote an address against, and brand with the name of wicked and seditious. But that the work may speak for itself, I request leave to close this part of my letter with an extract therefrom, in the following words: [Quotation the same as that on p. 26.]
These, gentlemen, are part of the plans and principles included in the work that this meeting is now being asked, indirectly, to vote against and label as wicked and seditious. However, to allow the work to present its own case, I would like to finish this part of my letter with an excerpt from it, in the following words: [Quotation the same as that on p. 26.]
Gentlemen, I have now stated to you such matters as appear necessary to me to offer to the consideration of the meeting. I have no other interest in what I am doing, nor in writing you this letter, than the interest of the heart. I consider the proposed address as calculated to give countenance to placemen, pensioners, enormous taxation, and corruption. Many of you will recollect, that whilst I resided among you, there was not a man more firm and open in supporting the principles of liberty than myself, and I still pursue, and ever will, the same path.
Gentlemen, I have now shared with you the points that I believe are important for this meeting. My only motivation for doing this and writing you this letter comes from the heart. I see the proposed address as supporting those in positions of power, pensioners, excessive taxation, and corruption. Many of you will remember that during my time among you, there was no one more steadfast and honest in advocating for the principles of freedom than I was, and I continue to pursue that same path now and always.
I have, Gentlemen, only one request to make, which is—that those who have called the meeting will speak out, and say, whether in the address they are going to present against publications, which the proclamation calls wicked, they mean the work entitled Rights of Man, or whether they do not?
I have just one request, gentlemen: those who called this meeting need to speak up and clarify whether the address they’re about to present against the publications the proclamation labels as wicked refers to the work titled Rights of Man, or if it does not.
I am, Gentlemen, With sincere wishes for your happiness,
I am, gentlemen, wishing you all the best for your happiness,
Your friend and Servant,
Your friend and servant,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
VIII. TO MR. SECRETARY DUNDAS.
Calais, Sept. 15, 1792.
Sir,
Dude,
I CONCEIVE it necessary to make you acquainted with the following circumstance:—The department of Calais having elected me a member of the National Convention of France, I set off from London the 13th instant, in company with Mr. Frost, of Spring Garden, and Mr. Audibert, one of the municipal officers of Calais, who brought me the certificate of my being elected. We had not arrived more, I believe, than five minutes at the York Hotel, at Dover, when the train of circumstances began that I am going to relate. We had taken our baggage out of the carriage, and put it into a room, into which we went. Mr. Frost, having occasion to go out, was stopped in the passage by a gentleman, who told him he must return into the room, which he did, and the gentleman came in with him, and shut the door. I had remained in the room; Mr. Audibert was gone to inquire when the packet was to sail. The gentleman then said, that he was collector of the customs, and had an information against us, and must examine our baggage for prohibited articles. He produced his commission as Collector. Mr. Frost demanded to see the information, which the Collector refused to shew, and continued to refuse, on every demand that we made. The Collector then called in several other officers, and began first to search our pockets. He took from Mr. Audibert, who was then returned into the room, every thing he found in his pocket, and laid it on the table. He then searched Mr. Frost in the same manner, (who, among other things, had the keys of the trunks in his pocket,) and then did the same by me. Mr. Frost wanting to go out, mentioned it, and was going towards the door; on which the Collector placed himself against the door, and said, nobody should depart the room. After the keys had been taken from Mr. Frost, (for I had given him the keys of my trunks beforehand, for the purpose of his attending the baggage to the customs, if it should be necessary,) the Collector asked us to open the trunks, presenting us the keys for that purpose; this we declined to do, unless he would produce his information, which he again refused. The Collector then opened the trunks himself, and took out every paper and letter, sealed or unsealed. On our remonstrating with him on the bad policy, as well as the illegality, of Custom-House officers seizing papers and letters, which were things that did not come under their cognizance, he replied, that the Proclamation gave him the authority.
I think it's important to inform you about the following situation: The Calais department elected me as a member of the National Convention of France, so I left London on the 13th of this month, accompanied by Mr. Frost from Spring Garden and Mr. Audibert, one of the municipal officials from Calais, who brought me the certificate of my election. We had barely been at the York Hotel in Dover for five minutes when the chain of events I'm about to describe began. We took our bags out of the carriage and put them in a room, which we entered. Mr. Frost, needing to go outside, was stopped in the hallway by a gentleman who told him he had to go back into the room. Mr. Frost complied, and the gentleman followed him in and closed the door. I stayed in the room while Mr. Audibert went to check when the packet would leave. The gentleman then identified himself as the customs collector and claimed he had information against us and needed to search our bags for prohibited items. He showed us his credentials as Collector. Mr. Frost asked to see the information, which the Collector refused to show, consistently declining every request we made. The Collector then summoned several other officers and started searching our pockets. He took everything from Mr. Audibert’s pockets and placed it on the table. He then searched Mr. Frost in the same way, who happened to have the keys to the trunks in his pocket. After that, he searched me. When Mr. Frost indicated he wanted to leave and moved toward the door, the Collector stood in front of it and declared that no one was allowed to exit the room. After Mr. Frost's keys were taken (I had given him my trunk keys earlier so he could help with the customs process if needed), the Collector asked us to open the trunks, offering the keys for that purpose; we refused unless he produced his information, which he again denied. The Collector then opened the trunks himself and removed every paper and letter, whether sealed or unsealed. When we protested his actions, citing both poor policy and illegality in customs officers seizing papers and letters that were outside their jurisdiction, he replied that the Proclamation gave him the authority to do so.
Among the letters which he took out of my trunk, were two sealed letters, given into my charge by the American Minister in London [Pinckney], one of which was directed to the American Minister at Paris [Gouverneur Morris], the other to a private gentleman; a letter from the President of the United States, and a letter from the Secretary of State in America, both directed to me, and which I had received from the American Minister, now in London, and were private letters of friendship; a letter from the electoral body of the Department of Calais, containing the notification of my being elected to the National Convention; and a letter from the President of the National Assembly, informing me of my being also elected for the Department of the Oise.
Among the letters he took out of my trunk were two sealed letters given to me by the American Minister in London [Pinckney]. One was addressed to the American Minister in Paris [Gouverneur Morris], and the other was for a private individual. There was also a letter from the President of the United States and another from the Secretary of State in America, both addressed to me. I had received these from the American Minister, now in London, and they were personal letters of friendship. Additionally, there was a letter from the electoral body of the Department of Calais notifying me that I had been elected to the National Convention, and a letter from the President of the National Assembly informing me that I had also been elected for the Department of the Oise.
As we found that all remonstrances with the Collector, on the bad policy and illegality of seizing papers and letters, and retaining our persons by force, under the pretence of searching for prohibited articles, were vain, (for he justified himself on the Proclamation, and on the information which he refused to shew,) we contented ourselves with assuring him, that what he was then doing, he would afterwards have to answer for, and left it to himself to do as he pleased.
As we realized that all our complaints to the Collector about the poor policy and illegal seizure of our papers and letters and detaining us by force under the pretense of searching for banned items were pointless, (since he defended his actions based on the Proclamation and the information he wouldn't show us,) we settled for telling him that he would have to account for what he was doing later and left him to do as he wanted.
It appeared to us that the Collector was acting under the direction of some other person or persons, then in the hotel, but whom he did not choose we should see, or who did not choose to be seen by us; for the Collector went several times out of the room for a few minutes, and was also called out several times.
It seemed to us that the Collector was following the instructions of someone else who was at the hotel, but he didn't want us to see them, or they didn't want to be seen by us; because the Collector stepped out of the room several times for a few minutes and was also called out multiple times.
When the Collector had taken what papers and letters he pleased out of the trunks, he proceeded to read them. The first letter he took up for this purpose was that from the President of the United States to me. While he was doing this, I said, that it was very extraordinary that General Washington could not write a letter of private friendship to me, without its being subject to be read by a custom-house officer. Upon this Mr. Frost laid his hand over the face of the letter, and told the Collector that he should not read it, and took it from him. Mr. Frost then, casting his eyes on the concluding paragraph of the letter, said, I will read this part to you, which he did; of which the following is an exact transcript—
When the Collector had taken the papers and letters he wanted from the trunks, he started to read them. The first letter he picked up for this was the one from the President of the United States to me. While he was doing this, I mentioned that it was quite strange that General Washington couldn’t write me a personal letter without it being subject to inspection by a custom-house officer. At this, Mr. Frost put his hand over the face of the letter and told the Collector not to read it, then took it from him. Mr. Frost then looked at the last paragraph of the letter and said, “I’ll read this part to you,” which he did; here’s the exact transcript—
"And as no one can feel a greater interest in the happiness of mankind than I do, it is the first wish of my heart, that the enlightened policy of the present age may diffuse to all men those blessings to which they are entitled, and lay the foundation of happiness for future generations."(1)
"And since no one can care more about the happiness of humanity than I do, my greatest wish is that the progressive policies of our time will extend to everyone the benefits they deserve, and establish the groundwork for happiness in future generations."(1)
As all the other letters and papers lay then on the table, the Collector took them up, and was going out of the room with them. During the transactions already stated, I contented myself with observing what passed, and spoke but little; but on seeing the Collector going out of the room with the letters, I told him that the papers and letters then in his hand were either belonging to me, or entrusted to my charge, and that as I could not permit them to be out of my sight, I must insist on going with him.
As all the other letters and papers were laying on the table, the Collector picked them up and started to leave the room. Throughout the earlier events, I was mostly quiet, just watching what was happening. But when I saw the Collector heading out with the letters, I told him that the papers and letters in his hand either belonged to me or were under my care, and since I couldn't let them out of my sight, I had to insist on going with him.
1 Washington's letter is dated May 6, 1792. See my Life of Paine vol. i., p. 302.—Editor.
The Collector then made a list of the letters and papers, and went out of the room, giving the letters and papers into the charge of one of the officers. He returned in a short time, and, after some trifling conversation, chiefly about the Proclamation, told us, that he saw the Proclamation was ill-founded, and asked if we chose to put the letters and papers into the trunks ourselves, which, as we had not taken them out, we declined doing, and he did it himself, and returned us the keys.
The Collector then made a list of the letters and papers and left the room, handing the letters and papers over to one of the officers. He came back a short time later, and after some light conversation, mostly about the Proclamation, he told us that he saw the Proclamation was poorly founded, and asked if we wanted to put the letters and papers into the trunks ourselves. Since we hadn’t taken them out, we declined to do so, so he took care of it himself and gave us back the keys.
In stating to you these matters, I make no complaint against the personal conduct of the Collector, or of any of the officers. Their manner was as civil as such an extraordinary piece of business could admit of.
In sharing these issues with you, I'm not criticizing the personal behavior of the Collector or any of the officers. They were as polite as one could expect in such an unusual situation.
My chief motive in writing to you on this subject is, that you may take measures for preventing the like in future, not only as it concerns private individuals, but in order to prevent a renewal of those unpleasant consequences that have heretofore arisen between nations from circumstances equally as insignificant. I mention this only for myself; but as the interruption extended to two other gentlemen, it is probable that they, as individuals, will take some more effectual mode for redress.
My main reason for writing to you about this is so you can take steps to prevent this from happening again in the future, not just for individuals, but also to avoid a repeat of the uncomfortable situations that have arisen between nations from similarly minor issues. I'm mentioning this just for my own sake; however, since the interruption affected two other gentlemen as well, it's likely that they will pursue a more effective way to seek redress.
I am, Sir, yours, &c.
I'm yours, Sir, etc.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
P. S. Among the papers seized, was a copy of the Attorney-General's information against me for publishing the Rights of Man, and a printed proof copy of my Letter to the Addressers, which will soon be published.
P. S. Among the papers taken, there was a copy of the Attorney-General's information against me for publishing the Rights of Man, and a printed proof copy of my Letter to the Addressers, which will be published soon.
IX. LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ADDRESSERS ON THE LATE PROCLAMATION.(1)
COULD I have commanded circumstances with a wish, I know not of any that would have more generally promoted the progress of knowledge, than the late Proclamation, and the numerous rotten Borough and Corporation Addresses thereon. They have not only served as advertisements, but they have excited a spirit of enquiry into principles of government, and a desire to read the Rights OF Man, in places where that spirit and that work were before unknown.
IF I could have controlled circumstances with just a wish, I can't think of anything that would better advance the progress of knowledge than the recent Proclamation and the many corrupted Borough and Corporation Addresses related to it. They have acted not only as announcements but have also sparked an interest in the principles of government and inspired a desire to read the Rights OF Man in places where that interest and those writings were previously unknown.
The people of England, wearied and stunned with parties, and alternately deceived by each, had almost resigned the prerogative of thinking. Even curiosity had expired, and a universal languor had spread itself over the land. The opposition was visibly no other than a contest for power, whilst the mass of the nation stood torpidly by as the prize.
The people of England, exhausted and shocked by political parties, and often fooled by each one, had almost given up on thinking for themselves. Even curiosity had faded, and a general weariness had spread across the country. The opposition was clearly just a fight for power, while the majority of the nation stood by passively like a trophy.
In this hopeless state of things, the First Part of the Rights of Man made its appearance. It had to combat with a strange mixture of prejudice and indifference; it stood exposed to every species of newspaper abuse; and besides this, it had to remove the obstructions which Mr. Burke's rude and outrageous attack on the French Revolution had artfully raised.
In this desperate situation, the First Part of the Rights of Man was published. It had to face a confusing mix of bias and apathy; it was subjected to all kinds of newspaper criticism; and on top of that, it had to tackle the obstacles that Mr. Burke's harsh and outrageous attack on the French Revolution had cleverly created.
1 The Royal Proclamation issued against seditious writings, May 21st. This pamphlet, the proof of which was read in Paris (see P. S. of the previous chapter), was published at 1s. 6d. by H. D. Symonds, Paternoster Row, and Thomas Clio Rickman, 7 Upper Marylebone Street (where it was written), both publishers being soon after prosecuted.—Editor.
But how easy does even the most illiterate reader distinguish the spontaneous sensations of the heart, from the laboured productions of the brain. Truth, whenever it can fully appear, is a thing so naturally familiar to the mind, that an acquaintance commences at first sight. No artificial light, yet discovered, can display all the properties of daylight; so neither can the best invented fiction fill the mind with every conviction which truth begets.
But how easily does even the most uneducated reader differentiate between the spontaneous feelings of the heart and the careful creations of the mind? Truth, whenever it can fully reveal itself, is something so inherently familiar to the mind that recognition begins at first glance. No artificial light yet invented can show all the qualities of natural daylight; similarly, no matter how well-crafted a fiction is, it cannot fill the mind with all the certainty that truth brings.
To overthrow Mr. Burke's fallacious book was scarcely the operation of a day. Even the phalanx of Placemen and Pensioners, who had given the tone to the multitude, by clamouring forth his political fame, became suddenly silent; and the final event to himself has been, that as he rose like a rocket, he fell like the stick.
Overthrowing Mr. Burke's misleading book wasn’t something that could be done in a day. Even the group of government officials and pensioners, who had hyped up his political reputation, suddenly fell silent; ultimately, he rose like a rocket but fell back down like a stick.
It seldom happens, that the mind rests satisfied with the simple detection of error or imposition. Once put in motion, that motion soon becomes accelerated; where it had intended to stop, it discovers new reasons to proceed, and renews and continues the pursuit far beyond the limits it first prescribed to itself. Thus it has happened to the people of England. From a detection of Mr. Burke's incoherent rhapsodies, and distorted facts, they began an enquiry into the first principles of Government, whilst himself, like an object left far behind, became invisible and forgotten.
It rarely happens that the mind is content with just identifying a mistake or deception. Once it gets going, that process quickly picks up speed; where it initially intended to pause, it finds new reasons to continue and extends its search well beyond its original limits. This is what happened to the people of England. After noticing Mr. Burke's jumbled rants and twisted facts, they began investigating the fundamental principles of government, while he, like a forgotten object left far behind, became invisible and overlooked.
Much as the First Part of RIGHTS OF Man impressed at its first appearance, the progressive mind soon discovered that it did not go far enough. It detected errors; it exposed absurdities; it shook the fabric of political superstition; it generated new ideas; but it did not produce a regular system of principles in the room of those which it displaced. And, if I may guess at the mind of the Government-party, they beheld it as an unexpected gale that would soon blow over, and they forbore, like sailors in threatening weather, to whistle, lest they should encrease(sic) the wind. Every thing, on their part, was profound silence.
Much like the First Part of RIGHTS OF Man made an impact when it was first released, the progressive thinkers quickly realized that it wasn't enough. They pointed out errors, highlighted absurdities, challenged the established political beliefs, and inspired new ideas; however, it failed to create a solid framework of principles to replace those it challenged. If I can speculate about the Government party's thoughts, they saw it as an unexpected storm that would soon pass, and they held back, like sailors in rough weather, from whistling, fearing it might stir up the wind even more. Everything on their part was met with complete silence.
When the Second Part of Rights of Man, combining Principle and Practice, was preparing to appear, they affected, for a while, to act with the same policy as before; but finding their silence had no more influence in stifling the progress of the work, than it would have in stopping the progress of time, they changed their plan, and affected to treat it with clamorous contempt. The Speech-making Placemen and Pensioners, and Place-expectants, in both Houses of Parliament, the Outs as well as the Ins, represented it as a silly, insignificant performance; as a work incapable of producing any effect; as something which they were sure the good sense of the people would either despise or indignantly spurn; but such was the overstrained awkwardness with which they harangued and encouraged each other, that in the very act of declaring their confidence they betrayed their fears.
When the Second Part of Rights of Man, combining Principle and Practice was about to be released, they pretended for a while to follow the same approach as before. However, realizing that their silence had no more power to suppress the progress of the work than it would to stop time itself, they shifted their strategy and pretended to treat it with loud disdain. The speechmakers, government officials, and those hoping for positions in both Houses of Parliament—the outsiders as well as the insiders—dismissed it as a silly, insignificant piece of work that wouldn’t have any impact. They were convinced that the good sense of the people would either ignore it or reject it angrily. Yet, their exaggerated awkwardness as they spoke and reassured one another revealed their true fears, even as they claimed confidence.
As most of the rotten Borough Addressers are obscured in holes and corners throughout the country, and to whom a newspaper arrives as rarely as an almanac, they most probably have not had the opportunity of knowing how far this part of the farce (the original prelude to all the Addresses) has been acted. For their information, I will suspend a while the more serious purpose of my Letter, and entertain them with two or three Speeches in the last Session of Parliament, which will serve them for politics till Parliament meets again.
As most of the corrupt borough representatives are hidden away in remote areas across the country, where a newspaper arrives as infrequently as an almanac, they likely haven't had the chance to learn how much of this farce (the original setup for all the addresses) has unfolded. For their benefit, I'll put aside the more serious intent of my letter for a moment and share two or three speeches from the last session of Parliament, which will keep them informed about politics until Parliament reconvenes.
You must know, Gentlemen, that the Second Part of the Rights of Man (the book against which you have been presenting Addresses, though it is most probable that many of you did not know it) was to have come out precisely at the time that Parliament last met. It happened not to be published till a few days after. But as it was very well known that the book would shortly appear, the parliamentary Orators entered into a very cordial coalition to cry the book down, and they began their attack by crying up the blessings of the Constitution.
You should know, gentlemen, that the Second Part of the Rights of Man (the book you've been addressing, even though many of you probably weren't aware of it) was supposed to be released exactly when Parliament last convened. It ended up getting published just a few days later. However, since it was well known that the book would be coming out soon, the parliamentary speakers formed a very united front to denounce it, starting their campaign by praising the blessings of the Constitution.
Had it been your fate to have been there, you could not but have been moved at the heart-and-pocket-felt congratulations that passed between all the parties on this subject of blessings; for the Outs enjoy places and pensions and sinecures as well as the Ins, and are as devoutly attached to the firm of the house.
If you had been there, you would have felt the heartfelt and genuine congratulations exchanged by everyone about the topic of blessings; because the Outs enjoy positions, pensions, and easy jobs just like the Ins, and they are just as loyally attached to the company's brand.
One of the most conspicuous of this motley groupe, is the Clerk of the Court of King's Bench, who calls himself Lord Stormont. He is also called Justice General of Scotland, and Keeper of Scoon, (an opposition man,) and he draws from the public for these nominal offices, not less, as I am informed, than six thousand pounds a-year, and he is, most probably, at the trouble of counting the money, and signing a receipt, to shew, perhaps, that he is qualified to be Clerk as well as Justice. He spoke as follows.(*)
One of the most noticeable members of this diverse group is the Clerk of the Court of King's Bench, who refers to himself as Lord Stormont. He is also known as the Justice General of Scotland and Keeper of Scoon (an opposition figure), and I’ve been informed he collects around six thousand pounds a year from the public for these titles. He likely goes through the hassle of counting the money and signing a receipt, maybe to prove that he is qualified to be both Clerk and Justice. He spoke as follows.(*)
"That we shall all be unanimous in expressing our attachment to the constitution of these realms, I am confident. It is a subject upon which there can be no divided opinion in this house. I do not pretend to be deep read in the knowledge of the Constitution, but I take upon me to say, that from the extent of my knowledge [for I have so many thousands a year for nothing] it appears to me, that from the period of the Revolution, for it was by no means created then, it has been, both in theory and practice, the wisest system that ever was formed. I never was [he means he never was till now] a dealer in political cant. My life has not been occupied in that way, but the speculations of late years seem to have taken a turn, for which I cannot account. When I came into public life, the political pamphlets of the time, however they might be charged with the heat and violence of parties, were agreed in extolling the radical beauties of the Constitution itself. I remember [he means he has forgotten] a most captivating eulogium on its charms, by Lord Bolingbroke, where he recommends his readers to contemplate it in all its aspects, with the assurance that it would be found more estimable the more it was seen, I do not recollect his precise words, but I wish that men who write upon these subjects would take this for their model, instead of the political pamphlets, which, I am told, are now in circulation, [such, I suppose, as Rights of Man,] pamphlets which I have not read, and whose purport I know only by report, [he means, perhaps, by the noise they make.] This, however, I am sure, that pamphlets tending to unsettle the public reverence for the constitution, will have very little influence. They can do very little harm—for [by the bye, he is no dealer in political cant] the English are a sober-thinking people, and are more intelligent, more solid, more steady in their opinions, than any people I ever had the fortune to see. [This is pretty well laid on, though, for a new beginner.] But if there should ever come a time when the propagation of those doctrines should agitate the public mind, I am sure for every one of your Lordships, that no attack will be made on the constitution, from which it is truly said that we derive all our prosperity, without raising every one of your Lordships to its support It will then be found that there is no difference among us, but that we are all determined to stand or fall together, in defence of the inestimable system "—[of places and pensions].
I'm confident that we will all agree on our commitment to the constitution of these realms. It's a topic where there should be no disagreements in this house. I don’t claim to be an expert on the Constitution, but based on what I know [since I receive so many thousands a year for nothing], it seems to me that since the time of the Revolution—though it wasn’t created then—this system has, in both theory and practice, been the wisest ever established. I have never been [he means he never was till now] one to deal in political nonsense. I haven’t spent my life that way, but recent speculations seem to have taken a direction I can’t explain. When I entered public life, the political pamphlets of that time, no matter how heated and partisan, all praised the fundamental strengths of the Constitution itself. I remember [he means he has forgotten] a very compelling tribute to its virtues by Lord Bolingbroke, who encouraged his readers to look at it from all angles, assuring them that it would be found increasingly valuable the more it was examined. I don’t recall his exact words, but I wish writers on these subjects would take this as their model, rather than the political pamphlets that I hear are circulating now, [such, I suppose, as Rights of Man,] which I haven’t read and whose content I know only by hearsay, [he means, perhaps, by the noise they make.] However, I’m certain that pamphlets aimed at undermining public respect for the Constitution will have very little impact. They can do minimal harm—because [by the way, he is no dealer in political nonsense] the English are thoughtful people, and they are more intelligent, more grounded, and more steadfast in their beliefs than any people I have ever had the fortune to meet. [This is quite a strong statement for a newcomer.] But if a time ever comes when the spread of those ideas stirs the public mindset, I assure each of your Lordships that no attack will be made on the Constitution, from which we truly draw all our prosperity, without prompting each of you to rally in its defense. It will then be clear that there’s no division among us, and that we are all determined to stand or fall together in defense of this invaluable system "—[of places and pensions].
* See his speech in the Morning Chronicle from Feb. 1.— Author.
After Stormont, on the opposition side, sat down, up rose another noble Lord, on the ministerial side, Grenville. This man ought to be as strong in the back as a mule, or the sire of a mule, or it would crack with the weight of places and offices. He rose, however, without feeling any incumbrance, full master of his weight; and thus said this noble Lord to t'other noble Lord!
After Stormont, the opposition took their seats, and then another noble Lord from the ministerial side, Grenville, stood up. This man should have a strong back, like a mule or the offspring of a mule, or it would buckle under the load of positions and titles. However, he stood up without feeling burdened, completely in control of his weight; and this is what that noble Lord said to the other noble Lord!
"The patriotic and manly manner in which the noble Lord has declared his sentiments on the subject of the constitution, demands my cordial approbation. The noble Viscount has proved, that however we may differ on particular measures, amidst all the jars and dissonance of parties, we are unanimous in principle. There is a perfect and entire consent [between us] in the love and maintenance of the constitution as happily subsisting. It must undoubtedly give your Lordships concern, to find that the time is come [heigh ho!] when there is propriety in the expressions of regard to [o! o! o!] the constitution. And that there are men [confound—their—po-li-tics] who disseminate doctrines hostile to the genuine spirit of our well balanced system, [it is certainly well balanced when both sides hold places and pensions at once.] I agree with the noble viscount that they have not [I hope] much success. I am convinced that there is no danger to be apprehended from their attempts: but it is truly important and consolatory [to us placemen, I suppose] to know, that if ever there should arise a serious alarm, there is but one spirit, one sense, [and that sense I presume is not common sense] and one determination in this house "—which undoubtedly is to hold all their places and pensions as long as they can.
"The patriotic and manly way the noble Lord has expressed his views on the constitution deserves my full support. The noble Viscount has shown that even if we disagree on specific measures, amidst all the conflicts of parties, we are united in principle. We completely agree on the love and support of the constitution as it currently exists. It must surely concern your Lordships to find that the time has come when it's appropriate to express our regard for the constitution. And there are people who spread ideas that are against the true spirit of our well-balanced system. I agree with the noble Viscount that they won't be very successful. I believe there’s no real danger from their efforts, but it is indeed important and comforting for us, I suppose as placemen, to know that if a serious threat ever arises, there is one spirit, one view, and one resolve in this house—which is undoubtedly to keep all their positions and pensions for as long as possible."
Both those speeches (except the parts enclosed in parenthesis, which are added for the purpose of illustration) are copied verbatim from the Morning Chronicle of the 1st of February last; and when the situation of the speakers is considered, the one in the opposition, and the other in the ministry, and both of them living at the public expence, by sinecure, or nominal places and offices, it required a very unblushing front to be able to deliver them. Can those men seriously suppose any nation to be so completely blind as not to see through them? Can Stormont imagine that the political cant, with which he has larded his harangue, will conceal the craft? Does he not know that there never was a cover large enough to hide itself? Or can Grenvilie believe that his credit with the public encreases with his avarice for places?
Both of those speeches (except for the parts in parentheses, which are added for clarification) are copied word-for-word from the Morning Chronicle dated February 1st of last year; and considering the roles of the speakers—one from the opposition and the other from the ministry, both living off public funds through sinecures or nominal positions—it took a lot of nerve for them to deliver those lines. Do they really think any nation is so blind that they can’t see through them? Can Stormont really believe that the political jargon he has plastered onto his speech will hide the truth? Doesn’t he realize that there has never been a cover big enough to conceal it? Or can Grenvilie think that his reputation with the public grows because of his greed for positions?
But, if these orators will accept a service from me, in return for the allusions they have made to the Rights of Man, I will make a speech for either of them to deliver, on the excellence of the constitution, that shall be as much to the purpose as what they have spoken, or as Bolingbroke's captivating eulogium. Here it is.
But if these speakers are willing to take a favor from me in exchange for the references they've made to the Rights of Man, I'll write a speech for either of them to present, praising the greatness of the constitution, which will be just as relevant as what they've said or as Bolingbroke's captivating eulogy. Here it is.
"That we shall all be unanimous in expressing our attachment to the constitution, I am confident. It is, my Lords, incomprehensibly good: but the great wonder of all is the wisdom; for it is, my lords, the wisest system that ever was formed.
"That we will all agree in expressing our commitment to the constitution, I am sure. It is, my Lords, incredibly good: but the most amazing thing of all is its wisdom; for it is, my Lords, the wisest system that has ever been created."
"With respect to us, noble Lords, though the world does not know it, it is very well known to us, that we have more wisdom than we know what to do with; and what is still better, my Lords, we have it all in stock. I defy your Lordships to prove, that a tittle of it has been used yet; and if we but go on, my Lords, with the frugality we have hitherto done, we shall leave to our heirs and successors, when we go out of the world, the whole stock of wisdom, untouched, that we brought in; and there is no doubt but they will follow our example. This, my lords, is one of the blessed effects of the hereditary system; for we can never be without wisdom so long as we keep it by us, and do not use it.
"Regarding us, noble Lords, even though the world may not realize it, we know very well that we have more wisdom than we know what to do with; and what's even better, my Lords, we have it all in reserve. I challenge your Lordships to prove that even a tiny bit of it has been used yet; and if we continue, my Lords, with the frugality we have exhibited so far, we will leave our heirs and successors, when we depart this world, the entire stock of wisdom, untouched, that we brought with us; and there’s no doubt they will follow our example. This, my Lords, is one of the great benefits of the hereditary system; for we can never be without wisdom as long as we keep it to ourselves and don’t use it."
"But, my Lords, as all this wisdom is hereditary property, for the sole benefit of us and our heirs, and it is necessary that the people should know where to get a supply for their own use, the excellence of our constitution has provided us a King for this very purpose, and for no other. But, my Lords, I perceive a defect to which the constitution is subject, and which I propose to remedy by bringing a bill into Parliament for that purpose.
"But, my Lords, since all this wisdom is inherited property meant only for our benefit and that of our heirs, it’s essential that the people know where to access it for themselves. The greatness of our constitution has given us a King for this exact reason and for no other. However, my Lords, I see a flaw in the constitution that needs addressing, and I plan to fix it by introducing a bill in Parliament for that purpose."
"The constitution, my Lords, out of delicacy, I presume, has left it as a matter of choice to a King whether he will be wise or not. It has not, I mean, my Lords, insisted upon it as a constitutional point, which, I conceive it ought to have done; for I pledge myself to your Lordships to prove, and that with true patriotic boldness, that he has no choice in the matter. This bill, my Lords, which I shall bring in, will be to declare, that the constitution, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, does not invest the King with this choice; our ancestors were too wise to do that; and, in order to prevent any doubts that might otherwise arise, I shall prepare, my Lords, an enacting clause, to fix the wisdom of Kings by act of Parliament; and then, my Lords our Constitution will be the wonder of the world!
"The constitution, my Lords, has left it up to a King to decide whether he will be wise or not, probably out of delicacy. It hasn’t made it a constitutional requirement, which I believe it should have; I promise your Lordships that I will prove, with true patriotic confidence, that he has no choice in this matter. This bill, my Lords, that I will introduce will state that the constitution, according to its true intent and meaning, does not give the King this choice; our ancestors were too wise for that. To clear up any doubts that might arise, I will prepare, my Lords, a law to ensure the wisdom of Kings is established by act of Parliament; and then, my Lords, our Constitution will be the wonder of the world!"
"Wisdom, my lords, is the one thing needful: but that there may be no mistake in this matter, and that we may proceed consistently with the true wisdom of the constitution, I shall propose a certain criterion whereby the exact quantity of wisdom necessary for a King may be known. [Here should be a cry of, Hear him! Hear him!]
"Wisdom, my lords, is the most important thing: but to avoid any confusion on this issue, and to ensure we remain aligned with the true wisdom of the constitution, I will suggest a specific criterion through which the exact amount of wisdom needed for a King can be determined. [Here should be a cry of, Hear him! Hear him!]
"It is recorded, my Lords, in the Statutes at Large of the Jews, 'a book, my Lords, which I have not read, and whose purport I know only by report,' but perhaps the bench of Bishops can recollect something about it, that Saul gave the most convincing proofs of royal wisdom before he was made a King, for he was sent to seek his father's asses and he could not find them.
"It is noted, my Lords, in the Statutes at Large of the Jews, 'a book, my Lords, which I have not read, and whose content I know only by hearsay,' but perhaps the bench of Bishops might recall something about it, that Saul demonstrated the greatest signs of royal wisdom before he became King, for he was sent to look for his father's donkeys and could not find them.
"Here, my Lords, we have, most happily for us, a case in point: This precedent ought to be established by act of Parliament; and every King, before he be crowned, should be sent to seek his father's asses, and if he cannot find them, he shall be declared wise enough to be King, according to the true meaning of our excellent constitution. All, therefore, my Lords, that will be necessary to be done by the enacting clause that I shall bring in, will be to invest the King beforehand with the quantity of wisdom necessary for this purpose, lest he should happen not to possess it; and this, my Lords, we can do without making use of any of our own.
"Here, my Lords, we have a perfect example: This precedent should be established by an act of Parliament, and every King, before being crowned, should go find his father's donkeys. If he can't find them, he’ll be deemed wise enough to be King, according to the true meaning of our excellent constitution. So, my Lords, the only thing we need to do with the enacting clause I will propose is to give the King ahead of time the amount of wisdom needed for this task, in case he doesn’t already have it; and we can do this without using any of our own resources."
"We further read, my Lords, in the said Statutes at Large of the Jews, that Samuel, who certainly was as mad as any Man-of-Rights-Man now-a-days (hear him! hear him!), was highly displeased, and even exasperated, at the proposal of the Jews to have a King, and he warned them against it with all that assurance and impudence of which he was master. I have been, my Lords, at the trouble of going all the way to Paternoster-row, to procure an extract from the printed copy. I was told that I should meet with it there, or in Amen-eorner, for I was then going, my Lords, to rummage for it among the curiosities of the Antiquarian Society. I will read the extracts to your Lordships, to shew how little Samuel knew of the matter.
"We further read, my Lords, in the mentioned Statutes at Large of the Jews, that Samuel, who was definitely as crazy as any modern-day rights activist (hear him! hear him!), was very upset and even annoyed by the Jews' proposal to have a king. He warned them against it with all the confidence and boldness he possessed. I took the trouble, my Lords, to go all the way to Paternoster-row to get a copy of the extract. I was told I would find it there or in Amen-corner, as I was planning to search for it among the curiosities of the Antiquarian Society. I will read the extracts to your Lordships to show how little Samuel understood the situation."
"The extract, my Lords, is from 1 Sam. chap. viii.:
"The extract, my Lords, is from 1 Sam. chap. viii.:
"'And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a King.
"'And Samuel shared all the words of the Lord with the people who asked him for a king.
"'And he said, this will 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.
"'And he said, this will be how the King who rules over you will act: he will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and as his horsemen; and some will run ahead of his chariots.
"'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 appoint leaders over thousands, and leaders over fifties, and will set them to plow his fields, and to harvest his crops, and to make his weapons of war, and tools for his chariots.
"'And he will take your daughters to be confectionnes, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
"'And he will take your daughters to be candy makers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
"'And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive-yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
"'And he will take your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
"'And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants.
"‘And he will take a tenth of your crops and your vineyards and give it to his officials and his servants.
"'And he will take 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 your male servants, and your female servants, and your best young men, and your donkeys, and make them do his work.
"'And he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants.
'And he will take a tenth of your sheep, and you will be his servants.
"'And ye shall cry out in that day, because of your King, which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.'
"'And you will cry out on that day because of the King you have chosen for yourselves; and the Lord will not listen to you on that day.'"
"Now, my Lords, what can we think of this man Samuel? Is there a word of truth, or any thing like truth, in all that he has said? He pretended to be a prophet, or a wise man, but has not the event proved him to be a fool, or an incendiary? Look around, my Lords, and see if any thing has happened that he pretended to foretell! Has not the most profound peace reigned throughout the world ever since Kings were in fashion? Are not, for example, the present Kings of Europe the most peaceable of mankind, and the Empress of Russia the very milk of human kindness? It would not be worth having Kings, my Lords, if it were not that they never go to war.
"Now, my Lords, what can we say about this man Samuel? Is there any truth in what he has said? He claimed to be a prophet or a wise man, but hasn’t the outcome shown him to be a fool or a troublemaker? Look around, my Lords, and see if anything he predicted has actually happened! Hasn’t the world enjoyed a deep peace ever since monarchs came into power? Are not the current Kings of Europe the most peaceful people, and isn’t the Empress of Russia the epitome of kindness? It wouldn’t be worth having Kings, my Lords, if they ever went to war."
"If we look at home, my Lords, do we not see the same things here as are seen every where else? Are our young men taken to be horsemen, or foot soldiers, any more than in Germany or in Prussia, or in Hanover or in Hesse? Are not our sailors as safe at land as at sea? Are they ever dragged from their homes, like oxen to the slaughter-house, to serve on board ships of war? When they return from the perils of a long voyage with the merchandize of distant countries, does not every man sit down under his own vine and his own fig-tree, in perfect security? Is the tenth of our seed taken by tax-gatherers, or is any part of it given to the King's servants? In short, is not everything as free from taxes as the light from Heaven! (1)
"If we look at home, my Lords, don’t we see the same things here as we see everywhere else? Are our young men being trained as horsemen or foot soldiers any more than in Germany, Prussia, Hanover, or Hesse? Aren’t our sailors as safe on land as they are at sea? Are they ever dragged from their homes like cattle to the slaughterhouse to serve on warships? When they return from the dangers of a long voyage with goods from distant lands, doesn’t every man sit down under his own vine and fig tree in complete security? Is a tenth of our harvest taken by tax collectors, or is any part given to the King’s servants? In short, isn't everything as free from taxes as the light from Heaven! (1)"
"Ah! my Lords, do we not see the blessed effect of having Kings in every thing we look at? Is not the G. R., or the broad R., stampt upon every thing? Even the shoes, the gloves, and the hats that we wear, are enriched with the impression, and all our candles blaze a burnt-offering.
"Ah! my Lords, don’t we see the wonderful effect of having Kings in everything we observe? Isn’t the G. R., or the broad R., stamped on everything? Even the shoes, the gloves, and the hats we wear are marked with this impression, and all our candles burn in tribute."
"Besides these blessings, my Lords, that cover us from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, do we not see a race of youths growing up to be Kings, who are the very paragons of virtue? There is not one of them, my Lords, but might be trusted with untold gold, as safely as the other. Are they not 'more sober, intelligent, more solid, more steady,' and withal, more learned, more wise, more every thing, than any youths we 'ever had the fortune to see.' Ah! my Lords, they are a hopeful family.
"Besides these blessings, my Lords, that protect us from head to toe, don’t we see a generation of young people rising up to be leaders, who are true models of virtue? There’s not a single one of them, my Lords, whom we couldn’t trust with vast amounts of gold, as easily as the next. Aren’t they ‘more responsible, intelligent, reliable, more steady,’ and also more educated, wiser, better in every way than any young people we’ve ever had the pleasure to see?’ Ah! my Lords, they are a promising group.
"The blessed prospect of succession, which the nation has at this moment before its eyes, is a most undeniable proof of the excellence of our constitution, and of the blessed hereditary system; for nothing, my Lords, but a constitution founded on the truest and purest wisdom could admit such heaven-born and heaven-taught characters into the government.—Permit me now, my Lords, to recal your attention to the libellous chapter I have just read about Kings. I mention this, my Lords, because it is my intention to move for a bill to be brought into parliament to expunge that chapter from the Bible, and that the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, and the Duke of Clarence, be requested to write a chapter in the room of it; and that Mr. Burke do see that it be truly canonical, and faithfully inserted."—Finis.
"The promising outlook for succession that our nation currently has in front of it is clear evidence of the greatness of our constitution and our wonderful hereditary system. Nothing, my Lords, but a constitution built on true and pure wisdom could allow such gifted and knowledgeable individuals into the government. Now, I would like to draw your attention back to the slanderous chapter I just read about Kings. I bring this up, my Lords, because I plan to propose a bill in parliament to remove that chapter from the Bible, and that the Lord Chancellor, with the help of the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, and the Duke of Clarence, should be asked to write a new chapter to replace it; and that Mr. Burke ensure it is genuinely canonical and accurately included."—Finis.
Reference to the window tax.—Editor,
If the Clerk of the Court of King's Bench should chuse to be the orator of this luminous encomium on the constitution, I hope he will get it well by heart before he attempts to deliver it, and not have to apologize to Parliament, as he did in the case of Bolingbroke's encomium, for forgetting his lesson; and, with this admonition I leave him.
If the Clerk of the Court of King’s Bench wants to be the speaker for this glowing praise of the constitution, I hope he memorizes it well before he tries to present it, and doesn’t have to apologize to Parliament like he did with Bolingbroke’s speech for forgetting his lines; with this warning, I’ll leave him to it.
Having thus informed the Addressers of what passed at the meeting of Parliament, I return to take up the subject at the part where I broke off in order to introduce the preceding speeches.
Having informed the Addressers about what happened at the Parliament meeting, I’ll go back to the topic where I left off to include the previous speeches.
I was then stating, that the first policy of the Government party was silence, and the next, clamorous contempt; but as people generally choose to read and judge for themselves, the work still went on, and the affectation of contempt, like the silence that preceded it, passed for nothing.
I was saying that the Government party's first approach was to stay silent, and the next was to openly express contempt. However, since people usually prefer to read and make their own judgments, the work continued, and the fake scorn, just like the silence before it, meant nothing.
Thus foiled in their second scheme, their evil genius, like a will-with-a-wisp, led them to a third; when all at once, as if it had been unfolded to them by a fortune-teller, or Mr. Dundas had discovered it by second sight, this once harmless, insignificant book, without undergoing the alteration of a single letter, became a most wicked and dangerous Libel. The whole Cabinet, like a ship's crew, became alarmed; all hands were piped upon deck, as if a conspiracy of elements was forming around them, and out came the Proclamation and the Prosecution; and Addresses supplied the place of prayers.
So, after failing in their second plan, their evil genius, like a will-o'-the-wisp, led them to a third. Suddenly, as if revealed to them by a fortune-teller or Mr. Dundas had seen it in a vision, this once harmless, insignificant book, without changing a single letter, turned into a very wicked and dangerous libel. The entire Cabinet, like a ship's crew, became alarmed; everyone was called on deck as if a storm was brewing around them, leading to the Proclamation and the Prosecution, while Addresses replaced prayers.
Ye silly swains, thought I to myself, why do you torment yourselves thus? The Rights OF Man is a book calmly and rationally written; why then are you so disturbed? Did you see how little or how suspicious such conduct makes you appear, even cunning alone, had you no other faculty, would hush you into prudence. The plans, principles, and arguments, contained in that work, are placed before the eyes of the nation, and of the world, in a fair, open, and manly manner, and nothing more is necessary than to refute them. Do this, and the whole is done; but if ye cannot, so neither can ye suppress the reading, nor convict the author; for the Law, in the opinion of all good men, would convict itself, that should condemn what cannot be refuted.
You foolish people, I thought to myself, why do you torture yourselves like this? The Rights OF Man is a book written in a calm and rational way; so why are you so upset? Don’t you realize how foolish and suspicious you look? Even if you're just being clever, that alone should make you act more wisely. The plans, principles, and arguments in that work are presented to the nation and the world in a straightforward and honest way, and all you need to do is refute them. If you do this, it will be over; but if you can’t, then you can’t stop people from reading it or punish the author either, because the law, in the eyes of all decent people, would be condemning itself if it punished something that can’t be refuted.
Having now shown the Addressers the several stages of the business, prior to their being called upon, like Cfsar in the Tyber, crying to Cassius, "help, Cassius, or I sink!" I next come to remark on the policy of the Government, in promoting Addresses; on the consequences naturally resulting therefrom; and on the conduct of the persons concerned.
Having now shown the Addressers the different stages of the business, before they were called upon, like Caesar in the Tiber, crying out to Cassius, "help, Cassius, or I sink!" I will now discuss the Government's policy in promoting Addresses, the consequences that naturally follow, and the behavior of the involved parties.
With respect to the policy, it evidently carries with it every mark and feature of disguised fear. And it will hereafter be placed in the history of extraordinary things, that a pamphlet should be produced by an individual, unconnected with any sect or party, and not seeking to make any, and almost a stranger in the land, that should compleatly frighten a whole Government, and that in the midst of its most triumphant security. Such a circumstance cannot fail to prove, that either the pamphlet has irresistible powers, or the Government very extraordinary defects, or both. The nation exhibits no signs of fear at the Rights of Man; why then should the Government, unless the interest of the two are really opposite to each other, and the secret is beginning to be known? That there are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes, is evident at first sight; and when taxation is carried to excess, it cannot fail to disunite those two, and something of this kind is now beginning to appear.
Regarding the policy, it clearly shows every sign of hidden fear. It will someday be noted in the history of remarkable events that a pamphlet was created by someone unaffiliated with any group or political party, who wasn't trying to form one and was almost a stranger in this land, yet it managed to completely scare an entire government while they were feeling their most secure. This situation surely highlights either the pamphlet's undeniable influence, the government's unusual flaws, or perhaps both. The public shows no signs of fear regarding the Rights of Man; so why should the government, unless their interests are truly at odds and the truth is starting to surface? It’s evident that there are two distinct classes of people in this country: those who pay taxes and those who receive and depend on them. When taxes become excessive, it inevitably creates a divide between those two groups, and such a divide is beginning to emerge now.
It is also curious to observe, amidst all the fume and bustle about Proclamations and Addresses, kept up by a few noisy and interested men, how little the mass of the nation seem to care about either. They appear to me, by the indifference they shew, not to believe a word the Proclamation contains; and as to the Addresses, they travel to London with the silence of a funeral, and having announced their arrival in the Gazette, are deposited with the ashes of their predecessors, and Mr. Dundas writes their hic facet.
It’s also interesting to see, amid all the fuss and noise over Proclamations and Addresses created by a few loud and self-interested people, how little the general population seems to care about either. Their indifference suggests to me that they don’t believe a word of the Proclamation; and as for the Addresses, they arrive in London quietly, like a funeral, and after being noted in the Gazette, end up forgotten like those before them, with Mr. Dundas writing their hic facet.
One of the best effects which the Proclamation, and its echo the Addresses have had, has been that of exciting and spreading curiosity; and it requires only a single reflection to discover, that the object of all curiosity is knowledge. When the mass of the nation saw that Placemen, Pensioners, and Borough-mongers, were the persons that stood forward to promote Addresses, it could not fail to create suspicions that the public good was not their object; that the character of the books, or writings, to which such persons obscurely alluded, not daring to mention them, was directly contrary to what they described them to be, and that it was necessary that every man, for his own satisfaction, should exercise his proper right, and read and judge for himself.
One of the biggest impacts of the Proclamation and its follow-up Addresses has been to spark and spread curiosity; all it takes is a moment's thought to realize that the goal of all curiosity is knowledge. When the general population noticed that people like Placemen, Pensioners, and Borough-mongers were the ones pushing for these Addresses, it couldn't help but raise suspicions that their intentions weren't in the public's best interest. It made people question whether the content of the books or writings they vaguely referenced—without mentioning them directly—was actually the opposite of what they claimed, and that everyone needed to take it upon themselves to read and form their own opinions.
But how will the persons who have been induced to read the Rights of Man, by the clamour that has been raised against it, be surprized to find, that, instead of a wicked, inflammatory work, instead of a licencious and profligate performance, it abounds with principles of government that are uncontrovertible—with arguments which every reader will feel, are unanswerable—with plans for the increase of commerce and manufactures—for the extinction of war—for the education of the children of the poor—for the comfortable support of the aged and decayed persons of both sexes—for the relief of the army and navy, and, in short, for the promotion of every thing that can benefit the moral, civil, and political condition of Man.
But how will those who have been encouraged to read the Rights of Man due to the fuss made against it be surprised to find that, instead of a wicked and inflammatory book, instead of a scandalous and immoral piece, it is filled with undeniable principles of government—with arguments that every reader will feel are impossible to refute—with plans to boost commerce and industry—to end war—to educate the children of the poor—to provide comfortable support for elderly and vulnerable individuals of both genders—to assist the army and navy, and, in short, to promote everything that can improve the moral, civil, and political state of humanity.
Why, then, some calm observer will ask, why is the work prosecuted, if these be the goodly matters it contains? I will tell thee, friend; it contains also a plan for the reduction of Taxes, for lessening the immense expences of Government, for abolishing sinecure Places and Pensions; and it proposes applying the redundant taxes, that shall be saved by these reforms, to the purposes mentioned in the former paragraph, instead of applying them to the support of idle and profligate Placemen and Pensioners.
Why, then, some calm observer might ask, why is this work being pursued if it contains such good ideas? Let me explain, my friend; it also includes a plan to lower taxes, reduce the huge expenses of government, get rid of unnecessary positions and pensions; and it suggests using the extra tax money saved from these reforms for the purposes mentioned in the previous paragraph, instead of wasting it on lazy and morally corrupt officials and pensioners.
Is it, then, any wonder that Placemen and Pensioners, and the whole train of Court expectants, should become the promoters of Addresses, Proclamations, and Prosecutions? or, is it any wonder that Corporations and rotten Boroughs, which are attacked and exposed, both in the First and Second Parts of Rights of Man, as unjust monopolies and public nuisances, should join in the cavalcade? Yet these are the sources from which Addresses have sprung. Had not such persons come forward to oppose the Rights of Man, I should have doubted the efficacy of my own writings: but those opposers have now proved to me that the blow was well directed, and they have done it justice by confessing the smart.
Is it any surprise that government insiders and those on the payroll, along with all the hopefuls at the Court, would become the champions of Addressing, Proclamations, and Legal Actions? Or is it surprising that Corporations and corrupt Boroughs, which are criticized as unfair monopolies and public nuisances in both the First and Second Parts of Rights of Man, would join in the parade? Yet, these are the sources from which the Addresses have emerged. If those individuals had not stepped up to oppose the Rights of Man, I would have doubted the impact of my own writings: but those opponents have now shown me that the strike was well aimed, and they have done it justice by acknowledging the pain.
The principal deception in this business of Addresses has been, that the promoters of them have not come forward in their proper characters. They have assumed to pass themselves upon the public as a part of the Public, bearing a share of the burthen of Taxes, and acting for the public good; whereas, they are in general that part of it that adds to the public burthen, by living on the produce of the public taxes. They are to the public what the locusts are to the tree: the burthen would be less, and the prosperity would be greater, if they were shaken off.
The main trick in this whole Addresses situation has been that the people promoting them haven't shown their true selves. They've pretended to be just like everyone else, sharing the load of taxes and acting for the public benefit; however, generally, they’re actually the ones who contribute to the public burden by benefiting from public taxes. They’re to the public what locusts are to a tree: the burden would be lighter and prosperity would be better if they were removed.
"I do not come here," said Onslow, at the Surry County meeting, "as the Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the county, but I come here as a plain country gentleman." The fact is, that he came there as what he was, and as no other, and consequently he came as one of the beings I have been describing. If it be the character of a gentleman to be fed by the public, as a pauper is by the parish, Onslow has a fair claim to the title; and the same description will suit the Duke of Richmond, who led the Address at the Sussex meeting. He also may set up for a gentleman.
"I’m not here," Onslow said at the Surry County meeting, "as the Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the county, but I’m here as an ordinary country gentleman." The truth is, he was there as exactly who he was, and nothing more, which makes him one of the people I’ve been talking about. If being a gentleman means being supported by the public like a pauper is by the parish, then Onslow can definitely call himself one; the same description fits the Duke of Richmond, who led the Address at the Sussex meeting. He can also claim to be a gentleman.
As to the meeting in the next adjoining county (Kent), it was a scene of disgrace. About two hundred persons met, when a small part of them drew privately away from the rest, and voted an Address: the consequence of which was that they got together by the ears, and produced a riot in the very act of producing an Address to prevent Riots.
As for the meeting in the nearby county of Kent, it was a total disgrace. Around two hundred people gathered, but a small group separated themselves from the rest and voted on an Address. This led to a clash among the attendees, resulting in a riot while they were trying to create an Address aimed at preventing riots.
That the Proclamation and the Addresses have failed of their intended effect, may be collected from the silence which the Government party itself observes. The number of addresses has been weekly retailed in the Gazette; but the number of Addressers has been concealed. Several of the Addresses have been voted by not more than ten or twelve persons; and a considerable number of them by not more than thirty. The whole number of Addresses presented at the time of writing this letter is three hundred and twenty, (rotten Boroughs and Corporations included) and even admitting, on an average, one hundred Addressers to each address, the whole number of addressers would be but thirty-two thousand, and nearly three months have been taken up in procuring this number. That the success of the Proclamation has been less than the success of the work it was intended to discourage, is a matter within my own knowledge; for a greater number of the cheap edition of the First and Second Parts of the Rights OF Man has been sold in the space only of one month, than the whole number of Addressers (admitting them to be thirty-two thousand) have amounted to in three months.
The Proclamation and the Addresses haven't achieved their intended impact, which is clear from the silence of the Government party itself. The number of addresses has been listed weekly in the Gazette, but the number of people who signed them has been kept hidden. Some of the Addresses were endorsed by only ten or twelve people, and quite a few by no more than thirty. At the time of writing this letter, the total number of Addresses presented is three hundred and twenty (including rotten boroughs and corporations), and even if we average one hundred people for each address, that would only amount to thirty-two thousand addressers. It has taken nearly three months to gather this many. It's evident that the Proclamation has been less successful than the very work it was meant to suppress, as more copies of the cheap edition of the First and Second Parts of the Rights of Man have been sold in just one month than the total number of addressers (assuming that number is thirty-two thousand) in the last three months.
It is a dangerous attempt in any government to say to a Nation, "thou shalt not read." This is now done in Spain, and was formerly done under the old Government of France; but it served to procure the downfall of the latter, and is subverting that of the former; and it will have the same tendency in all countries; because thought by some means or other, is got abroad in the world, and cannot be restrained, though reading may.
It’s a risky move for any government to tell a nation, "you shall not read." This is happening now in Spain and was previously seen under the old government of France; however, it contributed to the fall of the latter and is undermining the former. It will have the same effect in any country because thought, by various means, spreads throughout the world and cannot be contained, even if reading can be restricted.
If Rights of Man were a book that deserved the vile description which the promoters of the Address have given of it, why did not these men prove their charge, and satisfy the people, by producing it, and reading it publicly? This most certainly ought to have been done, and would also have been done, had they believed it would have answered their purpose. But the fact is, that the book contains truths which those time-servers dreaded to hear, and dreaded that the people should know; and it is now following up the,
If Rights of Man was a book that truly deserved the horrible label that the supporters of the Address gave it, why didn’t they back up their claims by showing it and reading it out loud to the public? They really should have done this, and they would have if they thought it would serve their interests. The truth is that the book contains ideas that those opportunists feared to hear and didn’t want the public to know; and it is now continuing to challenge the,
ADDRESS TO ADDRESSERS.
ADDRESS TO ADDRESSERS.
Addresses in every part of the nation, and convicting them of falsehoods.
Addresses across the entire country, and proving them wrong.
Among the unwarrantable proceedings to which the Proclamation has given rise, the meetings of the Justices in several of the towns and counties ought to be noticed.. Those men have assumed to re-act the farce of General Warrants, and to suppress, by their own authority, whatever publications they please. This is an attempt at power equalled only by the conduct of the minor despots of the most despotic governments in Europe, and yet those Justices affect to call England a Free Country. But even this, perhaps, like the scheme for garrisoning the country by building military barracks, is necessary to awaken the country to a sense of its Rights, and, as such, it will have a good effect.
Among the unacceptable actions prompted by the Proclamation, the gatherings of Justices in various towns and counties should be acknowledged. These men have taken it upon themselves to reenact the absurdity of General Warrants and to suppress any publications they choose by their own authority. This power grab is comparable only to the actions of minor tyrants in the most oppressive governments in Europe, and yet these Justices pretend to call England a Free Country. However, perhaps this, like the plan to station troops by building military barracks, is necessary to awaken the country to its Rights, and in that sense, it will have a positive impact.
Another part of the conduct of such Justices has been, that of threatening to take away the licences from taverns and public-houses, where the inhabitants of the neighbourhood associated to read and discuss the principles of Government, and to inform each other thereon. This, again, is similar to what is doing in Spain and Russia; and the reflection which it cannot fail to suggest is, that the principles and conduct of any Government must be bad, when that Government dreads and startles at discussion, and seeks security by a prevention of knowledge.
Another aspect of how these Justices behave has been their threats to revoke the licenses of taverns and pubs, where local people gather to read and discuss government principles and share information with each other. This is similar to what’s happening in Spain and Russia; and it clearly shows that any government’s principles and actions must be problematic when it fears discussion and looks for safety by limiting knowledge.
If the Government, or the Constitution, or by whatever name it be called, be that miracle of perfection which the Proclamation and the Addresses have trumpeted it forth to be, it ought to have defied discussion and investigation, instead of dreading it. Whereas, every attempt it makes, either by Proclamation, Prosecution, or Address, to suppress investigation, is a confession that it feels itself unable to bear it. It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from enquiry. All the numerous pamphlets, and all the newspaper falsehood and abuse, that have been published against the Rights of Man, have fallen before it like pointless arrows; and, in like manner, would any work have fallen before the Constitution, had the Constitution, as it is called, been founded on as good political principles as those on which the Rights OF Man is written.
If the Government, or the Constitution, or whatever name it goes by, is truly the perfect system that the Proclamation and the Addresses have proclaimed it to be, it should be able to withstand discussion and scrutiny, instead of fearing it. Every effort it makes—whether through Proclamation, Prosecution, or Address—to suppress investigation shows a clear indication that it feels incapable of handling it. Only falsehood, not truth, recoils from inquiry. All the countless pamphlets and all the lies and insults in newspapers that have been published against the Rights of Man have fallen flat like ineffective arrows; similarly, any critique would have failed against the Constitution if it had been built on as solid political principles as those underpinning the Rights of Man.
It is a good Constitution for courtiers, placemen, pensioners, borough-holders, and the leaders of Parties, and these are the men that have been the active leaders of Addresses; but it is a bad Constitution for at least ninety-nine parts of the nation out of an hundred, and this truth is every day making its way.
It's a good Constitution for courtiers, officials, pensioners, borough-holders, and party leaders, and these are the people who have been the active leaders of Addresses; but it’s a bad Constitution for at least ninety-nine out of a hundred people in the nation, and this truth is becoming more evident every day.
It is bad, first, because it entails upon the nation the unnecessary expence of supporting three forms and systems of Government at once, namely, the monarchical, the aristocratical, and the democratical.
It is problematic, first, because it forces the nation to bear the unnecessary expense of supporting three forms and systems of government at the same time: the monarchical, the aristocratic, and the democratic.
Secondly, because it is impossible to unite such a discordant composition by any other means than perpetual corruption; and therefore the corruption so loudly and so universally complained of, is no other than the natural consequence of such an unnatural compound of Governments; and in this consists that excellence which the numerous herd of placemen and pensioners so loudly extol, and which at the same time, occasions that enormous load of taxes under which the rest of the nation groans.
Secondly, since it's impossible to unite such a disordered mix through anything other than constant corruption; the corruption that everyone complains about is simply the natural result of this unnatural blend of governments. This is what the many public officials and pensioners praise so much, while it also leads to the heavy tax burden that the rest of the nation struggles under.
Among the mass of national delusions calculated to amuse and impose upon the multitude, the standing one has been that of flattering them into taxes, by calling the Government (or as they please to express it, the English Constitution) "the envy and the admiration of the world" Scarcely an Address has been voted in which some of the speakers have not uttered this hackneyed nonsensical falsehood.
Among the many national fantasies designed to entertain and deceive the public, the ongoing one has been to flatter them into accepting taxes by referring to the Government (or what they prefer to call the English Constitution) as "the envy and the admiration of the world." Hardly a speech has been given where some speakers haven’t repeated this tired and nonsensical untruth.
Two Revolutions have taken place, those of America and France; and both of them have rejected the unnatural compounded system of the English government. America has declared against all hereditary Government, and established the representative system of Government only. France has entirely rejected the aristocratical part, and is now discovering the absurdity of the monarchical, and is approaching fast to the representative system. On what ground then, do these men continue a declaration, respecting what they call the envy and admiration of other nations, which the voluntary practice of such nations, as have had the opportunity of establishing Government, contradicts and falsifies. Will such men never confine themselves to truth? Will they be for ever the deceivers of the people?
Two revolutions have happened: those in America and France, and both have rejected the unnatural mixed system of the English government. America has stood against all hereditary government and has established only a representative system. France has completely dismissed the aristocratic element and is now realizing the absurdity of the monarchical system, moving quickly toward a representative government. So on what basis do these people keep making claims about what they call the envy and admiration of other nations, when the actions of nations that have had the chance to establish their own governments contradict that idea? Will these people never stick to the truth? Will they always deceive the public?
But I will go further, and shew, that were Government now to begin in England, the people could not be brought to establish the same system they now submit to.
But I will go further and show that if the government were to start over in England now, the people wouldn't agree to set up the same system they currently accept.
In speaking on this subject (or on any other) on the pure ground of principle, antiquity and precedent cease to be authority, and hoary-headed error loses its effect. The reasonableness and propriety of things must be examined abstractedly from custom and usage; and, in this point of view, the right which grows into practice to-day is as much a right, and as old in principle and theory, as if it had the customary sanction of a thousand ages. Principles have no connection with time, nor characters with names.
When discussing this topic (or any other) from a purely principled standpoint, old traditions and precedents no longer hold authority, and long-standing mistakes lose their influence. The rationality and appropriateness of things must be assessed independently of customs and habits; from this perspective, a right that becomes accepted today is just as valid and rooted in principle and theory as if it had the traditional endorsement of a thousand years. Principles are not tied to time, nor are identities tied to names.
To say that the Government of this country is composed of King, Lords, and Commons, is the mere phraseology of custom. It is composed of men; and whoever the men be to whom the Government of any country is intrusted, they ought to be the best and wisest that can be found, and if they are not so, they are not fit for the station. A man derives no more excellence from the change of a name, or calling him King, or calling him Lord, than I should do by changing my name from Thomas to George, or from Paine to Guelph. I should not be a whit more able to write a book because my name was altered; neither would any man, now called a King or a lord, have a whit the more sense than he now has, were he to call himself Thomas Paine.
Saying that the government of this country is made up of the King, Lords, and Commons is just a traditional way of speaking. It actually consists of people; and whoever is entrusted with governing any country should be the best and wisest individuals available. If they aren't, they don't deserve their positions. A person doesn't gain any more quality or skill just by having a different title, whether it's King or Lord, just like I wouldn't become better by changing my name from Thomas to George, or from Paine to Guelph. I wouldn't be any more capable of writing a book simply because my name changed; similarly, any person currently called a King or a Lord wouldn't gain any more intelligence by calling himself Thomas Paine.
As to the word "Commons," applied as it is in England, it is a term of degradation and reproach, and ought to be abolished. It is a term unknown in free countries.
As for the word "Commons," used in England, it’s a term of humiliation and insult, and it should be done away with. It’s a term that doesn’t exist in free countries.
But to the point.—Let us suppose that Government was now to begin in England, and that the plan of Government, offered to the nation for its approbation or rejection, consisted of the following parts:
But to the point.—Let's say that the Government was now starting in England, and that the proposed plan for Government, presented to the nation for its approval or rejection, included the following components:
First—That some one individual should be taken from all the rest of the nation, and to whom all the rest should swear obedience, and never be permitted to sit down in his presence, and that they should give to him one million sterling a year.—That the nation should never after have power or authority to make laws but with his express consent; and that his sons and his sons' sons, whether wise or foolish, good men or bad, fit or unfit, should have the same power, and also the same money annually paid to them for ever.
First—That one person should be chosen from the entire nation, to whom everyone else must swear loyalty, and they should never be allowed to sit in his presence, and that he should be given one million pounds a year.—That the nation should never again have the authority to make laws without his explicit consent; and that his children and their descendants, whether smart or foolish, good or bad, suitable or unsuitable, should have the same power, and also receive the same amount of money paid to them forever.
Secondly—That there should be two houses of Legislators to assist in making laws, one of which should, in the first instance, be entirely appointed by the aforesaid person, and that their sons and their sons' sons, whether wise or foolish, good men or bad, fit or unfit, should for ever after be hereditary Legislators.
Secondly—There should be two houses of lawmakers to help create laws, one of which should initially be entirely appointed by the mentioned person, and their sons and their grandsons, whether they are wise or foolish, good or bad, suitable or unsuitable, should forever be hereditary lawmakers.
Thirdly—That the other house should be chosen in the same manner as the house now called the House of Commons is chosen, and should be subject to the controul of the two aforesaid hereditary Powers in all things.
Thirdly—That the other house should be selected in the same way that the house currently known as the House of Commons is chosen, and should be under the control of the two aforementioned hereditary Powers in all matters.
It would be impossible to cram such a farrago of imposition and absurdity down the throat of this or any other nation that was capable of reasoning upon its rights and its interest.
It would be impossible to force such a mix of unfairness and nonsense on this or any other nation that was capable of thinking about its rights and interests.
They would ask, in the first place, on what ground of right, or on what principle, such irrational and preposterous distinctions could, or ought to be made; and what pretensions any man could have, or what services he could render, to entitle him to a million a year? They would go farther, and revolt at the idea of consigning their children, and their children's children, to the domination of persons hereafter to be born, who might, for any thing they could foresee, turn out to be knaves or fools; and they would finally discover, that the project of hereditary Governors and Legislators was a treasonable usurpation over the rights of posterity. Not only the calm dictates of reason, and the force of natural affection, but the integrity of manly pride, would impel men to spurn such proposals.
They would first question what grounds or principles justify such unreasonable and absurd distinctions and what claim anyone could have or what contributions he could make to deserve a million a year. They would go further and be appalled by the idea of handing over control of their children and grandchildren to people who would be born in the future, who might, for all they knew, turn out to be dishonest or foolish. Ultimately, they would realize that the idea of hereditary Governors and Legislators was a treasonous takeover of the rights of future generations. Not only would the calm reasoning and natural affection compel people to reject such ideas, but their sense of pride would also drive them to dismiss such proposals.
From the grosser absurdities of such a scheme, they would extend their examination to the practical defects—They would soon see that it would end in tyranny accomplished by fraud. That in the operation of it, it would be two to one against them, because the two parts that were to be made hereditary would form a common interest, and stick to each other; and that themselves and representatives would become no better than hewers of wood and drawers of water for the other parts of the Government.—Yet call one of those powers King, the other Lords, and the third the Commons, and it gives the model of what is called the English Government.
From the more ridiculous parts of such a plan, they would look into the practical flaws—They would quickly realize that it would lead to tyranny achieved through deception. In its execution, the odds would be two to one against them, because the two sections that were meant to be hereditary would create a shared interest and support each other; and they themselves and their representatives would end up no better than laborers serving the other branches of the Government.—But if you call one of those powers King, the other Lords, and the third the Commons, it creates the template for what is known as the English Government.
I have asserted, and have shewn, both in the First and Second Parts of Rights of Man, that there is not such a thing as an English Constitution, and that the people have yet a Constitution to form. A Constitution is a thing antecedent to a Government; it is the act of a people creating a Government and giving it powers, and defining the limits and exercise of the powers so given. But whenever did the people of England, acting in their original constituent character, by a delegation elected for that express purpose, declare and say, "We, the people of this land, do constitute and appoint this to be our system and form of Government." The Government has assumed to constitute itself, but it never was constituted by the people, in whom alone the right of constituting resides.
I have stated, and demonstrated, both in the First and Second Parts of Rights of Man, that there is no such thing as an English Constitution, and that the people still have a Constitution to create. A Constitution is something that comes before a Government; it is the act of a people forming a Government, granting it powers, and setting the limits and use of those powers. But when did the people of England, acting in their original role as constituents, through a delegation elected specifically for that purpose, declare and state, "We, the people of this land, do establish and designate this as our system and form of Government"? The Government has taken it upon itself to define its own constitution, but it was never established by the people, who alone have the right to constitute.
I will here recite the preamble to the Federal Constitution of the United States of America. I have shewn in the Second Part of Rights of Man, the manner by which the Constitution was formed and afterwards ratified; and to which I refer the reader. The preamble is in the following words:
I will now share the preamble to the Federal Constitution of the United States of America. I've explained in the Second Part of Rights of Man how the Constitution was created and then ratified, and I direct the reader to that section. The preamble reads as follows:
"We, the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."
"We, the people of the United States, in order to create a better union, establish justice, ensure peace at home, provide for our common defense, promote the general well-being, and secure the blessings of freedom for ourselves and our future generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Then follow the several articles which appoint the manner in which the several component parts of the Government, legislative and executive, shall be elected, and the period of their duration, and the powers they shall have: also, the manner by which future additions, alterations, or amendments, shall be made to the constitution. Consequently, every improvement that can be made in the science of government, follows in that country as a matter of order. It is only in Governments founded on assumption and false principles, that reasoning upon, and investigating systems and principles of Government, and shewing their several excellencies and defects, are termed libellous and seditious. These terms were made part of the charge brought against Locke, Hampden, and Sydney, and will continue to be brought against all good men, so long as bad government shall continue.
Then follow the various articles that outline how the different parts of the government, both legislative and executive, are elected, their terms, and the powers they hold. Additionally, the articles detail how future updates, changes, or amendments to the constitution can be made. As a result, any improvements in the practice of government occur naturally in that country. It's only in governments based on assumptions and false principles that examining and questioning systems and principles of government, and pointing out their strengths and weaknesses, are labeled as libelous and seditious. These labels were part of the charges against Locke, Hampden, and Sidney, and they will continue to be used against all decent people as long as poor governance persists.
The Government of this country has been ostentatiously giving challenges for more than an hundred years past, upon what it called its own excellence and perfection. Scarcely a King's Speech, or a Parliamentary Speech, has been uttered, in which this glove has not been thrown, till the world has been insulted with their challenges. But it now appears that all this was vapour and vain boasting, or that it was intended to conceal abuses and defects, and hush the people into taxes. I have taken the challenge up, and in behalf of the public have shewn, in a fair, open, and candid manner, both the radical and practical defects of the system; when, lo! those champions of the Civil List have fled away, and sent the Attorney-General to deny the challenge, by turning the acceptance of it into an attack, and defending their Places and Pensions by a prosecution.
The government of this country has been openly throwing down challenges for over a hundred years, boasting about its own excellence and perfection. Hardly a King's Speech or a Parliamentary Speech has been made without this challenge being put forward, which has annoyed the world. But it turns out that all this was just hot air and empty bragging, or it was meant to cover up issues and force the public into paying taxes. I have taken up the challenge and, on behalf of the public, have shown, in a fair, open, and honest way, both the fundamental and practical flaws of the system; and now, those defenders of the Civil List have run away, sending the Attorney-General to deny the challenge by turning it into an attack and defending their positions and pensions through prosecution.
I will here drop this part of the subject, and state a few particulars respecting the prosecution now pending, by which the Addressers will see that they have been used as tools to the prosecuting party and their dependents. The case is as follows:
I will now move on from this part of the topic and share a few details about the ongoing prosecution, through which the Addressers will realize they have been manipulated by the prosecuting party and their affiliates. The situation is as follows:
The original edition of the First and Second Parts of the Rights of Man, having been expensively printed, (in the modern stile of printing pamphlets, that they might be bound up with Mr. Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution,) the high price(1) precluded the generality of people from purchasing; and many applications were made to me from various parts of the country to print the work in a cheaper manner. The people of Sheffield requested leave to print two thousand copies for themselves, with which request I immediately complied. The same request came to me from Rotherham, from Leicester, from Chester, from several towns in Scotland; and Mr. James Mackintosh, author of Vindico Gallico, brought me a request from Warwickshire, for leave to print ten thousand copies in that county. I had already sent a cheap edition to Scotland; and finding the applications increase, I concluded that the best method of complying therewith, would be to print a very numerous edition in London, under my own direction, by which means the work would be more perfect, and the price be reduced lower than it could be by printing small editions in the country, of only a few thousands each.
The original edition of the First and Second Parts of the Rights of Man was costly to print (in the modern style of pamphlet production, so they could be bound with Mr. Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution), which meant the high price(1) kept most people from buying it. I received many requests from different parts of the country to print the work more affordably. The people of Sheffield asked for permission to print two thousand copies for themselves, and I agreed immediately. Similar requests came from Rotherham, Leicester, Chester, and several towns in Scotland. Mr. James Mackintosh, author of Vindico Gallico, even brought me a request from Warwickshire to print ten thousand copies in that county. I had already sent a cheaper edition to Scotland, and as the requests kept coming, I decided that the best way to meet this demand would be to print a large edition in London under my direct supervision. This way, the work would be of higher quality and the price would be lower than if I printed small editions in the countryside, each with only a few thousand copies.
1 Half a crown.—Editor.
The cheap edition of the first part was begun about the first of last April, and from that moment, and not before, I expected a prosecution, and the event has proved that I was not mistaken. I had then occasion to write to Mr. Thomas Walker of Manchester, and after informing him of my intention of giving up the work for the purpose of general information, I informed him of what I apprehended would be the consequence; that while the work was at a price that precluded an extensive circulation, the government party, not able to controvert the plans, arguments, and principles it contained, had chosen to remain silent; but that I expected they would make an attempt to deprive the mass of the nation, and especially the poor, of the right of reading, by the pretence of prosecuting either the Author or the Publisher, or both. They chose to begin with the Publisher.
The inexpensive edition of the first part was started around early April last year, and from that point on, I anticipated a legal action, which has now been confirmed. I had to write to Mr. Thomas Walker in Manchester, and after informing him of my decision to discontinue the work for the sake of public knowledge, I shared my concerns about the likely outcome; that while the work was priced so it wouldn't have a wide distribution, the government side, unable to counter the plans, arguments, and principles it presented, decided to stay quiet. However, I expected they would try to take away the right to read from the general public, especially the underprivileged, under the pretext of prosecuting either the Author or the Publisher, or both. They chose to start with the Publisher.
Nearly a month, however, passed, before I had any information given me of their intentions. I was then at Bromley, in Kent, upon which I came immediately to town, (May 14) and went to Mr. Jordan, the publisher of the original edition. He had that evening been served with a summons to appear at the Court of King's Bench, on the Monday following, but for what purpose was not stated. Supposing it to be on account of the work, I appointed a meeting with him on the next morning, which was accordingly had, when I provided an attorney, and took the ex-pence of the defence on myself. But finding afterwards that he absented himself from the attorney employed, and had engaged another, and that he had been closeted with the Solicitors of the Treasury, I left him to follow his own choice, and he chose to plead Guilty. This he might do if he pleased; and I make no objection against him for it. I believe that his idea by the word Guilty, was no other than declaring himself to be the publisher, without any regard to the merits or demerits of the work; for were it to be construed otherwise, it would amount to the absurdity of converting a publisher into a Jury, and his confession into a verdict upon the work itself. This would be the highest possible refinement upon packing of Juries.
Almost a month went by before I got any information about their intentions. I was in Bromley, Kent, when I rushed back to town (May 14) and went to see Mr. Jordan, the publisher of the original edition. That evening, he received a summons to appear at the Court of King's Bench the following Monday, but the reason wasn’t specified. Assuming it was related to the work, I arranged a meeting with him for the next morning, which took place as planned. I arranged for an attorney and took on the expense of the defense myself. However, I later found out that he had avoided the attorney I employed and hired someone else. He had also been in private meetings with the Solicitors of the Treasury, so I left him to make his own choices, and he decided to plead Guilty. He was free to do that if he wanted, and I have no objections to it. I believe that when he said "Guilty," he meant to declare himself the publisher, without considering the quality of the work. If it were interpreted differently, it would be ridiculous to turn a publisher into a jury and his admission into a verdict on the work itself. This would be the craziest form of jury tampering.
On the 21st of May, they commenced their prosecution against me, as the author, by leaving a summons at my lodgings in town, to appear at the Court of King's Bench on the 8th of June following; and on the same day, (May 21,) they issued also their Proclamation. Thus the Court of St. James and the Court of King's Bench, were playing into each other's hands at the same instant of time, and the farce of Addresses brought up the rear; and this mode of proceeding is called by the prostituted name of Law. Such a thundering rapidity, after a ministerial dormancy of almost eighteen months, can be attributed to no other cause than their having gained information of the forwardness of the cheap Edition, and the dread they felt at the progressive increase of political knowledge.
On May 21st, they started their case against me, the author, by leaving a summons at my place in the city, ordering me to appear at the Court of King's Bench on June 8th; and on the same day (May 21), they also issued their Proclamation. So, the Court of St. James and the Court of King's Bench were both acting in sync, while the farce of Addresses trailed behind; this kind of action is disgracefully called Law. Such a rapid response, after nearly eighteen months of government inaction, can only be explained by their fear of the upcoming cheap Edition and their anxiety over the growing spread of political knowledge.
I was strongly advised by several gentlemen, as well those in the practice of the law, as others, to prefer a bill of indictment against the publisher of the Proclamation, as a publication tending to influence, or rather to dictate the verdict of a Jury on the issue of a matter then pending; but it appeared to me much better to avail myself of the opportunity which such a precedent justified me in using, by meeting the Proclamation and the Addressers on their own ground, and publicly defending the Work which had been thus unwarrantably attacked and traduced.—And conscious as I now am, that the Work entitled Rights OF Man so far from being, as has been maliciously or erroneously represented, a false, wicked, and seditious libel, is a work abounding with unanswerable truths, with principles of the purest morality and benevolence, and with arguments not to be controverted—Conscious, I say, of these things, and having no object in view but the happiness of mankind, I have now put the matter to the best proof in my power, by giving to the public a cheap edition of the First and Second Parts of that Work. Let every man read and judge for himself, not only of the merits and demerits of the Work, but of the matters therein contained, which relate to his own interest and happiness.
I was strongly urged by several gentlemen, both in the legal field and others, to file a lawsuit against the publisher of the Proclamation for a publication aimed at influencing, or rather dictating, the jury's verdict on an ongoing issue. However, I thought it would be much more effective to take advantage of the situation this precedent allowed me to use, by addressing the Proclamation and its supporters directly and publicly defending the Work that had been unjustly attacked and slandered. And now that I am fully aware that the Work titled Rights OF Man is far from being the false, wicked, and seditious libel it has been maliciously or incorrectly portrayed as, rather, it is filled with undeniable truths, principles of pure morality and kindness, and arguments that cannot be disputed—conscious of these truths, and with no other goal than the happiness of humankind, I have now put this matter to the best test I can by offering the public a low-cost edition of the First and Second Parts of that Work. Let everyone read and judge for themselves, not just the value and faults of the Work, but also the issues it discusses that relate to their own interests and well-being.
If, to expose the fraud and imposition of monarchy, and every species of hereditary government—to lessen the oppression of taxes—to propose plans for the education of helpless infancy, and the comfortable support of the aged and distressed—to endeavour to conciliate nations to each other—to extirpate the horrid practice of war—to promote universal peace, civilization, and commerce—and to break the chains of political superstition, and raise degraded man to his proper rank;—if these things be libellous, let me live the life of a Libeller, and let the name of Libeller be engraved on my tomb.
If, to reveal the fraud and oppression of monarchy, and all forms of hereditary government—to reduce the burden of taxes—to suggest plans for the education of vulnerable children, and to support the elderly and distressed comfortably—to work on bringing nations together—to eliminate the terrible practice of war—to promote universal peace, civilization, and trade—and to break the chains of political superstition, raising humankind to its rightful place;—if these things are considered libelous, then let me live as a Libeler, and may the name of Libeler be inscribed on my tomb.
Of all the weak and ill-judged measures which fear, ignorance, or arrogance could suggest, the Proclamation, and the project for Addresses, are two of the worst. They served to advertise the work which the promoters of those measures wished to keep unknown; and in doing this they offered violence to the judgment of the people, by calling on them to condemn what they forbad them to know, and put the strength of their party to that hazardous issue that prudence would have avoided.—The County Meeting for Middlesex was attended by only one hundred and eighteen Addressers. They, no doubt, expected, that thousands would flock to their standard, and clamor against the Rights of Man. But the case most probably is, that men in all countries, are not so blind to their Rights and their Interest as Governments believe.
Of all the poorly thought-out decisions that fear, ignorance, or arrogance could come up with, the Proclamation and the proposal for Addresses are two of the worst. They drew attention to the work that the people behind these measures wanted to keep hidden; in doing so, they undermined the public's judgment by asking them to condemn what they weren't allowed to know, placing their party's reputation at a risky gamble that common sense would have advised against. The County Meeting for Middlesex had only one hundred and eighteen Addressers present. They probably expected thousands to rally to their cause and shout against the Rights of Man. But the reality is likely that people everywhere aren’t as oblivious to their rights and interests as governments assume.
Having thus shewn the extraordinary manner in which the Government party commenced their attack, I proceed to offer a few observations on the prosecution, and on the mode of trial by Special Jury.
Having shown the unusual way the Government party started their attack, I’d like to share some thoughts on the prosecution and the trial process by Special Jury.
In the first place, I have written a book; and if it cannot be refuted, it cannot be condemned. But I do not consider the prosecution as particularly levelled against me, but against the general right, or the right of every man, of investigating systems and principles of government, and shewing their several excellencies or defects. If the press be free only to flatter Government, as Mr. Burke has done, and to cry up and extol what certain Court sycophants are pleased to call a "glorious Constitution," and not free to examine into its errors or abuses, or whether a Constitution really exist or not, such freedom is no other than that of Spain, Turkey, or Russia; and a Jury in this case, would not be a Jury to try, but an Inquisition to condemn.
First of all, I’ve written a book, and if it can't be disproven, it can't be condemned. But I don’t see the prosecution as aimed specifically at me; it's really a strike against the broader right of every person to explore different government systems and principles, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. If the press is only allowed to praise the government, like Mr. Burke has done, and to promote what some court flatterers call a "glorious Constitution," without the freedom to investigate its mistakes or abuses, or even question if a Constitution truly exists, then such freedom is no different from that in Spain, Turkey, or Russia; and a Jury in this situation wouldn’t be a Jury to judge, but rather an Inquisition to condemn.
I have asserted, and by fair and open argument maintained, the right of every nation at all times to establish such a system and form of government for itself as best accords with its disposition, interest, and happiness; and to change and alter it as it sees occasion. Will any Jury deny to the Nation this right? If they do, they are traitors, and their verdict would be null and void. And if they admit the right, the means must be admitted also; for it would be the highest absurdity to say, that the right existed, but the means did not. The question then is, What are the means by which the possession and exercise of this National Right are to be secured? The answer will be, that of maintaining, inviolably, the right of free investigation; for investigation always serves to detect error, and to bring forth truth.
I have asserted, and through fair and open discussion maintained, the right of every nation at all times to create whatever system and form of government works best for its people’s needs, interests, and happiness; and to change it whenever necessary. Will any jury deny this right to the nation? If they do, they are betraying it, and their decision would be meaningless. If they acknowledge the right, then the means to exercise that right must also be recognized; it would be completely absurd to say that the right exists but the means do not. So, the question is, what are the means to secure the possession and exercise of this National Right? The answer is to uphold, without exception, the right to free investigation; because investigation is essential for uncovering errors and revealing the truth.
I have, as an individual, given my opinion upon what I believe to be not only the best, but the true system of Government, which is the representative system, and I have given reasons for that opinion.
I have shared my thoughts on what I consider not just the best, but the true system of government, which is the representative system, and I've explained why I hold that opinion.
First, Because in the representative system, no office of very extraordinary power, or extravagant pay, is attached to any individual; and consequently there is nothing to excite those national contentions and civil wars with which countries under monarchical governments are frequently convulsed, and of which the History of England exhibits such numerous instances.
First, because in a representative system, no individual holds any position of excessive power or outrageous pay; therefore, there is nothing to spark the national disputes and civil wars that often shake countries with monarchies, and of which the history of England shows so many examples.
Secondly, Because the representative is a system of Government always in maturity; whereas monarchical government fluctuates through all the stages, from non-age to dotage.
Secondly, because a representative government is always developing, while a monarchy goes through all the stages, from youth to old age.
Thirdly, Because the representative system admits of none but men properly qualified into the Government, or removes them if they prove to be otherwise. Whereas, in the hereditary system, a nation may be encumbered with a knave or an ideot for a whole life-time, and not be benefited by a successor.
Thirdly, the representative system only allows qualified men into the government and removes them if they aren’t. In contrast, in the hereditary system, a nation can be stuck with a fool or an incompetent person for a lifetime without any chance of improvement from a successor.
Fourthly, Because there does not exist a right to establish hereditary government, or, in other words, hereditary successors, because hereditary government always means a government yet to come, and the case always is, that those who are to live afterwards have the same right to establish government for themselves, as the people had who lived before them; and, therefore, all laws attempting to establish hereditary government, are founded on assumption and political fiction.
Fourthly, because there is no right to create a hereditary government, or, in other words, hereditary successors, since hereditary government always refers to a future government, and those who will live after have the same right to establish government for themselves as those who lived before them; therefore, all laws trying to establish hereditary government are based on assumptions and political fiction.
If these positions be truths, and I challenge any man to prove the contrary; if they tend to instruct and enlighten mankind, and to free them from error, oppression, and political superstition, which are the objects I have in view in publishing them, that Jury would commit an act of injustice to their country, and to me, if not an act of perjury, that should call them false, wicked, and malicious.
If these beliefs are true, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise; if they aim to educate and enlighten people, and to free them from mistakes, oppression, and political ignorance, which is what I'm trying to achieve by publishing them, that Jury would be committing an injustice to both their country and me, and possibly an act of perjury, making them false, wicked, and malicious.
Dragonetti, in his treatise "On Virtues and Rewards," has a paragraph worthy of being recorded in every country in the world—"The science (says he,) of the politician, consists, in, fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men deserve the gratitude of ages who should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness with the least national expence." But if Juries are to be made use of to prohibit enquiry, to suppress truth, and to stop the progress of knowledge, this boasted palladium of liberty becomes the most successful instrument of tyranny.
Dragonetti, in his essay "On Virtues and Rewards," has a statement that deserves to be recognized in every country—"The skill (he says) of a politician lies in determining the true point of happiness and freedom. Those individuals deserve the gratitude of future generations who can find a way of governing that maximizes individual happiness with the least national expense." However, if juries are used to prevent inquiry, suppress truth, and hinder the advancement of knowledge, this celebrated safeguard of liberty turns into a powerful tool of oppression.
Among the arts practised at the Bar, and from the Bench, to impose upon the understanding of a Jury, and to obtain a Verdict where the consciences of men could not otherwise consent, one of the most successful has been that of calling truth a libel, and of insinuating that the words "falsely, wickedly, and maliciously," though they are made the formidable and high sounding part of the charge, are not matters of consideration with a Jury. For what purpose, then, are they retained, unless it be for that of imposition and wilful defamation?
Among the arts practiced at the Bar and from the Bench, to sway the understanding of a Jury and to secure a Verdict when people's consciences couldn't agree otherwise, one of the most effective methods has been calling truth a libel and suggesting that the words "falsely, wickedly, and maliciously," even though they make up the imposing and grand-sounding part of the accusation, are not something a Jury should consider. So, what is the point of keeping them if not for deception and intentional defamation?
I cannot conceive a greater violation of order, nor a more abominable insult upon morality, and upon human understanding, than to see a man sitting in the judgment seat, affecting by an antiquated foppery of dress to impress the audience with awe; then causing witnesses and Jury to be sworn to truth and justice, himself having officially sworn the same; then causing to be read a prosecution against a man charging him with having wickedly and maliciously written and published a certain false, wicked, and seditious book; and having gone through all this with a shew of solemnity, as if he saw the eye of the Almighty darting through the roof of the building like a ray of light, turn, in an instant, the whole into a farce, and, in order to obtain a verdict that could not otherwise be obtained, tell the Jury that the charge of falsely, wickedly, and seditiously, meant nothing; that truth was out of the question; and that whether the person accused spoke truth or falsehood, or intended virtuously or wickedly, was the same thing; and finally conclude the wretched inquisitorial scene, by stating some antiquated precedent, equally as abominable as that which is then acting, or giving some opinion of his own, and falsely calling the one and the other—Law. It was, most probably, to such a Judge as this, that the most solemn of all reproofs was given—"The Lord will smite thee, thou whitened wall."
I can't imagine a greater breakdown of order, or a more terrible insult to morality and human understanding, than seeing a person sitting in judgment, trying to intimidate the audience with outdated and showy attire; then making witnesses and the jury swear to tell the truth and uphold justice, even though he himself has officially sworn the same; then having a prosecution read aloud against someone, accusing him of having wickedly and maliciously written and published a certain false, wicked, and seditious book; and after all of this has been done with an air of seriousness, as if he could see the Almighty’s gaze piercing through the building like a beam of light, instantly turning the entire affair into a joke, and, to secure a verdict that he couldn’t get any other way, telling the jury that the accusations of falsely, wickedly, and seditiously meant nothing; that truth was irrelevant; and that it made no difference whether the accused spoke the truth or lies, or intended virtuously or wickedly; and finally wrapping up this pathetic inquisitorial scene by citing some outdated precedent that was just as terrible as what was happening at that moment, or sharing some opinion of his own, and falsely referring to both as Law. It was probably to a Judge like this that the gravest of all reprimands was given—"The Lord will smite thee, thou whitened wall."
I now proceed to offer some remarks on what is called a Special Jury. As to what is called a Special Verdict, I shall make no other remark upon it, than that it is in reality not a verdict. It is an attempt on the part of the Jury to delegate, or of the Bench to obtain, the exercise of that right, which is committed to the Jury only.
I will now share some thoughts on what’s referred to as a Special Jury. Regarding what’s known as a Special Verdict, I won't say much more than that it is actually not a verdict. It’s an effort by the Jury to pass on, or by the Bench to take over, the right that belongs solely to the Jury.
With respect to the Special Juries, I shall state such matters as I have been able to collect, for I do not find any uniform opinion concerning the mode of appointing them.
Regarding the Special Juries, I will share the information I have gathered, as I don't see any consensus on how they should be appointed.
In the first place, this mode of trial is but of modern invention, and the origin of it, as I am told, is as follows:
In the first place, this way of trying cases is a modern invention, and the origin of it, as I’ve been told, is as follows:
Formerly, when disputes arose between Merchants, and were brought before a Court, the case was that the nature of their commerce, and the method of keeping Merchants' accounts not being sufficiently understood by persons out of their own line, it became necessary to depart from the common mode of appointing Juries, and to select such persons for a Jury whose practical knowledge would enable them to decide upon the case. From this introduction, Special Juries became more general; but some doubts having arisen as to their legality, an act was passed in the 3d of George II. to establish them as legal, and also to extend them to all cases, not only between individuals, but in cases where the Government itself should be the prosecutor. This most probably gave rise to the suspicion so generally entertained of packing a Jury; because, by this act, when the Crown, as it is called, is the Prosecutor, the Master of the Crown-office, who holds his office under the Crown, is the person who either wholly nominates, or has great power in nominating the Jury, and therefore it has greatly the appearance of the prosecuting party selecting a Jury.
In the past, when disputes occurred between merchants and were taken to court, it was clear that their business practices and accounting methods weren’t easily understood by people outside their field. Because of this, it became necessary to stray from the usual practice of appointing juries and to choose people for a jury based on their practical knowledge that would allow them to better evaluate the case. This led to the increased use of Special Juries; however, doubts about their legality emerged, prompting an act to be passed in the 3rd year of George II's reign to legally establish them and to apply them to all cases, not just between individuals but also in instances where the Government itself was the prosecutor. This likely contributed to the widespread suspicion of jury tampering, as under this act, when the Crown is the prosecutor, the Master of the Crown Office—who serves under the Crown—has the authority to nominate or significantly influence the selection of the jury, giving the impression that the prosecuting party is choosing the jury.
The process is as follows:
The process is as simple as this:
On motion being made in Court, by either the Plaintiff or Defendant, for a Special Jury, the Court grants it or not, at its own discretion.
When either the Plaintiff or Defendant requests a Special Jury in court, the Court decides whether to grant it or not, based on its own judgment.
If it be granted, the Solicitor of the party that applied for the Special Jury, gives notice to the Solicitor of the adverse party, and a day and hour are appointed for them to meet at the office of the Master of the Crown-office. The Master of the Crown-office sends to the Sheriff or his deputy, who attends with the Sheriff's book of Freeholders. From this book, forty-eight names are taken, and a copy thereof given to each of the parties; and, on a future day, notice is again given, and the Solicitors meet a second time, and each strikes out twelve names. The list being thus reduced from forty-eight to twenty-four, the first twelve that appear in Court, and answer to their names, is the Special Jury for that cause. The first operation, that of taking the forty-eight names, is called nominating the Jury; and the reducing them to twenty-four is called striking the Jury.
If it’s approved, the lawyer for the party who requested the Special Jury notifies the lawyer for the opposing party, and a date and time are set for them to meet at the office of the Master of the Crown-office. The Master of the Crown-office sends a notice to the Sheriff or their deputy, who comes with the Sheriff’s book of Freeholders. From this book, forty-eight names are selected, and a copy is given to each party. On a later date, notice is sent out again, and the lawyers meet a second time to eliminate twelve names each. This reduces the list from forty-eight to twenty-four, and the first twelve who show up in Court and respond to their names form the Special Jury for that case. The initial process of gathering the forty-eight names is called nominating the Jury, and the process of cutting it down to twenty-four is called striking the Jury.
Having thus stated the general process, I come to particulars, and the first question will be, how are the forty-eight names, out of which the Jury is to be struck, obtained from the Sheriff's book? For herein lies the principal ground of suspicion, with respect to what is understood by packing of Juries.
Having explained the general process, I will now get into the details, starting with the first question: how are the forty-eight names, from which the Jury will be selected, taken from the Sheriff's list? This is where the main concern about the possible manipulation of Juries comes into play.
Either they must be taken by some rule agreed upon between the parties, or by some common rule known and established beforehand, or at the discretion of some person, who in such a case, ought to be perfectly disinterested in the issue, as well officially as otherwise.
Either they must be decided by a rule agreed upon by both parties, by a common rule that’s known and established beforehand, or at the discretion of someone who in this case should be completely unbiased regarding the outcome, both officially and personally.
In the case of Merchants, and in all cases between individuals, the Master of the office, called the Crown-office, is officially an indifferent person, and as such may be a proper person to act between the parties, and present them with a list of forty-eight names, out of which each party is to strike twelve. But the case assumes an entire difference of character, when the Government itself is the Prosecutor. The Master of the Crown-office is then an officer holding his office under the Prosecutor; and it is therefore no wonder that the suspicion of packing Juries should, in such cases, have been so prevalent.
In cases involving Merchants and in all situations between individuals, the Master of the office, known as the Crown-office, is officially a neutral person. Because of this, they can reasonably act as a mediator between the parties and present them with a list of forty-eight names, from which each party will eliminate twelve. However, the situation completely changes when the Government is the Prosecutor. In this case, the Master of the Crown-office is an officer appointed by the Prosecutor, which is why the suspicion of jury tampering has been so common in these instances.
This will apply with additional force, when the prosecution is commenced against the Author or Publisher of such Works as treat of reforms, and of the abolition of superfluous places and offices, &c, because in such cases every person holding an office, subject to that suspicion, becomes interested as a party; and the office, called the Crown-office, may, upon examination, be found to be of this description.
This will apply even more strongly when the prosecution is started against the Author or Publisher of works that discuss reforms and the elimination of unnecessary positions and offices, etc., because in these cases, anyone holding an office that is under suspicion becomes personally invested; and the office known as the Crown office may, upon investigation, be found to fall into this category.
I have heard it asserted, that the Master of the Crown-office is to open the sheriff's book as it were per hazard, and take thereout forty-eight following names, to which the word Merchant or Esquire is affixed. The former of these are certainly proper, when the case is between Merchants, and it has reference to the origin of the custom, and to nothing else. As to the word Esquire, every man is an Esquire who pleases to call himself Esquire; and the sensible part of mankind are leaving it off. But the matter for enquiry is, whether there be any existing law to direct the mode by which the forty-eight names shall be taken, or whether the mode be merely that of custom which the office has created; or whether the selection of the forty-eight names be wholly at the discretion and choice of the Master of the Crown-office? One or other of the two latter appears to be the case, because the act already mentioned, of the 3d of George II. lays down no rule or mode, nor refers to any preceding law—but says only, that Special Juries shall hereafter be struck, "in such manner as Special Juries have been and are usually struck."
I’ve heard it said that the Master of the Crown-office is supposed to randomly open the sheriff's book and select forty-eight names, which should have the title Merchant or Esquire attached. The term Merchant is clearly appropriate when the case involves Merchants, as it relates to the origin of the custom and nothing more. As for the term Esquire, anyone can call themselves Esquire if they want; sensible people are moving away from it. The issue to investigate is whether there’s any existing law guiding how the forty-eight names should be chosen, or if this is just a custom established by the office, or if the choice of the names is entirely up to the Master of the Crown-office. It seems to be one of the last two options since the act referenced from the 3rd of George II does not provide any rules or methods, nor does it refer to any previous law but simply states that Special Juries shall hereafter be selected, "in such manner as Special Juries have been and are usually struck."
This act appears to have been what is generally understood by a "deep take in." It was fitted to the spur of the moment in which it was passed, 3d of George II. when parties ran high, and it served to throw into the hands of Walpole, who was then Minister, the management of Juries in Crown prosecutions, by making the nomination of the forty-eight persons, from whom the Jury was to be struck, follow the precedent established by custom between individuals, and by this means slipt into practice with less suspicion. Now, the manner of obtaining Special Juries through the medium of an officer of the Government, such, for instance, as a Master of the Crown-office, may be impartial in the case of Merchants or other individuals, but it becomes highly improper and suspicious in cases where the Government itself is one of the parties. And it must, upon the whole, appear a strange inconsistency, that a Government should keep one officer to commence prosecutions, and another officer to nominate the forty-eight persons from whom the Jury is to be struck, both of whom are officers of the Civil List, and yet continue to call this by the pompous name of the glorious "Right of trial by Jury!"
This act seems to be what people typically refer to as a "deep take in." It was suited to the moment when it was passed, during the reign of George II, when political tensions were high. It allowed Walpole, who was the Minister at the time, to control the management of juries in Crown prosecutions by making the selection of the forty-eight individuals from whom the jury would be formed follow the custom established between individuals, which helped it slip into practice with less suspicion. Now, while obtaining Special Juries through a government officer, like a Master of the Crown office, may seem fair for merchants or other individuals, it becomes quite inappropriate and suspicious when the government itself is involved. Overall, it seems odd that the government should have one officer to initiate prosecutions and another to select the forty-eight individuals for the jury, both of whom are officers of the Civil List, yet still insist on calling this the grand "Right of trial by Jury!"
In the case of the King against Jordan, for publishing the Rights of Man, the Attorney-General moved for the appointment of a Special Jury, and the Master of the Crown-office nominated the forty-eight persons himself, and took them from such part of the Sheriff's book as he pleased.
In the case of the King vs. Jordan, for publishing the Rights of Man, the Attorney-General requested the appointment of a Special Jury, and the Master of the Crown Office personally selected the forty-eight individuals from whatever portion of the Sheriff's book he wanted.
The trial did not come on, occasioned by Jordan withdrawing his plea; but if it had, it might have afforded an opportunity of discussing the subject of Special Juries; for though such discussion might have had no effect in the Court of King's Bench, it would, in the present disposition for enquiry, have had a considerable effect upon the Country; and, in all national reforms, this is the proper point to begin at. But a Country right, and it will soon put Government right. Among the improper things acted by the Government in the case of Special Juries, on their own motion, one has been that of treating the Jury with a dinner, and afterwards giving each Juryman two guineas, if a verdict be found for the prosecution, and only one if otherwise; and it has been long observed, that, in London and Westminster, there are persons who appear to make a trade of serving, by being so frequently seen upon Special Juries.
The trial didn't happen because Jordan pulled back his plea; but if it had, it could have provided a chance to talk about Special Juries. Even though such a conversation might not have changed anything in the Court of King's Bench, it would have had a significant impact on the country given the current eagerness for inquiry. In all national reforms, this is the right place to start. If the country is right, it will soon lead the government in the right direction. Among the questionable actions taken by the government regarding Special Juries, one has been treating the Jury to dinner and then giving each Juryman two guineas if they reach a verdict for the prosecution and just one if not. It's been noted for a long time that there are people in London and Westminster who seem to make a living off of serving on Special Juries, as they appear so often.
Thus much for Special Juries. As to what is called a Common Jury, upon any Government prosecution against the Author or Publisher of RIGHTS OF Man, during the time of the present Sheriffry, I have one question to offer, which is, whether the present Sheriffs of London, having publicly prejudged the case, by the part they have taken in procuring an Address from the county of Middlesex, (however diminutive and insignificant the number of Addressers were, being only one hundred and eighteen,) are eligible or proper persons to be intrusted with the power of returning a Jury to try the issue of any such prosecution.
So much for Special Juries. Regarding what’s known as a Common Jury, in any Government case against the Author or Publisher of RIGHTS OF Man, during the time of the current Sheriffry, I have one question to pose: whether the current Sheriffs of London, having publicly made up their minds about the case by their involvement in obtaining an Address from the county of Middlesex (regardless of how small and insignificant the number of Addressers was, just one hundred and eighteen), are suitable or appropriate individuals to be given the responsibility of selecting a Jury to resolve any such prosecution.
But the whole matter appears, at least to me, to be worthy of a more extensive consideration than what relates to any Jury, whether Special or Common; for the case is, whether any part of a whole nation, locally selected as a Jury of twelve men always is, be competent to judge and determine for the whole nation, on any matter that relates to systems and principles of Government, and whether it be not applying the institution of Juries to purposes for which such institutions were not intended? For example,
But this whole issue seems, at least to me, to deserve more thorough consideration than just what concerns any jury, whether special or common; because the question is whether any part of an entire nation, chosen as a jury of twelve men, is qualified to judge and decide for the whole country on matters that involve systems and principles of government, and whether it isn’t misusing the institution of juries for purposes for which they were not designed? For example,
I have asserted, in the Work Rights of Man, that as every man in the nation pays taxes, so has every man a right to a share in government, and consequently that the people of Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Halifax, &c have the same right as those of London. Shall, then, twelve men, picked out between Temple-bar and Whitechapel, because the book happened to be first published there, decide upon the rights of the inhabitants of those towns, or of any other town or village in the nation?
I have argued in the Rights of Man that since every person in the country pays taxes, everyone should have a say in the government. This means that the people of Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Halifax, etc., have the same rights as those in London. So, will twelve men chosen from between Temple Bar and Whitechapel, just because that's where the book was first published, determine the rights of people in those towns or any other town or village in the country?
Having thus spoken of Juries, I come next to offer a few observations on the matter contained in the information or prosecution.
Having talked about Juries, I’ll now share a few thoughts on the content of the information or prosecution.
The work, Rights of Man, consists of Part the First, and Fart the Second. The First Part the prosecutor has thought it most proper to let alone; and from the Second Fart he has selected a few short paragraphs, making in the whole not quite two pages of the same printing as in the cheap edition. Those paragraphs relate chiefly to certain facts, such as the revolution of 1688, and the coming of George the First, commonly called of the House of Hanover, or the House of Brunswick, or some such House. The arguments, plans and principles contained in the work, the prosecutor has not ventured to attack. They are beyond his reach.
The work, Rights of Man, consists of Part One and Part Two. The First Part, the prosecutor has decided to leave alone; and from the Second Part, he has picked a few short paragraphs, totaling just under two pages in the same print size as the cheap edition. Those paragraphs mainly discuss certain events, like the revolution of 1688 and the arrival of George the First, often referred to as being from the House of Hanover or the House of Brunswick, or something similar. The arguments, plans, and principles in the work, the prosecutor has not dared to challenge. They are beyond his capability.
The Act which the prosecutor appears to rest most upon for the support of the prosecution, is the Act intituled, "An Act, declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown," passed in the first year of William and Mary, and more commonly known by the name of the "Bill of Rights."
The law that the prosecutor seems to rely on the most for supporting the case is the one titled, "An Act declaring the rights and freedoms of the people and establishing the succession of the crown," which was passed in the first year of William and Mary, and is more commonly known as the "Bill of Rights."
I have called this bill "A Bill of wrongs and of insult." My reasons, and also my proofs, are as follow:
I have named this bill "A Bill of Wrongs and Insults." Here are my reasons and evidence:
The method and principle which this Bill takes for declaring rights and liberties, are in direct contradiction to rights and liberties; it is an assumed attempt to take them wholly from posterity—for the declaration in the said Bill is as follows:
The way this Bill defines rights and freedoms directly contradicts those rights and freedoms; it seems to be an effort to completely take them away from future generations—because the declaration in this Bill states:
"The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of all the people, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs, and posterity for ever;" that is, to William and Mary his wife, their heirs and successors. This is a strange way of declaring rights and liberties. But the Parliament who made this declaration in the name, and on the part, of the people, had no authority from them for so doing; and with respect to posterity for ever, they had no right or authority whatever in the case. It was assumption and usurpation. I have reasoned very extensively against the principle of this Bill, in the first part of Rights of Man; the prosecutor has silently admitted that reasoning, and he now commences a prosecution on the authority of the Bill, after admitting the reasoning against it.
"The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of all the people, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs, and posterity for ever;" meaning, to William and Mary his wife, their heirs and successors. This is a bizarre way of announcing rights and freedoms. However, the Parliament that made this declaration in the name and on behalf of the people didn't have any authority from them to do so; and regarding posterity for ever, they had no right or authority in this matter at all. It was an assumption and a takeover. I have argued extensively against the principle of this Bill in the first part of Rights of Man; the prosecutor has quietly accepted that reasoning, and now begins a prosecution based on the authority of the Bill, after acknowledging the reasoning against it.
It is also to be observed, that the declaration in this Bill, abject and irrational as it is, had no other intentional operation than against the family of the Stuarts, and their abettors. The idea did not then exist, that in the space of an hundred years, posterity might discover a different and much better system of government, and that every species of hereditary government might fall, as Popes and Monks had fallen before. This, I say, was not then thought of, and therefore the application of the Bill, in the present case, is a new, erroneous, and illegal application, and is the same as creating a new Bill ex post facto.
It should also be noted that the declaration in this Bill, as disgraceful and unreasonable as it is, was only meant to target the Stuart family and their supporters. At that time, there was no thought that a hundred years later, future generations might come up with a different and much better system of government, and that every form of hereditary government could collapse, just like the Popes and Monks had before. I must emphasize that this idea wasn’t considered back then, and therefore the application of the Bill in this situation is a new, incorrect, and unlawful use, similar to creating a new Bill ex post facto.
It has ever been the craft of Courtiers, for the purpose of keeping up an expensive and enormous Civil List, and a mummery of useless and antiquated places and offices at the public expence, to be continually hanging England upon some individual or other, called King, though the man might not have capacity to be a parish constable. The folly and absurdity of this, is appearing more and more every day; and still those men continue to act as if no alteration in the public opinion had taken place. They hear each other's nonsense, and suppose the whole nation talks the same Gibberish.
It has always been the job of courtiers to maintain a costly and bloated Civil List, along with a show of unnecessary and outdated positions at the public's expense, by constantly tying England to some person known as King, even if that person lacks the ability to be a local constable. The foolishness and absurdity of this are becoming increasingly evident every day, yet those individuals keep acting as if there hasn’t been any change in public opinion. They listen to each other's nonsense and think the entire nation speaks the same gibberish.
Let such men cry up the House of Orange, or the House of Brunswick, if they please. They would cry up any other house if it suited their purpose, and give as good reasons for it. But what is this house, or that house, or any other house to a nation? "For a nation to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it." Her freedom depends wholly upon herself, and not on any house, nor on any individual. I ask not in what light this cargo of foreign houses appears to others, but I will say in what light it appears to me—It was like the trees of the forest, saying unto the bramble, come thou and reign over us.
Let those people support the House of Orange or the House of Brunswick if they want to. They would back any other house if it suited their agenda and provide just as much reasoning for it. But what does this house, or that house, or any other house really mean to a nation? "For a nation to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it." Its freedom relies entirely on itself, not on any house or any individual. I’m not concerned with how this collection of foreign houses looks to others, but I will share how it looks to me—It was like the trees of the forest saying to the bramble, come and rule over us.
Thus much for both their houses. I now come to speak of two other houses, which are also put into the information, and those are the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Here, I suppose, the Attorney-General intends to prove me guilty of speaking either truth or falsehood; for, according to the modern interpretation of Libels, it does not signify which, and the only improvement necessary to shew the compleat absurdity of such doctrine, would be, to prosecute a man for uttering a most false and wicked truth.
So much for both their houses. Now, I’m going to talk about two other houses, which are also included in the information, and those are the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Here, I assume the Attorney-General plans to prove me guilty of either telling the truth or lying; because, under the modern understanding of libel, it doesn’t matter which, and the only way to highlight the complete absurdity of this doctrine would be to charge someone for stating a truly false and wicked truth.
I will quote the part I am going to give, from the Office Copy, with the Attorney General's inuendoes, enclosed in parentheses as they stand in the information, and I hope that civil list officer will caution the Court not to laugh when he reads them, and also to take care not to laugh himself.
I will quote the section I'm about to provide from the Office Copy, with the Attorney General's insinuations enclosed in parentheses as they appear in the information. I hope the civil list officer will remind the Court not to laugh while reading them, and also to be careful not to laugh himself.
The information states, that Thomas Paine, being a wicked, malicious, seditious, and evil-disposed person, hath, with force and arms, and most wicked cunning, written and published a certain false, scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel; in one part thereof, to the tenor and effect following, that is to say—
The information states that Thomas Paine, being a wicked, malicious, seditious, and evil-disposed person, has, with force and arms, and with the most wicked cunning, written and published a certain false, scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel; in one part thereof, to the tenor and effect following, that is to say—
"With respect to the two Houses, of which the English Parliament (meaning the Parliament of this Kingdom) is composed, they appear to be effectually influenced into one, and, as a Legislature, to have no temper of its own. The Minister, (meaning the Minuter employed by the King of this Realm, in the administration of the Government thereof) whoever he at any time may be, touches it (meaning the two Houses of Parliament of this Kingdom) as with an opium wand, and it (meaning the two Houses of Parliament of this Kingdom) sleeps obedience."
"Regarding the two Houses that make up the English Parliament (referring to the Parliament of this Kingdom), they seem to function as one and, as a Legislature, they lack any individuality. The Minister (referring to the Minister appointed by the King of this Realm for the administration of the Government), whoever he may be at any given time, influences them (referring to the two Houses of Parliament of this Kingdom) like a wand of opium, and they (referring to the two Houses of Parliament of this Kingdom) fall into a state of obedient slumber."
As I am not malicious enough to disturb their repose, though it be time they should awake, I leave the two Houses and the Attorney General, to the enjoyment of their dreams, and proceed to a new subject.
Since I’m not cruel enough to interrupt their rest, even though it’s time they should wake up, I’ll leave the two Houses and the Attorney General to their dreams and move on to a new topic.
The Gentlemen, to whom I shall next address myself, are those who have stiled themselves "Friends of the people," holding their meeting at the Freemasons' Tavern, London.(1)
The gentlemen I will address next are those who have called themselves "Friends of the people," meeting at the Freemasons' Tavern in London.(1)
One of the principal Members of this Society, is Mr. Grey, who, I believe, is also one of the most independent Members in Parliament.(2) I collect this opinion from what Mr. Burke formerly mentioned to me, rather than from any knowledge of my own. The occasion was as follows:
One of the main members of this Society is Mr. Grey, who I believe is also one of the most independent members in Parliament.(2) I gather this opinion from something Mr. Burke previously told me, rather than from any personal knowledge. The situation was as follows:
I was in England at the time the bubble broke forth about Nootka Sound: and the day after the King's Message, as it is called, was sent to Parliament, I wrote a note to Mr. Burke, that upon the condition the French Revolution should not be a subject (for he was then writing the book I have since answered) I would call on him the next day, and mention some matters I was acquainted with, respecting the affair; for it appeared to me extraordinary that any body of men, calling themselves Representatives, should commit themselves so precipitately, or "sleep obedience," as Parliament was then doing, and run a nation into expence, and perhaps a war, without so much as enquiring into the case, or the subject, of both which I had some knowledge.
I was in England when the issue about Nootka Sound came up. The day after the King's Message, as it's known, was sent to Parliament, I wrote a note to Mr. Burke. I said that as long as the French Revolution wasn’t going to be a topic (since he was then working on the book I later responded to), I’d visit him the next day to discuss some things I knew about the situation. It seemed unbelievable to me that a group of people calling themselves Representatives would act so hastily or just obey without question, like Parliament was doing at that time, putting the country at risk of expenses and possibly war without even looking into the facts or the details, which I was somewhat familiar with.
1 Check out the Introduction to this volume for Chauvelin's description of this Association.—Editor. 2 During the debate in the House of Commons on December 14, 1793, Mr. Grey was reported saying: "Mr. Grey did not support Paine's ideas, but he was not going to let anyone stop him from stating that he believed the rights of man were the basis of every government, and those who opposed those rights were acting as conspirators against the people." He strongly criticized the Proclamation. Parl. Hist., vol. xxvi.—Editor.
When I saw Mr. Burke, and mentioned the circumstances to him, he particularly spoke of Mr. Grey, as the fittest Member to bring such matters forward; "for," said Mr. Burke, "I am not the proper person to do it, as I am in a treaty with Mr. Pitt about Mr. Hastings's trial." I hope the Attorney General will allow, that Mr. Burke was then sleeping his obedience.—But to return to the Society———
When I saw Mr. Burke and brought up the situation, he specifically mentioned Mr. Grey as the best Member to address these issues; "because," Mr. Burke said, "I am not the right person to do it, since I’m in negotiations with Mr. Pitt regarding Mr. Hastings's trial." I hope the Attorney General will agree that Mr. Burke was then waiting in compliance.—But to get back to the Society———
I cannot bring myself to believe, that the general motive of this Society is any thing more than that by which every former parliamentary opposition has been governed, and by which the present is sufficiently known. Failing in their pursuit of power and place within doors, they have now (and that in not a very mannerly manner) endeavoured to possess themselves of that ground out of doors, which, had it not been made by others, would not have been made by them. They appear to me to have watched, with more cunning than candour, the progress of a certain publication, and when they saw it had excited a spirit of enquiry, and was rapidly spreading, they stepped forward to profit by the opportunity, and Mr. Fox then called it a Libel. In saying this, he libelled himself. Politicians of this cast, such, I mean, as those who trim between parties, and lye by for events, are to be found in every country, and it never yet happened that they did not do more harm than good. They embarrass business, fritter it to nothing, perplex the people, and the event to themselves generally is, that they go just far enough to make enemies of the few, without going far enough to make friends of the many.
I can't bring myself to believe that the main motive of this Society is anything more than what has driven every previous parliamentary opposition, and what is well known today. After failing to gain power and positions inside, they have now tried (and not in a very polite way) to take control of the ground outside, which, if others hadn't built it up, they wouldn't have been able to create themselves. It seems to me like they have been watching the progress of a certain publication with more slyness than honesty, and when they saw it was sparking curiosity and spreading quickly, they jumped in to capitalize on it, and Mr. Fox then called it a Libel. By saying this, he libeled himself. Politicians like this, who sit on the fence between parties and wait for events, can be found in every country, and it has never turned out well for them. They complicate matters, waste opportunities, confuse the public, and usually end up making enemies of a few without building any friendships with the many.
Whoever will read the declarations of this Society, of the 25th of April and 5th of May, will find a studied reserve upon all the points that are real abuses. They speak not once of the extravagance of Government, of the abominable list of unnecessary and sinecure places and pensions, of the enormity of the Civil List, of the excess of taxes, nor of any one matter that substantially affects the nation; and from some conversation that has passed in that Society, it does not appear to me that it is any part of their plan to carry this class of reforms into practice. No Opposition Party ever did, when it gained possession.
Whoever reads the statements from this Society on April 25th and May 5th will notice a calculated avoidance of all the real issues. They don't mention the government's wastefulness, the terrible list of unnecessary positions and pensions, the outrageous Civil List, the excessive taxes, or any matter that truly impacts the nation; and from conversations I've heard in that Society, it doesn't seem like reforming these issues is part of their agenda. No opposition party ever did once they took over.
In making these free observations, I mean not to enter into contention with this Society; their incivility towards me is what I should expect from place-hunting reformers. They are welcome, however, to the ground they have advanced upon, and I wish that every individual among them may act in the same upright, uninfluenced, and public spirited manner that I have done. Whatever reforms may be obtained, and by whatever means, they will be for the benefit of others and not of me. I have no other interest in the cause than the interest of my heart. The part I have acted has been wholly that of a volunteer, unconnected with party; and when I quit, it shall be as honourably as I began.
In sharing these thoughts, I don’t intend to argue with this Society; their rudeness towards me is exactly what I would expect from opportunistic reformers. However, they can take the ground they’ve gained, and I truly hope that each of them acts with the same integrity, independence, and public spirit that I have shown. Any reforms that come about, no matter how, will benefit others, not me. My only investment in this cause is personal. My role has been entirely as a volunteer, without any party affiliation, and when I leave, I will do so with the same honor I started with.
I consider the reform of Parliament, by an application to Parliament, as proposed by the Society, to be a worn-out hackneyed subject, about which the nation is tired, and the parties are deceiving each other. It is not a subject that is cognizable before Parliament, because no Government has a right to alter itself, either in whole or in part. The right, and the exercise of that right, appertains to the nation only, and the proper means is by a national convention, elected for the purpose, by all the people. By this, the will of the nation, whether to reform or not, or what the reform shall be, or how far it shall extend, will be known, and it cannot be known by any other means. Partial addresses, or separate associations, are not testimonies of the general will.
I think the reform of Parliament, through an appeal to Parliament, like the Society suggested, is an overdone topic that the nation is exhausted by, and the parties are just misleading one another. It’s not something that Parliament can address, since no Government has the authority to change itself, completely or partially. That right, and the ability to exercise it, belongs only to the nation, and the proper way to do this is through a national convention, elected for this purpose by the entire population. This would clarify the nation's will regarding whether to reform, what the reform should look like, and how extensive it should be, which can’t be determined by any other method. Individual petitions or separate groups don’t reflect the general will.
It is, however, certain, that the opinions of men, with respect to systems and principles of government, are changing fast in all countries. The alteration in England, within the space of a little more than a year, is far greater than could have been believed, and it is daily and hourly increasing. It moves along the country with the silence of thought. The enormous expence of Government has provoked men to think, by making them feel; and the Proclamation has served to increase jealousy and disgust. To prevent, therefore, those commotions which too often and too suddenly arise from suffocated discontents, it is best that the general WILL should have the full and free opportunity of being publicly ascertained and known.
However, it’s clear that people’s opinions about government systems and principles are changing quickly in every country. The shift in England over just a little more than a year is much greater than anyone could have imagined, and it’s increasing every day, even every hour. It spreads across the country quietly, like a thought. The huge cost of government has prompted people to think by making them feel it directly, and the Proclamation has only added to their jealousy and disgust. To prevent the upheavals that often arise suddenly from suppressed discontent, it’s best for the general WILL to have the opportunity to be openly expressed and recognized.
Wretched as the state of representation is in England, it is every day becoming worse, because the unrepresented parts of the nation are increasing in population and property, and the represented parts are decreasing. It is, therefore, no ill-grounded estimation to say, that as not one person in seven is represented, at least fourteen millions of taxes out of the seventeen millions, are paid by the unrepresented part; for although copyholds and leaseholds are assessed to the land-tax, the holders are unrepresented. Should then a general demur take place as to the obligation of paying taxes, on the ground of not being represented, it is not the Representatives of Rotten Boroughs, nor Special Juries, that can decide the question. This is one of the possible cases that ought to be foreseen, in order to prevent the inconveniencies that might arise to numerous individuals, by provoking it.
As terrible as the state of representation is in England, it’s getting worse every day because the parts of the nation that aren't represented are growing in population and wealth, while the represented parts are shrinking. Therefore, it’s fair to say that since not one person in seven is represented, at least fourteen million out of seventeen million taxes are paid by the unrepresented group; even though copyholds and leaseholds are taxed, the holders of these properties have no representation. If there were to be a widespread refusal to pay taxes based on a lack of representation, it wouldn’t be the representatives from corrupt boroughs or special juries who could settle the issue. This is one potential scenario that should be anticipated to avoid problems that might arise for many individuals by provoking such a situation.
I confess I have no idea of petitioning for rights. Whatever the rights of people are, they have a right to them, and none have a right either to withhold them, or to grant them. Government ought to be established on such principles of justice as to exclude the occasion of all such applications, for wherever they appear they are virtually accusations.
I admit I have no clue about asking for rights. Whatever people's rights are, they have every right to them, and no one has the authority to take them away or to give them out. Government should be founded on principles of justice that eliminate the need for these kinds of requests, because wherever these requests arise, they essentially act as accusations.
I wish that Mr. Grey, since he has embarked in the business, would take the whole of it into consideration. He will then see that the right of reforming the state of the Representation does not reside in Parliament, and that the only motion he could consistently make would be, that Parliament should recommend the election of a convention of the people, because all pay taxes. But whether Parliament recommended it or not, the right of the nation would neither be lessened nor increased thereby.
I wish that Mr. Grey, now that he’s involved in this issue, would consider the entire situation. He would then realize that the authority to reform the way we’re represented doesn’t lie with Parliament, and the only suggestion he could consistently make would be for Parliament to recommend the election of a convention of the people, since everyone pays taxes. But whether Parliament recommends it or not, the nation’s right wouldn’t be diminished or increased because of that.
As to Petitions from the unrepresented part, they ought not to be looked for. As well might it be expected that Manchester, Sheffield, &c. should petition the rotten Boroughs, as that they should petition the Representatives of those Boroughs. Those two towns alone pay far more taxes than all the rotten Boroughs put together, and it is scarcely to be expected they should pay their court either to the Boroughs, or the Borough-mongers.
Petitions from the unrepresented group shouldn’t be expected. It would be just as likely for Manchester, Sheffield, etc., to petition the corrupt Boroughs as it would be for them to petition the representatives of those Boroughs. These two cities alone contribute far more in taxes than all the corrupt Boroughs combined, so it’s hard to believe they would be inclined to show any favor to the Boroughs or their puppet masters.
It ought also to be observed, that what is called Parliament, is composed of two houses that have always declared against the right of each other to interfere in any matter that related to the circumstances of either, particularly that of election. A reform, therefore, in the representation cannot, on the ground they have individually taken, become the subject of an act of Parliament, because such a mode would include the interference, against which the Commons on their part have protested; but must, as well on the ground of formality, as on that of right, proceed from a National Convention.
It should also be noted that what we call Parliament is made up of two houses that have always opposed each other's right to get involved in any matters related to their own situations, especially elections. A reform in representation cannot, based on their individual positions, be addressed through an act of Parliament, because that would involve the interference that the Commons have protested against; instead, it must, both for formal reasons and for the sake of right, come from a National Convention.
Let Mr. Grey, or any other man, sit down and endeavour to put his thoughts together, for the purpose of drawing up an application to Parliament for a reform of Parliament, and he will soon convince himself of the folly of the attempt. He will find that he cannot get on; that he cannot make his thoughts join, so as to produce any effect; for, whatever formality of words he may use, they will unavoidably include two ideas directly opposed to each other; the one in setting forth the reasons, the other in praying for relief, and the two, when placed together, would stand thus: "The Representation in Parliament is so very corrupt, that we can no longer confide in it,—and, therefore, confiding in the justice and wisdom of Parliament, we pray," &c, &c.
Let Mr. Grey, or any other man, sit down and try to organize his thoughts to write an application to Parliament for a reform of Parliament, and he will quickly realize how pointless the effort is. He will see that he can't make progress; he can't get his ideas to connect in a way that has any impact because, no matter how formal his language is, it will inevitably combine two conflicting ideas: one stating the reasons and the other asking for help. Together, they would look like this: "The Representation in Parliament is so corrupt that we can no longer trust it,—and therefore, trusting in the fairness and wisdom of Parliament, we pray," & &.
The heavy manner in which every former proposed application to Parliament has dragged, sufficiently shews, that though the nation might not exactly see the awkwardness of the measure, it could not clearly see its way, by those means. To this also may be added another remark, which is, that the worse Parliament is, the less will be the inclination to petition it. This indifference, viewed as it ought to be, is one of the strongest censures the public express. It is as if they were to say to them, "Ye are not worth reforming."
The slow way that every previous application to Parliament has moved shows clearly that, although the nation might not fully recognize the clumsiness of the measure, it can’t see a clear path forward with it. Additionally, it should be noted that the worse Parliament becomes, the less likely people are to petition it. This indifference, when understood properly, is one of the strongest critiques the public can express. It's like saying to them, "You’re not worth reforming."
Let any man examine the Court-Kalendar of Placemen in both Houses, and the manner in which the Civil List operates, and he will be at no loss to account for this indifference and want of confidence on one side, nor of the opposition to reforms on the other.
Let anyone look at the Court Calendar of Officials in both Houses, and the way the Civil List works, and they will easily understand this indifference and lack of trust from one side, as well as the resistance to reforms from the other.
Who would have supposed that Mr. Burke, holding forth as he formerly did against secret influence, and corrupt majorities, should become a concealed Pensioner? I will now state the case, not for the little purpose of exposing Mr. Burke, but to shew the inconsistency of any application to a body of men, more than half of whom, as far as the nation can at present know, may be in the same case with himself.
Who would have thought that Mr. Burke, who used to speak out against hidden influence and corrupt majorities, would turn out to be a secret Pensioner? I'm going to lay out the situation, not to just expose Mr. Burke, but to highlight the inconsistency of appealing to a group of people, more than half of whom, as far as the country currently knows, could be in the same situation as him.
Towards the end of Lord North's administration, Mr. Burke brought a bill into Parliament, generally known by Mr. Burke's Reform Bill; in which, among other things, it is enacted, "That no pension exceeding the sum of three hundred pounds a year, shall be granted to any one person, and that the whole amount of the pensions granted in one year shall not exceed six hundred pounds; a list of which, together with the names of the persons to whom the same are granted, shall be laid before Parliament in twenty days after the beginning of each session, until the whole pension list shall be reduced to ninety thousand pounds." A provisory clause is afterwards added, "That it shall be lawful for the First Commissioner of the Treasury, to return into the Exchequer any pension or annuity, without a name, on his making oath that such pension or annuity is not directly or indirectly for the benefit, use, or behoof of any Member of the House of Commons."
Towards the end of Lord North's time in office, Mr. Burke introduced a bill to Parliament, commonly known as Mr. Burke's Reform Bill. It states, "No pension over three hundred pounds a year shall be given to any one person, and the total amount of pensions given in a year cannot exceed six hundred pounds; a list of these, along with the names of the individuals receiving them, must be presented to Parliament within twenty days after each session starts, until the entire pension list is reduced to ninety thousand pounds." A proviso is then added, "It shall be permissible for the First Commissioner of the Treasury to return any pension or annuity without a name to the Exchequer, provided he swears that such pension or annuity is not directly or indirectly benefiting any Member of the House of Commons."
But soon after that administration ended, and the party Mr. Burke acted with came into power, it appears from the circumstances I am going to relate, that Mr. Burke became himself a Pensioner in disguise; in a similar manner as if a pension had been granted in the name of John Nokes, to be privately paid to and enjoyed by Tom Stiles. The name of Edmund Burke does not appear in the original transaction: but after the pension was obtained, Mr. Burke wanted to make the most of it at once, by selling or mortgaging it; and the gentleman in whose name the pension stands, applied to one of the public offices for that purpose. This unfortunately brought forth the name of Edmund Burke, as the real Pensioner of 1,500L. per annum.(1) When men trumpet forth what they call the blessings of the Constitution, it ought to be known what sort of blessings they allude to.
But soon after that administration ended and the party Mr. Burke was part of came to power, it seems from the events I'm about to describe that Mr. Burke became a hidden Pensioner; it was like if a pension was granted under the name John Nokes but was secretly paid to and enjoyed by Tom Stiles. The name Edmund Burke doesn’t appear in the original transaction, but once the pension was secured, Mr. Burke wanted to make the most of it immediately by selling or mortgaging it. The gentleman whose name the pension is under went to one of the public offices for that purpose. Unfortunately, this revealed the name of Edmund Burke as the actual Pensioner of £1,500 a year.(1) When people boast about what they call the blessings of the Constitution, it should be clear what kind of blessings they’re referring to.
As to the Civil List of a million a year, it is not to be supposed that any one man can eat, drink, or consume the whole upon himself. The case is, that above half the sum is annually apportioned among Courtiers, and Court Members, of both Houses, in places and offices, altogether insignificant and perfectly useless as to every purpose of civil, rational, and manly government. For instance,
As for the Civil List of a million a year, it shouldn't be assumed that one person can eat, drink, or use it all by themselves. The reality is that more than half of that amount is distributed each year among courtiers and members of both Houses, in roles and positions that are entirely trivial and completely pointless in terms of civil, rational, and honorable governance. For example,
Of what use in the science and system of Government is what is called a Lord Chamberlain, a Master and Mistress of the Robes, a Master of the Horse, a Master of the Hawks, and one hundred other such things? Laws derive no additional force, nor additional excellence from such mummery.
What’s the point of having a Lord Chamberlain, a Master and Mistress of the Robes, a Master of the Horse, a Master of the Hawks, and a hundred other titles in the government system? Laws don’t get any stronger or better because of such nonsense.
In the disbursements of the Civil List for the year 1786, (which may be seen in Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue,) are four separate charges for this mummery office of Chamberlain:
In the payments of the Civil List for 1786, (which can be found in Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue,) there are four distinct charges for this mummery position of Chamberlain:

From this sample the rest may be guessed at. As to the Master of the Hawks, (there are no hawks kept, and if there were, it is no reason the people should pay the expence of feeding them, many of whom are put to it to get bread for their children,) his salary is 1,372L. 10s.
From this sample, we can infer the rest. As for the Master of the Hawks, (there aren't any hawks kept, and even if there were, that doesn't mean the people should cover the cost of feeding them, especially since many are struggling to put food on the table for their children,) his salary is £1,372.10.
1 See the note at the end of this chapter.—Editor.
And besides a list of items of this kind, sufficient to fill a quire of paper, the Pension lists alone are 107,404L. 13s. 4d. which is a greater sum than all the expences of the federal Government in America amount to.
And on top of a list of items like this, enough to fill a stack of paper, the pension lists alone total £107,404. 13s. 4d., which is more than the total expenses of the federal government in America.
Among the items, there are two I had no expectation of finding, and which, in this day of enquiry after Civil List influence, ought to be exposed. The one is an annual payment of one thousand seven hundred pounds to the Dissenting Ministers in England, and the other, eight hundred pounds to those of Ireland.
Among the items, there are two I never expected to find, and which, in today's investigation into Civil List influence, should be revealed. The first is an annual payment of one thousand seven hundred pounds to the Dissenting Ministers in England, and the second, eight hundred pounds to those in Ireland.
This is the fact; and the distribution, as I am informed, is as follows: The whole sum of 1,700L. is paid to one person, a Dissenting Minister in London, who divides it among eight others, and those eight among such others as they please. The Lay-body of the Dissenters, and many of their principal Ministers, have long considered it as dishonourable, and have endeavoured to prevent it, but still it continues to be secretly paid; and as the world has sometimes seen very fulsome Addresses from parts of that body, it may naturally be supposed that the receivers, like Bishops and other Court-Clergy, are not idle in promoting them. How the money is distributed in Ireland, I know not.
This is the situation; and the distribution, as I've been told, is as follows: The total amount of £1,700 is given to one person, a Dissenting Minister in London, who shares it among eight others, and those eight can share it with whoever they choose. The general Dissenting community, along with many of their leading Ministers, have long viewed this as shameful and have tried to stop it, but it still gets paid secretly; and since we have sometimes seen highly flattering Addresses from parts of that group, it’s reasonable to assume that the recipients, like Bishops and other Court Clergy, are not quiet in promoting them. I don't know how the money is distributed in Ireland.
To recount all the secret history of the Civil List, is not the intention of this publication. It is sufficient, in this place, to expose its general character, and the mass of influence it keeps alive. It will necessarily become one of the objects of reform; and therefore enough is said to shew that, under its operation, no application to Parliament can be expected to succeed, nor can consistently be made.
This publication does not aim to detail the entire hidden history of the Civil List. It is enough here to highlight its overall nature and the significant influence it maintains. It will undoubtedly become a target for reform; thus, it is sufficient to say that, under its current structure, no petitions to Parliament can be expected to succeed, nor can they be made in good faith.
Such reforms will not be promoted by the Party that is in possession of those places, nor by the Opposition who are waiting for them; and as to a mere reform, in the state of the Representation, the idea that another Parliament, differently elected from the present, but still a third component part of the same system, and subject to the controul of the other two parts, will abolish those abuses, is altogether delusion; because it is not only impracticable on the ground of formality, but is unwisely exposing another set of men to the same corruptions that have tainted the present.
Such reforms won’t be supported by the Party that currently holds those positions, nor by the Opposition that’s waiting for them; and as for a mere reform, given the state of Representation, the thought that another Parliament, elected differently from the current one, but still part of the same system and under the control of the other two parts, will eliminate those abuses is completely misguided; this idea is not only impractical due to formality, but it also foolishly subjects another group of people to the same corruptions that have affected the current one.
Were all the objects that require reform accomplishable by a mere reform in the state of the Representation, the persons who compose the present Parliament might, with rather more propriety, be asked to abolish all the abuses themselves, than be applied to as the more instruments of doing it by a future Parliament. If the virtue be wanting to abolish the abuse, it is also wanting to act as the means, and the nation must, from necessity, proceed by some other plan.
If all the things that need fixing could be sorted out just by changing how representation works, then it would make more sense to ask the current members of Parliament to eliminate all the issues themselves rather than looking to a future Parliament to be the ones to do it. If they lack the integrity to remove the problems, they also lack the ability to be the way to achieve it, and the nation must, out of necessity, find another way forward.
Having thus endeavoured to shew what the abject condition of Parliament is, and the impropriety of going a second time over the same ground that has before miscarried, I come to the remaining part of the subject.
Having tried to show how poor the condition of Parliament is, and how unreasonable it is to revisit the same issues that have already failed, I will now move on to the next part of the subject.
There ought to be, in the constitution of every country, a mode of referring back, on any extraordinary occasion, to the sovereign and original constituent power, which is the nation itself. The right of altering any part of a Government, cannot, as already observed, reside in the Government, or that Government might make itself what it pleased.
There should be a way in every country's constitution to refer back to the sovereign and original power, which is the nation itself, during extraordinary situations. The authority to change any part of a government can't be held by the government itself, or else it could create itself in any way it wanted.
It ought also to be taken for granted, that though a nation may feel inconveniences, either in the excess of taxation, or in the mode of expenditure, or in any thing else, it may not at first be sufficiently assured in what part of its government the defect lies, or where the evil originates. It may be supposed to be in one part, and on enquiry be found to be in another; or partly in all. This obscurity is naturally interwoven with what are called mixed Governments.
It should also be assumed that, while a nation may experience problems, whether from high taxes, how money is spent, or any other issue, it might not initially know exactly where the problem in its government lies or where the issue comes from. It might seem like the issue is in one area, but upon investigation, it could be found in another, or even spread across multiple areas. This confusion is a natural part of what we call mixed governments.
Be, however, the reform to be accomplished whatever it may, it can only follow in consequence of obtaining a full knowledge of all the causes that have rendered such reform necessary, and every thing short of this is guess-work or frivolous cunning. In this case, it cannot be supposed that any application to Parliament can bring forward this knowledge. That body is itself the supposed cause, or one of the supposed causes, of the abuses in question; and cannot be expected, and ought not to be asked, to give evidence against itself. The enquiry, therefore, which is of necessity the first step in the business, cannot be trusted to Parliament, but must be undertaken by a distinct body of men, separated from every suspicion of corruption or influence.
Regardless of what reforms need to be made, they can only happen after gaining a complete understanding of all the reasons that made the reform necessary in the first place. Anything less is mere guesswork or pointless trickery. In this situation, we can't expect Parliament to provide this understanding. That institution is considered one of the main causes of the abuses we're discussing, so we shouldn't expect it, nor should we ask it, to provide evidence against itself. Therefore, the investigation, which must be the first step in this process, cannot be left to Parliament; it must be carried out by a separate group of people, free from any suspicion of corruption or outside influence.
Instead, then, of referring to rotten Boroughs and absurd Corporations for Addresses, or hawking them about the country to be signed by a few dependant tenants, the real and effectual mode would be to come at once to the point, and to ascertain the sense of the nation by electing a National Convention. By this method, as already observed, the general WILL, whether to reform or not, or what the reform shall be, or how far it shall extend, will be known, and it cannot be known by any other means. Such a body, empowered and supported by the nation, will have authority to demand information upon all matters necessary to be en-quired into; and no Minister, nor any person, will dare to refuse it. It will then be seen whether seventeen millions of taxes are necessary, and for what purposes they are expended. The concealed Pensioners will then be obliged to unmask; and the source of influence and corruption, if any such there be, will be laid open to the nation, not for the purpose of revenge, but of redress.
Instead of relying on outdated practices like corrupt boroughs and ridiculous corporations for petitions or running around the country to get signatures from a handful of dependent tenants, the real and effective way would be to get straight to the point and find out the will of the nation by electing a National Convention. This approach, as mentioned before, will reveal the general WILL—whether there’s a desire to reform, what those reforms should be, and how extensive they should be—and this information can’t be gathered any other way. Such a body, backed by the nation, will have the authority to demand information on all necessary matters, and no government official or individual would dare refuse it. We would then see if seventeen million in taxes are necessary and what those funds are being spent on. The hidden pensioners will have to reveal themselves, and any sources of influence and corruption, if they exist, will be exposed to the nation, not for revenge, but for correction.
By taking this public and national ground, all objections against partial Addresses on the one side, or private associations on the other, will be done away; THE NATION WILL DECLARE ITS OWN REFORMS; and the clamour about Party and Faction, or Ins or Outs, will become ridiculous.
By stepping into this public and national space, all complaints about partial addresses on one side or private groups on the other will be eliminated; THE NATION WILL DECIDE ITS OWN REFORMS; and the fuss about Party and Faction, or Ins and Outs, will seem absurd.
The plan and organization of a convention is easy in practice.
The planning and organization of a convention is straightforward in reality.
In the first place, the number of inhabitants in every county can be sufficiently ascertained from the number of houses assessed to the House and Window-light tax in each county. This will give the rule for apportioning the number of Members to be elected to the National Convention in each of the counties.
In the first place, the number of people in each county can be clearly determined from the number of houses counted for the House and Window-light tax in each county. This will provide the guideline for distributing the number of Members to be elected to the National Convention in each county.
If the total number of inhabitants in England be seven millions, and the total number of Members to be elected to the Convention be one thousand, the number of members to be elected in a county containing one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants will be twenty-one, and in like proportion for any other county.
If the total population of England is seven million, and the total number of members to be elected to the Convention is one thousand, then the number of members to be elected in a county with one hundred and fifty thousand residents will be twenty-one, and similarly for any other county.
As the election of a Convention must, in order to ascertain the general sense of the nation, go on grounds different from that of Parliamentary elections, the mode that best promises this end will have no difficulties to combat with from absurd customs and pretended rights. The right of every man will be the same, whether he lives in a city, a town, or a village. The custom of attaching Rights to place, or in other words, to inanimate matter, instead of to the person, independently of place, is too absurd to make any part of a rational argument.
As the election of a Convention needs to reflect the overall opinion of the nation, it should operate differently from Parliamentary elections. The best method for achieving this will face no challenges from silly customs and false rights. Every person's rights will be equal, regardless of whether they live in a city, town, or village. The idea of linking rights to location, or in other words, to physical places instead of to the individual, regardless of where they are, is too irrational to be part of a sensible argument.
As every man in the nation, of the age of twenty-one years, pays taxes, either out of the property he possesses, or out of the product of his labor, which is property to him; and is amenable in his own person to every law of the land; so has every one the same equal right to vote, and no one part of the nation, nor any individual, has a right to dispute the right of another. The man who should do this ought to forfeit the exercise of his own right, for a term of years. This would render the punishment consistent with the crime.
Every man in the country who is twenty-one years old pays taxes, either from his own property or from the earnings he makes through his work, which he considers his property; and he is personally subject to every law of the land. Therefore, everyone has the same equal right to vote, and no part of the nation or any individual has the right to challenge someone else's right to vote. Anyone who does this should lose their own voting rights for a certain number of years. This would make the punishment fit the crime.
When a qualification to vote is regulated by years, it is placed on the firmest possible ground; because the qualification is such, as nothing but dying before the time can take away; and the equality of Rights, as a principle, is recognized in the act of regulating the exercise. But when Rights are placed upon, or made dependant upon property, they are on the most precarious of all tenures. "Riches make themselves wings, and fly away," and the rights fly with them; and thus they become lost to the man when they would be of most value.
When voting qualifications are based on age, they’re on solid ground because nothing but death can take that away. Plus, the principle of equality in rights is acknowledged in how we set those qualifications. But when rights depend on property, they become really unstable. “Wealth takes flight and disappears,” and with it go the rights, leaving a person without them just when they need them the most.
It is from a strange mixture of tyranny and cowardice, that exclusions have been set up and continued. The boldness to do wrong at first, changes afterwards into cowardly craft, and at last into fear. The Representatives in England appear now to act as if they were afraid to do right, even in part, lest it should awaken the nation to a sense of all the wrongs it has endured. This case serves to shew, that the same conduct that best constitutes the safety of an individual, namely, a strict adherence to principle, constitutes also the safety of a Government, and that without it safety is but an empty name. When the rich plunder the poor of his rights, it becomes an example to the poor to plunder the rich of his property; for the rights of the one are as much property to him, as wealth is property to the other, and the little all is as dear as the much. It is only by setting out on just principles that men are trained to be just to each other; and it will always be found, that when the rich protect the rights of the poor, the poor will protect the property of the rich. But the guarantee, to be effectual, must be parliamentarily reciprocal.
It’s a strange mix of oppression and fear that has led to exclusions being established and maintained. Initially, the boldness to do wrong shifts into cowardly tricks and eventually into fear. The Representatives in England seem to now act like they're scared to do the right thing, even a little, because it might remind the nation of all the injustices it has faced. This situation shows that the same behavior that ensures an individual’s safety—sticking to principles—also ensures a Government's safety. Without it, safety is just a hollow term. When the wealthy take away the rights of the poor, it sets a precedent for the poor to take from the rich in return; the rights of one person are as significant to them as wealth is to the other, and what is seen as a little is just as valuable as what is regarded as a lot. It’s only by starting from fair principles that people learn to treat each other with fairness; it will always be true that when the wealthy uphold the rights of the poor, the poor will safeguard the property of the wealthy. But for this guarantee to be effective, it must be mutually supported by Parliament.
Exclusions are not only unjust, but they frequently operate as injuriously to the party who monopolizes, as to those who are excluded. When men seek to exclude others from participating in the exercise of any right, they should, at least, be assured, that they can effectually perform the whole of the business they undertake; for, unless they do this, themselves will be losers by the monopoly. This has been the case with respect to the monopolized right of Election. The monopolizing party has not been able to keep the Parliamentary Representation, to whom the power of taxation was entrusted, in the state it ought to have been, and have thereby multiplied taxes upon themselves equally with those who were excluded.
Exclusions are not just unfair, but they often end up hurting the ones who monopolize as much as those who are left out. When individuals try to shut others out from exercising any right, they should at least be sure they can handle all of the responsibilities that come with it. If they can't, they'll end up losing out due to the monopoly. This has been true regarding the monopolized right of Election. The group that monopolized power has not managed to maintain the Parliamentary Representation, which was supposed to oversee taxation, as it should have been, resulting in them facing increased taxes just like those who were excluded.
A great deal has been, and will continue to be said, about disqualifications, arising from the commission of offences; but were this subject urged to its full extent, it would disqualify a great number of the present Electors, together with their Representatives; for, of all offences, none are more destructive to the morals of Society than Bribery and Corruption. It is, therefore, civility to such persons to pass this subject over, and to give them a fair opportunity of recovering, or rather of creating character.
A lot has been said, and will continue to be said, about disqualifications that come from committing offenses; but if we were to fully explore this topic, it would disqualify a significant number of the current voters and their representatives. Of all offenses, none are more harmful to the morals of society than bribery and corruption. Therefore, it's more polite to overlook this issue and give those individuals a fair chance to rebuild or even create their character.
Every thing, in the present mode of electioneering in England, is the reverse of what it ought to be, and the vulgarity that attends elections is no other than the natural consequence of inverting the order of the system.
Everything about the current way of campaigning in England is the opposite of how it should be, and the crudeness that comes with elections is simply a natural result of flipping the system on its head.
In the first place, the Candidate seeks the Elector, instead of the Elector seeking for a Representative; and the Electors are advertised as being in the interest of the Candidate, instead of the Candidate being in the interest of the Electors. The Candidate pays the Elector for his vote, instead of the Nation paying the Representative for his time and attendance on public business. The complaint for an undue election is brought by the Candidate, as if he, and not the Electors, were the party aggrieved; and he takes on himself, at any period of the election, to break it up, by declining, as if the election was in his right and not in theirs.
First, the Candidate seeks out the Elector, rather than the Elector looking for a Representative; and the Electors are promoted as being supportive of the Candidate, instead of the Candidate being focused on the needs of the Electors. The Candidate compensates the Elector for his vote, rather than the Nation compensating the Representative for his time and participation in public affairs. The complaint about an unfair election is made by the Candidate, as if he, not the Electors, were the wronged party; and he feels entitled, at any point during the election, to terminate it by withdrawing, as if the election were his right and not theirs.
The compact that was entered into at the last Westminster election between two of the candidates (Mr. Fox and Lord Hood,) was an indecent violation of the principles of election. The Candidates assumed, in their own persons, the rights of the Electors; for, it was only in the body of the Electors, and not at all in the Candidates, that the right of making any such compact, or compromise, could exist. But the principle of Election and Representation is so completely done away, in every stage thereof, that inconsistency has no longer the power of surprising.
The agreement made during the last Westminster election between two candidates (Mr. Fox and Lord Hood) was a blatant violation of election principles. The candidates took on the rights of the electors themselves, when only the electors had the authority to make any such agreement or compromise. The principles of election and representation have been so thoroughly undermined at every level that inconsistency no longer surprises anyone.
Neither from elections thus conducted, nor from rotten Borough Addressers, nor from County-meetings, promoted by Placemen and Pensioners, can the sense of the nation be known. It is still corruption appealing to itself. But a Convention of a thousand persons, fairly elected, would bring every matter to a decided issue.
Neither from elections held this way, nor from corrupt borough representatives, nor from county meetings organized by government employees and retirees, can we understand the will of the nation. It's still corruption looking out for its own interests. However, a convention of a thousand fairly elected individuals would bring every issue to a clear resolution.
As to County-meetings, it is only persons of leisure, or those who live near to the place of meeting, that can attend, and the number on such occasions is but like a drop in the bucket compared with the whole. The only consistent service which such meetings could render, would be that of apportioning the county into convenient districts, and when this is done, each district might, according to its number of inhabitants, elect its quota of County Members to the National Convention; and the vote of each Elector might be taken in the parish where he resided, either by ballot or by voice, as he should chuse to give it.
Regarding county meetings, only people who have free time or those who live nearby can attend, and the turnout is just a tiny fraction of the whole population. The only valuable service these meetings could provide would be dividing the county into manageable districts. Once that's done, each district could elect its share of county representatives to the National Convention based on its population. Each voter could cast their vote in the parish where they live, either by ballot or by voice, depending on their preference.
A National Convention thus formed, would bring together the sense and opinions of every part of the nation, fairly taken. The science of Government, and the interest of the Public, and of the several parts thereof, would then undergo an ample and rational discussion, freed from the language of parliamentary disguise.
A National Convention would bring together the views and opinions from every part of the country, taken fairly. The study of Government, along with the interests of the public and its various sectors, would then be thoroughly and rationally discussed, without the usual political jargon.
But in all deliberations of this kind, though men have a right to reason with, and endeavour to convince each other, upon any matter that respects their common good, yet, in point of practice, the majority of opinions, when known, forms a rule for the whole, and to this rule every good citizen practically conforms.
But in all discussions like this, while people have the right to reason with and try to convince each other about anything that concerns their shared interests, in practice, the majority opinion, once known, serves as a guideline for everyone, and every good citizen typically follows this guideline.
Mr. Burke, as if he knew, (for every concealed Pensioner has the opportunity of knowing,) that the abuses acted under the present system, are too flagrant to be palliated, and that the majority of opinions, whenever such abuses should be made public, would be for a general and effectual reform, has endeavoured to preclude the event, by sturdily denying the right of a majority of a nation to act as a whole. Let us bestow a thought upon this case.
Mr. Burke, as if he knew (because every secret Pensioner has the chance to know), that the abuses happening under the current system are too obvious to be ignored, and that most people would support a broad and meaningful reform when these abuses come to light, has tried to prevent that from happening by firmly denying that the majority of a nation can act together as one. Let's take a moment to think about this situation.
When any matter is proposed as a subject for consultation, it necessarily implies some mode of decision. Common consent, arising from absolute necessity, has placed this in a majority of opinions; because, without it, there can be no decision, and consequently no order. It is, perhaps, the only case in which mankind, however various in their ideas upon other matters, can consistently be unanimous; because it is a mode of decision derived from the primary original right of every individual concerned; that right being first individually exercised in giving an opinion, and whether that opinion shall arrange with the minority or the majority, is a subsequent accidental thing that neither increases nor diminishes the individual original right itself. Prior to any debate, enquiry, or investigation, it is not supposed to be known on which side the majority of opinions will fall, and therefore, whilst this mode of decision secures to every one the right of giving an opinion, it admits to every one an equal chance in the ultimate event.
When a topic is brought up for discussion, it inherently requires a way to make a decision. General agreement, arising from an absolute necessity, has established this through majority opinion; because, without it, there can be no decision and, therefore, no order. It is possibly the only situation where people, despite having different views on various issues, can agree consistently; since it’s a decision-making process based on the fundamental right of every individual involved; that right being initially exercised by giving an opinion, and whether that opinion aligns with the minority or the majority is a later, incidental matter that doesn't alter the individual original right itself. Before any debate, inquiry, or investigation, it isn't assumed which side will have the majority of opinions, and thus, while this decision-making process ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion, it also gives everyone an equal chance in the final outcome.
Among the matters that will present themselves to the consideration of a national convention, there is one, wholly of a domestic nature, but so marvellously loaded with con-fusion, as to appear at first sight, almost impossible to be reformed. I mean the condition of what is called Law.
Among the issues that will come up for discussion at a national convention, there is one that is entirely domestic in nature, yet so incredibly complicated that it seems almost impossible to reform at first glance. I’m talking about the state of what is referred to as Law.
But, if we examine into the cause from whence this confusion, now so much the subject of universal complaint, is produced, not only the remedy will immediately present itself, but, with it, the means of preventing the like case hereafter.
But if we look into the cause of this confusion, which is now a common complaint, not only will the solution become clear, but also the ways to prevent this from happening again in the future.
In the first place, the confusion has generated itself from the absurdity of every Parliament assuming to be eternal in power, and the laws partake in a similar manner, of this assumption. They have no period of legal or natural expiration; and, however absurd in principle, or inconsistent in practice many of them have become, they still are, if not especially repealed, considered as making a part of the general mass. By this means the body of what is called Law, is spread over a space of several hundred years, comprehending laws obsolete, laws repugnant, laws ridiculous, and every other kind of laws forgotten or remembered; and what renders the case still worse, is, that the confusion multiplies with the progress of time. (*)
First of all, the confusion has come about because every Parliament believes it has eternal power, and the laws share in this same belief. They don’t have a set expiration date, whether legal or natural; and, no matter how absurd or inconsistent many of them have become in practice, they still remain part of the larger body of law unless specifically repealed. As a result, what is known as Law stretches over a span of several hundred years, including outdated laws, contradictory laws, ridiculous laws, and every other type of law, whether forgotten or remembered. To make matters worse, the confusion grows as time goes on. (*)
To bring this misshapen monster into form, and to prevent its lapsing again into a wilderness state, only two things, and those very simple, are necessary.
To shape this misshapen monster into form and to stop it from slipping back into chaos, only two things are needed, and they’re quite simple.
The first is, to review the whole mass of laws, and to bring forward such only as are worth retaining, and let all the rest drop; and to give to the laws so brought forward a new era, commencing from the time of such reform.
The first step is to examine the entire set of laws and only highlight those that are worth keeping, allowing the rest to be discarded; and to give the selected laws a fresh start, beginning from the time of this reform.
* During the time of Henry IV, a law was enacted that made it a felony "to multiply gold or silver, or to use the craft of multiplication," and this law stayed on the books for two hundred and eighty-six years. It was later repealed as it was deemed absurd and harmful.—Author.
Secondly; that at the expiration of every twenty-one years (or any other stated period) a like review shall again be taken, and the laws, found proper to be retained, be again carried forward, commencing with that date, and the useless laws dropped and discontinued.
Secondly, at the end of every twenty-one years (or any other specified period), there will be another review, and the laws deemed necessary will be carried forward from that date, while the unnecessary laws will be eliminated and discontinued.
By this means there can be no obsolete laws, and scarcely such a thing as laws standing in direct or equivocal contradiction to each other, and every person will know the period of time to which he is to look back for all the laws in being.
With this approach, there won't be any outdated laws, and it's unlikely there will be laws that directly conflict with each other. Everyone will know the timeframe they need to reference for all current laws.
It is worth remarking, that while every other branch of science is brought within some commodious system, and the study of it simplified by easy methods, the laws take the contrary course, and become every year more complicated, entangled, confused, and obscure.
It's worth noting that while every other field of science is organized into some convenient system and the study of it is made easier through straightforward methods, the laws take the opposite path, becoming increasingly complicated, tangled, confused, and unclear each year.
Among the paragraphs which the Attorney General has taken from the Rights of Man, and put into his information, one is, that where I have said, "that with respect to regular law, there is scarcely such a thing."
Among the paragraphs that the Attorney General has taken from the Rights of Man and included in his information, one states that I said, "that regarding regular law, there is hardly such a thing."
As I do not know whether the Attorney-General means to show this expression to be libellous, because it is TRUE, or because it is FALSE, I shall make no other reply to him in this place, than by remarking, that if almanack-makers had not been more judicious than law-makers, the study of almanacks would by this time have become as abstruse as the study of the law, and we should hear of a library of almanacks as we now do of statutes; but by the simple operation of letting the obsolete matter drop, and carrying forward that only which is proper to be retained, all that is necessary to be known is found within the space of a year, and laws also admit of being kept within some given period.
Since I'm not sure whether the Attorney-General is trying to argue that this statement is libelous because it’s TRUE or because it's FALSE, I won’t say anything more here except to point out that if almanac-makers weren't more sensible than lawmakers, studying almanacs would have become as complicated as studying the law by now, and we’d be hearing about a library of almanacs just like we do about statutes. However, by simply letting outdated information fade away and focusing only on what needs to be kept, everything important can be found within the span of a year, and laws can also be maintained within a certain timeframe.
I shall here close this letter, so far as it respects the Addresses, the Proclamation, and the Prosecution; and shall offer a few observations to the Society, styling itself "The Friends of the People."
I will end this letter here, regarding the Addresses, the Proclamation, and the Prosecution; and I will share a few thoughts with the Society calling itself "The Friends of the People."
That the science of government is beginning to be better understood than in former times, and that the age of fiction and political superstition, and of craft and mystery, is passing away, are matters which the experience of every day-proves to be true, as well in England as in other countries.
That the science of government is starting to be better understood than in the past, and that the era of fiction, political superstition, along with trickery and secrecy, is fading away, are truths that daily experiences confirm, both in England and in other countries.
As therefore it is impossible to calculate the silent progress of opinion, and also impossible to govern a nation after it has changed its habits of thinking, by the craft or policy that it was governed by before, the only true method to prevent popular discontents and commotions is, to throw, by every fair and rational argument, all the light upon the subject that can possibly be thrown; and at the same time, to open the means of collecting the general sense of the nation; and this cannot, as already observed, be done by any plan so effectually as a national convention. Here individual opinion will quiet itself by having a centre to rest upon.
It's impossible to measure the subtle shift in public opinion, and it's also impossible to manage a nation once its way of thinking has changed using the strategies that worked before. The only real way to address public dissatisfaction and unrest is to shine as much light on the issue as possible with fair and rational arguments, while also making it easier to gather the overall feelings of the nation. And, as mentioned earlier, this is best achieved through a national convention. Here, individual opinions can find stability by having a central point to focus on.
The society already mentioned, (which is made up of men of various descriptions, but chiefly of those called Foxites,) appears to me, either to have taken wrong grounds from want of judgment, or to have acted with cunning reserve. It is now amusing the people with a new phrase, namely, that of "a temperate and moderate reform," the interpretation of which is, a continuance of the abuses as long as possible, If we cannot hold all let us hold some.
The society mentioned earlier, which consists of various men, mainly those known as Foxites, seems to me to have either made poor choices due to a lack of judgment or to have acted with shrewdness. They are now entertaining the public with a new slogan, “a temperate and moderate reform,” which really means, to keep the abuses going for as long as we can. If we can’t keep everything, let's hold onto some.
Who are those that are frightened at reforms? Are the public afraid that their taxes should be lessened too much? Are they afraid that sinecure places and pensions should be abolished too fast? Are the poor afraid that their condition should be rendered too comfortable? Is the worn-out mechanic, or the aged and decayed tradesman, frightened at the prospect of receiving ten pounds a year out of the surplus taxes? Is the soldier frightened at the thoughts of his discharge, and three shillings per week during life? Is the sailor afraid that press-warrants will be abolished? The Society mistakes the fears of borough-mongers, placemen, and pensioners, for the fears of the people; and the temperate and moderate Reform it talks of, is calculated to suit the condition of the former.
Who are the people who are scared of reforms? Are the public worried that their taxes might be reduced too much? Are they concerned that government jobs and pensions will be eliminated too quickly? Are the poor anxious that their situation might become too comfortable? Is the exhausted worker, or the elderly tradesperson, afraid of the chance to receive ten pounds a year from the surplus taxes? Is the soldier worried about being discharged and getting three shillings a week for life? Is the sailor afraid that press-gangs will be discontinued? Society confuses the fears of power brokers, government officials, and pensioners with the fears of the public; and the moderate and sensible Reform it talks about is designed to benefit the former.
Those words, "temperate and moderate," are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction.—A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. But who is to be the judge of what is a temperate and moderate Reform? The Society is the representative of nobody; neither can the unrepresented part of the nation commit this power to those in Parliament, in whose election they had no choice; and, therefore, even upon the ground the Society has taken, recourse must be had to a National Convention.
Those phrases, "temperate and moderate," are either signs of political cowardice, cleverness, or manipulation. Something that is moderately good isn't as good as it should be. While having a moderate temperament is always a virtue, being moderate in principles is a kind of vice. But who decides what a temperate and moderate Reform is? The Society doesn't truly represent anyone; nor can the part of the nation that feels unrepresented give this power to those in Parliament, as they had no say in their election. Therefore, even based on the Society's stance, we need to turn to a National Convention.
The objection which Mr. Fox made to Mr. Grey's proposed Motion for a Parliamentary Reform was, that it contained no plan.—It certainly did not. But the plan very easily presents itself; and whilst it is fair for all parties, it prevents the dangers that might otherwise arise from private or popular discontent.
The objection that Mr. Fox raised against Mr. Grey's proposed motion for parliamentary reform was that it had no plan. It definitely didn't. But a plan is quite easy to come up with; and while it is fair to all sides, it also avoids the risks that could come from individual or public dissatisfaction.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
Editorial Note on Burke's Alleged Secret Pension.—By looking at Vol. II., pp. 271, 360 of this work, you will see that Paine talks about a rumor that Burke was a "pensioner under a fake name." A letter from John Hall to a relative in Leicester (London, May 1, 1792) says: "You remember there was a vote passed regarding the end of the American war, stating that the influence of the Crown had increased, was still increasing, and needed to be reduced. Burke, poor fellow, like a skilled fisherman, dangled a bill in front of Parliament saying that no pensions should exceed £300 a year unless they were publicly granted and for a specified purpose (though I might not have all the details). To thwart this, he took on a £1500 a year pension in someone else's name for life, and at some point, he either disposed of it or sold his life interest. He’s been very quiet since he fell out with the Whigs and isn’t involved in the slave trade issue as far as I know." This letter, now with Hall's relative, Dr. Dutton Steele of Philadelphia, includes details not mentioned in Paine's account, which might have been sourced from it. Hall was an English scientific engineer and had connections with knowledgeable people in London. Paine was quite eager for a legal battle with Burke and probably anticipated being sued for libel since Burke had previously sued the "Public Advertiser" for a personal allegation. However, Burke remained silent about this claim, and Paine, exiled and in France, couldn’t call witnesses to back up his case. Burke’s biographers have largely ignored the accusation, which might be understandable if this were an unconfirmed claim against a public figure with an impeccable reputation in such matters. But even though Burke narrowly avoided parliamentary censure for corruption (by a majority of only 24 votes on May 16, 1783), he has never been entirely cleared. It was acknowledged that he reinstated a cashier and an accountant who had been dismissed for dishonesty by the previous officeholder. ("Pari. Hist.," xxiii., pp. 801,902.) He evaded censure by agreeing to suspend them. One was proven guilty, and the other took his own life. It was later revealed that one of them had worked as an agent for the Burkes in raising India stock. (Dilke's "Papers of a Critic," ii-, p. 333—"Dict. Nat Biography": art Burke.) In his letter to the Attorney-General (IV. of this volume), Paine claimed that Burke had been a "masked pensioner" for ten years. This timeframe aligns with a covert agreement established in 1782 for a de facto pension for his son and mother. On April 34 of that year, Burke wrote to William Burke in Madras, discussing his appointment as Paymaster: "The office will certainly earn £4000. Young Richard [his son] will be the deputy with a salary of £500. The office will be reformed according to the Bill. There are sufficient benefits. Decency won't allow for more. Something significant is also secured for young Richard's life to protect him and his mother." ("Mem. and Cor. of Charles James Fox," i., p. 451.) It’s clear that the Rockingham Ministry was doing everything they could "decency-wise" for the Paymaster, and while he presented himself as a reformer looking to cut office expenses, he was actually arranging secret perks for his family. It’s said the arrangement fell through due to his removal from office, but as many of Burke's papers are kept from the public (if not destroyed), there’s no certainty that something similar to what Paine charged didn’t occur. Burke's lack of strictness in these matters is further illustrated by his attempts to secure the lucrative sinecure of the Clerkship of the Polls for his son, which he failed to achieve. Burke was Paymaster again in 1783-4 and this time remained long enough to succeed more effectively in his secret endeavors to secure irregular pensions for his family. On April 7, 1894, Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson, and Hodge sold in London (Lot 404) a letter from Burke (which I haven’t seen published), dated July 16, 1795. It was addressed to the Chairman of the Commission on Public Accounts, who had asked him to submit his accounts for the time he served as Paymaster-General, 1783-4. Burke refused to do this in a four-page letter full of anger and evasiveness, stating he would appeal to his country if pressed for an answer. Why would Burke want to hide his accounts? There were certainly suspicions surrounding him, which may have led Pitt to withdraw his intention, conveyed to Burke on August 30, 1794, to ask Parliament to grant him a pension. "It is not exactly known," one of Burke's editors states, "what caused Mr. Pitt to back away from presenting to Parliament a proposal he himself had made without any prompting from Burke." (Burke’s "Works," English Ed., 1852, ii., p. 252.) The pensions were granted without consulting Parliament—£1200 awarded by the King from the Civil List, and £2500 from Pitt in West Indian 41/2 per cents. When Burke took his seat beside Pitt in the grand Paine Parliament (December, 1792), he asserted that he hadn't left his party due to expecting a pension, but those who had previously allied with him widely believed he had been promised one. A couplet from that period went: "A pension makes him change his plan, And loudly damn the rights of man." In 1819, Cobbett wrote: "As my Lord Grenville mentioned Burke, allow me, my Lord, to mention the man [Paine] who embarrassed Burke, who drove him off the public stage to find refuge in the Pension List, and who is now mentioned fifty million times where the pensioned Burke is mentioned once."— Editor.
X. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE.
Paris, Sept. 25, [1792.] First Year of the Republic.
Paris, September 25, [1792]. First Year of the Republic.
Fellow Citizens,
Fellow Citizens,
I RECEIVE, with affectionate gratitude, the honour which the late National Assembly has conferred upon me, by adopting me a Citizen of France: and the additional honor of being elected by my fellow citizens a Member of the National Convention.(1) Happily impressed, as I am, by those testimonies of respect shown towards me as an individual, I feel my felicity increased by seeing the barrier broken down that divided patriotism by spots of earth, and limited citizenship to the soil, like vegetation.
I accept, with heartfelt thanks, the honor that the late National Assembly has given me by adopting me as a Citizen of France, along with the additional honor of being elected by my fellow citizens as a Member of the National Convention.(1) While I am genuinely touched by these expressions of respect shown towards me as an individual, my happiness is further increased by witnessing the breakdown of the barriers that separated patriotism by specific territories and restricted citizenship to the land, like plants.
Had those honours been conferred in an hour of national tranquillity, they would have afforded no other means of shewing my affection, than to have accepted and enjoyed them; but they come accompanied with circumstances that give me the honourable opportunity of commencing my citizenship in the stormy hour of difficulties. I come not to enjoy repose. Convinced that the cause of France is the cause of all mankind, and that liberty cannot be purchased by a wish, I gladly share with you the dangers and honours necessary to success.
If those honors had been given during a time of peace, the only way I could show my affection would be by accepting and enjoying them; but they come with circumstances that give me the honorable chance to start my citizenship in a time of turmoil and challenges. I’m not here to seek comfort. Believing that France’s cause is the cause of all humanity and that liberty can’t be bought simply by wishing for it, I willingly share with you the risks and honors required for success.
1 The National Assembly (August 26, 1792) granted the title of "French Citizen" to "Priestley, Payne, Bentham, Wilberforce, Clarkson, Mackintosh, Campe, Cormelle, Paw, David Williams, Gorani, Anacharsis Clootz, Pestalozzi, Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Klopstoc, Kosciusko, Gilleers."—Editor.. vol ni—7
I am well aware that the moment of any great change, such as that accomplished on the 10th of August, is unavoidably the moment of terror and confusion. The mind, highly agitated by hope, suspicion and apprehension, continues without rest till the change be accomplished. But let us now look calmly and confidently forward, and success is certain. It is no longer the paltry cause of kings, or of this, or of that individual, that calls France and her armies into action. It is the great cause of all. It is the establishment of a new aera, that shall blot despotism from the earth, and fix, on the lasting principles of peace and citizenship, the great Republic of Man.
I understand that any significant change, like what happened on August 10th, inevitably brings a mix of fear and confusion. Our minds, stirred up by hope, doubt, and worry, can’t find peace until the change happens. But let’s now look ahead calmly and confidently, and success is guaranteed. This isn’t about the trivial interests of kings or individuals; it’s about a greater cause for everyone. It’s about creating a new era that will erase tyranny from the world and establish the enduring principles of peace and citizenship for the great Republic of Humanity.
It has been my fate to have borne a share in the commencement and complete establishment of one Revolution, (I mean the Revolution of America.) The success and events of that Revolution are encouraging to us. The prosperity and happiness that have since flowed to that country, have amply rewarded her for all the hardships she endured and for all the dangers she encountered.
It has been my lot to have played a part in starting and fully establishing one Revolution (I’m talking about the American Revolution). The success and outcomes of that Revolution are inspiring to us. The prosperity and happiness that have followed in that country have more than compensated her for all the hardships she faced and the dangers she met.
The principles on which that Revolution began, have extended themselves to Europe; and an over-ruling Providence is regenerating the Old World by the principles of the New. The distance of America from all the other parts of the globe, did not admit of her carrying those principles beyond her own situation. It is to the peculiar honour of France, that she now raises the standard of liberty for all nations; and in fighting her own battles, contends for the rights of all mankind.
The principles that sparked that Revolution have spread to Europe, and a higher power is renewing the Old World through the principles of the New. America's vast distance from the rest of the world prevented her from spreading those principles beyond her own borders. It is a unique honor for France that she now lifts the banner of liberty for all nations, and in fighting her own battles, she stands up for the rights of all humanity.
The same spirit of fortitude that insured success to America; will insure it to France, for it is impossible to conquer a nation determined to be free! The military circumstances that now unite themselves to France, are such as the despots of the earth know nothing of, and can form no calculation upon. They know not what it is to fight against a nation; they have only been accustomed to make war upon each other, and they know, from system and practice, how to calculate the probable success of despot against despot; and here their knowledge and their experience end.
The same spirit of determination that ensured success for America will ensure it for France, because it’s impossible to defeat a nation that is committed to being free! The military conditions currently surrounding France are unlike anything the tyrants of the world understand, and they can't predict it. They don’t know what it’s like to fight against a nation; they’ve only been used to waging war against one another, and they know, from experience and strategy, how to estimate the likely success of one tyrant against another; and that’s where their knowledge and experience stop.
But in a contest like the present a new and boundless variety of circumstances arise, that deranges all such customary calculations. When a whole nation acts as an army, the despot knows not the extent of the power against which he contends. New armies arise against him with the necessity of the moment. It is then that the difficulties of an invading enemy multiply, as in the former case they diminished; and he finds them at their height when he expected them to end.
But in a contest like this one, a whole new range of circumstances comes up, which throws all those usual calculations off. When an entire nation acts like an army, the dictator has no idea how much power he's actually facing. New armies form against him as the situation demands. That's when the challenges for an invading enemy increase, whereas before they were decreasing; and he discovers that they are at their peak when he thought they would be over.
The only war that has any similarity of circumstances with the present, is the late revolution war in America. On her part, as it now is in France, it was a war of the whole nation:—there it was that the enemy, by beginning to conquer, put himself in a condition of being conquered. His first victories prepared him for defeat. He advanced till he could not retreat, and found himself in the midst of a nation of armies.
The only war that has any similarities to the current situation is the recent revolutionary war in America. Just like in France now, it was a conflict that involved the entire nation. It was there that the enemy, by starting to win, set himself up to be defeated. His initial victories made him susceptible to loss. He pushed ahead until he had no way to fall back and found himself surrounded by a nation made up of armed forces.
Were it now to be proposed to the Austrians and Prussians, to escort them into the middle of France, and there leave them to make the most of such a situation, they would see too much into the dangers of it to accept the offer, and the same dangers would attend them, could they arrive there by any other means. Where, then, is the military policy of their attempting to obtain, by force, that which they would refuse by choice? But to reason with despots is throwing reason away. The best of arguments is a vigorous preparation.
If the Austrians and Prussians were now asked to be escorted into the middle of France and then left to deal with the situation themselves, they would recognize the risks involved and decline the offer. The same risks would follow them if they tried to get there by any other means. So, what sense does it make for them to try to forcefully take something they would refuse willingly? But trying to reason with tyrants is pointless. The strongest argument is being well-prepared.
Man is ever a stranger to the ways by which Providence regulates the order of things. The interference of foreign despots may serve to introduce into their own enslaved countries the principles they come to oppose. Liberty and Equality are blessings too great to be the inheritance of France alone. It is an honour to her to be their first champion; and she may now say to her enemies, with a mighty voice, "O! ye Austrians, ye Prussians! ye who now turn your bayonets against us, it is for you, it is for all Europe, it is for all mankind, and not for France alone, that she raises the standard of Liberty and Equality!"
People are always confused by the ways that fate manages the world. The intervention of foreign tyrants can actually bring the very principles they oppose into their own oppressed nations. Freedom and equality are too valuable to belong to France alone. It's an honor for her to be their first defender; she can now boldly say to her enemies, "Oh! You Austrians, you Prussians! You who are now aiming your weapons at us, it is for you, it is for all of Europe, it is for all of humanity, and not just for France, that we raise the banner of freedom and equality!"
The public cause has hitherto suffered from the contradictions contained in the Constitution of the Constituent Assembly. Those contradictions have served to divide the opinions of individuals at home, and to obscure the great principles of the Revolution in other countries. But when those contradictions shall be removed, and the Constitution be made conformable to the declaration of Rights; when the bagatelles of monarchy, royalty, regency, and hereditary succession, shall be exposed, with all their absurdities, a new ray of light will be thrown over the world, and the Revolution will derive new strength by being universally understood.
The public cause has so far struggled because of the contradictions in the Constitution of the Constituent Assembly. These contradictions have divided people's opinions domestically and obscured the important principles of the Revolution in other countries. But once those contradictions are resolved, and the Constitution aligns with the declaration of Rights; when the trivialities of monarchy, royalty, regency, and hereditary succession are revealed along with all their absurdities, a new light will shine across the world, and the Revolution will gain fresh strength by being fully understood.
The scene that now opens itself to France extends far beyond the boundaries of her own dominions. Every nation is becoming her colleague, and every court is become her enemy. It is now the cause of all nations, against the cause of all courts. The terror that despotism felt, clandestinely begot a confederation of despots; and their attack upon France was produced by their fears at home.
The scene unfolding in France reaches well beyond her own borders. Every nation is becoming her ally, while every court is turning into her foe. It's now the cause of all nations against the interests of all courts. The fear that dictators felt secretly led to a coalition of dictators; their assault on France was driven by their anxieties back home.
In entering on this great scene, greater than any nation has yet been called to act in, let us say to the agitated mind, be calm. Let us punish by instructing, rather than by revenge. Let us begin the new ara by a greatness of friendship, and hail the approach of union and success.
As we step into this important moment, one that surpasses anything any nation has faced so far, let's tell the anxious mind to stay calm. Let's focus on teaching rather than seeking revenge. Let's kick off this new era with a spirit of friendship and welcome the arrival of unity and success.
Your Fellow-Citizen,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
XI. ANTI-MONARCHAL ESSAY. FOR THE USE OF NEW REPUBLICANS.(1)
When we reach some great good, long desired, we begin by felicitating ourselves. We triumph, we give ourselves up to this joy without rendering to our minds any full account of our reasons for it. Then comes reflexion: we pass in review all the circumstances of our new happiness; we compare it in detail with our former condition; and each of these thoughts becomes a fresh enjoyment. This satisfaction, elucidated and well-considered, we now desire to procure for our readers.
When we finally achieve something we've wanted for a long time, we start by celebrating ourselves. We feel victorious and dive into this joy without fully thinking about why we feel this way. Then comes reflection: we examine all the details of our newfound happiness, comparing it carefully to how things were before, and each of these thoughts becomes another layer of enjoyment. This satisfaction, understood and thoughtfully considered, is what we now want to share with our readers.
In seeing Royalty abolished and the Republic established, all France has resounded with unanimous plaudits.(2) Yet, Citizen President: In the name of the Deputies of the Department of the Pas de Calais, I have the honor of presenting to the Convention the felicitations of the General Council of the Commune of Calais on the abolition of Royalty.
In witnessing the end of monarchy and the establishment of the Republic, all of France has echoed with unanimous applause. Yet, Citizen President: On behalf of the Deputies of the Pas de Calais region, I am honored to present to the Convention the congratulations of the General Council of the Commune of Calais on the abolition of the monarchy.
1 Translated for this work from Le Patriote Français, "Saturday, October 20, 1793, Year One of the Republic. Supplement to No. 1167," in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. It’s titled, "Anti-Monarchist Essay, for the Use of New Republicans, taken from the Village Newspaper." I haven't found this Newspaper, but undoubtedly Brissot, in editing the essay for his journal (Le Patriote Français) shortened it, and in one instance, Paine is mentioned by name. Although in this essay Paine occasionally repeats sentences from elsewhere and naturally sticks to his well-known principles, the work is particularly interesting as it reflects the mood and visions of the early revolution.—Editor. 2 Royalty was abolished by the National Convention on the first day of its meeting, September 21, 1792, with the revolutionary Calendar starting the next day. Paine was chosen by his fellow-delegates from Calais to congratulate the Convention, and he did so in a brief address, dated October 27, which was loaned by M. Charavay to the Historical Exposition of the Revolution in Paris, 1889, where I made the following translation: "the folly of our ancestors, who have put us in the position of having to treat the abolition of a phantom seriously."—Thomas Paine, Deputy.— Editor.
Amid the joy inspired by this event, one cannot forbear some pain at the some who clap their hands do not sufficiently understand the condition they are leaving or that which they are assuming.
Amid the joy brought on by this event, one can't help but feel some sadness that those who are clapping their hands don’t fully grasp the situation they are leaving behind or the one they are stepping into.
The perjuries of Louis, the conspiracies of his court, the wildness of his worthy brothers, have filled every Frenchman with horror, and this race was dethroned in their hearts before its fall by legal decree. But it is little to throw down an idol; it is the pedestal that above all must be broken down; it is the regal office rather than the incumbent that is murderous. All do not realize this.
The lies of Louis, the plots of his court, and the recklessness of his so-called brothers have filled every Frenchman with fear, and this ruling class was overthrown in their hearts long before it fell by official decree. But it's not just about toppling an idol; it's the pedestal that needs to be destroyed first and foremost; it’s the position of power, rather than the person holding it, that is dangerous. Not everyone understands this.
Why is Royalty an absurd and detestable government? Why is the Republic a government accordant with nature and reason? At the present time a Frenchman should put himself in a position to answer these two questions clearly. For, in fine, if you are free and contented it is yet needful that you should know why.
Why is monarchy an absurd and loathsome form of government? Why is a republic a system that aligns with nature and reason? Nowadays, a French person should be ready to answer these two questions clearly. After all, if you are free and happy, it's still important to understand why.
Let us first discuss Royalty or Monarchy. Although one often wishes to distinguish between these names, common usage gives them the same sense.
Let’s start by talking about royalty or monarchy. Even though people often try to differentiate between these terms, they’re usually used to mean the same thing.
ROYALTY.
Royalty.
Bands of brigands unite to subvert a country, place it under tribute, seize its lands, enslave its inhabitants. The expedition completed, the chieftain of the robbers adopts the title of monarch or king. Such is the origin of Royalty among all tribes—huntsmen, agriculturists, shepherds.
Groups of bandits come together to take over a country, put it under their control, take its land, and enslave its people. Once the mission is accomplished, the leader of the thieves claims the title of monarch or king. This is how royalty started among all kinds of people—hunters, farmers, and shepherds.
A second brigand arrives who finds it equitable to take away by force what was conquered by violence: he dispossesses the first; he chains him, kills him, reigns in his place. Ere long time effaces the memory of this origin; the successors rule under a new form; they do a little good, from policy; they corrupt all who surround them; they invent fictitious genealogies to make their families sacred (1); the knavery of priests comes to their aid; they take Religion for a life-guard: thenceforth tyranny becomes immortal, the usurped power becomes an hereditary right.
A second bandit shows up and thinks it’s fair to take by force what was acquired through violence: he takes over from the first one; he chains him up, kills him, and rules in his place. Before long, time erases the memory of this beginning; the successors govern in a new way; they do some good, out of strategy; they corrupt everyone around them; they create fake family histories to make their families seem sacred (1); the deceit of priests comes to their rescue; they use Religion as a bodyguard: from that point on, tyranny becomes everlasting, and the stolen power turns into an inherited right.
1 The Boston Investigator's collection of Paine's Works includes the following, attributed to Mr. Paine: "Royal Pedigree.—George the Third was the grandson of George the Second, who was the son of George the First, who was the son of Princess Sophia, who was the cousin of Anne, the sister of William and Mary, the daughter and son-in-law of James the Second, who was the son of Charles the First, a traitor to his country who was executed for it, the son of James the First, who was the son of Mary, the sister of Edward the Sixth, who was the son of Henry the Eighth, the cold-blooded murderer of his wives and proponent of the Protestant religion, the son of Henry the Seventh, who killed Richard the Third, who smothered his nephew Edward the Fifth, who was the son of Edward the Fourth, who, together with bloody Richard, killed Henry the Sixth, who succeeded Henry the Fifth, who was the son of Henry the Fourth, who was the cousin of Richard the Second, who was the son of Edward the Third, who was the son of Richard the Second, who was the son of Edward the First, who was the son of Henry the Third, who was the son of John, who was the brother of Richard the First, who was the son of Henry the Second, who was the son of Matilda, the daughter of Henry the First, who was the brother of William Rufus, who was the son of William the Conqueror, who was the son of a whore."—Editor.
The effects of Royalty have been entirely harmonious with its origin. What scenes of horror, what refinements of iniquity, do the annals of monarchies present! If we should paint human nature with a baseness of heart, an hypocrisy, from which all must recoil and humanity disavow, it would be the portraiture of kings, their ministers and courtiers.
The effects of royalty have always matched its origins. What scenes of horror and what levels of wickedness do the records of monarchies show! If we were to depict human nature with a heart full of meanness and a hypocrisy that makes everyone want to step back and makes humanity reject it, it would look like the portrayal of kings, their ministers, and courtiers.
And why should it not be so? What should such a monstrosity produce but miseries and crimes? What is monarchy? It has been finely disguised, and the people familiarized with the odious title: in its real sense the word signifies the absolute power of one single individual, who may with impunity be stupid, treacherous, tyrannical, etc. Is it not an insult to nations to wish them so governed?
And why shouldn’t it be this way? What could such a terrible thing create but suffering and crime? What is monarchy? It’s been cleverly hidden, and people have grown used to the horrible title: in its true meaning, the word refers to the absolute power of one single individual, who can be ignorant, deceitful, tyrannical, etc., without facing any consequences. Isn’t it an insult to nations to want them to be ruled this way?
Government by a single individual is vicious in itself, independently of the individual's vices. For however little a State, the prince is nearly always too small: where is the proportion between one man and the affairs of a whole nation?
Government by one person is harmful in itself, regardless of that person's flaws. No matter how small a state may be, the ruler is usually too limited: what kind of balance exists between one individual and the matters that concern an entire nation?
True, some men of genius have been seen under the diadem; but the evil is then even greater: the ambition of such a man impels him to conquest and despotism, his subjects soon have to lament his glory, and sing their Te-deums while perishing with hunger. Such is the history of Louis XIV. and so many others.
True, some brilliant men have worn the crown; but this only makes things worse: the ambition of such individuals drives them toward conquest and tyranny, and their subjects soon find themselves mourning his greatness, praising him while suffering from hunger. This is the story of Louis XIV and many others.
But if ordinary men in power repay you with incapacity or with princely vices? But those who come to the front in monarchies are frequently mere mean mischief-makers, commonplace knaves, petty intriguers, whose small wits, which in courts reach large places, serve only to display their ineptitude in public, as soon as they appear. (*) In short, monarchs do nothing, and their ministers do evil: this is the history of all monarchies.
But what if regular people in power repay you with incompetence or royal vices? Those who rise to the top in monarchies are often just petty troublemakers, ordinary schemers, small-time plotters, whose limited intelligence, which may help them gain large positions in courts, only serves to reveal their foolishness in public as soon as they show up. In short, monarchs do nothing, and their ministers do harm: this is the story of all monarchies.
But if Royalty as such is baneful, as hereditary succession it is equally revolting and ridiculous. What! there exists among my kind a man who pretends that he is born to govern me? Whence derived he such right? From his and my ancestors, says he. But how could they transmit to him a right they did not possess? Man has no authority over generations unborn. I cannot be the slave of the dead, more than of the living. Suppose that instead of our posterity, it was we who should succeed ourselves: we should not to-day be able to despoil ourselves of the rights which would belong to us in our second life: for a stronger reason we cannot so despoil others.
But if royalty itself is harmful, then hereditary succession is just as disgusting and absurd. What? There's someone among my people who claims he was born to rule me? Where does he get that right? He says it comes from our ancestors. But how could they pass down a right they never had? No one has power over future generations. I can't be enslaved by the dead any more than by the living. Imagine if instead of our descendants, we were the ones who would succeed ourselves: we wouldn't be able to strip ourselves of the rights we would have in our next life. For an even stronger reason, we can’t strip that right from others.
An hereditary crown! A transmissible throne! What a notion! With even a little reflexion, can any one tolerate it? Should human beings then be the property of certain individuals, born or to be born? Are we then to treat our descendants in advance as cattle, who shall have neither will nor rights of their own? To inherit government is to inherit peoples, as if they were herds. It is the basest, the most shameful fantasy that ever degraded mankind.
An inherited crown! A passing down of the throne! What an idea! With just a little thought, can anyone accept it? Should people really be the property of certain individuals, whether they are alive now or will be born later? Are we supposed to treat our future generations like livestock, without their own will or rights? To inherit power means to inherit people, as if they were simply herds. It's the lowest, most shameful fantasy that has ever humiliated humanity.
It is wrong to reproach kings with their ferocity, their brutal indifference, the oppressions of the people, and molestations of citizens: it is hereditary succession that makes them what they are: this breeds monsters as a marsh breeds vipers.
It's wrong to blame kings for their cruelty, their harsh indifference, the oppression of the people, and the mistreatment of citizens: it's hereditary succession that shapes them this way; it creates monsters just like a swamp breeds vipers.
* J. J. Rousseau, Social Contract.—Author.
The logic on which the hereditary prince rests is in effect this: I derive my power from my birth; I derive my birth from God; therefore I owe nothing to men. It is little that he has at hand a complacent minister, he continues to indulge, conscientiously, in all the crimes of tyranny. This has been seen in all times and countries.
The reasoning behind the hereditary prince's authority is basically this: I get my power from my birth; I get my birth from God; so I owe nothing to people. It's not enough that he has a supportive minister; he still persistently engages, fully aware, in all the acts of tyranny. This has been evident throughout history and across nations.
Tell me, then, what is there in common between him who is master of a people, and the people of whom he is master? Are these masters really of their kind? It is by sympathy that we are good and human: with whom does a monarch sympathize? When my neighbor suffers I pity, because I put myself in his place: a monarch pities none, because he has never been, can never be, in any other place than his own.
Tell me, what do the ruler and the people he rules have in common? Are these rulers truly relatable? We become good and humane through empathy: who does a monarch empathize with? When my neighbor is in pain, I feel for him because I can imagine being in his situation; a monarch feels for no one, as he has never been, nor can he ever be, anywhere but his own position.
A monarch is an egoist by nature, the egoist par excellence. A thousand traits show that this kind of men have no point of contact with the rest of humanity. There was demanded of Charles II. the punishment of Lauderdale, his favorite, who had infamously oppressed the Scotch. "Yes," said Charles coolly, "this man has done much against the Scotch, but I cannot see that he has done anything against my interests." Louis XIV. often said: "If I follow the wishes of the people, I cannot act the king." Even such phrases as "misfortunes of the State," "safety of the State," filled Louis XIV. with wrath.
A monarch is selfish by nature, the selfish person par excellence. A thousand traits show that these kinds of men have no connection with the rest of humanity. Charles II was asked to punish Lauderdale, his favorite, who had notoriously mistreated the Scots. "Yes," Charles replied coolly, "this man has done a lot to harm the Scots, but I don’t see how he’s done anything against my interests." Louis XIV often said, "If I listen to what the people want, I can't act like a king." Even phrases like "misfortunes of the State" and "safety of the State" filled Louis XIV with anger.
Could nature make a law which should assure virtue and wisdom invariably in these privileged castes that perpetuate themselves on thrones, there would be no objection to their hereditary succession. But let us pass Europe in review: all of its monarchs are the meanest of men. This one a tyrant, that one an imbecile, another a traitor, the next a debauchee, while some muster all the vices. It looks as if fate and nature had aimed to show our epoch, and all nations, the absurdity and enormity of Royalty.
If nature could create a law that guaranteed virtue and wisdom consistently in these privileged classes that keep themselves on thrones, there would be no issue with their hereditary succession. But let's take a look at Europe: all of its monarchs are the worst of the worst. One is a tyrant, another is foolish, another is a traitor, and yet another is a libertine, while some display all the vices. It seems like fate and nature intended to demonstrate to our time and to all nations the absurdity and enormity of royalty.
But I mistake: this epoch has nothing peculiar. For, such is the essential vice of this royal succession by animal filiation, the peoples have not even the chances of nature,—they cannot even hope for a good prince as an alternative. All things conspire to deprive of reason and justice an individual reared to command others. The word of young Dionysius was very sensible: his father, reproaching him for a shameful action, said, "Have I given thee such example?" "Ah," answered the youth, "thy father was not a king!"
But I'm mistaken: this era has nothing special. The big problem with this royal line of succession through blood is that the people don’t even have the natural chances—they can't even hope for a good ruler as an option. Everything works against reason and justice for someone raised to rule over others. Young Dionysius made a very good point when his father, scolding him for a shameful act, asked, "Have I set such an example for you?" "Ah," replied the young man, "your father wasn't a king!"
In truth, were laughter on such a subject permissible, nothing would suggest ideas more burlesque than this fantastic institution of hereditary kings. Would it not be believed, to look at them, that there really exist particular lineages possessing certain qualities which enter the blood of the embryo prince, and adapt him physically for royalty, as a horse for the racecourse? But then, in this wild supposition, it yet becomes necessary to assure the genuine family descent of the heir presumptive. To perpetuate the noble race of Andalusian chargers, the circumstances pass before witnesses, and similar precautions seem necessary, however indecent, to make sure that the trickeries of queens shall not supply thrones with bastards, and that the kings, like the horses, shall always be thoroughbreds.
Honestly, if laughter were allowed about such a topic, nothing would seem more absurd than this ridiculous idea of hereditary kings. Looking at them, one might think that there are actual bloodlines with special qualities that make a future prince physically suited for royalty, just like a horse is bred for a racetrack. However, in this crazy belief, it becomes essential to verify the true lineage of the heir apparent. To keep the noble line of Andalusian horses going, the conditions are witnessed, and similar measures seem necessary, no matter how inappropriate, to prevent queens from providing thrones with illegitimate heirs, ensuring that kings, like horses, are always purebred.
Whether one jests or reasons, there is found in this idea of hereditary royalty only folly and shame. What then is this office, which may be filled by infants or idiots? Some talent is required to be a simple workman; to be a king there is need to have only the human shape, to be a living automaton. We are astonished when reading that the Egyptians placed on the throne a flint, and called it their king. We smile at the dog Barkouf, sent by an Asiatic despot to govern one of his provinces.(*) But mon-archs of this kind are less mischievous and less absurd than those before whom whole peoples prostrate themselves. The flint and the dog at least imposed on nobody. None ascribed to them qualities or characters they did not possess. They were not styled 'Father of the People,'—though this were hardly more ridiculous than to give that title to a rattle-head whom inheritance crowns at eighteen. Better a mute than an animate idol. Why, there can hardly be cited an instance of a great man having children worthy of him, yet you will have the royal function pass from father to son! As well declare that a wise man's son will be wise. A king is an administrator, and an hereditary administrator is as absurd as an author by birthright.
Whether one jokes or thinks critically, the idea of hereditary royalty is nothing but foolishness and disgrace. What kind of position is this that can be filled by infants or fools? Some skill is needed to be a basic worker; to be a king, you only need to have a human appearance and be a living robot. We're shocked to read that the Egyptians put a stone on the throne and called it their king. It’s amusing to think of the dog Barkouf, sent by an Asian ruler to govern one of his provinces. But these kinds of monarchs are less harmful and less absurd than those who demand that entire nations bow down before them. At least the stone and the dog didn't fool anyone. No one attributed to them qualities or characteristics they didn't have. They weren’t called 'Father of the People'—though that would be hardly more ridiculous than giving that title to a dimwit crowned at eighteen simply because of inheritance. A mute is better than a living idol. In fact, you can hardly find a great person who has children deserving of their legacy, yet the royal role continues to pass from father to son! It's like saying that a wise person’s child will automatically be wise. A king is an administrator, and hereditary administrators are as nonsensical as claiming authorship by birthright.
* See the first year of La Feuille Villageoise, No. 42.— Author. [See Montaigne's Essays, chapter xii.—Editor.]
Royalty is thus as contrary to common sense as to com-mon right. But it would be a plague even if no more than an absurdity; for a people who can bow down in honor of a silly thing is a debased people. Can they be fit for great affairs who render equal homage to vice and virtue, and yield the same submission to ignorance and wisdom? Of all institutions, none has caused more intellectual degeneracy. This explains the often-remarked abjectness of character under monarchies.
Royalty is just as against common sense as it is against common rights. But it would be a problem even if it were just silly; a people who can bow down to something ridiculous are a degraded people. Are they really fit for important matters if they give equal respect to both vice and virtue, and submit equally to ignorance and wisdom? Of all institutions, none has caused more intellectual decline. This explains the frequently noted low character found in monarchies.
Such is also the effect of this contagious institution that it renders equality impossible, and draws in its train the presumption and the evils of "Nobility." If you admit inheritance of an office, why not that of a distinction? The Nobility's heritage asks only homage, that of the Crown commands submission. When a man says to me, 'I am born illustrious,' I merely smile; when he says 'I am born your master,' I set my foot on him.
Such is the impact of this contagious institution that it makes equality impossible and brings along the arrogance and problems of "Nobility." If you accept the inheritance of a position, why not accept the inheritance of a title? The Nobility's legacy only requires respect, while that of the Crown demands obedience. When a person tells me, 'I was born great,' I just smile; when he says 'I was born your master,' I put my foot down on him.
When the Convention pronounced the abolition of Royalty none rose for the defence that was expected. On this subject a philosopher, who thought discussion should always precede enactment, proposed a singular thing; he desired that the Convention should nominate an orator commissioned to plead before it the cause of Royalty, so that the pitiful arguments by which it has in all ages been justified might appear in broad daylight. Judges give one accused, however certain his guilt, an official defender. In the ancient Senate of Venice there existed a public officer whose function was to contest all propositions, however incontestible, or however perfect their evidence. For the rest, pleaders for Royalty are not rare: let us open them, and see what the most specious of royalist reasoners have said.
When the Convention declared the end of Royalty, no one stepped up to defend it as expected. A philosopher, who believed that discussions should always happen before decisions are made, suggested something unconventional; he wanted the Convention to appoint a speaker to advocate for Royalty, so that the weak arguments that have justified it throughout history could be exposed for what they are. Judges provide an official defender for any accused person, no matter how certain their guilt. In the ancient Senate of Venice, there was a public official whose job was to challenge every proposal, no matter how undeniable or well-supported. Furthermore, defenders of Royalty are not uncommon: let’s examine them and see what some of the most persuasive royalist thinkers have said.
1. A king is necessary to preserve a people from the tyranny of powerful men.
1. A king is essential to protect people from the oppression of powerful individuals.
Establish the Rights of Man(1); enthrone Equality; form a good Constitution; divide well its powers; let there be no privileges, no distinctions of birth, no monopolies; make safe the liberty of industry and of trade, the equal distribution of [family] inheritances, publicity of administration, freedom of the press: these things all established, you will be assured of good laws, and need not fear the powerful men. Willingly or unwillingly, all citizens will be under the Law.
Establish the Rights of Man; promote Equality; create a strong Constitution; divide its powers effectively; ensure there are no privileges, no distinctions of birth, and no monopolies; protect the freedom of industry and trade, ensure equal distribution of family inheritances, maintain transparency in administration, and uphold freedom of the press: with these principles in place, you can be confident in good laws and won't have to fear powerful individuals. Whether they like it or not, all citizens will be governed by the Law.
1 The reader should remember that this phrase, now used loosely, had a specific meaning for Paine and his political followers; it signified a core Declaration of individual rights, considered to have ultimate power and authority, violation of which, whether by legislatures, courts, majorities, or officials, was viewed as the worst form of treason and tyranny.—Editor.
2. The Legislature might usurp authority, and a king is needed to restrain it.
2. The Legislature could overstep its bounds, and a king is needed to keep it in check.
With representatives, frequently renewed, who neither administer nor judge, whose functions are determined by the laws; with national conventions, with primary assemblies, which can be convoked any moment; with a people knowing how to read, and how to defend itself; with good journals, guns, and pikes; a Legislature would have a good deal of trouble in enjoying any months of tyranny. Let us not suppose an evil for the sake of its remedy.
With representatives who are regularly updated and neither govern nor judge, whose roles are defined by the laws; with national conventions and primary assemblies that can be called at any time; with a populace that knows how to read and defend itself; with good newspapers, guns, and pikes; a Legislature would struggle to maintain tyranny for long. Let’s not imagine a problem just to create a solution.
3. A king is needed to give force to executive power.
3. A king is necessary to empower executive authority.
This might be said while there existed nobles, a priesthood, parliaments, the privileged of every kind. But at present who can resist the Law, which is the will of all, whose execution is the interest of all? On the contrary the existence of an hereditary prince inspires perpetual distrust among the friends of liberty; his authority is odious to them; in checking despotism they constantly obstruct the action of government. Observe how feeble the executive power was found, after our recent pretence of marrying Royalty with Liberty.
This might have been true when there were nobles, a priesthood, parliaments, and privileges for certain groups. But now, who can oppose the Law, which reflects the will of everyone and serves everyone's interests? On the other hand, having a hereditary prince creates ongoing distrust among those who value liberty; they find his authority repugnant and, in their efforts to limit despotism, they frequently hinder the government's actions. Just look at how weak the executive power appeared after our recent attempt to combine Royalty with Liberty.
Take note, for the rest, that those who talk in this way are men who believe that the King and the Executive Power are only one and the same thing: readers of La Feuille Villageoise are more advanced.(*)
Take note, for the rest, that those who talk like this are men who believe that the King and the Executive Power are the same thing: readers of La Feuille Villageoise are more advanced.(*)
* See No. 50.—Author
Others use this bad reasoning: "Were there no hereditary chief there would be an elective chief: the citizens would side with this man or that, and there would be a civil war at every election." In the first place, it is certain that hereditary succession alone has produced the civil wars of France and England; and that beyond this are the pre-tended rights, of royal families which have twenty times drawn on these nations the scourge of foreign wars. It is, in fine, the heredity of crowns that has caused the troubles of Regency, which Thomas Paine calls Monarchy at nurse.
Others use this flawed reasoning: "If there were no hereditary chief, there would be an elected chief: the citizens would support one candidate over another, and there would be a civil war with every election." First of all, it’s clear that hereditary succession alone has led to the civil wars in France and England. Moreover, the so-called rights of royal families have repeatedly brought these nations the hardship of foreign wars. Ultimately, it is the inheritance of crowns that has caused the issues of Regency, which Thomas Paine refers to as Monarchy at nurse.
But above all it must be said, that if there be an elective chief, that chief will not be a king surrounded by courtiers, burdened with pomp, inflated by idolatries, and endowed with thirty millions of money; also, that no citizen will be tempted to injure himself by placing another citizen, his equal, for some years in an office without limited income and circumscribed power.
But above all, it must be said that if there is an elected leader, that leader will not be a king surrounded by courtiers, weighed down by extravagance, inflated by worship, and endowed with thirty million in wealth; also, no citizen will be tempted to harm themselves by putting another citizen, their equal, in a position with unlimited income and restricted power for several years.
In a word, whoever demands a king demands an aristocracy, and thirty millions of taxes. See why Franklin described Royalism as a crime like poisoning.
In short, anyone who asks for a king is also asking for an aristocracy and thirty million in taxes. That’s why Franklin called Royalism a crime like poisoning.
Royalty, its fanatical eclat, its superstitious idolatry, the delusive assumption of its necessity, all these fictions have been invented only to obtain from men excessive taxes and voluntary servitude. Royalty and Popery have had the same aim, have sustained themselves by the same artifices, and crumble under the same Light.
Royalty, with its obsessive glamour, its blind worship, and the misleading belief in its necessity, has been created solely to extract heavy taxes and enforce voluntary servitude from people. Both royalty and the Church have pursued the same goal, supported themselves through the same tricks, and will fall apart under the same Truth.
XII. TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON THE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE SECOND PART
OF RIGHTS OF MAN.(1)
Bill of Rights.
Paris, 11th of November, 1st Year of the Republic. [1792.]
Paris, November 11, Year 1 of the Republic. [1792.]
Mr. Attorney General:
Mr. AG:
Sir,—As there can be no personal resentment between two strangers, I write this letter to you, as to a man against whom I have no animosity.
Sir, — Since there's no reason for personal resentment between two strangers, I'm writing this letter to you as someone I hold no ill will against.
You have, as Attorney General, commenced a prosecution against me, as the author of Rights of Man. Had not my duty, in consequence of my being elected a member of the National Convention of France, called me from England, I should have staid to have contested the injustice of that prosecution; not upon my own account, for I cared not about the prosecution, but to have defended the principles I had advanced in the work.
You, as Attorney General, have started a prosecution against me for being the author of Rights of Man. If I hadn’t been elected as a member of the National Convention of France, which required me to leave England, I would have stayed to fight the unfairness of that prosecution; not for my own sake, as I didn’t care about the prosecution, but to defend the principles I presented in the book.
1 Read to the Jury by the Attorney General, Sir Archibald Macdonald, at the trial of Paine, December 18, 1792, which resulted in his outlawry.—Editor.
The duty I am now engaged in is of too much importance to permit me to trouble myself about your prosecution: when I have leisure, I shall have no objection to meet you on that ground; but, as I now stand, whether you go on with the prosecution, or whether you do not, or whether you obtain a verdict, or not, is a matter of the most perfect indifference to me as an individual. If you obtain one, (which you are welcome to if you can get it,) it cannot affect me either in person, property, or reputation, otherwise than to increase the latter; and with respect to yourself, it is as consistent that you obtain a verdict against the Man in the Moon as against me; neither do I see how you can continue the prosecution against me as you would have done against one your own people, who had absented himself because he was prosecuted; what passed at Dover proves that my departure from England was no secret. (1)
The duty I'm currently involved in is too important for me to focus on your prosecution. When I have the time, I'd be happy to discuss it with you; but right now, whether you proceed with the prosecution or not, or whether you win a verdict, is completely irrelevant to me as an individual. If you do win one (which you're free to try for if you can), it won't impact me in any personal, property, or reputational way, except possibly to enhance my reputation. As for you, it's just as likely that you'd get a verdict against the Man in the Moon as against me. Plus, I don't see how you can keep pursuing legal action against me the way you would against one of your own people who absented themselves due to being prosecuted; what happened in Dover shows that my leaving England was no secret. (1)
My necessary absence from your country affords the opportunity of knowing whether the prosecution was intended against Thomas Paine, or against the Right of the People of England to investigate systems and principles of government; for as I cannot now be the object of the prosecution, the going on with the prosecution will shew that something else was the object, and that something else can be no other than the People of England, for it is against their Rights, and not against me, that a verdict or sentence can operate, if it can operate at all. Be then so candid as to tell the Jury, (if you choose to continue the process,) whom it is you are prosecuting, and on whom it is that the verdict is to fall.(2)
My needed absence from your country gives us a chance to see whether the prosecution was aimed at Thomas Paine, or at the right of the people of England to question government systems and principles; since I can't be the target of the prosecution now, continuing with it will show that the real target is something else, and that can only be the people of England, because it is against their rights, not against me, that a verdict or sentence could matter, if it matters at all. So please be honest and tell the jury, (if you decide to go ahead with this), who it is that you are prosecuting, and on whom the verdict is supposed to land. (2)
But I have other reasons than those I have mentioned for writing you this letter; and, however you may choose to interpret them, they proceed from a good heart. The time, Sir, is becoming too serious to play with Court prosecutions, and sport with national rights. The terrible examples that have taken place here, upon men who, less than a year ago, thought themselves as secure as any prosecuting Judge, Jury, or Attorney General, now can in England, ought to have some weight with men in your situation. That the government of England is as great, if not the greatest, perfection of fraud and corruption that ever took place since governments began, is what you cannot be a stranger to, unless the constant habit of seeing it has blinded your senses; but though you may not chuse to see it, the people are seeing it very fast, and the progress is beyond what you may chuse to believe. Is it possible that you, or I, can believe, or that reason can make any other man believe, that the capacity of such a man as Mr. Guelph, or any of his profligate sons, is necessary to the government of a nation? I speak to you as one man ought to speak to another; and I know also that I speak what other people are beginning to think.
But I have more reasons than the ones I've mentioned for writing you this letter, and, no matter how you interpret them, they come from a good place. Things are getting too serious to play games with Court prosecutions and toy with national rights. The shocking examples we’ve seen here of people who, less than a year ago, felt as secure as any prosecuting Judge, Jury, or Attorney General should weigh heavily on you. The government of England is, if not the greatest, certainly one of the biggest examples of fraud and corruption since governments began, and you must be aware of this unless you’ve been blinded by the routine of seeing it. Even if you choose to ignore it, the people are quickly waking up to the reality, and the changes are happening faster than you might believe. Is it really possible for you or me to believe, or for any reasonable person to think, that someone like Mr. Guelph or any of his reckless sons is essential to governing this nation? I’m speaking to you as one man should speak to another, and I know that I’m voicing what others are starting to think.
1 See Chapter VIII. of this volume.—Editor. 2 While reading the letter in court, the Attorney General stated at this point: "Gentlemen, I will definitely meet this request. I am prosecuting both him and his work; and if I succeed in this prosecution, he will never return to this country in any form other than in vintulis, because I will declare him an outlaw."—Editor.
That you cannot obtain a verdict (and if you do, it will signify nothing) without packing a Jury, (and we both know that such tricks are practised,) is what I have very good reason to believe, I have gone into coffee-houses, and places where I was unknown, on purpose to learn the currency of opinion, and I never yet saw any company of twelve men that condemned the book; but I have often found a greater number than twelve approving it, and this I think is a fair way of collecting the natural currency of opinion. Do not then, Sir, be the instrument of drawing twelve men into a situation that may be injurious to them afterwards. I do not speak this from policy, but from benevolence; but if you chuse to go on with the process, I make it my request to you that you will read this letter in Court, after which the Judge and the Jury may do as they please. As I do not consider myself the object of the prosecution, neither can I be affected by the issue, one way or the other, I shall, though a foreigner in your country, subscribe as much money as any other man towards supporting the right of the nation against the prosecution; and it is for this purpose only that I shall do it.(1)
That you can't get a verdict (and even if you do, it won't mean anything) without rigging a jury, (and we both know that such tactics are used,) is something I have strong reason to believe. I've gone into coffee shops and places where I was a stranger, specifically to learn what people think, and I have never encountered a group of twelve men that condemned the book; however, I have often found more than twelve who approved of it, and I think this is a fair way to gauge the true public opinion. So please, sir, don't be the one to put twelve men in a position that might be harmful to them later on. I'm not saying this for strategic reasons, but out of kindness; but if you choose to proceed with the case, I kindly request that you read this letter in court, after which the judge and the jury can do as they wish. Since I don't see myself as the target of the prosecution and won't be affected by the outcome either way, I will, even as a foreigner in your country, contribute as much money as anyone else towards defending the nation's right against the prosecution; and that's the only reason I'll do it.(1)
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine
As I have not time to copy letters, you will excuse the corrections.
Since I don't have time to rewrite the letters, please excuse the mistakes.
1 While reading this letter during the trial, the Attorney made comments throughout. When he reached the phrase, "Mr. Guelph and his reckless sons," he exclaimed: "This statement is insulting, scandalous, false, and cruel. Why, gentlemen, should Mr. Paine, in addition to the political ideas he's teaching us in this country, also teach us the morality and religion of unforgiveness? Is he supposed to teach human beings, whose very existence relies on the mercy of a Being who is kind, patient, and good, that youthful mistakes, from which even royalty is not free, should be hoarded in a vengeful memory and be sentenced to unforgivable sin by Him? If causing me pain was his goal, he certainly gets that wicked satisfaction." Erskine, Fame's lawyer, protested beforehand against the reading of this letter (which he had heard), saying it contained content likely to distract the Jury from the issue at hand (the book). Lord Kenyon allowed the letter to be read.—Editor.
P. S. I intended, had I staid in England, to have published the information, with my remarks upon it, before the trial came on; but as I am otherwise engaged, I reserve myself till the trial is over, when I shall reply fully to every thing you shall advance.
P. S. I planned to publish the information along with my comments before the trial started if I had stayed in England; however, since I'm busy with other commitments, I'll wait until the trial is over to fully respond to everything you bring up.
XIII. ON THE PROPRIETY OF BRINGING LOUIS XVI. TO TRIAL.(1)
Read to the Convention, November 21, 1792.
Paris, Nov. 20, 1792.
Paris, Nov. 20, 1792.
Citizen President,
Citizen President,
As I do not know precisely what day the Convention will resume the discussion on the trial of Louis XVI., and, on account of my inability to express myself in French, I cannot speak at the tribune, I request permission to deposit in your hands the enclosed paper, which contains my opinion on that subject. I make this demand with so much more eagerness, because circumstances will prove how much it imports to France, that Louis XVI. should continue to enjoy good health. I should be happy if the Convention would have the goodness to hear this paper read this morning, as I propose sending a copy of it to London, to be printed in the English journals.(2)
As I don’t know exactly when the Convention will resume the discussion on the trial of Louis XVI., and since I can’t express myself in French, I can’t speak at the podium. I ask for permission to submit the enclosed paper, which contains my thoughts on the matter. I make this request with even more urgency because the situation will show how important it is for France that Louis XVI. stays in good health. I would be glad if the Convention could hear this paper read this morning, as I plan to send a copy of it to London to be published in the English newspapers.(2)
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
1 This address, which has been changed in every edition, is revised and completed here with the help of the official document: "Opinion de Thomas Payn, Deputy of the Department of the Somme, regarding the judgment of Louis XVI. Presented by his letter to the President of the Convention. Printed by order of the National Convention. @ Paris. From the National Printing House." Lamartine has criticized Paine for this speech; however, the trial of the King was already a settled matter, and it's worth noting that Paine was trying to steer public anger away from the individual man and toward the broader coalition of monarchs and the monarchical system. His appeal for the King's life wouldn’t have been taken seriously if it weren't for this earlier address.— Editor. 2 Of course, no English newspaper could take the risk of publishing it.—Editor.
A Secretary read the opinion of Thomas Paine. I think it necessary that Louis XVI. should be tried; not that this advice is suggested by a spirit of vengeance, but because this measure appears to me just, lawful, and conformable to sound policy. If Louis is innocent, let us put him to prove his innocence; if he is guilty, let the national will determine whether he shall be pardoned or punished.
A Secretary read Thomas Paine's opinion. I believe it's essential for Louis XVI to be tried; this isn't coming from a desire for revenge, but because I think it's fair, legal, and aligns with good policy. If Louis is innocent, let's give him a chance to prove it; if he's guilty, let the people decide whether he should be pardoned or punished.
But besides the motives personal to Louis XVI., there are others which make his trial necessary. I am about to develope these motives, in the language which I think expresses them, and no other. I forbid myself the use of equivocal expression or of mere ceremony. There was formed among the crowned brigands of Europe a conspiracy which threatened not only French liberty, but likewise that of all nations. Every thing tends to the belief that Louis XVI. was the partner of this horde of conspirators. You have this man in your power, and he is at present the only one of the band of whom you can make sure. I consider Louis XVI. in the same point of view as the two first robbers taken up in the affair of the Store Room; their trial led to discovery of the gang to which they belonged. We have seen the unhappy soldiers of Austria, of Prussia, and the other powers which declared themselves our enemies, torn from their fire-sides, and drawn to butchery like wretched animals, to sustain, at the cost of their blood, the common cause of these crowned brigands. They loaded the inhabitants of those regions with taxes to support the expenses of the war. All this was not done solely for Louis XVI. Some of the conspirators have acted openly: but there is reason to presume that this conspiracy is composed of two classes of brigands; those who have taken up arms, and those who have lent to their cause secret encouragement and clandestine assistance. Now it is indispensable to let France and the whole world know all these accomplices.
But aside from Louis XVI.'s personal motives, there are other reasons that make his trial necessary. I’m about to explain these reasons in the clearest terms I can. I will avoid vague language and formalities. A conspiracy has formed among the ruling criminals of Europe, threatening not just French freedom but that of all nations. Everything points to the belief that Louis XVI. was part of this group of conspirators. You have this man in your control, and he is currently the only one you can be sure of from this gang. I view Louis XVI. in the same way as the first two thieves arrested in the case of the Store Room; their trial led to uncovering the gang to which they belonged. We've seen the unfortunate soldiers of Austria, Prussia, and other powers that declared themselves our enemies, dragged from their homes and forced into horrific violence, like miserable animals, to support, with their blood, the common cause of these crowned criminals. They burdened the people of those regions with taxes to cover the costs of the war. None of this was done solely for Louis XVI. Some of the conspirators have acted openly, but there’s reason to believe that this conspiracy consists of two groups of criminals: those who have taken up arms and those who have secretly supported their cause with hidden aid. Now it is crucial to inform France and the entire world about all these accomplices.
A little time after the National Convention was constituted, the Minister for Foreign Affairs presented the picture of all the governments of Europe,—those whose hostilities were public, and those that acted with a mysterious circumspection. This picture supplied grounds for just suspicions of the part the latter were disposed to take, and since then various circumstances have occurred to confirm those suspicions. We have already penetrated into some part of the conduct of Mr. Guelph, Elector of Hanover, and strong presumptions involve the same man, his court and ministers, in quality of king of England. M. Calonne has constantly been favoured with a friendly reception at that court.(1) The arrival of Mr. Smith, secretary to Mr. Pitt, at Coblentz, when the emigrants were assembling there; the recall of the English ambassador; the extravagant joy manifested by the court of St. James' at the false report of the defeat of Dumouriez, when it was communicated by Lord Elgin, then Minister of Great Britain at Brussels—all these circumstances render him [George III.] extremely suspicious; the trial of Louis XVI. will probably furnish more decisive proofs.
Not long after the National Convention was established, the Foreign Affairs Minister presented an overview of all the governments in Europe—both those openly hostile and those operating with mysterious caution. This overview raised justifiable suspicions about the intentions of the latter group, and since then, various events have confirmed those suspicions. We've already looked into some of the actions of Mr. Guelph, the Elector of Hanover, and strong indications implicate him, his court, and ministers in their role as king of England. M. Calonne has consistently received a warm welcome at that court. The arrival of Mr. Smith, secretary to Mr. Pitt, in Coblentz, where the emigrants were gathering; the recall of the English ambassador; and the outrageous excitement shown by the court of St. James' at the false news of Dumouriez's defeat, as communicated by Lord Elgin, then the British Minister in Brussels—all these circumstances make him [George III.] very suspicious; the trial of Louis XVI. will likely provide more conclusive evidence.
The long subsisting fear of a revolution in England, would alone, I believe, prevent that court from manifesting as much publicity in its operations as Austria and Prussia. Another reason could be added to this: the inevitable decrease of credit, by means of which alone all the old governments could obtain fresh loans, in proportion as the probability of revolutions increased. Whoever invests in the new loans of such governments must expect to lose his stock.
The long-standing fear of a revolution in England would, I believe, stop the government from being as open about its actions as Austria and Prussia. Another reason for this could be the inevitable decline in credit, which is the only way these old governments can secure new loans, as the likelihood of revolutions grows. Anyone who invests in the new loans from such governments should expect to lose their investment.
Every body knows that the Landgrave of Hesse fights only as far as he is paid. He has been for many years in the pay of the court of London. If the trial of Louis XVI. could bring it to light, that this detestable dealer in human flesh has been paid with the produce of the taxes imposed on the English people, it would be justice to that nation to disclose that fact. It would at the same time give to France an exact knowledge of the character of that court, which has not ceased to be the most intriguing in Europe, ever since its connexion with Germany.
Everybody knows that the Landgrave of Hesse only fights if he gets paid. He has been on the payroll of the court in London for many years. If the trial of Louis XVI. could reveal that this awful trader in human lives has been funded by taxes collected from the English people, it would be fair to inform that nation of this truth. At the same time, it would give France a clear understanding of the nature of that court, which has remained the most scheming in Europe since its ties with Germany.
1 Calonne (1734-1802), who became Controller General of the Treasury in 1783, spent public money extravagantly on the Queen, courtiers, and himself (buying St. Cloud and Rambouillet), borrowing large amounts, and misleading the King about the state of the Treasury, with the annual deficit reaching 115 million francs in 1787. He was then exiled to Lorraine, after which he went to England and married the wealthy widow Haveley. His involvement with the Coblentz party resulted in the loss of his fortune. In 1802, Napoleon brought him back from London to Paris, where he died that same year. —Editor.
Louis XVI., considered as an individual, is an object beneath the notice of the Republic; but when he is looked upon as a part of that band of conspirators, as an accused man whose trial may lead all nations in the world to know and detest the disastrous system of monarchy, and the plots and intrigues of their own courts, he ought to be tried.
Louis XVI, when viewed as an individual, is beneath the Republic's concern; however, when he is seen as part of a group of conspirators, as a defendant whose trial could expose the entire world to the harmful system of monarchy and the schemes and intrigues of their own governments, he should be put on trial.
If the crimes for which Louis XVI. is arraigned were absolutely personal to him, without reference to general conspiracies, and confined to the affairs of France, the plea of inviolability, that folly of the moment, might have been urged in his behalf with some appearance of reason; but he is arraigned not only for treasons against France, but for having conspired against all Europe, and if France is to be just to all Europe we ought to use every means in our power to discover the whole extent of that conspiracy. France is now a republic; she has completed her revolution; but she cannot earn all its advantages so long as she is surrounded with despotic governments. Their armies and their marine oblige her also to keep troops and ships in readiness. It is therefore her immediate interest that all nations shall be as free as herself; that revolutions shall be universal; and since the trial of Louis XVI. can serve to prove to the world the flagitiousness of governments in general, and the necessity of revolutions, she ought not to let slip so precious an opportunity.
If the crimes Louis XVI is accused of were purely personal to him, without any connection to broader conspiracies, and limited to the issues in France, the claim of inviolability, which was a foolish notion at the time, could have been argued on his behalf with some justification. However, he is being tried not just for treason against France, but for conspiring against all of Europe, and if France is to be fair to all of Europe, we must do everything we can to uncover the full extent of that conspiracy. France is now a republic; she has completed her revolution; but she cannot reap all its benefits as long as she is surrounded by despotic governments. Their armies and navies force her to maintain troops and ships on standby. It is therefore in her immediate interest that all nations be as free as she is; that revolutions should happen everywhere; and since the trial of Louis XVI can demonstrate the wickedness of governments in general and the necessity of revolutions, she should not let this valuable opportunity slip away.
The despots of Europe have formed alliances to preserve their respective authority, and to perpetuate the oppression of peoples. This is the end they proposed to themselves in their invasion of French territory. They dread the effect of the French revolution in the bosom of their own countries; and in hopes of preventing it, they are come to attempt the destruction of this revolution before it should attain its perfect maturity. Their attempt has not been attended with success. France has already vanquished their armies; but it remains for her to sound the particulars of the conspiracy, to discover, to expose to the eyes of the world, those despots who had the infamy to take part in it; and the world expects from her that act of justice.
The rulers of Europe have formed alliances to maintain their power and continue oppressing their people. This was their goal when they invaded French territory. They fear the impact of the French revolution spreading to their own countries, and in an effort to stop it, they tried to crush the revolution before it could fully develop. Their efforts have not been successful. France has already defeated their armies, but now it needs to reveal the details of this conspiracy, to identify and expose those despots who shamefully participated in it; and the world is looking to her for that act of justice.
These are my motives for demanding that Louis XVI. be judged; and it is in this sole point of view that his trial appears to me of sufficient importance to receive the attention of the Republic.
These are my reasons for insisting that Louis XVI be judged; and it's from this perspective that I believe his trial is important enough to get the Republic's attention.
As to "inviolability," I would not have such a word mentioned. If, seeing in Louis XVI. only a weak and narrow-minded man, badly reared, like all his kind, given, as it is said, to frequent excesses of drunkenness—a man whom the National Assembly imprudently raised again on a throne for which he was not made—he is shown hereafter some compassion, it shall be the result of the national magnanimity, and not the burlesque notion of a pretended "inviolability."
Regarding "inviolability," I don't want that word mentioned. If someone sees Louis XVI. merely as a weak and narrow-minded man, poorly brought up, like many others of his kind, known for excessive drinking—a man whom the National Assembly foolishly put back on a throne he wasn’t suited for—and later feels some compassion for him, it should come from the greatness of the nation and not from some ridiculous idea of a supposed "inviolability."
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
XIV. REASONS FOR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF LOUIS CAPET,
As Delivered to the National Convention, January 15, 1703.(1)
Citizen President,
Citizen President,
My hatred and abhorrence of monarchy are sufficiently known: they originate in principles of reason and conviction, nor, except with life, can they ever be extirpated; but my compassion for the unfortunate, whether friend or enemy, is equally lively and sincere.
My hatred and loathing of monarchy are well-known: they come from my principles of reason and belief, and can only be removed with my life; but my compassion for the unfortunate, whether they are friends or foes, is just as strong and genuine.
I voted that Louis should be tried, because it was necessary to afford proofs to the world of the perfidy, corruption, and abomination of the monarchical system. The infinity of evidence that has been produced exposes them in the most glaring and hideous colours; thence it results that monarchy, whatever form it may assume, arbitrary or otherwise, becomes necessarily a centre round which are united every species of corruption, and the kingly trade is no less destructive of all morality in the human breast, than the trade of an executioner is destructive of its sensibility. I remember, during my residence in another country, that I was exceedingly struck with a sentence of M. Autheine, at the Jacobins [Club], which corresponds exactly with my own idea,—"Make me a king to-day," said he, "and I shall be a robber to-morrow."
I voted for Louis to be tried because it was essential to provide proof to the world of the treachery, corruption, and horror of the monarchical system. The overwhelming evidence that has been presented reveals these issues in the starkest and ugliest way; therefore, it follows that monarchy, in any form it takes, whether arbitrary or not, inevitably becomes a hub for every kind of corruption, and the role of a king is just as damaging to all morality in the human heart as the role of an executioner is to its sensitivity. I remember, during my time in another country, being really struck by a statement from M. Autheine at the Jacobins [Club], which perfectly matches my own thoughts—“Make me a king today,” he said, “and I will be a robber tomorrow.”
1 Printed in Paris (Hartley, Adlard & Son) and published in London with the addition of D. I. Eaton's name, in 1796. While Paine was in prison, he was accused in England and America of having helped bring Louis XVI. to the guillotine. The English pamphlet has a short preface in which it is presented "as a burnt offering to Truth, on behalf of the most passionate friend and advocate of Human Rights; to protect him from the cruel attacks of scandal and deception, and as a response to all the horrors that despots of every kind have, with such relentless malice, tried to pin on his actions. But truth will ultimately prevail: stop these slanders; all your efforts are in vain —you’re biting a file."—Editor.
Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that if Louis Capet had been born in obscure condition, had he lived within the circle of an amiable and respectable neighbourhood, at liberty to practice the duties of domestic life, had he been thus situated, I cannot believe that he would have shewn himself destitute of social virtues: we are, in a moment of fermentation like this, naturally little indulgent to his vices, or rather to those of his government; we regard them with additional horror and indignation; not that they are more heinous than those of his predecessors, but because our eyes are now open, and the veil of delusion at length withdrawn; yet the lamentable, degraded state to which he is actually reduced, is surely far less imputable to him than to the Constituent Assembly, which, of its own authority, without consent or advice of the people, restored him to the throne.
However, I tend to believe that if Louis Capet had been born into a humble background, had lived in a friendly and respectable neighborhood, and had the freedom to engage in everyday family life, I can't imagine he would have lacked social virtues. During turbulent times like these, we are naturally less forgiving of his vices—or rather, those of his government; we look at them with extra horror and outrage, not because they are more severe than those of his predecessors, but because we are now aware, and the veil of illusion has finally been lifted. Still, the unfortunate and degraded state he is currently in is certainly more the fault of the Constituent Assembly, which, on its own authority and without the people's consent or advice, reinstated him to the throne.
I was in Paris at the time of the flight, or abdication of Louis XVI., and when he was taken and brought back. The proposal of restoring him to supreme power struck me with amazement; and although at that time I was not a French citizen, yet as a citizen of the world I employed all the efforts that depended on me to prevent it.
I was in Paris during the flight or abdication of Louis XVI, and when he was captured and brought back. The suggestion of restoring him to absolute power shocked me; and even though I wasn’t a French citizen at that time, as a global citizen, I did everything I could to stop it.
A small society, composed only of five persons, two of whom are now members of the Convention,(1) took at that time the name of the Republican Club (Sociiti Ripublicaine). This society opposed the restoration of Louis, not so much on account of his personal offences, as in order to overthrow the monarchy, and to erect on its ruins the republican system and an equal representation.
A small group of just five people, two of whom are currently members of the Convention,(1) took the name Republican Club (Sociiti Ripublicaine) at that time. This group opposed the restoration of Louis, not primarily because of his personal misdeeds, but to dismantle the monarchy and establish a republican system with equal representation on its ruins.
With this design, I traced out in the English language certain propositions, which were translated with some trifling alterations, and signed by Achille Duchbtelet, now Lieutenant-General in the army of the French republic, and at that time one of the five members which composed our little party: the law requiring the signature of a citizen at the bottom of each printed paper.
With this design, I outlined in English certain proposals, which were translated with some minor changes, and signed by Achille Duchbtelet, now a Lieutenant-General in the French republic's army, and at that time one of the five members of our small group: the law required a citizen's signature at the bottom of each printed document.
1 Condorect and Paine; the other members were Achille Duchitelet, and probably Nicolas de Bonneville and Lanthenas,—translator of Paine's "Works."—Editor.
The paper was indignantly torn by Malouet; and brought forth in this very room as an article of accusation against the person who had signed it, the author and their adherents; but such is the revolution of events, that this paper is now received and brought forth for a very opposite purpose—to remind the nation of the errors of that unfortunate day, that fatal error of not having then banished Louis XVI. from its bosom, and to plead this day in favour of his exile, preferable to his death.
Malouet angrily ripped up the paper and presented it here as an accusation against the person who signed it, the author, and their supporters. However, events have turned in such a way that this paper is now used for a completely different purpose—to remind the country of the mistakes made on that unfortunate day, the critical mistake of not having expelled Louis XVI. at that time, and to advocate today for his exile instead of his death.
The paper in question, was conceived in the following terms:
The paper in question was created with the following ideas in mind:
[The address constitutes the first chapter of the present volume.]
[The address is the first chapter of this book.]
Having thus explained the principles and the exertions of the republicans at that fatal period, when Louis was rein-stated in full possession of the executive power which by his flight had been suspended, I return to the subject, and to the deplorable situation in which the man is now actually involved.
Having explained the principles and efforts of the republicans during that tragic time when Louis regained full control of the executive power that had been suspended due to his flight, I return to the topic and the unfortunate situation that the man is currently facing.
What was neglected at the time of which I have been speaking, has been since brought about by the force of necessity. The wilful, treacherous defects in the former constitution have been brought to light; the continual alarm of treason and conspiracy aroused the nation, and produced eventually a second revolution. The people have beat down royalty, never, never to rise again; they have brought Louis Capet to the bar, and demonstrated in the face of the whole world, the intrigues, the cabals, the falsehood, corruption, and rooted depravity, the inevitable effects of monarchical government. There remains then only one question to be considered, what is to be done with this man?
What was overlooked during the time I've been discussing has now been forced into the open by necessity. The deliberate, deceitful flaws in the old system have been revealed; the constant fear of treason and conspiracy has stirred the nation, ultimately leading to a second revolution. The people have overthrown the monarchy, never to rise again; they have put Louis Capet on trial and exposed to the whole world the schemes, the plots, the lies, the corruption, and the deep-rooted moral decay that result from monarchical rule. So now, there is only one question left to address: what should be done with this man?
For myself I seriously confess, that when I reflect on the unaccountable folly that restored the executive power to his hands, all covered as he was with perjuries and treason, I am far more ready to condemn the Constituent Assembly than the unfortunate prisoner Louis Capet.
For my part, I honestly admit that when I think about the unreasonable foolishness that returned executive power to his hands, despite all the lies and betrayal he was involved in, I am much more inclined to criticize the Constituent Assembly than the unfortunate prisoner Louis Capet.
But abstracted from every other consideration, there is one circumstance in his life which ought to cover or at least to palliate a great number of his transgressions, and this very circumstance affords to the French nation a blessed occasion of extricating itself from the yoke of kings, without defiling itself in the impurities of their blood.
But aside from everything else, there's one aspect of his life that should excuse or at least lighten many of his wrongdoings, and this very aspect gives the French nation a great opportunity to free itself from the rule of kings without getting stained by their blood.
It is to France alone, I know, that the United States of America owe that support which enabled them to shake off the unjust and tyrannical yoke of Britain. The ardour and zeal which she displayed to provide both men and money, were the natural consequence of a thirst for liberty. But as the nation at that time, restrained by the shackles of her own government, could only act by the means of a monarchical organ, this organ—whatever in other respects the object might be—certainly performed a good, a great action.
It is to France alone, I know, that the United States of America owe the support that allowed them to break free from the unjust and oppressive rule of Britain. The enthusiasm and commitment she showed in providing both troops and funding were a natural result of a desire for freedom. However, since the nation at that time was held back by the constraints of its own government, it could only act through a monarchical figure. This figure—regardless of any other considerations—definitely accomplished something good, something significant.
Let then those United States be the safeguard and asylum of Louis Capet. There, hereafter, far removed from the miseries and crimes of royalty, he may learn, from the constant aspect of public prosperity, that the true system of government consists not in kings, but in fair, equal, and honourable representation.
Let the United States be the safe haven and refuge for Louis Capet. There, far away from the suffering and wrongdoings of royalty, he can see, through the ongoing display of public prosperity, that the real system of government isn’t about kings, but rather about fair, equal, and honorable representation.
In relating this circumstance, and in submitting this proposition, I consider myself as a citizen of both countries. I submit it as a citizen of America, who feels the debt of gratitude which he owes to every Frenchman. I submit it also as a man, who, although the enemy of kings, cannot forget that they are subject to human frailties. I support my proposition as a citizen of the French republic, because it appears to me the best, the most politic measure that can be adopted.
In sharing this situation and putting forth this idea, I see myself as a citizen of both nations. I present it as an American, who feels grateful to every French person. I also present it as someone who, despite being against kings, recognizes their human weaknesses. I back my proposal as a citizen of the French republic because I believe it to be the best, most strategic action we can take.
As far as my experience in public life extends, I have ever observed, that the great mass of the people are invariably just, both in their intentions and in their objects; but the true method of accomplishing an effect does not always shew itself in the first instance. For example: the English nation had groaned under the despotism of the Stuarts. Hence Charles I. lost his life; yet Charles II. was restored to all the plenitude of power, which his father had lost. Forty years had not expired when the same family strove to reestablish their ancient oppression; so the nation then banished from its territories the whole race. The remedy was effectual. The Stuart family sank into obscurity, confounded itself with the multitude, and is at length extinct.
As far as my experience in public life goes, I’ve always noticed that a large majority of people are generally fair-minded, both in their intentions and goals; however, the best way to achieve an outcome doesn’t always present itself right away. For instance, the English people suffered under the tyranny of the Stuarts. Because of this, Charles I lost his life; yet Charles II was restored to all the power his father had lost. Forty years hadn’t passed before the same family attempted to reestablish their old oppression, which led the nation to drive the entire family out of the country. That solution worked. The Stuart family faded into obscurity, blending in with the masses, and eventually became extinct.
The French nation has carried her measures of government to a greater length. France is not satisfied with exposing the guilt of the monarch. She has penetrated into the vices and horrors of the monarchy. She has shown them clear as daylight, and forever crushed that system; and he, whoever he may be, that should ever dare to reclaim those rights would be regarded not as a pretender, but punished as a traitor.
The French nation has taken its government actions much further. France isn't just content with revealing the king's wrongdoings. It has delved into the vices and atrocities of the monarchy. It has laid them bare for everyone to see and has completely dismantled that system; anyone who dares to claim those rights again will not be seen as a challenger, but will be punished as a traitor.
Two brothers of Louis Capet have banished themselves from the country; but they are obliged to comply with the spirit and etiquette of the courts where they reside. They can advance no pretensions on their own account, so long as Louis Capet shall live.
Two brothers of Louis Capet have exiled themselves from the country; however, they must adhere to the customs and protocols of the courts where they live. They cannot make any claims on their own behalf as long as Louis Capet is alive.
Monarchy, in France, was a system pregnant with crime and murders, cancelling all natural ties, even those by which brothers are united. We know how often they have assassinated each other to pave a way to power. As those hopes which the emigrants had reposed in Louis XVI. are fled, the last that remains rests upon his death, and their situation inclines them to desire this catastrophe, that they may once again rally around a more active chief, and try one further effort under the fortune of the ci-devant Monsieur and d'Artois. That such an enterprize would precipitate them into a new abyss of calamity and disgrace, it is not difficult to foresee; yet it might be attended with mutual loss, and it is our duty as legislators not to spill a drop of blood when our purpose may be effectually accomplished without it.
Monarchy in France was a system full of crime and murders, severing all natural connections, even those that bind brothers. We know how frequently they have killed each other to gain power. As the hopes that the emigrants had placed in Louis XVI have faded, the last hope they have rests on his death, and their situation makes them desire this tragedy, so they can once again unite around a more active leader and make one last attempt under the fortune of the former Monsieur and d'Artois. It's easy to foresee that such an endeavor would plunge them into a new disaster and disgrace; however, it could also bring mutual loss, and it is our duty as lawmakers not to spill a drop of blood when we can achieve our goals without it.
It has already been proposed to abolish the punishment of death, and it is with infinite satisfaction that I recollect the humane and excellent oration pronounced by Robespierre on that subject in the Constituent Assembly. This cause must find its advocates in every corner where enlightened politicians and lovers of humanity exist, and it ought above all to find them in this assembly.
It has already been suggested to eliminate the death penalty, and I am extremely pleased to remember the compassionate and outstanding speech given by Robespierre on this issue in the Constituent Assembly. This cause should have supporters in every place where informed politicians and people who care about humanity are found, and it should especially find them in this assembly.
Monarchical governments have trained the human race, and inured it to the sanguinary arts and refinements of punishment; and it is exactly the same punishment which has so long shocked the sight and tormented the patience of the people, that now, in their turn, they practice in revenge upon their oppressors. But it becomes us to be strictly on our guard against the abomination and perversity of monarchical examples: as France has been the first of European nations to abolish royalty, let her also be the first to abolish the punishment of death, and to find out a milder and more effectual substitute.
Monarchical governments have conditioned humanity and made it familiar with brutal methods and harsh punishments; and it is precisely these punishments that have long outraged the public and tested their patience, which now, in retaliation, they impose on their oppressors. However, we must be vigilant against the horrors and corruption of monarchical precedents: since France has been the first among European nations to end monarchy, let it also be the first to eliminate the death penalty and discover a gentler, more effective alternative.
In the particular case now under consideration, I submit the following propositions: 1st, That the National Convention shall pronounce sentence of banishment on Louis and his family. 2d, That Louis Capet shall be detained in prison till the end of the war, and at that epoch the sentence of banishment to be executed.
In the specific case we're discussing, I propose the following points: 1st, That the National Convention shall issue a ruling of banishment against Louis and his family. 2nd, That Louis Capet shall be held in prison until the war is over, and at that time, the banishment shall be carried out.
XV. SHALL LOUIS XVI. HAVE RESPITE?
SPEECH IN THE CONVENTION, JANUARY 19, 1793.(1)
(Read in French by Deputy Bancal,)
(Read in French by Deputy Bancal,)
Very sincerely do I regret the Convention's vote of yesterday for death.
I sincerely regret the Convention's vote for death yesterday.
Marat [interrupting]: I submit that Thomas Paine is incompetent to vote on this question; being a Quaker his religious principles are opposed to capital punishment. [Much confusion, quieted by cries for "freedom of speech" on which Bancal proceeds with Paine's speech.]
Marat [interrupting]: I believe that Thomas Paine shouldn't be allowed to vote on this issue; as a Quaker, his religious beliefs are against capital punishment. [Much confusion, calmed by calls for "freedom of speech" as Bancal continues with Paine's speech.]
1 Not included in any previous edition of Paine's "Works." It is printed here from contemporary French reports, slightly adjusted only by Paine's own quotations of a few sentences in his Memorial to Monroe (xxi.).—Editor.
I have the advantage of some experience; it is near twenty years that I have been engaged in the cause of liberty, having contributed something to it in the revolution of the United States of America, My language has always been that of liberty and humanity, and I know that nothing so exalts a nation as the union of these two principles, under all circumstances. I know that the public mind of France, and particularly that of Paris, has been heated and irritated by the dangers to which they have been exposed; but could we carry our thoughts into the future, when the dangers are ended and the irritations forgotten, what to-day seems an act of justice may then appear an act of vengeance. [Murmurs.] My anxiety for the cause of France has become for the moment concern for her honor. If, on my return to America, I should employ myself on a history of the French Revolution, I had rather record a thousand errors on the side of mercy, than be obliged to tell one act of severe justice. I voted against an appeal to the people, because it appeared to me that the Convention was needlessly wearied on that point; but I so voted in the hope that this Assembly would pronounce against death, and for the same punishment that the nation would have voted, at least in my opinion, that is for reclusion during the war, and banishment thereafter.(1) That is the punishment most efficacious, because it includes the whole family at once, and none other can so operate. I am still against the appeal to the primary assemblies, because there is a better method. This Convention has been elected to form a Constitution, which will be submitted to the primary assemblies. After its acceptance a necessary consequence will be an election and another assembly. We cannot suppose that the present Convention will last more than five or six months. The choice of new deputies will express the national opinion, on the propriety or impropriety of your sentence, with as much efficacy as if those primary assemblies had been consulted on it. As the duration of our functions here cannot be long, it is a part of our duty to consider the interests of those who shall replace us. If by any act of ours the number of the nation's enemies shall be needlessly increased, and that of its friends diminished,—at a time when the finances may be more strained than to-day,—we should not be justifiable for having thus unnecessarily heaped obstacles in the path of our successors. Let us therefore not be precipitate in our decisions.
I have the advantage of some experience; I have been involved in the cause of liberty for nearly twenty years, contributing to it during the American Revolution. My language has always emphasized liberty and humanity, and I believe that nothing uplifts a nation more than the union of these two principles, regardless of the circumstances. I understand that the public sentiment in France, especially in Paris, has been heated and provoked by the dangers they have faced; but if we could look to the future, when the dangers are gone and the irritations forgotten, what seems like an act of justice today might appear as an act of vengeance then. [Murmurs.] My concern for France’s cause has turned into a focus on her honor. If I were to return to America and write a history of the French Revolution, I would rather record a thousand mistakes on the side of mercy than have to document even one act of harsh justice. I voted against bringing the decision to the people because I thought the Convention was unnecessarily exhausted by that issue; but I did so hoping that this Assembly would reject the death penalty and opt for the same punishment the nation would likely prefer, which I believe is imprisonment during the war and banishment afterward. That punishment is the most effective because it impacts the entire family at once, and no other form can operate in the same way. I still oppose the appeal to the primary assemblies because there's a better approach. This Convention was elected to draft a Constitution, which will be presented to the primary assemblies. Once it's accepted, the next step will necessarily be elections and another assembly. We can’t assume that this Convention will last more than five or six months. Choosing new representatives will reflect the national sentiment about whether your sentence is appropriate or not, just as effectively as if those primary assemblies had voted on it. Since our time here will be limited, it is our duty to consider the interests of those who will follow us. If our actions unnecessarily increase the number of the nation's enemies while decreasing its friends—especially at a time when finances may be tighter than today—we would not be justified in creating such obstacles for our successors. So let’s not rush into our decisions.
1 It’s possible that the debate might have sparked some reaction among the people, but when Paine voted against putting the king's fate to a popular vote, both the king and his supporters thought it would be disastrous. The American Minister, Gouverneur Morris, who had been acting on behalf of the king, wrote to President Washington on January 6, 1793: "The king's fate will be decided next Monday, the 14th. That unfortunate man, while speaking with one of his Council about his fate, calmly summed up all the reasons, and concluded that the majority of the Council would vote to send his case to the people, which would mean he would be executed." In a letter to Washington on December 28, 1792, Morris noted that he had heard from Paine that Paine planned to propose the king's banishment to America, and he may have informed Paine that the king feared a public vote would be fatal. Genet was supposed to take the royal family to America.— Editor.
France has but one ally—the United States of America. That is the only nation that can furnish France with naval provisions, for the kingdoms of northern Europe are, or soon will be, at war with her. It unfortunately happens that the person now under discussion is considered by the Americans as having been the friend of their revolution. His execution will be an affliction to them, and it is in your power not to wound the feelings of your ally. Could I speak the French language I would descend to your bar, and in their name become your petitioner to respite the execution of the sentence on Louis.
France has only one ally—the United States. That’s the only country that can provide France with naval supplies, since the kingdoms of northern Europe are either at war with her or will be soon. Unfortunately, the person we’re talking about is seen by the Americans as a friend of their revolution. His execution will be a blow to them, and you have the power to spare their feelings. If I could speak French, I would come down to your bench and, on their behalf, ask you to delay the execution of the sentence on Louis.
Thuriot: This is not the language of Thomas Paine.
Thuriot: This isn’t the language of Thomas Paine.
Marat: I denounce the interpreter. I maintain that it is not Thomas Paine's opinion. It is an untrue translation.
Marat: I call out the interpreter. I stand by the fact that this is not Thomas Paine's opinion. It's a false translation.
Garran: I have read the original, and the translation is correct.(1)
Garran: I’ve read the original, and the translation is accurate.(1)
[Prolonged uproar. Paine, still standing in the tribune beside his interpreter, Deputy Bancal, declared the sentiments to be his.]
[Extended commotion. Paine, still standing in the speaker's platform next to his interpreter, Deputy Bancal, stated that the opinions expressed were his.]
Your Executive Committee will nominate an ambassador to Philadelphia; my sincere wish is that he may announce to America that the National Convention of France, out of pure friendship to America, has consented to respite Louis. That people, by my vote, ask you to delay the execution.
Your Executive Committee will appoint an ambassador to Philadelphia; I genuinely hope he can inform America that the National Convention of France, out of genuine friendship for America, has agreed to spare Louis. That people, by my vote, request you to postpone the execution.
Ah, citizens, give not the tyrant of England the triumph of seeing the man perish on the scaffold who had aided my much-loved America to break his chains!
Ah, citizens, don't give the tyrant of England the satisfaction of seeing the man who helped my beloved America break his chains perish on the gallows!
Marat ["launching himself into the middle of the hall"]: Paine voted against the punishment of death because he is a Quaker.
Marat ["launching himself into the middle of the hall"]: Paine voted against the death penalty because he's a Quaker.
Paine: I voted against it from both moral motives and motives of public policy.
Paine: I voted against it for both ethical reasons and public policy reasons.
1 See Guizot, "Hist, of France," vi., p. 136. "Hist. Parliamentair," vol. ii., p. 350. Louis Blanc states that Paine's appeal was so powerful that Marat mostly interrupted to undermine its impact.—"Hist, de la Rev.," tome vii, 396.—Editor.
XVI. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.(1)
The object of all union of men in society being maintenance of their natural rights, civil and political, these rights are the basis of the social pact: their recognition and their declaration ought to precede the Constitution which assures their guarantee.
The purpose of bringing people together in society is to protect their natural rights, both civil and political. These rights form the foundation of the social contract: recognizing and declaring them should come before the Constitution that guarantees them.
1. The natural rights of men, civil and political, are liberty, equality, security, property, social protection, and resistance to oppression.
1. The natural rights of individuals, both civil and political, are freedom, equality, safety, property, social support, and the right to stand up against oppression.
2. Liberty consists in the right to do whatever is not contrary to the rights of others: thus, exercise of the natural rights of each individual has no limits other than those which secure to other members of society enjoyment of the same rights.
2. Liberty means having the right to do anything that doesn’t infringe on the rights of others: therefore, a person’s natural rights can be exercised without limits, except those that ensure other members of society can enjoy the same rights.
1 In his appeal from prison to the Convention (August 7, 1794), Paine says that he had, as a member of the Committee for drafting the Constitution, put together a Plan, which was in the hands of Barhre, also part of that Committee. I haven't yet managed to find Paine's Constitution, but it's clear that the task of drafting the Constitution of 1793 was primarily given to Paine and Condorcet. Dr. John Moore, in his work on the French Revolution, describes the two as they worked; and it's claimed that he "helped draft the French Declaration of Rights," by "Juvencus," the author of a compelling "Essay on the Life and Genius of Thomas Paine," whose insights came from a close friend of Paine. ("Aphorisms, Opinions, and Reflections of Thomas Paine," etc., London, 1826. Pp. 3, 14.) A translation of the Declaration and Constitution was published in England (Debrett, Picadilly, 1793), but it had some errors. This translation comes from "Oeuvres Complhtes de Condorcet," volume xviii. The Committee reported their Constitution on February 15th, and April 15th was scheduled for its discussion. Robespierre then called for a separate discussion of the Declaration of Rights, objecting that it didn’t mention the Supreme Being and that its extreme principles of freedom could allow for illegal activities. Paine and Jefferson were concerned that the United States Constitution lacked a Declaration of Rights, as it was a fundamental principle in Paine's government theory that such a Declaration was the key protection for individuals against the tyranny of the majority. See supra, vol. ii.t pp. 138, 139.—Editor..
3. The preservation of liberty depends on submission to the Law, which is the expression of the general will. Nothing unforbidden by law can be hindered, and none may be forced to do what the law does not command.
3. The preservation of freedom relies on following the Law, which reflects the collective will. Nothing that isn't prohibited by law can be stopped, and no one can be compelled to do what the law doesn't require.
4. Every man is free to make known his thoughts and opinions.
4. Everyone is free to express their thoughts and opinions.
5. Freedom of the press, and every other means of publishing one's opinion, cannot be interdicted, suspended, or limited.
5. Freedom of the press and any other way of sharing one's opinion cannot be restricted, suspended, or limited.
6. Every citizen shall be free in the exercise of his religion (culte).
6. Every citizen shall be free to practice their religion.
7. Equality consists in the enjoyment by every one of the same rights.
7. Equality means that everyone enjoys the same rights.
8. The law should be equal for all, whether it rewards or punishes, protects or represses.
8. The law should apply equally to everyone, whether it rewards or punishes, protects or restricts.
9. All citizens are admissible to all public positions, employments, and functions. Free nations recognize no grounds of preference save talents and virtues.
9. All citizens are eligible for all public positions, jobs, and roles. Free nations recognize no reasons for preference other than skills and character.
10. Security consists in the protection accorded by society to every citizen for the preservation of his person, property, and rights.
10. Security means the protection that society provides to every citizen to safeguard their person, property, and rights.
11. None should be sued, accused, arrested, or detained, save in cases determined by the law, and in accordance with forms prescribed by it. Every other act against a citizen is arbitrary and null.
11. No one should be sued, accused, arrested, or detained except in cases determined by law and following the procedures it outlines. Any other action taken against a citizen is arbitrary and invalid.
12. Those who solicit, further, sign, execute, or cause to be executed, such arbitrary acts are culpable, and should be punished.
12. Those who ask for, promote, sign, carry out, or help carry out such random acts are at fault and should be punished.
13. Citizens against whom the execution of such acts is attempted have the right to repel force by force; but every citizen summoned or arrested by authority of the Law, and in the forms by it prescribed, should instantly obey: he renders himself guilty by resistance.
13. Citizens who are the target of such acts have the right to defend themselves with force; however, every citizen who is summoned or arrested by law enforcement must comply immediately and in the manner required by the law. Resistance makes them guilty.
14. Every man being presumed innocent until legally pronounced guilty, should his arrest be deemed indispensable, all rigor not necessary to secure his person should be severely represssed by law.
14. Every person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If their arrest is absolutely necessary, any harsh measures that aren't needed to ensure their custody should be strictly limited by law.
15. None should be punished save in virtue of a law formally enacted, promulgated anterior to the offence, and legally applied.
15. No one should be punished except under a law that has been formally passed, announced before the offense, and applied in accordance with the law.
16. Any law that should punish offences committed before its existence would be an arbitrary act. Retroactive effect given to the law is a crime.
16. Any law that aims to punish offenses that happened before it was created would be an unfair act. Making a law apply retroactively is a crime.
17. The law should award only penalties strictly and evidently necessary to the general safety. Penalties should be proportioned to offences, and useful to society.
17. The law should impose penalties that are only necessary for public safety. Penalties should match the seriousness of the offenses and be beneficial to society.
18. The right of property consists in every man's being master in the disposal, at his will, of his goods, capital, income, and industry.
18. The right to own property means that everyone has control over how they manage their belongings, money, income, and work.
19. No kind of labor, commerce, or culture, can be prohibited to any one: he may make, sell, and transport every species of production.
19. No one can be banned from any kind of work, trade, or cultural activity: they can create, sell, and transport any type of product.
20. Every man may engage his services and his time; but he cannot sell himself; his person is not an alienable property.
20. Every person can offer their services and time, but they can't sell themselves; their body is not a property that can be owned.
21. No one can be deprived of the least portion of his property without his consent, unless evidently required by public necessity, legally determined, and under the condition of a just indemnity in advance.
21. No one can be stripped of even a small part of their property without their consent, unless it's clearly needed for the public good, legally established, and with fair compensation provided beforehand.
22. No tax shall be imposed except for the general welfare, and to meet public needs. All citizens have the right to unite personally, or by their representatives, in the fixing of imposts.
22. No tax will be imposed except for the general welfare and to meet public needs. All citizens have the right to come together personally or through their representatives to determine taxes.
23. Instruction is the need of all, and society owes it to all its members equally.
23. Education is essential for everyone, and society is obligated to provide it to all its members fairly.
24. Public succours are a sacred debt of society; it is for the law to determine their extent and application.
24. Public aid is a sacred responsibility of society; it is up to the law to define how much is needed and how it should be applied.
25. The social guarantee of the rights of man rests on the national sovereignty.
25. The protection of human rights is based on national sovereignty.
26. This sovereignty is one, indivisible, imprescriptible, and inalienable.
26. This sovereignty is unified, indivisible, permanent, and non-transferable.
27. It resides essentially in the whole people, and every citizen has an equal right to unite in its exercise.
27. It fundamentally belongs to the entire population, and every citizen has an equal right to participate in its use.
28. No partial assemblage of citizens, and no individual, may attribute to themselves sovereignty, or exercise any authority, or discharge any public function, without formal delegation thereto by the law.
28. No group of citizens, and no individual, can claim sovereignty, exercise any authority, or perform any public function, without a formal delegation from the law.
29. The social guarantee cannot exist if the limits of public administration are not clearly determined by law, and if the responsibility of all public functionaries is not assured.
29. The social guarantee can't exist if the boundaries of public administration aren't clearly defined by law, and if the accountability of all public officials isn't ensured.
30. All citizens are bound to unite in this guarantee, and in enforcing the law when summoned in its name.
30. All citizens are required to come together to uphold this guarantee and enforce the law when called upon in its name.
31. Men united in society should have legal means of resisting oppression.
31. People united in society should have legal ways to stand up against oppression.
32. There is oppression when any law violates the natural rights, civil and political, which it should guarantee.
32. There is oppression when any law goes against the natural rights, civil and political, that it is supposed to protect.
There is oppression when the law is violated by public officials in its application to individual cases.
There is oppression when public officials break the law in how they handle individual cases.
There is oppression when arbitrary actions violate the rights of citizen against the express purpose (expression) of the law.
There is oppression when random actions go against the rights of citizens and contradict the clear intent of the law.
In a free government the mode of resisting these different acts of oppression should be regulated by the Constitution.
In a free government, the way to resist these various acts of oppression should be determined by the Constitution.
33. A people possesses always the right to reform and alter its Constitution. A generation has no right to subject a future generation to its laws; and all heredity in offices is absurd and tyrannical.
33. People always have the right to change and update their Constitution. One generation has no right to impose its laws on future generations, and the idea of inherited positions in government is unreasonable and oppressive.
XVII. PRIVATE LETTERS TO JEFFERSON.
Paris, 20 April, 1793.
Paris, April 20, 1793.
My dear Friend,—The gentleman (Dr. Romer) to whom I entrust this letter is an intimate acquaintance of Lavater; but I have not had the opportunity of seeing him, as he had set off for Havre prior to my writing this letter, which I forward to him under cover from one of his friends, who is also an acquaintance of mine.
My dear Friend,—The gentleman (Dr. Romer) who I’m sending this letter with is a close friend of Lavater; however, I haven’t had the chance to meet him since he left for Havre before I wrote this letter. I’m forwarding it to him with the help of one of his friends, who is also someone I know.
We are now in an extraordinary crisis, and it is not altogether without some considerable faults here. Dumouriez, partly from having no fixed principles of his own, and partly from the continual persecution of the Jacobins, who act without either prudence or morality, has gone off to the Enemy, and taken a considerable part of the Army with him. The expedition to Holland has totally failed, and all Brabant is again in the hands of the Austrians.
We are currently facing an extraordinary crisis, and it definitely has some significant shortcomings. Dumouriez, partly due to having no solid principles of his own and partly because of the constant harassment from the Jacobins, who operate without any sense of caution or ethics, has defected to the Enemy and taken a large portion of the Army with him. The mission to Holland has completely failed, and all of Brabant is once again under Austrian control.
You may suppose the consternation which such a sudden reverse of fortune has occasioned, but it has been without commotion. Dumouriez threatened to be in Paris in three weeks. It is now three weeks ago; he is still on the frontier near to Mons with the Enemy, who do not make any progress. Dumouriez has proposed to re-establish the former Constitution in which plan the Austrians act with him. But if France and the National Convention act prudently this project will not succeed. In the first place there is a popular disposition against it, and there is force sufficient to prevent it. In the next place, a great deal is to be taken into the calculation with respect to the Enemy. There are now so many persons accidentally jumbled together as to render it exceedingly difficult to them to agree upon any common object.
You can imagine the shock that such a sudden change in fortune has caused, but it has been calm overall. Dumouriez claimed he would be in Paris in three weeks. Three weeks have passed, and he is still at the frontier near Mons with the enemy, who aren’t making any progress. Dumouriez has proposed to restore the old Constitution, and the Austrians are backing him on this. However, if France and the National Convention are smart about it, this plan won’t work. First off, there’s a lot of public opposition to it, and there’s enough force to stop it. Secondly, there’s a lot to consider regarding the enemy. There are so many people mixed together right now that it's extremely difficult for them to agree on any common goal.
The first object, that of restoring the old Monarchy, is evidently given up by the proposal to re-establish the late Constitution. The object of England and Prussia was to preserve Holland, and the object of Austria was to recover Brabant; while those separate objects lasted, each party having one, the Confederation could hold together, each helping the other; but after this I see not how a common object is to be formed. To all this is to be added the probable disputes about opportunity, the expence, and the projects of reimbursements. The Enemy has once adventured into France, and they had the permission or the good fortune to get back again. On every military calculation it is a hazardous adventure, and armies are not much disposed to try a second time the ground upon which they have been defeated.
The first goal of restoring the old Monarchy is clearly abandoned with the proposal to bring back the recent Constitution. England and Prussia aimed to preserve Holland, while Austria's goal was to regain Brabant; as long as these separate objectives existed, with each party having its own, the Confederation could stay united, with each helping the other. However, after this, I don't see how a common goal can be established. Additionally, we must consider potential disputes over timing, costs, and repayment plans. The enemy once ventured into France, and they were either allowed or fortunate enough to return. By any military assessment, it’s a risky move, and armies are generally not eager to try again in the same territory where they’ve been defeated.
Had this revolution been conducted consistently with its principles, there was once a good prospect of extending liberty through the greatest part of Europe; but I now relinquish that hope. Should the Enemy by venturing into France put themselves again in a condition of being captured, the hope will revive; but this is a risk I do not wish to see tried, lest it should fail.
Had this revolution been carried out in line with its principles, there was once a real chance of spreading freedom across much of Europe; but I've given up on that hope now. If the Enemy, by stepping into France, puts themselves in a position to be captured again, that hope might come back; but I don't want to see that risk taken, in case it fails.
As the prospect of a general freedom is now much shortened, I begin to contemplate returning home. I shall await the event of the proposed Constitution, and then take my final leave of Europe. I have not written to the President, as I have nothing to communicate more than in this letter. Please to present him my affection and compliments, and remember me among the circle of my friends.
As the chance for general freedom is now greatly reduced, I'm starting to think about going home. I'll wait to see what happens with the proposed Constitution, and then I’ll say my final goodbyes to Europe. I haven't written to the President because I don't have anything to share beyond what's in this letter. Please give him my love and respects, and keep me in mind with my friends.
Your sincere and affectionate friend,
Your genuine and caring friend,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
P. S. I just now received a letter from General Lewis Morris, who tells me that the house and Barn on my farm at New Rochelle are burnt down. I assure you I shall not bring money enough to build another.
P. S. I just got a letter from General Lewis Morris, who says that the house and barn on my farm in New Rochelle have burned down. I promise you I won't have enough money to build another one.
Paris, 20 Oct., 1793.
Paris, Oct 20, 1793.
I wrote you by Captain Dominick who was to sail from Havre about the 20th of this month. This will probably be brought you by Mr. Barlow or Col. Oswald. Since my letter by Dominick I am every day more convinced and impressed with the propriety of Congress sending Commissioners to Europe to confer with the Ministers of the Jesuitical Powers on the means of terminating the War. The enclosed printed paper will shew there are a variety of subjects to be taken into consideration which did not appear at first, all of which have some tendency to put an end to the War. I see not how this War is to terminate if some intermediate power does not step forward. There is now no prospect that France can carry revolutions into Europe on the one hand, or that the combined powers can conquer France on the other hand. It is a sort of defensive War on both sides. This being the case, how is the War to close? Neither side will ask for peace though each may wish it. I believe that England and Holland are tired of the War. Their Commerce and Manufactures have suffered most exceedingly,—besides this, it is for them a War without an object. Russia keeps herself at a distance.
I wrote to you through Captain Dominick, who was supposed to sail from Havre around the 20th of this month. This will probably be delivered to you by Mr. Barlow or Colonel Oswald. Since my letter sent with Dominick, I’m increasingly convinced that it’s important for Congress to send Commissioners to Europe to discuss with the Ministers of the Jesuitical Powers how to end the War. The enclosed printed document will show that there are various issues to consider that didn’t seem apparent at first, all of which tend to support ending the War. I don’t see how this War will end unless some neutral power steps in. Right now, there’s no chance that France can spread revolutions into Europe, and the combined forces can’t conquer France either. It’s become a defensive War for both sides. Given this situation, how will the War come to an end? Neither side is likely to ask for peace, even though they may want it. I believe England and Holland are weary of the War. Their trade and manufacturing have suffered significantly—and besides, for them, this is a War without a clear purpose. Russia is keeping its distance.
I cannot help repeating my wish that Congress would send Commissioners, and I wish also that yourself would venture once more across the ocean, as one of them. If the Commissioners rendezvous at Holland they would know what steps to take. They could call Mr. Pinckney [Gen. Thomas Pinckney, American Minister in England] to their councils, and it would be of use, on many accounts, that one of them should come over from Holland to France. Perhaps a long truce, were it proposed by the neutral powers, would have all the effects of a Peace, without the difficulties attending the adjustment of all the forms of Peace.
I can't help but repeat my wish that Congress would send Commissioners, and I also hope you would consider making the trip across the ocean again as one of them. If the Commissioners meet in Holland, they would know what steps to take. They could invite Mr. Pinckney [Gen. Thomas Pinckney, American Minister in England] to join their discussions, and it would be beneficial for one of them to travel from Holland to France. Perhaps a long truce, if suggested by the neutral powers, could achieve all the benefits of a Peace without the complications involved in formalizing a Peace agreement.
Yours affectionately,
Yours truly,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
XVIII. LETTER TO DANTON.(1)
Paris, May 6, 2nd year of the Republic [1793.]
Citoyen Danton: As you read English, I write this letter to you without passing it through the hands of a translator. I am exceedingly disturbed at the distractions, jealousies, discontents and uneasiness that reign among us, and which, if they continue, will bring ruin and disgrace on the Republic. When I left America in the year 1787, it was my intention to return the year following, but the French Revolution, and the prospect it afforded of extending the principles of liberty and fraternity through the greater part of Europe, have induced me to prolong my stay upwards of six years. I now despair of seeing the great object of European liberty accomplished, and my despair arises not from the combined foreign powers, not from the intrigues of aristocracy and priestcraft, but from the tumultuous misconduct with which the internal affairs of the present revolution are conducted.
Citizen Danton: Since you read English, I'm writing this letter to you directly without going through a translator. I'm really troubled by the distractions, jealousies, discontent, and unease that are present among us, which, if they keep up, will lead to ruin and disgrace for the Republic. When I left America in 1787, I planned to return the following year, but the French Revolution and the chance it offered to spread the principles of liberty and fraternity across much of Europe have led me to extend my stay for more than six years. I now fear I won't see the great goal of European liberty achieved, and my fear comes not from the combined foreign powers, not from the schemes of the aristocracy and the church, but from the chaotic mismanagement of our internal affairs during this revolution.
All that now can be hoped for is limited to France only, and I agree with your motion of not interfering in the government of any foreign country, nor permitting any foreign country to interfere in the government of France. This decree was necessary as a preliminary toward terminating the war. But while these internal contentions continue, while the hope remains to the enemy of seeing the Republic fall to pieces, while not only the representatives of the departments but representation itself is publicly insulted, as it has lately been and now is by the people of Paris, or at least by the tribunes, the enemy will be encouraged to hang about the frontiers and await the issue of circumstances.
All we can hope for now is limited to France, and I agree with your suggestion not to interfere in the governance of any foreign country, nor to allow any foreign country to interfere in the governance of France. This decree was essential as a first step toward ending the war. However, as long as these internal conflicts continue, as long as the enemy hopes to see the Republic crumble, and as long as not only the representatives of the regions but representation itself is publicly disrespected, as it has been recently, particularly by the people of Paris or at least by the tribunes, the enemy will be encouraged to linger near the borders and wait for the outcome of events.
1 This remarkable letter was uncovered by the late M. Taine and was first published in full by Taine's translator, John Durand ("New Materials for the History of the American Revolution," 1889). The letter to Marat that Paine mentioned has not been found. Danton followed Paine to prison and upon meeting him there said: "What you did for the happiness and freedom of your country, I tried to do for mine. I have been less fortunate, but not less innocent. They will send me to the guillotine; very well, my friend, I will go cheerfully." M. Taine in La Rivolution (vol. ii., pp. 382, 413, 414) references this letter from Paine and remarks: "Compared with the speeches and writings of the time, it has the most surprising impact with its practical common sense." —Editor.,
I observe that the confederated powers have not yet recognized Monsieur, or D'Artois, as regent, nor made any proclamation in favour of any of the Bourbons; but this negative conduct admits of two different conclusions. The one is that of abandoning the Bourbons and the war together; the other is that of changing the object of the war and substituting a partition scheme in the place of their first object, as they have done by Poland. If this should be their object, the internal contentions that now rage will favour that object far more than it favoured their former object. The danger every day increases of a rupture between Paris and the departments. The departments did not send their deputies to Paris to be insulted, and every insult shown to them is an insult to the departments that elected and sent them. I see but one effectual plan to prevent this rupture taking place, and that is to fix the residence of the Convention, and of the future assemblies, at a distance from Paris.
I notice that the allied powers haven’t recognized Monsieur or D'Artois as regent, nor have they made any announcement in favor of any of the Bourbons. This lack of action leads to two possible conclusions. One is that they are abandoning the Bourbons and the war entirely; the other is that they are changing the goal of the war and replacing their original aim with a plan for partition, just like they did with Poland. If that’s their goal, the internal conflicts that are currently raging will support that aim much more than they did the previous one. The risk of a breakdown between Paris and the regions is increasing every day. The regions didn't send their representatives to Paris to be disrespected, and any insult directed at them is an insult to the regions that elected and sent them. I see only one effective way to prevent this breakdown, which is to move the location of the Convention and future assemblies away from Paris.
I saw, during the American Revolution, the exceeding inconvenience that arose by having the government of Congress within the limits of any Municipal Jurisdiction. Congress first resided in Philadelphia, and after a residence of four years it found it necessary to leave it. It then adjourned to the State of Jersey. It afterwards removed to New York; it again removed from New York to Philadelphia, and after experiencing in every one of these places the great inconvenience of a government, it formed the project of building a Town, not within the limits of any municipal jurisdiction, for the future residence of Congress. In any one of the places where Congress resided, the municipal authority privately or openly opposed itself to the authority of Congress, and the people of each of these places expected more attention from Congress than their equal share with the other States amounted to. The same thing now takes place in France, but in a far greater excess.
I saw during the American Revolution just how inconvenient it was to have Congress operating within the boundaries of any local government. Congress initially met in Philadelphia, but after four years, it had to leave. It then moved to New Jersey, then to New York, and back to Philadelphia. In each of these locations, Congress faced significant challenges from local governments, which sometimes opposed Congress’s authority, whether openly or behind the scenes. The people in each area expected more from Congress than their fair share based on equal representation with other states. The same issues are happening now in France, but to an even greater degree.
I see also another embarrassing circumstance arising in Paris of which we have had full experience in America. I mean that of fixing the price of provisions. But if this measure is to be attempted it ought to be done by the Municipality. The Convention has nothing to do with regulations of this kind; neither can they be carried into practice. The people of Paris may say they will not give more than a certain price for provisions, but as they cannot compel the country people to bring provisions to market the consequence will be directly contrary to their expectations, and they will find dearness and famine instead of plenty and cheapness. They may force the price down upon the stock in hand, but after that the market will be empty.
I also see another awkward situation happening in Paris that we have already experienced in America. I'm talking about setting the price of food. If this plan is going to be put into action, it should be done by the local government. The Convention should not be involved in regulations like this; they simply can't put them into effect. The people of Paris may claim they won't pay more than a certain price for food, but since they can't force the farmers to bring their produce to market, the result will be the opposite of what they hope for. They will end up facing high prices and starvation instead of abundance and low costs. They might manage to push the price down on existing stock, but after that, the market will be bare.
I will give you an example. In Philadelphia we undertook, among other regulations of this kind, to regulate the price of Salt; the consequence was that no Salt was brought to market, and the price rose to thirty-six shillings sterling per Bushel. The price before the war was only one shilling and sixpence per Bushel; and we regulated the price of flour (farina) till there was none in the market, and the people were glad to procure it at any price.
I’ll give you an example. In Philadelphia, we decided to set regulations like this, including controlling the price of salt. As a result, no salt was brought to market, and the price skyrocketed to thirty-six shillings sterling per bushel. Before the war, the price was only one shilling and sixpence per bushel. We also tried to regulate the price of flour (farina), which led to it completely disappearing from the market, and people were willing to pay any price just to get it.
There is also a circumstance to be taken into the account which is not much attended to. The assignats are not of the same value they were a year ago, and as the quantity increases the value of them will diminish. This gives the appearance of things being dear when they are not so in fact, for in the same proportion that any kind of money falls in value articles rise in price. If it were not for this the quantity of assignats would be too great to be circulated. Paper money in America fell so much in value from this excessive quantity of it, that in the year 1781 I gave three hundred paper dollars for one pair of worsted stockings. What I write you upon this subject is experience, and not merely opinion. I have no personal interest in any of these matters, nor in any party disputes. I attend only to general principles.
There’s also a situation that doesn't get much attention. The assignats aren't worth what they were a year ago, and as the supply increases, their value will decrease. This makes it seem like things are expensive when they're not, because as any kind of money loses value, prices for items go up. If it weren't for this, the amount of assignats would be too high to circulate. In America, paper money dropped so much in value because of its excess that in 1781, I traded three hundred paper dollars for a single pair of wool stockings. What I'm sharing about this is based on experience, not just opinion. I don’t have any personal stake in these issues or any party conflicts. I'm focused only on general principles.
As soon as a constitution shall be established I shall return to America; and be the future prosperity of France ever so great, I shall enjoy no other part of it than the happiness of knowing it. In the mean time I am distressed to see matters so badly conducted, and so little attention paid to moral principles. It is these things that injure the character of the Revolution and discourage the progress of liberty all over the world. When I began this letter I did not intend making it so lengthy, but since I have gone thus far I will fill up the remainder of the sheet with such matters as occur to me.
As soon as a constitution is established, I will return to America; and no matter how great France’s future prosperity may be, I will only enjoy the happiness of knowing it. In the meantime, I’m really upset to see things being handled so poorly, with so little attention given to moral principles. These issues harm the reputation of the Revolution and hinder the advancement of freedom worldwide. When I started this letter, I didn’t mean for it to be so long, but since I’ve gotten this far, I’ll fill the rest of the page with whatever comes to mind.
There ought to be some regulation with respect to the spirit of denunciation that now prevails. If every individual is to indulge his private malignancy or his private ambition, to denounce at random and without any kind of proof, all confidence will be undermined and all authority be destroyed. Calumny is a species of Treachery that ought to be punished as well as any other kind of Treachery. It is a private vice productive of public evils; because it is possible to irritate men into disaffection by continual calumny who never intended to be disaffected. It is therefore, equally as necessary to guard against the evils of unfounded or malignant suspicion as against the evils of blind confidence. It is equally as necessary to protect the characters of public officers from calumny as it is to punish them for treachery or misconduct. For my own part I shall hold it a matter of doubt, until better evidence arises than is known at present, whether Dumouriez has been a traitor from policy or resentment. There was certainly a time when he acted well, but it is not every man whose mind is strong enough to bear up against ingratitude, and I think he experienced a great deal of this before he revolted. Calumny becomes harmless and defeats itself, when it attempts to act upon too large a scale. Thus the denunciation of the Sections [of Paris] against the twenty-two deputies [Girondists] falls to the ground. The departments that elected them are better judges of their moral and political characters than those who have denounced them. This denunciation will injure Paris in the opinion of the departments because it has the appearance of dictating to them what sort of deputies they shall elect. Most of the acquaintances that I have in the Convention are among those who are in that list, and I know there are not better men nor better patriots than what they are.
There should be some rules regarding the current culture of accusation. If everyone is allowed to act on their personal grudges or ambitions, denouncing others randomly and without evidence, all trust will be shattered and all authority weakened. Slander is a form of betrayal that should be punished just like any other form of treachery. It's a personal failing that causes public harm; because it can provoke people into distrust who never intended to feel that way. Thus, it's just as important to protect against the dangers of unfounded or malicious suspicion as it is to guard against the dangers of blind trust. It's equally crucial to defend the reputations of public officials from slander as it is to hold them accountable for betrayal or misconduct. Personally, I remain uncertain, until more evidence comes to light, about whether Dumouriez betrayed out of strategy or anger. He certainly had a time when he acted honorably, but not everyone is strong enough to withstand ingratitude, and I believe he faced a lot of it before he rebelled. Slander becomes ineffective and backfires when it tries to make accusations on too large a scale. Therefore, the accusations from the Sections of Paris against the twenty-two deputies (Girondists) fall flat. The departments that elected them are in a better position to judge their moral and political integrity than those who have accused them. This accusation will damage Paris's reputation in the eyes of the departments because it seems like it's trying to dictate what kind of representatives they should choose. Most of the people I know in the Convention are on that list, and I can assure you there are no better individuals or patriots than them.
I have written a letter to Marat of the same date as this but not on the same subject. He may show it to you if he chuse.
I have written a letter to Marat on the same date as this one, but it's about a different topic. He can show it to you if he wants.
Votre Ami,
Your friend,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
Citoyen Danton.
Citizen Danton.
XIX. A CITIZEN OF AMERICA TO THE CITIZENS OF EUROPE (1)
18th Year of Independence.
18th Year of Freedom.
1 State Archives, Paris: États Unis, vol. 38, fol. 90. This pamphlet is in English, with no indication of who wrote it or where it was published. It comes with a French translation (manuscript) noted as "By Thomas Paine." In the printed pamphlet, the date (18th Year, etc.) is preceded by the printed French words: "Philadelphie 28 Juillet 1793." It was likely the pamphlet sent by Paine to Monroe, along with various documents about his imprisonment, describing it as "a letter that I had printed here as an American letter, some copies of which I sent to Mr. Jefferson." A significant part of the pamphlet includes, with some changes in wording, a manuscript (États Unis, vol. 37, Do. 39) labeled: "January 1793. Thomas Paine. Copy. Observations on the situation of the Powers united against France." It starts with this paragraph: "It's always useful to know the position and intentions of one's enemies. It's much easier to do so by combining and comparing events and analyzing the consequences that arise from them than by forming one's judgment based on letters found or intercepted. These letters could be fake, meant to mislead, but events or circumstances have a character that is unique to them. If we misinterpret the designs of our enemy during our political efforts, we end up doing exactly what he wants us to do, and it inadvertently leads us to assist him." The incorrect date on this manuscript is evident from a reference to the defeat of the Duke of York at Dunkirk in the closing paragraph: "Right now, there are three distinct political groups in England: the government party, the revolutionary party, and a middle party—which opposes the war only because of the costs it incurs and the damage it does to commerce and industries. I'm talking about the people, not Parliament. The latter is split into two factions: the Ministerial, and the Anti-ministerial. The revolutionary party, the middle party, and the anti-ministerial party will all cheer, either publicly or privately, at the Duke of York's defeat at Dunkirk." The two paragraphs quoted are the only actual additions to the pamphlet. I have a clipping from the London Morning Chronicle dated Friday, April 25, 1794, which contains the section of the pamphlet titled "Of the Present State of Europe and the Confederacy," signed "Thomas Paine, Author of Common Sense, etc." On February 1, 1793, after declaring war, the Convention appointed Paine, Brissot, Condorcet, and Faber to draft a message to the English people. This was never completed, but these fragments may be notes Paine wrote related to that task. The pamphlet likely came out in late September 1793.—Editor.
Understanding that a proposal is intended to be made at the ensuing meeting of the Congress of the United States of America "to send commissioners to Europe to confer with the Ministers of all the Neutral Powers for the purpose of negotiating preliminaries of peace," I address this letter to you on that subject, and on the several matters connected therewith.
Understanding that a proposal is set to be made at the upcoming meeting of the United States Congress "to send commissioners to Europe to talk with the Ministers of all the Neutral Powers to negotiate the groundwork for peace," I am writing this letter to you about that topic and the various related issues.
In order to discuss this subject through all its circumstances, it will be necessary to take a review of the state of Europe, prior to the French revolution. It will from thence appear, that the powers leagued against France are fighting to attain an object, which, were it possible to be attained, would be injurious to themselves.
To discuss this topic in all its details, we need to look at the state of Europe before the French Revolution. From this, it will become clear that the countries united against France are fighting for a goal that, even if achieved, would actually harm them.
This is not an uncommon error in the history of wars and governments, of which the conduct of the English government in the war against America is a striking instance. She commenced that war for the avowed purpose of subjugating America; and after wasting upwards of one hundred millions sterling, and then abandoning the object, she discovered, in the course of three or four years, that the prosperity of England was increased, instead of being diminished, by the independence of America. In short, every circumstance is pregnant with some natural effect, upon which intentions and opinions have no influence; and the political error lies in misjudging what the effect will be. England misjudged it in the American war, and the reasons I shall now offer will shew, that she misjudges it in the present war. In discussing this subject, I leave out of the question everything respecting forms and systems of government; for as all the governments of Europe differ from each other, there is no reason that the government of France should not differ from the rest.
This isn't an unusual mistake in the history of wars and governments, and the actions of the English government during the war against America is a clear example. They started that war with the clear aim of dominating America; after spending over one hundred million pounds and then giving up on that goal, they realized, in just three or four years, that England’s prosperity actually increased, rather than decreased, with America’s independence. Basically, every situation comes with certain natural outcomes that are unaffected by intentions or opinions; the political mistake lies in misjudging what those outcomes will be. England made that mistake in the American war, and I will now explain why they are making it again in the current war. In discussing this issue, I will disregard everything about types and systems of government; since all governments in Europe are different, there’s no reason why the government of France should be any different from the others.
The clamours continually raised in all the countries of Europe were, that the family of the Bourbons was become too powerful; that the intrigues of the court of France endangered the peace of Europe. Austria saw with a jealous eye the connection of France with Prussia; and Prussia, in her turn became jealous of the connection of France with Austria; England had wasted millions unsuccessfully in attempting to prevent the family compact with Spain; Russia disliked the alliance between France and Turkey; and Turkey became apprehensive of the inclination of France towards an alliance with Russia. Sometimes the quadruple alliance alarmed some of the powers, and at other times a contrary system alarmed others, and in all those cases the charge was always made against the intrigues of the Bourbons.
The constant outcry in all the countries of Europe was that the Bourbon family had become too powerful; that the political maneuvers of the French court threatened the peace of Europe. Austria looked with envy at the alliance between France and Prussia, while Prussia in turn grew jealous of the alliance between France and Austria. England had spent millions in vain trying to stop the family compact with Spain. Russia disapproved of the alliance between France and Turkey, and Turkey grew concerned about France's interest in forming an alliance with Russia. Sometimes the quadruple alliance alarmed various powers, and at other times a different system caused worry for others, but in all these cases, the blame was always directed at the intrigues of the Bourbons.
Admitting those matters to be true, the only thing that could have quieted the apprehensions of all those powers with respect to the interference of France, would have been her entire NEUTRALITY in Europe; but this was impossible to be obtained, or if obtained was impossible to be secured, because the genius of her government was repugnant to all such restrictions.
Accepting those things as true, the only way to ease the concerns of all those powers regarding France's interference would have been for her to maintain complete NEUTRALITY in Europe. However, this was impossible to achieve, and even if it had been, it would have been impossible to maintain, because the nature of her government was opposed to any such limitations.
It now happens that by entirely changing the genius of her government, which France has done for herself, this neutrality, which neither wars could accomplish nor treaties secure, arises naturally of itself, and becomes the ground upon which the war should terminate. It is the thing that approaches the nearest of all others to what ought to be the political views of all the European powers; and there is nothing that can so effectually secure this neutrality, as that the genius of the French government should be different from the rest of Europe.
It turns out that by completely transforming her government, which France has managed to do for herself, this neutrality—something that neither wars could achieve nor treaties guarantee—emerges on its own and becomes the foundation for how the war should end. It’s the closest thing to what all the European powers should aim for politically; and nothing can ensure this neutrality more effectively than the French government being different from the rest of Europe.
But if their object is to restore the Bourbons and monarchy together, they will unavoidably restore with it all the evils of which they have complained; and the first question of discord will be, whose ally is that monarchy to be?
But if their goal is to bring back the Bourbons and the monarchy together, they will inevitably also bring back all the problems they've complained about; and the first point of conflict will be, which ally is that monarchy supposed to have?
Will England agree to the restoration of the family compact against which she has been fighting and scheming ever since it existed? Will Prussia agree to restore the alliance between France and Austria, or will Austria agree to restore the former connection between France and Prussia, formed on purpose to oppose herself; or will Spain or Russia, or any of the maritime powers, agree that France and her navy should be allied to England? In fine, will any of the powers agree to strengthen the hands of the other against itself? Yet all these cases involve themselves in the original question of the restoration of the Bourbons; and on the other hand, all of them disappear by the neutrality of France.
Will England agree to restore the family compact it's been fighting against since it was established? Will Prussia agree to bring back the alliance between France and Austria, or will Austria agree to revive the former connection with France and Prussia, which was created specifically to oppose her? Will Spain, Russia, or any of the maritime powers agree to allow France and its navy to ally with England? Ultimately, will any of these powers agree to strengthen one another against themselves? Yet all these scenarios tie back to the original question of restoring the Bourbons, and on the other hand, all of them become irrelevant with France's neutrality.
If their object is not to restore the Bourbons, it must be the impracticable project of a partition of the country. The Bourbons will then be out of the question, or, more properly speaking, they will be put in a worse condition; for as the preservation of the Bourbons made a part of the first object, the extirpation of them makes a part of the second. Their pretended friends will then become interested in their destruction, because it is favourable to the purpose of partition that none of the nominal claimants should be left in existence.
If their goal isn’t to bring back the Bourbons, then it must be the unrealistic plan to divide the country. The Bourbons will no longer be relevant, or more accurately, they will be in an even worse situation; because maintaining the Bourbons was part of the first goal, their elimination becomes part of the second. Their so-called friends will then become invested in their downfall, since it benefits the division plan that none of the supposed claimants remain alive.
But however the project of a partition may at first blind the eyes of the confederacy, or however each of them may hope to outwit the other in the progress or in the end, the embarrassments that will arise are insurmountable. But even were the object attainable, it would not be of such general advantage to the parties as the neutrality of France, which costs them nothing, and to obtain which they would formerly have gone to war.
But no matter how the idea of dividing things might initially dazzle the confederacy, or how each party might think they can outsmart the other over time, the challenges that will come up are impossible to overcome. Even if achieving the goal were possible, it wouldn't be as beneficial to everyone involved as having France remain neutral, which costs them nothing and is something they would have gone to war for in the past.
OF THE PRESENT STATE OF EUROPE, AND THE CONFEDERACY.
OF THE CURRENT STATE OF EUROPE AND THE CONFEDERATION.
In the first place the confederacy is not of that kind that forms itself originally by concert and consent. It has been forced together by chance—a heterogeneous mass, held only by the accident of the moment; and the instant that accident ceases to operate, the parties will retire to their former rivalships.
In the first place, the confederacy isn't the kind that comes together by agreement and consent. It's been thrown together by chance—a mixed group, held only by the situation at hand; and the moment that situation changes, the parties will go back to being rivals.
I will now, independently of the impracticability of a partition project, trace out some of the embarrassments which will arise among the confederated parties; for it is contrary to the interest of a majority of them that such a project should succeed.
I will now, regardless of how unfeasible a partition plan may be, outline some of the difficulties that will come up among the united parties. This is because it's against the interests of most of them for such a plan to succeed.
To understand this part of the subject it is necessary, in the first place, to cast an eye over the map of Europe, and observe the geographical situation of the several parts of the confederacy; for however strongly the passionate politics of the moment may operate, the politics that arise from geographical situation are the most certain, and will in all cases finally prevail.
To grasp this part of the topic, you first need to take a look at the map of Europe and see the geographical layout of the different parts of the confederacy. No matter how intense the current political debates may be, the politics that come from geographical positioning are the most reliable and will ultimately win out in every situation.
The world has been long amused with what is called the "balance of power." But it is not upon armies only that this balance depends. Armies have but a small circle of action. Their progress is slow and limited. But when we take maritime power into the calculation, the scale extends universally. It comprehends all the interests connected with commerce.
The world has long been entertained by what is known as the "balance of power." But this balance doesn’t rely solely on armies. Armies have a limited scope of action. Their movement is slow and restricted. However, when we factor in maritime power, the balance reaches far and wide. It encompasses all interests related to commerce.
The two great maritime powers are England and France. Destroy either of those, and the balance of naval power is destroyed. The whole world of commerce that passes on the Ocean would then lie at the mercy of the other, and the ports of any nation in Europe might be blocked up.
The two major maritime powers are England and France. If either of them were to be destroyed, the balance of naval power would be shattered. The entire world of trade that flows across the ocean would then be at the mercy of the other, and the ports of any nation in Europe could be shut down.
The geographical situation of those two maritime powers comes next under consideration. Each of them occupies one entire side of the channel from the straits of Dover and Calais to the opening into the Atlantic. The commerce of all the northern nations, from Holland to Russia, must pass the straits of Dover and Calais, and along the Channel, to arrive at the Atlantic.
The geographic position of those two maritime powers is next to be examined. Each of them occupies one whole side of the channel from the Dover and Calais straits to the entrance of the Atlantic. The trade of all the northern nations, from Holland to Russia, must navigate through the Dover and Calais straits and along the Channel to reach the Atlantic.
This being the case, the systematical politics of all the nations, northward of the straits of Dover and Calais, can be ascertained from their geographical situation; for it is necessary to the safety of their commerce that the two sides of the Channel, either in whole or in part, should not be in the possession either of England or France. While one nation possesses the whole of one side, and the other nation the other side, the northern nations cannot help seeing that in any situation of things their commerce will always find protection on one side or the other. It may sometimes be that of England and sometimes that of France.
Given this situation, the political strategies of all the countries north of the Strait of Dover and Calais can be understood from their geographical position. It's crucial for their trade that neither England nor France fully controls both sides of the Channel. When one country controls one side completely and the other country has the opposite side, the northern nations can see that their trade will always have protection from one side or the other. At times, it may be supported by England, and at other times by France.
Again, while the English navy continues in its present condition, it is necessary that another navy should exist to controul the universal sway the former would otherwise have over the commerce of all nations. France is the only nation in Europe where this balance can be placed. The navies of the North, were they sufficiently powerful, could not be sufficiently operative. They are blocked up by the ice six months in the year. Spain lies too remote; besides which, it is only for the sake of her American mines that she keeps up her navy.
Once again, as long as the English navy stays as it is, it's essential that another navy exists to counter the global dominance that the English navy would have over the trade of all nations. France is the only country in Europe that can provide this balance. The northern navies, even if they were strong enough, wouldn't be effective enough because they're frozen over for six months out of the year. Spain is too far away; moreover, she only maintains her navy for the sake of her American mines.
Applying these cases to the project of a partition of France, it will appear, that the project involves with it a DESTRUCTION OF THE BALANCE OF MARITIME POWER; because it is only by keeping France entire and indivisible that the balance can be kept up. This is a case that at first sight lies remote and almost hidden. But it interests all the maritime and commercial nations in Europe in as great a degree as any case that has ever come before them.—In short, it is with war as it is with law. In law, the first merits of the case become lost in the multitude of arguments; and in war they become lost in the variety of events. New objects arise that take the lead of all that went before, and everything assumes a new aspect. This was the case in the last great confederacy in what is called the succession war, and most probably will be the case in the present.
Applying these cases to the idea of dividing France, it becomes clear that this plan would lead to a COLLAPSE OF MARITIME POWER BALANCE; because only by keeping France whole and united can the balance be maintained. This may seem like a distant and obscure issue at first. However, it concerns all maritime and trading nations in Europe as much as any other issue they've faced. In short, war is like law. In law, the initial merits of a case get lost amid numerous arguments; in war, they fade away in the diversity of events. New priorities emerge that overshadow everything that came before, and the entire situation takes on a new perspective. This was true in the last major alliance during what is known as the succession war, and it will likely be true in the current situation.
I have now thrown together such thoughts as occurred to me on the several subjects connected with the confederacy against France, and interwoven with the interest of the neutral powers. Should a conference of the neutral powers take place, these observations will, at least, serve to generate others. The whole matter will then undergo a more extensive investigation than it is in my power to give; and the evils attending upon either of the projects, that of restoring the Bourbons, or of attempting a partition of France, will have the calm opportunity of being fully discussed.
I've put together some thoughts on various topics related to the coalition against France, along with the interests of neutral nations. If a conference of neutral countries happens, these insights will at least spark further discussion. The whole issue will then be examined more thoroughly than I can manage; the risks associated with either plan, whether restoring the Bourbons or trying to divide France, will have the chance to be openly debated.
On the part of England, it is very extraordinary that she should have engaged in a former confederacy, and a long expensive war, to prevent the family compact, and now engage in another confederacy to preserve it. And on the part of the other powers, it is as inconsistent that they should engage in a partition project, which, could it be executed, would immediately destroy the balance of maritime power in Europe, and would probably produce a second war, to remedy the political errors of the first.
It's quite remarkable that England would have previously entered into an alliance and a long, costly war to prevent the family compact, only to now join another alliance to preserve it. Similarly, it's just as inconsistent for the other powers to pursue a division plan that, if implemented, would immediately upset the balance of maritime power in Europe and likely lead to a second war to fix the political mistakes of the first.
A Citizen of the United States of America.
A citizen of the United States.
XX. APPEAL TO THE CONVENTION.(1)
Citizens Representatives: If I should not express myself with the energy I used formerly to do, you will attribute it to the very dangerous illness I have suffered in the prison of the Luxembourg. For several days I was insensible of my own existence; and though I am much recovered, it is with exceeding great difficulty that I find power to write you this letter.
Citizens Representatives: If I don’t express myself with the same energy I used to, you can blame it on the serious illness I suffered in the Luxembourg prison. For several days, I was unaware of my own existence; and even though I’ve recovered a lot, it’s still extremely difficult for me to find the strength to write you this letter.
1 Written in Luxembourg prison, August 7, 1794. After Robespierre fell on July 29th, almost everyone who had been imprisoned under his orders was released, but Paine was still held. There were three conspirators against him on the Committee of Public Safety, and unfortunately, this appeal was sent to that Committee; as a result, it never reached the Convention. The details are discussed in the introduction to the Memorial to Monroe (XXI.). It will also be shown that Paine was wrong in thinking that his imprisonment was due to Robespierre's hostility, a suspicion he had when his imprisonment continued for three months after Robespierre's death.—Editor..
But before I proceed further, I request the Convention to observe: that this is the first line that has come from me, either to the Convention or to any of the Committees, since my imprisonment,—which is approaching to eight months. —Ah, my friends, eight months' loss of liberty seems almost a life-time to a man who has been, as I have been, the unceasing defender of Liberty for twenty years.
But before I go any further, I ask the Convention to notice that this is the first statement I’ve made, either to the Convention or to any of the Committees, since I was imprisoned—it's been almost eight months. —Oh, my friends, losing my freedom for eight months feels like a lifetime to someone like me, who has been a relentless defender of Liberty for twenty years.
I have now to inform the Convention of the reason of my not having written before. It is a year ago that I had strong reason to believe that Robespierre was my inveterate enemy, as he was the enemy of every man of virtue and humanity. The address that was sent to the Convention some time about last August from Arras, the native town of Robespierre, I have always been informed was the work of that hypocrite and the partizans he had in the place. The intention of that address was to prepare the way for destroying me, by making the people declare (though without assigning any reason) that I had lost their confidence; the Address, however, failed of success, as it was immediately opposed by a counter-address from St. Omer, which declared the direct contrary. But the strange power that Robespierre, by the most consummate hypocrisy and the most hardened cruelties, had obtained, rendered any attempt on my part to obtain justice not only useless but dangerous; for it is the nature of Tyranny always to strike a deeper blow when any attempt has been made to repel a former one. This being my situation, I submitted with patience to the hardness of my fate and waited the event of brighter days. I hope they are now arrived to the nation and to me.
I need to let the Convention know why I haven't written sooner. A year ago, I had strong reasons to believe that Robespierre was my relentless enemy, just as he was the enemy of every person of integrity and compassion. The address sent to the Convention last August from Arras, Robespierre’s hometown, has always been said to be the work of that hypocrite and his supporters there. The purpose of that address was to set the stage for my destruction by having the people declare, without giving any reason, that they had lost confidence in me. Fortunately, that address didn’t succeed because it was immediately countered by a response from St. Omer, which stated the exact opposite. However, the strange power that Robespierre gained through extreme hypocrisy and brutal cruelty made any attempts on my part to seek justice not only futile but also risky; tyrants tend to retaliate even more harshly when you try to stand up to them. Given this situation, I patiently accepted my fate and waited for better days. I hope those days have finally come for both the nation and for me.
Citizens, when I left the United States in the year 1787 I promised to all my friends that I would return to them the next year; but the hope of seeing a revolution happily established in France, that might serve as a model to the rest of Europe,(1) and the earnest and disinterested desire of rendering every service in my power to promote it, induced me to defer my return to that country, and to the society of my friends, for more than seven years. This long sacrifice of private tranquillity, especially after having gone through the fatigues and dangers of the American Revolution which continued almost eight years, deserved a better fate than the long imprisonment I have silently suffered. But it is not the nation but a faction that has done me this injustice. Parties and Factions, various and numerous as they have been, I have always avoided. My heart was devoted to all France, and the object to which I applied myself was the Constitution. The Plan which I proposed to the Committee, of which I was a member, is now in the hands of Barhre, and it will speak for itself.
Citizens, when I left the United States in 1787, I promised all my friends that I would return the following year; however, the hope of seeing a successful revolution in France that could serve as a model for the rest of Europe, along with my genuine desire to help promote it, led me to put off my return to my country and the company of my friends for more than seven years. This long sacrifice of personal peace, especially after enduring the hardships and dangers of the American Revolution that lasted almost eight years, deserved a better outcome than the lengthy imprisonment I have silently endured. But this injustice was caused not by the nation, but by a faction. I have always steered clear of parties and factions, no matter how numerous they were. My heart was dedicated to all of France, and my focus was on the Constitution. The plan I proposed to the committee I was part of is now in the hands of Barhre, and it will speak for itself.
1 Revolutions now have such bloody associations that it's important to remember that when Paine talks about "revolution," he simply means a change or reform of government, which could and should be peaceful. See "Rights of Man" Part II., vol. ii. of this work, pp. 513, 523.—:Editor.
It is perhaps proper that I inform you of the cause as-assigned in the order for my imprisonment. It is that I am 'a Foreigner'; whereas, the Foreigner thus imprisoned was invited into France by a decree of the late National Assembly, and that in the hour of her greatest danger, when invaded by Austrians and Prussians. He was, moreover, a citizen of the United States of America, an ally of France, and not a subject of any country in Europe, and consequently not within the intentions of any decree concerning Foreigners. But any excuse can be made to serve the purpose of malignity when in power.
I should probably let you know the reason given for my imprisonment. It's because I'm labeled as 'a Foreigner'; however, the Foreigner who was imprisoned was actually invited to France by a decree from the former National Assembly during a time of great danger, when France was under attack by the Austrians and Prussians. He was also a citizen of the United States, an ally of France, and not a citizen of any European country, which means he shouldn’t have been affected by any decrees regarding Foreigners. But when someone is in power, any excuse can be used to justify their cruelty.
I will not intrude on your time by offering any apology for the broken and imperfect manner in which I have expressed myself. I request you to accept it with the sincerity with which it comes from my heart; and I conclude with wishing Fraternity and prosperity to France, and union and happiness to her representatives.
I won’t waste your time apologizing for how clumsy and imperfect my words are. I ask you to accept them with the sincerity they come from in my heart; and I’ll finish by wishing Fraternity and prosperity to France, and unity and happiness to its representatives.
Citizens, I have now stated to you my situation, and I can have no doubt but your justice will restore me to the Liberty of which I have been deprived.
Citizens, I've now shared my situation with you, and I have no doubt that your sense of justice will restore me to the freedom that I have been denied.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine
Luxembourg, Thermidor 19, 2nd Year of the French Republic, one and indivisible.
Luxembourg, July 19, Year 2 of the French Republic, one and indivisible.
XXI. THE MEMORIAL TO MONROE.
EDITOR'S historical introduction:
The Memorial is here printed from the manuscript of Paine now among the Morrison Papers, in the British Museum,—no doubt the identical document penned in Luxembourg prison. The paper in the United States State Department (vol. vii., Monroe Papers) is accompanied by a note by Monroe: "Mr. Paine, Luxembourg, on my arrival in France, 1794. My answer was after the receipt of his second letter. It is thought necessary to print only those parts of his that relate directly to his confinement, and to omit all between the parentheses in each." The paper thus inscribed seems to have been a wrapper for all of Paine's letters. An examination of the MS. at Washington does not show any such "parentheses," indicating omissions, whereas that in the British Museum has such marks, and has evidently been prepared for the press,—being indeed accompanied by the long title of the French pamphlet. There are other indications that the British Museum MS. is the original Memorial from which was printed in Paris the pamphlet entitled:
The Memorial is printed here from the manuscript of Paine currently in the Morrison Papers at the British Museum, likely the exact document written in Luxembourg prison. The paper in the United States State Department (vol. vii., Monroe Papers) includes a note from Monroe: "Mr. Paine, Luxembourg, on my arrival in France, 1794. My response came after I received his second letter. It’s deemed necessary to print only the parts that directly relate to his confinement and to exclude everything in parentheses." The paper appears to have been a cover for all of Paine's letters. An examination of the manuscript in Washington doesn’t show any such "parentheses" indicating omissions, while the one in the British Museum does have those marks and seems to have been prepared for publication—accompanied by the long title of the French pamphlet. There are additional signs that the British Museum manuscript is the original Memorial from which the pamphlet titled was printed in Paris:
"Mimoire de Thomas Payne, autographe et signi de sa main: addressi ` M. Monroe, ministre des Itats-unis en france, pour riclamer sa mise en liberti comme citoyen Amiricain, 10 Sept 1794. Robespierre avait fait arrjter Th. Payne, en 1793—il fut conduit au Luxembourg oy le glaive fut longtemps suspendu sur sa tjte. Aprhs onze mois de captiviti, il recouvra la liberti, sur la riclamation du ministre Amiricain—c'itait aprhs la chute de Robespierre—il reprit sa place ` la convention, le 8 dicembre 1794. (18 frimaire an iii.) Ce Mimoire contient des renseigne mens curieux sur la conduite politique de Th. Payne en france, pendant la Rivolution, et ` l'ipoque du prochs de Louis XVI. Ce n'est point, dit il, comme Quaker, qu'il ne vota pas La Mort du Roi mais par un sentiment d'humaniti, qui ne tenait point ` ses principes religieux. Villenave."
"Mémoires de Thomas Paine, autographes et signés de sa main : adressés à M. Monroe, ministre des États-Unis en France, pour réclamer sa libération en tant que citoyen américain, 10 septembre 1794. Robespierre avait fait arrêter T. Paine en 1793—il fut conduit au Luxembourg où le glaive fut longtemps suspendu au-dessus de sa tête. Après onze mois de captivité, il recouvra la liberté, sur la réclamation du ministre américain—c'était après la chute de Robespierre—et il reprit sa place à la Convention, le 8 décembre 1794. (18 frimaire an III.) Ce Mémoires contient des renseignements intéressants sur la conduite politique de T. Paine en France, pendant la Révolution, et à l'époque des proches de Louis XVI. Ce n'est pas, dit-il, comme Quaker, qu'il n'a pas voté pour La Mort du Roi, mais par un sentiment d'humanité, qui ne tenait pas à ses principes religieux. Villenave."
No date is given, but the pamphlet probably appeared early in 1795. Matthieu Gillaume Thirhse Villenave (b. 1762, d. 1846) was a journalist, and it will be noticed that he, or the translator, modifies Paine's answer to Marat about his Quakerism. There are some loose translations in the cheap French pamphlet, but it is the only publication which has given Paine's Memorial with any fulness. Nearly ten pages of the manuscript were omitted from the Memorial when it appeared as an Appendix to the pamphlet entitled "Letter to George Washington, President of the United States of America, on Affairs public and private." By Thomas Paine, Author of the Works entitled, Common Sense, Rights of Man, Age of Reason, &c. Philadelphia: Printed by Benj. Franklin Bache, No. 112 Market Street. 1796. [Entered according to law.] This much-abridged copy of the Memorial has been followed in all subsequent editions, so that the real document has not hitherto appeared.(1)
No date is provided, but the pamphlet likely came out in early 1795. Matthieu Gillaume Thirhse Villenave (b. 1762, d. 1846) was a journalist, and you’ll notice that he, or the translator, changes Paine's response to Marat regarding his Quaker beliefs. There are some loose translations in the inexpensive French pamphlet, but it’s the only publication that includes Paine's Memorial in any detail. Almost ten pages of the manuscript were left out of the Memorial when it was released as an Appendix to the pamphlet titled "Letter to George Washington, President of the United States of America, on Affairs public and private." By Thomas Paine, Author of the Works entitled, Common Sense, Rights of Man, Age of Reason, etc. Philadelphia: Printed by Benj. Franklin Bache, No. 112 Market Street. 1796. [Entered according to law.] This heavily shortened version of the Memorial has been used in all later editions, meaning the original document has not been published until now.(1)
In appending the Memorial to his "Letter to Washington," Paine would naturally omit passages rendered unimportant by his release, but his friend Bache may have suppressed others that might have embarrassed American partisans of France, such as the scene at the king's trial.
In adding the Memorial to his "Letter to Washington," Paine would likely leave out parts that became irrelevant due to his release, but his friend Bache might have held back other sections that could have caused discomfort for American supporters of France, like the events during the king's trial.
1 Bache's pamphlet features the portrait engraved by Villenave, noted with: "Painted by Ped [Peale] in Philadelphia, Designed by F. Bonneville, Engraved by Sandoz." In Bache, it says: "Bolt sc. 1793 "; and below this is the intriguing inscription: "Thomas Paine. Secretary of America’s Congress 1780. Member of the French National Convention 1793." The portrait is a variation of the one now at Independence Hall and is one of two painted by C. W. Peale. The other (where the chin is resting on the hand) was rejected by the Boston Museum for religious reasons when it acquired the "American Heroes" collection from Rembrandt Peale. It was purchased by John McDonough, whose brother later sold it to Mr. Joseph Jefferson, the famous actor, and was destroyed when his house burned down at Buzzard's Bay. Mr. Jefferson tells me that he intended to give the portrait to the Paine Memorial Society in Boston; "but the cruel fire destroyed the splendid Infidel, so I assume the saints are satisfied."
This description, however, and a large proportion of the suppressed pages, are historically among the most interesting parts of the Memorial, and their restoration renders it necessary to transfer the document from its place as an appendix to that of a preliminary to the "Letter to Washington."
This description, however, and a significant portion of the omitted pages, are historically some of the most intriguing parts of the Memorial, and restoring them means we need to move the document from being an appendix to serving as a prelude to the "Letter to Washington."
Paine's Letter to Washington burdens his reputation today more, probably, than any other production of his pen. The traditional judgment was formed in the absence of many materials necessary for a just verdict. The editor feels under the necessity of introducing at this point an historical episode; he cannot regard it as fair to the memory of either Paine or Washington that these two chapters should be printed without a full statement of the circumstances, the most important of which, but recently discovered, were unknown to either of those men. In the editor's "Life of Thomas Paine" (ii., pp. 77-180) newly discovered facts and documents bearing on the subject are given, which may be referred to by those who desire to investigate critically such statements as may here appear insufficiently supported. Considerations of space require that the history in that work should be only summarized here, especially as important new details must be added.
Paine's Letter to Washington probably weighs more on his reputation today than anything else he wrote. The traditional view was formed without many of the materials needed for a fair assessment. The editor feels compelled to introduce a historical episode at this point; it wouldn’t be fair to the legacies of either Paine or Washington for these two chapters to be published without a complete explanation of the circumstances, most of which—recently uncovered—were unknown to both men. In the editor's "Life of Thomas Paine" (ii., pp. 77-180), newly discovered facts and documents related to the topic are presented, which those interested in critically examining any statements here that may seem inadequately supported can refer to. Due to space considerations, this history can only be summarized here, especially since important new details need to be added.
Paine was imprisoned (December 28, 1793) through the hostility of Gouverneur Morris, the American Minister in Paris. The fact that the United States, after kindling revolution in France by its example, was then represented in that country by a Minister of vehement royalist opinions, and one who literally entered into the service of the King to defeat the Republic, has been shown by that Minister's own biographers. Some light is cast on the events that led to this strange situation by a letter written to M. de Mont-morin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, by a French Chargi d'Affaires, Louis Otto, dated Philadelphia, 10 March, 1792. Otto, a nobleman who married into the Livingston family, was an astute diplomatist, and enjoyed the intimacy of the Secretary of State, Jefferson, and of his friends. At the close of a long interview Jefferson tells him that "The secresy with which the Senate covers its deliberations serves to veil personal interest, which reigns therein in all its strength." Otto explains this as referring to the speculative operations of Senators, and to the commercial connections some of them have with England, making them unfriendly to French interests.
Paine was imprisoned (December 28, 1793) due to the hostility of Gouverneur Morris, the American Minister in Paris. The fact that the United States, after igniting a revolution in France by its example, was then represented in that country by a Minister with strong royalist views, who actively worked for the King to undermine the Republic, has been documented by that Minister's own biographers. A letter dated March 10, 1792, from Louis Otto, a French Chargé d'Affaires, to M. de Mont-morin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, sheds some light on the events that led to this unusual situation. Otto, a nobleman who married into the Livingston family, was a clever diplomat and had a close relationship with Secretary of State Jefferson and his associates. After a lengthy discussion, Jefferson told him that "The secrecy with which the Senate conceals its deliberations serves to hide personal interests that dominate there." Otto interpreted this as a reference to the speculative activities of Senators and the commercial ties some of them had with England, making them opposed to French interests.
"Among the latter the most remarkable is Mr. Robert Morris, of English birth, formerly Superintendent of Finance, a man of greatest talent, whose mercantile speculations are as unlimited as his ambition. He directs the Senate as he once did the American finances in making it keep step with his policy and his business.... About two years ago Mr. Robert Morris sent to France Mr. Gouverneur Morris to negotiate a loan in his name, and for different other personal matters.... During his sojourn in France, Mr. Rob. Morris thought he could make him more useful for his aims by inducing the President of the United States to entrust him with a negotiation with England relative to the Commerce of the two countries. M. Gouv. Morris acquitted himself in this as an adroit man, and with his customary zeal, but despite his address (insinuation) obtained only the vague hope of an advantageous commercial treaty on condition of an Alliance resembling that between France and the United States.... [Mr. Robert Morris] is himself English, and interested in all the large speculations founded in this country for Great Britain.... His great services as Superintendent of Finance during the Revolution have assured him the esteem and consideration of General Washington, who, however, is far from adopting his views about France. The warmth with which Mr. Rob. Morris opposed in the Senate the exemption of French armateurs from tonnage, demanded by His Majesty, undoubtedly had for its object to induce the king, by this bad behavior, to break the treaty, in order to facilitate hereafter the negotiations begun with England to form an alliance. As for Mr. Gouv. Morris he is entirely devoted to his correspondent, with whom he has been constantly connected in business and opinion. His great talents are recognized, and his extreme quickness in conceiving new schemes and gaining others to them. He is perhaps the most eloquent and ingenious man of his country, but his countrymen themselves distrust his talents. They admire but fear him." (1)
"Among the latter, the most notable is Mr. Robert Morris, who was born in England and was formerly the Superintendent of Finance. He is an incredibly talented man whose business ambitions are as boundless as his aspirations. He leads the Senate as he once led American finances, ensuring it aligns with his policies and ventures.... About two years ago, Mr. Robert Morris sent Mr. Gouverneur Morris to France to negotiate a loan in his name and for various personal matters.... While in France, Mr. Robert Morris believed he could make him more useful for his goals by persuading the President of the United States to give him a mandate for negotiations with England regarding trade between the two countries. Mr. Gouverneur Morris handled this task skillfully and with his usual enthusiasm, but despite his tact, he only obtained a vague promise of a favorable trade agreement, conditional on an Alliance similar to that between France and the United States.... [Mr. Robert Morris] is himself English and has a stake in all major ventures established in this country for Great Britain.... His considerable contributions as Superintendent of Finance during the Revolution have earned him the respect and regard of General Washington, who, however, does not share his views on France. The fervor with which Mr. Robert Morris opposed in the Senate the exemption of French armateurs from tonnage taxes, requested by His Majesty, clearly aimed to provoke the king into breaking the treaty, thereby easing future negotiations with England for an alliance. As for Mr. Gouverneur Morris, he is wholly committed to his associate, with whom he has consistently shared business and opinions. His great talents are acknowledged, alongside his remarkable ability to conceive new ideas quickly and recruit others to them. He might be the most eloquent and inventive man from his country, but even his fellow citizens are wary of his abilities. They admire him but also fear him." (1)
1 Archives of the State Department, Paris, United States, vol. 35, fol. 301.
The Commission given to Gouverneur Morris by Washington, to which Otto refers, was in his own handwriting, dated October 13, 1789, and authorized him "in the capacity of private agent, and in the credit of this letter, to converse with His Britannic Majesty's ministers on these points, viz. whether there be any, and what objection to performing those articles of the treaty which remained to be performed on his part; and whether they incline to a treaty of commerce on any and what terms. This communication ought regularly to be made to you by the Secretary of State; but, that office not being at present filled, my desire of avoiding delays induces me to make it under my own hand."(1)
The Commission that Washington gave to Gouverneur Morris, which Otto mentions, was written by Washington himself, dated October 13, 1789, and it authorized him "as a private agent, and based on this letter, to discuss with His Britannic Majesty's ministers whether there are any objections to fulfilling those parts of the treaty that are still outstanding on his side; and whether they are interested in a trade agreement on any terms. This communication should typically come from the Secretary of State; however, since that position is currently vacant, I am taking the initiative to send it myself to avoid any delays."(1)
The President could hardly have assumed the authority of secretly appointing a virtual ambassador had there not been a tremendous object in view: this, as he explains in an accompanying letter, was to secure the evacuation by Great Britain of the frontier posts. This all-absorbing purpose of Washington is the key to his administration. Gouverneur Morris paved the way for Jay's treaty, and he was paid for it with the French mission. The Senate would not have tolerated his appointment to England, and only by a majority of four could the President secure his confirmation as Minister to France (January 12, 1792). The President wrote Gouverneur Morris (January 28th) a friendly lecture about the objections made to him, chiefly that he favored the aristocracy and was unfriendly to the revolution, and expressed "the fullest confidence" that, supposing the allegations founded, he would "effect a change." But Gouverneur Morris remained the agent of Senator Robert Morris, and still held Washington's mission to England, and he knew only as "conspirators" the rulers who succeeded Louis XVI. Even while utilizing them, he was an agent of Great Britain in its war against the country to which he was officially commissioned.
The President could barely have taken on the authority to secretly appoint a virtual ambassador without a significant goal in mind: as he mentions in a letter, this was to ensure Great Britain evacuates its frontier posts. This all-encompassing aim of Washington is the key to his administration. Gouverneur Morris set the stage for Jay's treaty, and he was compensated with the French mission. The Senate wouldn’t have accepted his appointment to England, and the President managed to secure his confirmation as Minister to France by just a four-vote majority (January 12, 1792). On January 28th, the President sent Gouverneur Morris a friendly lecture addressing the objections raised against him, mainly that he favored the aristocracy and was unsupportive of the revolution, and expressed "the fullest confidence" that, assuming the claims were true, he would "bring about a change." However, Gouverneur Morris continued to act as an agent for Senator Robert Morris, and still held Washington's mission to England, seeing the leaders who replaced Louis XVI only as "conspirators." Even while working with them, he was an agent of Great Britain in its war against the nation to which he was officially assigned.
1 Ford's "Writings of George Washington" vol. xi., p. 440.
Lafayette wrote to Washington ("Paris, March 15,1792") the following appeal:
Lafayette wrote to Washington ("Paris, March 15, 1792") the following appeal:
"Permit me, my dear General, to make an observation for yourself alone, on the recent selection of an American ambassador. Personally I am a friend of Gouverneur Morris, and have always been, in private, quite content with him; but the aristocratic and really contra-revolutionary principles which he has avowed render him little fit to represent the only government resembling ours.... I cannot repress the desire that American and French principles should be in the heart and on the lips of the ambassador of the United States in France." (1)
"Allow me, dear General, to share a thought meant just for you about the recent appointment of an American ambassador. Personally, I am a friend of Gouverneur Morris and have always felt comfortable with him in private; however, the aristocratic and truly counter-revolutionary ideas he has expressed make him unsuitable to represent the only government that resembles ours.... I can't help but wish that American and French principles should be at the heart and on the mouth of the ambassador of the United States in France." (1)
In addition to this; two successive Ministers from France, after the fall of the Monarchy, conveyed to the American Government the most earnest remonstrances against the continuance of Gouverneur Morris in their country, one of them reciting the particular offences of which he was guilty. The President's disregard of all these protests and entreaties, unexampled perhaps in history, had the effect of giving Gouverneur Morris enormous power over the country against which he was intriguing. He was recognized as the Irremovable. He represented Washington's fixed and unalterable determination, and this at a moment when the main purpose of the revolutionary leaders was to preserve the alliance with America. Robespierre at that time ( 1793) had special charge of diplomatic affairs, and it is shown by the French historian, Fridiric Masson, that he was very anxious to recover for the republic the initiative of the American alliance credited to the king; and "although their Minister, Gouverneur Morris, was justly suspected, and the American republic was at that time aiming only to utilize the condition of its ally, the French republic cleared it at a cheap rate of its debts contracted with the King."(2) Morris adroitly held this doubt, whether the alliance of his government with Louis XVI. would be continued to that King's executioners, over the head of the revolutionists, as a suspended sword. Under that menace, and with the authentication of being Washington's irremovable mouthpiece, this Minister had only to speak and it was done.
Additionally, after the monarchy fell, two consecutive French ministers communicated their strong objections to the American government regarding Gouverneur Morris's presence in their country, with one detailing the specific offenses he committed. The President's complete disregard for these protests and pleas, perhaps unprecedented in history, gave Morris significant influence over the country he was conspiring against. He was recognized as the Irremovable. He embodied Washington's steadfast and unchanging resolve, especially at a time when the main goal of the revolutionary leaders was to maintain their alliance with America. At that point in 1793, Robespierre was responsible for diplomatic affairs, and French historian Fridiric Masson notes that he was very eager to regain control of the American alliance that had been attributed to the king. Although their minister, Gouverneur Morris, was rightly suspected, and the American republic was focused purely on leveraging its ally's situation, the French republic managed to clear its debts with the king at a minimal cost. Morris skillfully maintained uncertainty about whether his government’s alliance with Louis XVI would extend to those responsible for the king's execution, holding it like a sword of Damocles over the revolutionaries. With that threat, and recognized as Washington's unyielding representative, this minister only had to say the word, and it was accomplished.
1 "Memoirs, etc., of General Lafayette," Brussels, 1837, volume ii., pp. 484,485. 2 "The Department of Foreign Affairs during the Revolution," p. 395.
Meanwhile Gouverneur Morris was steadily working in France for the aim which he held in common with Robert Morris, namely to transfer the alliance from France to England. These two nations being at war, it was impossible for France to fulfil all the terms of the alliance; it could not permit English ships alone to seize American provisions on the seas, and it was compelled to prevent American vessels from leaving French ports with cargoes certain of capture by British cruisers. In this way a large number of American Captains with their ships were detained in France, to their distress, but to their Minister's satisfaction. He did not fail to note and magnify all "infractions" of the treaty, with the hope that they might be the means of annulling it in favor of England, and he did nothing to mitigate sufferings which were counts in his indictment of the Treaty.
Meanwhile, Gouverneur Morris was consistently working in France toward the goal he shared with Robert Morris, which was to shift the alliance from France to England. With these two countries at war, France couldn't meet all the terms of the alliance; it couldn't allow only English ships to seize American supplies at sea, and it was forced to stop American vessels from leaving French ports with cargoes that would surely be captured by British cruisers. As a result, many American captains and their ships were stuck in France, causing them distress but pleasing their Minister. He did not hesitate to point out and exaggerate all "infractions" of the treaty, hoping they could be used to annul it in favor of England, and he did nothing to ease the suffering that counted against him in his criticism of the Treaty.
It was at this point that Paine came in the American Minister's way. He had been on good terms with Gouverneur Morris, who in 1790 (May 29th) wrote from London to the President:
It was at this point that Paine crossed paths with the American Minister. He had been on good terms with Gouverneur Morris, who in 1790 (May 29th) wrote from London to the President:
"On the 17th Mr. Paine called to tell me that he had conversed on the same subject [impressment of American seamen] with Mr. Burke, who had asked him if there was any minister, consul, or other agent of the United States who could properly make application to the Government: to which he had replied in the negative; but said that I was here, who had been a member of Congress, and was therefore the fittest person to step forward. In consequence of what passed thereupon between them he [Paine] urged me to take the matter up, which I promised to do. On the 18th I wrote to the Duke of Leeds requesting an interview."
"On the 17th, Mr. Paine came by to tell me that he had talked about the same issue [impressment of American seamen] with Mr. Burke, who had asked him if there was any minister, consul, or other representative of the United States who could properly approach the Government. Mr. Paine replied that there wasn’t, but mentioned that I was here, having been a member of Congress, and was therefore the best person to step forward. Because of their conversation, Mr. Paine encouraged me to take on the matter, which I agreed to do. On the 18th, I wrote to the Duke of Leeds requesting a meeting."
1 Force's "American State Papers, For. Rel.," vol. i.
At that time (1790) Paine was as yet a lion in London, thus able to give Morris a lift. He told Morris, in 1792 that he considered his appointment to France a mistake. This was only on the ground of his anti-republican opinions; he never dreamed of the secret commissions to England. He could not have supposed that the Minister who had so promptly presented the case of impressed seamen in England would not equally attend to the distressed Captains in France; but these, neglected by their Minister, appealed to Paine. Paine went to see Morris, with whom he had an angry interview, during which he asked Morris "if he did not feel ashamed to take the money of the country and do nothing for it." Paine thus incurred the personal enmity of Gouverneur Morris. By his next step he endangered this Minister's scheme for increasing the friction between France and America; for Paine advised the Americans to appeal directly to the Convention, and introduced them to that body, which at once heeded their application, Morris being left out of the matter altogether. This was August 22d, and Morris was very angry. It is probable that the Americans in Paris felt from that time that Paine was in danger, for on September 13th a memorial, evidently concocted by them, was sent to the French government proposing that they should send Commissioners to the United States to forestall the intrigues of England, and that Paine should go with them, and set forth their case in the journals, as he "has great influence with the people." This looks like a design to get Paine safely out of the country, but it probably sealed his fate. Had Paine gone to America and reported there Morris's treacheries to France and to his own country, and his licentiousness, notorious in Paris, which his diary has recently revealed to the world, the career of the Minister would have swiftly terminated. Gouverneur Morris wrote to Robert Morris that Paine was intriguing for his removal, and intimates that he (Paine) was ambitious of taking his place in Paris. Paine's return to America must be prevented.
At that time (1790), Paine was quite the prominent figure in London, which allowed him to assist Morris. He told Morris in 1792 that he thought his appointment to France was a mistake. This was solely due to his anti-republican views; he never suspected the secret commissions to England. He couldn't have imagined that the Minister who quickly addressed the issue of impressed seamen in England would neglect the distressed Captains in France; however, those Captains, ignored by their Minister, turned to Paine for help. Paine met with Morris for a heated discussion, during which he asked Morris, "Don’t you feel ashamed to take the money from the country and do nothing in return?" This confrontation earned Paine the personal animosity of Gouverneur Morris. In his next move, he jeopardized Morris’s plan to create tension between France and America; Paine advised the Americans to appeal directly to the Convention, introducing them to that body, which promptly responded to their request, completely leaving Morris out of the loop. This took place on August 22, and Morris was very upset. It is likely that the Americans in Paris sensed that Paine was in danger from that moment on, because on September 13, a memorial, clearly crafted by them, was sent to the French government suggesting that they send Commissioners to the United States to counter England's intrigues, and that Paine should accompany them, using his influence to present their case in the press. This seems like a plan to safely get Paine out of the country, but it probably sealed his fate. If Paine had returned to America and reported Morris's betrayals to both France and his own nation, as well as his notorious behavior in Paris, which his diary has just recently revealed, Morris's career would have ended quickly. Gouverneur Morris wrote to Robert Morris saying that Paine was plotting for his removal and implied that Paine aimed to take his position in Paris. Paine's return to America had to be prevented.
Had the American Minister not been well known as an enemy of the republic it might have been easy to carry Paine from the Convention to the guillotine; but under the conditions the case required all of the ingenuity even of a diplomatist so adroit as Gouverneur Morris. But fate had played into his hand. It so happened that Louis Otto, whose letter from Philadelphia has been quoted, had become chief secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Paris, M. Deforgues. This Minister and his Secretary, apprehending the fate that presently overtook both, were anxious to be appointed to America. No one knew better than Otto the commanding influence of Gouverneur Morris, as Washington's "irremovable" representative, both in France and America, and this desire of the two frightened officials to get out of France was confided to him.(1) By hope of his aid, and by this compromising confidence, Deforgues came under the power of a giant who used it like a giant. Morris at once hinted that Paine was fomenting the troubles given by Genjt to Washington in America, and thus set in motion the procedure by which Paine was ultimately lodged in prison.
If the American Minister hadn’t been known as an enemy of the republic, it might have been easy to take Paine from the Convention to the guillotine. But given the circumstances, they needed all the cleverness that someone as skilled as Gouverneur Morris could offer. However, fate played in his favor. Louis Otto, who had written a letter from Philadelphia that was mentioned earlier, was now the chief secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Paris, M. Deforgues. This Minister and his Secretary, fearing the fate that soon befell them both, were eager to be sent to America. No one understood better than Otto the significant influence of Gouverneur Morris, Washington's "irremovable" representative in both France and America, and he was told of the two anxious officials’ desire to leave France. With hopes for Otto's help and this compromising confidence, Deforgues fell under the influence of a powerful man who wielded that influence decisively. Morris quickly suggested that Paine was stirring up the troubles that Genjt had brought to Washington's attention in America, which set in motion the process that ultimately got Paine imprisoned.
There being no charge against Paine in France, and no ill-will felt towards him by Robespierre, compliance with the supposed will of Washington was in this case difficult. Six months before, a law had been passed to imprison aliens of hostile nationality, which could not affect Paine, he being a member of the Convention and an American. But a decree was passed, evidently to reach Paine, "that no foreigner should be admitted to represent the French people"; by this he was excluded from the Convention, and the Committee of General Surety enabled to take the final step of assuming that he was an Englishman, and thus under the decree against aliens of hostile nations.(2)
Paine had no charges against him in France, and Robespierre didn't hold any grudge against him, so following what Washington supposedly wanted was challenging in this situation. Six months earlier, a law was enacted to imprison aliens from hostile countries, but this didn’t impact Paine since he was part of the Convention and an American. However, a decree was issued specifically targeting Paine, stating that "no foreigner should be allowed to represent the French people"; as a result, he was barred from the Convention. This allowed the Committee of General Surety to ultimately claim that he was an Englishman and therefore subject to the decree against aliens from hostile nations.
1 Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Washington, Oct 19, 1793. Sparks's "Life of Gouverneur Morris," vol. ii., p. 375. 2 Although, as I mentioned, there were no charges against Paine in France, and none stated in any documents related to his arrest, some sort of implication had to be made in the Convention to justify actions against a Deputy, and Bourdon de l'Oise said, "I know that he has colluded with a former agent of the Bureau of Foreign Affairs." It will be noted in the third addendum to the Memorial to Monroe that Paine thought this referred to Louis Otto, who had acted as his interpreter during a meeting arranged by Barhre, a member of the Committee of Public Safety. However, since Otto was then, in early September 1793, the Secretary in the Foreign Office, and Barhre was a fellow-terrorist with Bourdon, there could be no legitimate accusation based on a meeting that, if examined, would have confused Paine's adversaries. It is questionable, though, whether Paine was correct in his guess. Bourdon's reference likely pointed to the collusion between Paine and Genjt suggested by Morris.
Paine was thus lodged in prison simply to please Washington, to whom it was left to decide whether he had been rightly represented by his Minister in the case. When the large number of Americans in Paris hastened in a body to the Convention to demand his release, the President (Vadier) extolled Paine, but said his birth in England brought him under the measures of safety, and referred them to the Committees. There they were told that "their reclamation was only the act of individuals, without any authority from the American Government." Unfortunately the American petitioners, not understanding by this a reference to the President, unsuspiciously repaired to Morris, as also did Paine by letter. The Minister pretended compliance, thereby preventing their direct appeal to the President. Knowing, however, that America would never agree that nativity under the British flag made Paine any more than other Americans a citizen of England, the American Minister came from Sain-port, where he resided, to Paris, and secured from the obedient Deforgues a certificate that he had reclaimed Paine as an American citizen, but that he was held as a French citizen. This ingeniously prepared certificate which was sent to the Secretary of State (Jefferson), and Morris's pretended "reclamation," which was never sent to America, are translated in my "Life of Paine," and here given in the original.
Paine was imprisoned just to appease Washington, who had to decide if his Minister accurately represented him in this situation. When a large group of Americans in Paris rushed to the Convention to demand his release, the President (Vadier) praised Paine but noted that his English birth put him under safety measures, directing them to the Committees. There, they were told that "their request was only the action of individuals, without any authority from the American Government." Unfortunately, the American petitioners, misunderstanding this as a reference to the President, naively went to Morris, and so did Paine in a letter. The Minister pretended to cooperate, thus blocking their direct appeal to the President. However, knowing that America would never accept that being born under the British flag made Paine any less of an American citizen, the American Minister traveled from Sain-port, where he lived, to Paris and secured a certificate from the compliant Deforgues, stating that he had reclaimed Paine as an American citizen but that he was being held as a French citizen. This cleverly crafted certificate was sent to the Secretary of State (Jefferson), and Morris's fake "reclamation," which was never sent to America, is translated in my "Life of Paine," and is provided here in its original form.
@ Paris le 14 fivrier 1794, 26 pluvitse.
@ Paris, February 14, 1794, 26 Pluviôse.
Le Minisire plinipotentiaire des Itats Unis de l'Amirique prhs la Ripublique frangaise au Ministre des Affaires Itranghres.
Le Minisire plinipotentiaire des Itats Unis de l'Amirique prhs la Ripublique frangaise au Ministre des Affaires Itranghres.
Monsieur:
Sir:
Thomas Paine vient de s'adresser ` moi pour que je le riclame comme Citoyen des Itats Unis. Voici (je crois) les Faits que le regardent. Il est ni en Angleterre. Devenu ensuite Citoyen des Itats Unis il s'y est acquise une grande cilibriti par des Icrits rivolutionnaires. En consequence il f{t adopti Citoyen frangais et ensuite ilu membre de la Convention. Sa conduite depuis cette ipoque n'est pas de mon ressort. J'ignore la cause de sa Ditention actuelle dans la prison du Luxembourg, mais je vous prie Monsieur (si des raisons que ne me sont pas connues s'opposent ` sa liberation) de vouloir bien m'en instruire pour que je puisse les communiquer au Gouvernement des Itats Unis. J'ai l'honneur d'jtre, Monsieur,
Thomas Paine has just reached out to me to request that I advocate for him as a Citizen of the United States. Here are (I believe) the facts regarding him. He was born in England. Later, he became a Citizen of the United States and gained significant notoriety through his revolutionary writings. Consequently, he was adopted as a French Citizen and later became a member of the Convention. His actions since that time are outside my purview. I am unaware of the reason for his current detention in the Luxembourg prison, but I kindly ask you, sir, to inform me (if there are reasons unknown to me that are preventing his release) so that I can communicate them to the Government of the United States. I have the honor to be, sir,
Votre trhs humble Serviteur
Your truly humble servant
Gouv. Morris.
Gov. Morris.
Paris, i Venttse l'An ad. de la Ripublique une et indivisible.
Paris, i Venttse l'An ad. de la Ripublique une et indivisible.
Le Ministre des Affaires Itranghres au Ministre Plinipotentiaire des Itats Unis de V Amirique prhs la Ripublique Frangaise.
Le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères au Ministre Plénipotentiaire des États-Unis d'Amérique près la République Française.
Par votre lettre du 26 du mois dernier, vous riclamez la liberti de Thomas Faine, comme Citoyen amiricain. Ni en Angleterre, cet ex-deputi est devenu successivement Citoyen Amiricain et Citoyen frangais. En acceptant ce dernier titre et en remplissant une place dans le Corps Ligislatif, il est soumis aux lob de la Ripublique et il a renonci de fait ` la protection que le droit des gens et les traitis conclus avec les Itats Unis auraient pu lui assurer.
By your letter dated the 26th of last month, you are requesting the release of Thomas Faine as an American citizen. In England, this former deputy has successively become an American citizen and a French citizen. By accepting this latter title and taking a position in the Legislative Body, he is subject to the laws of the Republic and has effectively renounced the protection that international law and treaties concluded with the United States could have provided him.
J'ignore les motifs de sa ditention mais je dois prisumer q{ils bien fondis. Je vois nianmoins soumettre au Comiti de Salut Public la dimande que vous m'avez adressie et je m'empresserai de vous faire connantre sa dicision.
J'ignore les motifs de sa détention mais je dois présumer qu'ils sont bien fondés. Je vois néanmoins soumettre au Comité de Salut Public la demande que vous m'avez adressée et je m'empresserai de vous faire connaître sa décision.
Dir ORGUBS. (1)
Dir ORGUBS. (1)
1 Archives of the Foreign Office, Paris, "United States," vol. xl. Translations:—Morris: "Sir,—Thomas Paine has just asked me to recognize him as a citizen of the United States. Here (I believe) are the facts about him. He was born in England. After becoming a citizen of the United States, he gained significant fame there through his revolutionary writings. As a result, he was adopted as a French citizen and later elected as a Member of the Convention. His actions since then are beyond my authority. I don’t know why he is currently detained in Luxembourg prison, but I kindly ask you, sir (if reasons unknown to me are preventing his release), to let me know so I can inform the government of the United States." Deporgurs: "In your letter dated the 36th of last month, you request the release of Thomas Paine as an American citizen. Born in England, this former deputy has become both an American and a French citizen in succession. By accepting this last title and holding a position in the Corps Législatif, he subjected himself to the laws of the Republic and has surely renounced the protection that international law and treaties with the United States might have provided him. I don’t know the reasons for his detention, but I must assume they are justified. I will forward the request you made to the Committee of Public Safety and will let you know their decision as soon as possible."
It will be seen that Deforgues begins his letter with a falsehood: "You reclaim the liberty of Paine as an American citizen." Morris's letter had declared him a French citizen out of his (the American Minister's) "jurisdiction." Morris states for Deforgues his case, and it is obediently adopted, though quite discordant with the decree, which imprisoned Paine as a foreigner. Deforgues also makes Paine a member of a non-existent body, the "Corps Ligislatif," which might suggest in Philadelphia previous connection with the defunct Assembly. No such inquiries as Deforgues promised, nor any, were ever made, and of course none were intended. Morris had got from Deforgues the certificate he needed to show in Philadelphia and to Americans in Paris. His pretended "reclamation" was of course withheld: no copy of it ever reached America till brought from French archives by the present writer. Morris does not appear to have ventured even to keep a copy of it himself. The draft (presumably in English), found among his papers by Sparks, alters the fatal sentence which deprived Paine of his American citizenship and of protection. "Res-sort"—jurisdiction—which has a definite technical meaning in the mouth of a Minister, is changed to "cognizance"; the sentence is made to read, "his conduct from that time has not come under my cognizance." (Sparks's "Life of Gouverneur Morris," i., p. 401). Even as it stands in his book, Sparks says: "The application, it must be confessed, was neither pressing in its terms, nor cogent in its arguments."
It can be noted that Deforgues starts his letter with a false statement: "You reclaim the liberty of Paine as an American citizen." Morris's letter had declared him a French citizen, outside his (the American Minister's) "jurisdiction." Morris outlines Deforgues's case, and it is blindly accepted, even though it contradicts the decree that imprisoned Paine as a foreigner. Deforgues also wrongly categorizes Paine as a member of a non-existent group, the "Corps Ligislatif," which might hint at a previous connection with the now-defunct Assembly in Philadelphia. No inquiries, as Deforgues promised, were ever made, and none were meant to be. Morris obtained from Deforgues the certificate he needed to present in Philadelphia and to Americans in Paris. His supposed "reclamation" was, of course, withheld; no copy of it ever reached America until it was brought from French archives by the current writer. Morris doesn’t seem to have even attempted to keep a copy for himself. The draft (likely in English), discovered among his papers by Sparks, alters the crucial sentence that stripped Paine of his American citizenship and protection. "Res-sort"—jurisdiction—which has a specific technical meaning when used by a Minister, is changed to "cognizance"; the sentence is revised to read, "his conduct from that time has not come under my cognizance." (Sparks's "Life of Gouverneur Morris," i., p. 401). Even as it is presented in his book, Sparks states: "The application, it must be confessed, was neither pressing in its terms, nor cogent in its arguments."
The American Minister, armed with this French missive, dictated by himself, enclosed it to the Secretary of State, whom he supposed to be still Jefferson, with a letter stating that he had reclaimed Paine as an American, that he (Paine) was held to answer for "crimes," and that any further attempt to release him would probably be fatal to the prisoner. By these falsehoods, secured from detection by the profound secrecy of the Foreign Offices in both countries, Morris paralyzed all interference from America, as Washington could not of course intervene in behalf of an American charged with "crimes" committed in a foreign country, except to demand his trial. But it was important also to paralyze further action by Americans in Paris, and to them, too, was shown the French certificate of a reclamation never made. A copy was also sent to Paine, who returned to Morris an argument which he entreated him to embody in a further appeal to the French Minister. This document was of course buried away among the papers of Morris, who never again mentioned Paine in any communication to the French government, but contented himself with personal slanders of his victim in private letters to Washington's friend, Robert Morris, and no doubt others. I quote Sparks's summary of the argument unsuspectingly sent by Paine to Morris:
The American Minister, holding this French letter he wrote himself, sent it to the Secretary of State, who he thought was still Jefferson, along with a note saying he had claimed Paine as an American, that Paine was being held for "crimes," and that any further attempt to release him could likely be deadly for the prisoner. Through these lies, protected from exposure by the deep secrecy of the Foreign Offices in both countries, Morris stopped any interference from America, since Washington obviously couldn't intervene for an American accused of "crimes" committed abroad, except to demand a trial. But it was also crucial to prevent further action from Americans in Paris, and to them, too, was shown the French certificate of a reclamation that never happened. A copy was also sent to Paine, who replied to Morris with an argument that he urged him to include in another appeal to the French Minister. This document was, of course, buried among Morris's papers, and he never mentioned Paine again in any communication with the French government. Instead, he settled for making personal slanders of Paine in private letters to Washington's friend, Robert Morris, and probably others. I quote Sparks's summary of the argument unsuspectingly sent by Paine to Morris:
"He first proves himself to have been an American citizen, a character of which he affirms no subsequent act had deprived him. The title of French citizen was a mere nominal and honorary one, which the Convention chose to confer, when they asked him to help them in making a Constitution. But let the nature or honor of the title be what it might, the Convention had taken it away of their own accord. 'He was excluded from the Convention on the motion for excluding foreigners. Consequently he was no longer under the law of the Republic as a citizen, but under the protection of the Treaty of Alliance, as fully and effectually as any other citizen of America. It was therefore the duty of the American Minister to demand his release.'"
"He first proves that he was an American citizen, a status that he claims no later action took away from him. The title of French citizen was just a nominal and honorary distinction given by the Convention when they asked for his help in creating a Constitution. Regardless of the worth or prestige of the title, the Convention voluntarily revoked it. 'He was excluded from the Convention based on a motion to exclude foreigners. As a result, he was no longer considered a citizen under the Republic's laws, but instead was under the protection of the Treaty of Alliance, just like any other American citizen. Therefore, it was the American Minister's responsibility to demand his release.'"
To this Sparks adds:
To this, Sparks adds:
"Such is the drift of Paine's argument, and it would seem indeed that he could not be a foreigner and a citizen at the same time. It was hard that his only privilege of citizenship should be that of imprisonment. But this logic was a little too refined for the revolutionary tribunals of the Jacobins in Paris, and Mr. Morris well knew it was not worth while to preach it to them. He did not believe there was any serious design at that time against the life of the prisoner, and he considered his best chance of safety to be in preserving silence for the present. Here the matter rested, and Paine was left undisturbed till the arrival of Mr. Monroe, who procured his discharge from confinement." ("Life of Gouverneur Morris," i., p. 417.)l
"That's the gist of Paine's argument, and it really seemed like he couldn't be both a foreigner and a citizen at the same time. It was unfortunate that his only right as a citizen was to be imprisoned. But this reasoning was a bit too complicated for the revolutionary courts of the Jacobins in Paris, and Mr. Morris knew it wasn't worth trying to convince them. He didn't think there was any real plan at that time to harm the prisoner, and he figured his best chance for safety was to stay quiet for now. So, the situation stayed the same, and Paine was left alone until Mr. Monroe arrived and got him released from confinement." ("Life of Gouverneur Morris," i., p. 417.)
Sparks takes the gracious view of the man whose Life he was writing, but the facts now known turn his words to sarcasm. The Terror by which Paine suffered was that of Morris, who warned him and his friends, both in Paris and America, that if his case was stirred the knife would fall on him. Paine declares (see xx.) that this danger kept him silent till after the fall of Robespierre. None knew so well as Morris that there were no charges against Paine for offences in France, and that Robespierre was awaiting that action by Washington which he (Morris) had rendered impossible. Having thus suspended the knife over Paine for six months, Robespierre interpreted the President's silence, and that of Congress, as confirmation of Morris's story, and resolved on the execution of Paine "in the interests of America as well as of France"; in other words to conciliate Washington to the endangered alliance with France.
Sparks offers a kind perspective on the man whose life he was documenting, but the facts we now know turn his words into sarcasm. The fear that Paine experienced came from Morris, who warned him and his friends, both in Paris and America, that if his situation was stirred up, a serious consequence would follow. Paine states (see xx.) that this threat kept him quiet until after Robespierre's fall. No one understood better than Morris that there were no accusations against Paine for any wrongdoing in France, and that Robespierre was waiting for an action from Washington that Morris had made impossible. After keeping the threat hanging over Paine for six months, Robespierre interpreted the President's silence, as well as that of Congress, as a confirmation of Morris's claims, and decided to execute Paine "in the interests of America as well as of France"; in other words, to appease Washington regarding the fragile alliance with France.
Paine escaped the guillotine by the strange accident related in a further chapter. The fall of Robespierre did not of course end his imprisonment, for he was not Robespierre's but Washington's prisoner. Morris remained Minister in France nearly a month after Robespierre's death, but the word needed to open Paine's prison was not spoken. After his recall, had Monroe been able at once to liberate Paine, an investigation must have followed, and Morris would probably have taken his prisoner's place in the Luxembourg. But Morris would not present his letters of recall, and refused to present his successor, thus keeping Monroe out of his office four weeks. In this he was aided by Bourdon de l'Oise (afterwards banished as a royalist conspirator, but now a commissioner to decide on prisoners); also by tools of Robespierre who had managed to continue on the Committee of Public Safety by laying their crimes on the dead scapegoat—Robespierre. Against Barhre (who had signed Paine's death-warrant), Billaud-Varennes, and Colloit d'Her-bois, Paine, if liberated, would have been a terrible witness. The Committee ruled by them had suppressed Paine's appeal to the Convention, as they presently suppressed Monroe's first appeal. Paine, knowing that Monroe had arrived, but never dreaming that the manoeuvres of Morris were keeping him out of office, wrote him from prison the following letters, hitherto unpublished.
Paine narrowly avoided the guillotine due to a strange twist of fate explained in a later chapter. The fall of Robespierre didn’t automatically release him, as he was not a prisoner of Robespierre but of Washington. Morris stayed on as Minister in France for nearly a month after Robespierre’s death, but the necessary words to free Paine from prison were never spoken. If Monroe had been able to release Paine right after his recall, an investigation would have followed, and Morris would likely have taken Paine's place in the Luxembourg. However, Morris refused to present his letters of recall and wouldn’t introduce his successor, keeping Monroe out of his position for four weeks. He was aided in this by Bourdon de l'Oise (who was later exiled as a royalist conspirator but at that time was a commissioner deciding the fate of prisoners) and by Robespierre's supporters who managed to remain on the Committee of Public Safety by blaming their crimes on the now-deceased Robespierre. If Paine had been freed, he would have been a damaging witness against Barhre (who had signed his death warrant), Billaud-Varennes, and Colloit d'Her-bois. The Committee they controlled had shut down Paine's appeal to the Convention, just as they soon suppressed Monroe’s initial appeal. Knowing that Monroe had arrived but not realizing that Morris’s actions were keeping him from office, Paine wrote him the following letters from prison, which have not been published until now.
1 There's no need to keep the reader waiting with any debate about Paine's unquestionable citizenship; that issue was settled by his recognition as an American and the support of Monroe's actions by his government. There was no legitimacy to any question regarding Paine's citizenship, just a desire to harm him. In this pursuit, they were surprisingly successful. Ten years after Paine was restored by Monroe, with Washington's approval, as an American citizen, his vote was rejected in New Rochelle, New York, by the supervisor, Elisha Ward, claiming that Washington and Morris had refused to acknowledge him. Under the portrait of the deceased Paine, the artist Jarvis wrote: "A man who dedicated his entire life to the pursuit of two goals—human rights and freedom of conscience—was denied his vote while alive and was denied a grave when dead."—Editor.
August 17th, 1794.
August 17, 1794.
My Dear Sir: As I believe none of the public papers have announced your name right I am unable to address you by it, but a new minister from America is joy to me and will be so to every American in France.
My Dear Sir: Since I believe none of the public papers have correctly announced your name, I can't address you by it. However, a new minister from America brings me joy and will bring joy to every American in France.
Eight months I have been imprisoned, and I know not for what, except that the order says that I am a Foreigner. The Illness I have suffered in this place (and from which I am but just recovering) had nearly put an end to my existence. My life is but of little value to me in this situation tho' I have borne it with a firmness of patience and fortitude.
Eight months I’ve been locked up, and I don’t even know why, other than the fact that the order says I’m a Foreigner. The illness I’ve had while being here (and from which I’m just starting to recover) almost took my life. My life feels pretty worthless to me right now, even though I’ve dealt with it with a level of patience and strength.
I enclose you a copy of a letter, (as well the translation as the English)—which I sent to the Convention after the fall of the Monster Robespierre—for I was determined not to write a line during the time of his detestable influence. I sent also a copy to the Committee of public safety—but I have not heard any thing respecting it. I have now no expectation of delivery but by your means—Morris has been my inveterate enemy and I think he has permitted something of the national Character of America to suffer by quietly letting a Citizen of that Country remain almost eight months in prison without making every official exertion to procure him justice,—for every act of violence offered to a foreigner is offered also to the Nation to which he belongs.
I’m sending you a copy of a letter, both the translation and the original English version, which I sent to the Convention after the fall of the awful Robespierre. I was set on not writing a single line during his terrible influence. I also sent a copy to the Committee of Public Safety, but I haven’t heard anything back about it. I don’t expect it to be delivered except through your help—Morris has been my relentless enemy, and I believe he has allowed something of America's national character to suffer by letting a citizen of that country stay in prison for almost eight months without making every official effort to get him justice, because any act of violence against a foreigner is also an act against the nation they belong to.
The gentleman, Mr. Beresford, who will present you this has been very friendly to me.(1) Wishing you happiness in your appointment, I am your affectionate friend and humble servant.
The gentleman, Mr. Beresford, who is giving you this has been very friendly to me.(1) I wish you happiness in your new position. I am your caring friend and humble servant.
August 18th, 1794.
August 18, 1794.
Dear Sir: In addition to my letter of yesterday (sent to Mr. Beresford to be conveyed to you but which is delayed on account of his being at St. Germain) I send the following memoranda.
Dear Sir: In addition to my letter from yesterday (which was sent to Mr. Beresford to be delivered to you but is delayed because he is at St. Germain), I am sending the following notes.
I was in London at the time I was elected a member of this Convention. I was elected a Deputi in four different departments without my knowing any thing of the matter, or having the least idea of it. The intention of electing the Convention before the time of the former Legislature expired, was for the purpose of reforming the Constitution or rather for forming a new one. As the former Legislature shewed a disposition that I should assist in this business of the new Constitution, they prepared the way by voting me a French Citoyen (they conferred the same title on General Washington and certainly I had no more idea than he had of vacating any part of my real Citizenship of America for a nominal one in France, especially at a time when she did not know whether she would be a Nation or not, and had it not even in her power to promise me protection). I was elected (the second person in number of Votes, the Abbi Sieves being first) a member for forming the Constitution, and every American in Paris as well as my other acquaintance knew that it was my intention to return to America as soon as the Constitution should be established. The violence of Party soon began to shew itself in the Convention, but it was impossible for me to see upon what principle they differed—unless it was a contention for power. I acted however as I did in America, I connected myself with no Party, but considered myself altogether a National Man—but the case with Parties generally is that when you are not with one you are supposed to be with the other.
I was in London when I was elected to this Convention. I was chosen as a Deputy in four different departments without even knowing about it or having any idea it was happening. The goal of electing the Convention before the previous Legislature finished its term was to reform the Constitution, or rather, to create a new one. Since the previous Legislature showed a desire for me to help with the new Constitution, they paved the way by voting me a French Citizen (they gave the same title to General Washington, and I definitely had no more intention than he did of giving up any part of my real American citizenship for a nominal one in France, especially when France was unsure if it would remain a nation and couldn't even promise me protection). I was elected (the second highest in votes, with Abbe Sieyes in first) as a member to help form the Constitution, and everyone American in Paris, along with my other acquaintances, knew I intended to return to America once the Constitution was established. Tensions between political parties quickly started to show in the Convention, but I couldn't figure out what they disagreed on—unless it was simply a fight for power. I acted the same way I did in America; I didn't align myself with any party, instead seeing myself as a national figure. But the problem with parties is that if you're not part of one, you're assumed to be part of the other.
1 A helpful lamplighter, mentioned in the Letter to Washington, delivered this letter to Mr. Beresford.— Editor.
I was taken out of bed between three and four in the morning on the 28 of December last, and brought to the Luxembourg—without any other accusation inserted in the order than that I was a foreigner; a motion having been made two days before in the Convention to expel Foreigners therefrom. I certainly then remained, even upon their own tactics, what I was before, a Citizen of America.
I was woken up and taken out of bed between three and four in the morning on December 28th and brought to the Luxembourg—without any other reason stated in the order other than that I was a foreigner; a motion had been made two days earlier in the Convention to expel foreigners from there. I certainly remained, based on their own rules, what I was before: a Citizen of America.
About three weeks after my imprisonment the Americans that were in Paris went to the bar of the Convention to reclaim me, but contrary to my advice, they made their address into a Petition, and it miscarried. I then applied to G. Morris, to reclaim me as an official part of his duty, which he found it necessary to do, and here the matter stopt.(1) I have not heard a single line or word from any American since, which is now seven months. I rested altogether on the hope that a new Minister would arrive from America. I have escaped with life from more dangers than one. Had it not been for the fall of Roberspierre and your timely arrival I know not what fate might have yet attended me. There seemed to be a determination to destroy all the Prisoners without regard to merit, character, or any thing else. During the time I laid at the height of my illness they took, in one night only, 169 persons out of this prison and executed all but eight. The distress that I have suffered at being obliged to exist in the midst of such horrors, exclusive of my own precarious situation, suspended as it were by the single thread of accident, is greater than it is possible you can conceive—but thank God times are at last changed, and I hope that your Authority will release me from this unjust imprisonment.
About three weeks after I was imprisoned, the Americans in Paris went to the bar of the Convention to get me released, but against my advice, they turned their request into a petition, and it failed. I then turned to G. Morris to get me out as part of his official duties, which he found necessary to do, but that’s where the matter stopped. I haven’t heard a single word from any American since, and it’s now been seven months. I was holding onto the hope that a new minister would arrive from America. I’ve narrowly escaped death more than once. If it hadn’t been for the fall of Robespierre and your timely arrival, I don’t know what fate could have awaited me. There seemed to be a determination to eliminate all the prisoners, regardless of merit, character, or anything else. While I was at my sickest, they took 169 people from this prison in one night and executed all but eight. The distress I’ve endured, forced to live amidst such horrors, not to mention my own precarious situation, hanging by a thread of chance, is greater than you can possibly imagine—thank God times have finally changed, and I hope your authority will free me from this unjust imprisonment.
1 The lie told to Paine, along with a suggestion of danger in going after the so-called reclamation, was clearly intended to prevent any further action by Paine or his friends.— Editor..
August 25, 1794.
August 25, 1794.
My Dear Sir: Having nothing to do but to sit and think, I will write to pass away time, and to say that I am still here. I have received two notes from Mr. Beresford which are encouraging (as the generality of notes and letters are that arrive to persons here) but they contain nothing explicit or decisive with respect to my liberation, and I shall be very glad to receive a line from yourself to inform me in what condition the matter stands. If I only glide out of prison by a sort of accident America gains no credit by my liberation, neither can my attachment to her be increased by such a circumstance. She has had the services of my best days, she has my allegiance, she receives my portion of Taxes for my house in Borden Town and my farm at New Rochelle, and she owes me protection both at home and thro' her Ministers abroad, yet I remain in prison, in the face of her Minister, at the arbitrary will of a committee.
My Dear Sir: Since I have nothing to do but sit and think, I’ll write to pass the time and to let you know that I’m still here. I’ve received two notes from Mr. Beresford that are encouraging (as most notes and letters that people get here are) but they don’t contain anything clear or decisive about my release, and I would really appreciate a line from you to let me know what’s going on with the situation. If I just happen to slip out of prison by chance, America doesn’t get any credit for my release, and my loyalty to her can’t be strengthened by such an event. She has had my best years of service, she has my loyalty, she collects my share of taxes for my house in Borden Town and my farm at New Rochelle, and she owes me protection both at home and through her representatives abroad, yet I’m still in prison, at the arbitrary will of a committee, right in front of her Minister.
Excluded as I am from the knowledge of everything and left to a random of ideas, I know not what to think or how to act. Before there was any Minister here (for I consider Morris as none) and while the Robespierrian faction lasted, I had nothing to do but to keep my mind tranquil and expect the fate that was every day inflicted upon my comrades, not individually but by scores. Many a man whom I have passed an hour with in conversation I have seen marching to his destruction the next hour, or heard of it the next morning; for what rendered the scene more horrible was that they were generally taken away at midnight, so that every man went to bed with the apprehension of never seeing his friends or the world again.
Excluded from understanding anything and left with random thoughts, I don’t know what to think or how to act. Before there was any Minister here (since I don’t consider Morris one), and while the Robespierre faction was in power, all I could do was keep my mind calm and wait for the fate that was dealt to my comrades every day, not one by one but in groups. Many men I had spent an hour talking to were seen marching to their doom the very next hour, or I heard about it the following morning; what made the situation more terrifying was that they were usually taken away at midnight, so every man went to bed worried he’d never see his friends or the world again.
I wish to impress upon you that all the changes that have taken place in Paris have been sudden. There is now a moment of calm, but if thro' any over complaisance to the persons you converse with on the subject of my liberation, you omit procuring it for me now, you may have to lament the fate of your friend when its too late. The loss of a Battle to the Northward or other possible accident may happen to bring this about. I am not out of danger till I am out of Prison.
I want to stress that all the changes in Paris have happened quickly. Right now, things are calm, but if you get too comfortable with the people you talk to about my release and don’t make it happen for me now, you might end up regretting what happens to your friend when it’s too late. A loss in a battle up north or some other unexpected event could lead to this. I'm not out of danger until I’m out of prison.
Yours affectionately.
Love,
P. S.—I am now entirely without money. The Convention owes me 1800 livres salary which I know not how to get while I am here, nor do I know how to draw for money on the rent of my farm in America. It is under the care of my good friend General Lewis Morris. I have received no rent since I have been in Europe.
P. S.—I’m currently completely broke. The Convention owes me 1800 livres in salary, and I have no idea how to get it while I’m here, nor do I know how to collect the rent from my farm in America. It’s being looked after by my good friend General Lewis Morris. I haven’t received any rent since I’ve been in Europe.
[Addressed] Minister Plenipotentiary from America, Maison des Itrangers, Rue de la Loi, Rue Richelieu.
[Addressed] Minister Plenipotentiary from America, House of Foreigners, Law Street, Richelieu Street.
Such was the sufficiently cruel situation when there reached Paine in prison, September 4th, the letter of Peter Whiteside which caused him to write his Memorial. Whiteside was a Philadelphian whose bankruptcy in London had swallowed up some of Paine's means. His letter, reporting to Paine that he was not regarded by the American Government or people as an American citizen, and that no American Minister could interfere in his behalf, was evidently inspired by Morris who was still in Paris, the authorities being unwilling to give him a passport to Switzerland, as they knew he was going in that direction to join the conspirators against France. This Whiteside letter put Paine, and through him Monroe, on a false scent by suggesting that the difficulty of his case lay in a bona fide question of citizenship, whereas there never had been really any such question. The knot by which Morris had bound Paine was thus concealed, and Monroe was appealing to polite wolves in the interest of their victim. There were thus more delays, inexplicable alike to Monroe and to Paine, eliciting from the latter some heartbroken letters, not hitherto printed, which I add at the end of the Memorial. To add to the difficulties and dangers, Paris was beginning to be agitated by well-founded rumors of Jay's injurious negotiations in England, and a coldness towards Monroe was setting in. Had Paine's release been delayed much longer an American Minister's friendship might even have proved fatal. Of all this nothing could be known to Paine, who suffered agonies he had not known during the Reign of Terror. The other prisoners of Robespierre's time had departed; he alone paced the solitary corridors of the Luxembourg, chilled by the autumn winds, his cell tireless, unlit by any candle, insufficiently nourished, an abscess forming in his side; all this still less cruel than the feeling that he was abandoned, not only by Washington but by all America.
Such was the cruel situation when Paine received, on September 4th, a letter from Peter Whiteside while in prison, which prompted him to write his Memorial. Whiteside, a Philadelphian, had gone bankrupt in London, which had taken some of Paine's funds. In his letter, he informed Paine that the American Government and people did not see him as an American citizen, and that no American Minister could intervene on his behalf. This message was clearly influenced by Morris, who was still in Paris and couldn’t get a passport to Switzerland because the authorities knew he was heading there to join the conspirators against France. Whiteside's letter misled Paine, and in turn Monroe, by suggesting that the issue was a legitimate question of citizenship when it had never actually been one. The bond that Morris had created with Paine was kept hidden, while Monroe was reaching out to polite wolves on behalf of their victim. This led to further delays that were puzzling for both Monroe and Paine, causing Paine to write some heartbroken letters, which I will include at the end of the Memorial. To complicate matters, Paris was becoming unsettled by credible rumors about Jay's damaging negotiations in England, which was causing a rift between Monroe and others. Had Paine's release been postponed any longer, a friendship with an American Minister could have turned dangerous. Paine was unaware of all this and was enduring agonies he hadn’t felt even during the Reign of Terror. The other prisoners from Robespierre's era were gone; he alone walked the empty halls of the Luxembourg, chilled by the autumn winds, his cell dark and lacking any light, poorly fed, with an abscess developing on his side; all of this felt less painful than the overwhelming sense of being abandoned, not just by Washington but by all of America.
This is the man of whom Washington wrote to Madison nine years before: "Must the merits and services of 'Common Sense' continue to glide down the stream of time unrewarded by this country?" This, then, is his reward. To his old comrade in the battle-fields of Liberty, George Washington, Paine owed his ten months of imprisonment, at the end of which Monroe found him a wreck, and took him (November 4) to his own house, where he and his wife nursed him back into life. But it was not for some months supposed that Paine could recover; it was only after several relapses; and it was under the shadow of death that he wrote the letter to Washington so much and so ignorantly condemned. Those who have followed the foregoing narrative will know that Paine's grievances were genuine, that his infamous treatment stains American history; but they will also know that they lay chiefly at the door of a treacherous and unscrupulous American Minister.
This is the man that Washington wrote to Madison about nine years earlier: "Must the merits and services of 'Common Sense' go unrecognized by this country?" This, then, is his reward. To his old comrade in the fight for Liberty, George Washington, Paine owed his ten months of imprisonment, after which Monroe found him in a terrible state and took him (November 4) to his own house, where he and his wife nursed him back to health. However, it was believed for several months that Paine might not recover; it was only after multiple setbacks, and under the threat of death, that he wrote the letter to Washington that has been so harshly and wrongly criticized. Those who have followed the story will know that Paine's complaints were valid, and that his horrible treatment tarnishes American history; but they will also understand that the blame primarily lies with a treacherous and unscrupulous American Minister.
Yet it is difficult to find an excuse for the retention of that Minister in France by Washington. On Monroe's return to America in 1797, he wrote a pamphlet concerning the mission from which he had been curtly recalled, in which he said:
Yet it is hard to find a reason for Washington keeping that Minister in France. When Monroe returned to America in 1797, he wrote a pamphlet about the mission from which he had been abruptly recalled, in which he said:
"I was persuaded from Mr. Morris's known political character and principles, that his appointment, and especially at a period when the French nation was in a course of revolution from an arbitrary to a free government, would tend to discountenance the republican cause there and at home, and otherwise weaken, and greatly to our prejudice, the connexion subsisting between the two countries."
"I was convinced by Mr. Morris's well-known political beliefs and values that his appointment, especially at a time when the French nation was transitioning from an arbitrary government to a free one, would discourage the republican cause both there and at home, and also weaken, to our significant disadvantage, the connection between the two countries."
In a copy of this pamphlet found at Mount Vernon, Washington wrote on the margin of this sentence:
In a copy of this pamphlet found at Mount Vernon, Washington wrote in the margin of this sentence:
"Mr. Morris was known to be a man of first rate abilities; and his integrity and honor had never been impeached. Besides, Mr. Morris was sent whilst the kingly government was in existence, ye end of 91 or beginning of 92." (1)
"Mr. Morris was recognized as a highly capable person, and his integrity and honor had never been questioned. Moreover, Mr. Morris was sent when the monarchy was still in place, towards the end of '91 or the start of '92." (1)
But this does not explain why Gouverneur Morris was persistently kept in France after monarchy was abolished (September 21, 1792), or even after Lafayette's request for his removal, already quoted. To that letter of Lafayette no reply has been discovered. After the monarchy was abolished, Ternant and Genjt successively carried to America protests from their Foreign Office against the continuance of a Minister in France, who was known in Paris, and is now known to all acquainted with his published papers, to have all along made his office the headquarters of British intrigue against France, American interests being quite subordinated. Washington did not know this, but he might have known it, and his disregard of French complaints can hardly be ascribed to any other cause than his delusion that Morris was deeply occupied with the treaty negotiations confided to him. It must be remembered that Washington believed such a treaty with England to be the alternative of war.(2) On that apprehension the British party in America, and British agents, played to the utmost, and under such influences Washington sacrificed many old friendships,—with Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Edmund Randolph, Paine,—and also the confidence of his own State, Virginia.
But this doesn’t explain why Gouverneur Morris was kept in France even after the monarchy was abolished (September 21, 1792), or even after Lafayette requested his removal, as mentioned earlier. No response to Lafayette's letter has been found. After the monarchy was abolished, Ternant and Genjt brought protests from their Foreign Office to America against the continued presence of a Minister in France, who was known in Paris and is now known to everyone familiar with his published papers, to have been the center of British intrigue against France, with American interests being largely ignored. Washington didn’t know this, but he could have known, and his dismissal of French complaints can hardly be attributed to anything other than his mistaken belief that Morris was heavily involved in the treaty negotiations assigned to him. It’s important to note that Washington thought a treaty with England was the alternative to war. The British party in America and British agents exploited this fear to the fullest, and under such influences, Washington sacrificed many old friendships—with Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Edmund Randolph, Paine—and also the trust of his own State, Virginia.
1 Washington's side notes on Monroe's "View, etc.," were first completely presented in Ford's "Writings of Washington," vol. xiii., p. 452, seq. 2 Ibid., p. 453.
There is a traditional impression that Paine's angry letter to Washington was caused by the President's failure to inter-pose for his relief from prison. But Paine believed that the American Minister (Morris) had reclaimed him in some feeble fashion, as an American citizen, and he knew that the President had officially approved Monroe's action in securing his release. His grievance was that Washington, whose letters of friendship he cherished, who had extolled his services to America, should have manifested no concern personally, made no use of his commanding influence to rescue him from daily impending death, sent to his prison no word of kindness or inquiry, and sent over their mutual friend Monroe without any instructions concerning him; and finally, that his private letter, asking explanation, remained unanswered. No doubt this silence of Washington concerning the fate of Paine, whom he acknowledged to be an American citizen, was mainly due to his fear of offending England, which had proclaimed Paine. The "outlaw's" imprisonment in Paris caused jubilations among the English gentry, and went on simultaneously with Jay's negotiations in London, when any expression by Washington of sympathy with Paine (certain of publication) might have imperilled the Treaty, regarded by the President as vital.
There’s a common belief that Paine’s angry letter to Washington was triggered by the President’s failure to help him escape from prison. However, Paine thought that the American Minister (Morris) had somewhat managed to claim him as an American citizen, and he was aware that the President had officially backed Monroe’s efforts to get him released. His main issue was that Washington, whose friendship he valued and who had praised his contributions to America, showed no personal concern, didn’t use his significant influence to save him from the constant threat of death, sent no kind words or inquiries to his prison, and directed their mutual friend Monroe to visit without any guidance regarding him. In the end, his private letter asking for clarification went unanswered. It’s likely that Washington’s silence regarding Paine’s fate, whom he recognized as an American citizen, was largely due to his fear of upsetting England, which had labeled Paine an outlaw. The “outlaw’s” imprisonment in Paris was celebrated by the English upper class and coincided with Jay’s negotiations in London, where any show of sympathy from Washington towards Paine (which was sure to become public) could have jeopardized the Treaty, which the President saw as crucial.
So anxious was the President about this, that what he supposed had been done for Paine by Morris, and what had really been done by Monroe, was kept in such profound secrecy, that even his Secretary of State, Pickering, knew nothing of it. This astounding fact I recently discovered in the manuscripts of that Secretary.(1) Colonel Pickering, while flattering enough to the President in public, despised his intellect, and among his papers is a memorandum concluding as follows:
So worried was the President about this, that what he thought had been done for Paine by Morris, and what had actually been done by Monroe, was kept so secret that even his Secretary of State, Pickering, was unaware of it. I recently found out this surprising fact in the manuscripts of that Secretary.(1) Colonel Pickering, while publicly flattering the President, looked down on his intelligence, and among his papers is a note that concludes as follows:
"But when the hazards of the Revolutionary War had ended, by the establishment of our Independence, why was the knowledge of General Washington's comparatively defective mental powers not freely divulged? Why, even by the enemies of his civil administration were his abilities very tenderly glanced at? —Because there were few, if any men, who did not revere him for his distinguished virtues; his modesty—his unblemished integrity, his pure and disinterested patriotism. These virtues, of infinitely more value than exalted abilities without them, secured to him the veneration and love of his fellow citizens at large. Thus immensely popular, no man was willing to publish, under his hand, even the simple truth. The only exception, that I recollect, was the infamous Tom Paine; and this when in France, after he had escaped the guillotine of Robespierre; and in resentment, because, after he had participated in the French Revolution, President Washington seemed not to have thought him so very important a character in the world, as officially to interpose for his relief from the fangs of the French ephemeral Rulers. In a word, no man, however well informed, was willing to hazard his own popularity by exhibiting the real intellectual character of the immensely popular Washington."
"But when the dangers of the Revolutionary War were over and we had established our Independence, why wasn't the fact that General Washington had relatively weak mental abilities openly discussed? Even his opponents hardly criticized his skills. Why? Because there were few, if any, who didn't respect him for his remarkable qualities: his humility, his spotless integrity, and his genuine and selfless patriotism. These qualities, which are far more valuable than remarkable abilities without them, earned him the admiration and love of his fellow citizens. So incredibly popular, no one was willing to reveal even the simple truth about him. The only exception I can think of is the notorious Tom Paine, and that was while he was in France, after escaping Robespierre's guillotine. He felt resentful because, after participating in the French Revolution, President Washington didn't seem to consider him important enough to intervene on his behalf with the temporary French rulers. In short, no one, no matter how knowledgeable, was willing to risk their own popularity by revealing the true intellectual nature of the immensely popular Washington."
1 Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. 11, p. 171.
How can this ignorance of an astute man, Secretary of State under Washington and Adams, be explained? Had Washington hidden the letters showing on their face that he had "officially interposed" for Paine by two Ministers?
How can we explain the ignorance of such a sharp individual, the Secretary of State under Washington and Adams? Did Washington conceal the letters that clearly indicated he had "officially interposed" for Paine by two Ministers?
Madison, writing to Monroe, April 7, 1796, says that Pickering had spoken to him "in harsh terms" of a letter written by Paine to the President. This was a private letter of September 20, 1795, afterwards printed in Paine's public Letter to Washington. The Secretary certainly read that letter on its arrival, January 18, 1796, and yet Washington does not appear to have told him of what had been officially done in Paine's case! Such being the secrecy which Washington had carried from the camp to the cabinet, and the morbid extent of it while the British Treaty was in negotiation and discussion, one can hardly wonder at his silence under Paine's private appeal and public reproach.
Madison, writing to Monroe on April 7, 1796, says that Pickering had spoken to him "in harsh terms" about a letter Paine sent to the President. This was a private letter from September 20, 1795, which was later published in Paine's public Letter to Washington. The Secretary definitely read that letter when it arrived on January 18, 1796, but Washington doesn’t seem to have informed him about what had been officially decided concerning Paine! Given the secrecy Washington maintained from the battlefield to the cabinet, and how extreme it was while the British Treaty was being negotiated and discussed, it's hardly surprising that he remained silent in response to Paine's private request and public criticism.
Much as Pickering hated Paine, he declares him the only man who ever told the simple truth about Washington. In the lapse of time historical research, while removing the sacred halo of Washington, has revealed beneath it a stronger brain than was then known to any one. Paine published what many whispered, while they were fawning on Washington for office, or utilizing his power for partisan ends. Washington, during his second administration, when his mental decline was remarked by himself, by Jefferson, and others, was regarded by many of his eminent contemporaries as fallen under the sway of small partisans. Not only was the influence of Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, Monroe, Livingston, alienated, but the counsels of Hamilton were neutralized by Wolcott and Pickering, who apparently agreed about the President's "mental powers." Had not Paine previously incurred the odium theologicum, his pamphlet concerning Washington would have been more damaging; even as it was, the verdict was by no means generally favorable to the President, especially as the replies to Paine assumed that Washington had indeed failed to try and rescue him from impending death.(1) A pamphlet written by Bache, printed anonymously (1797), Remarks occasioned by the late conduct of Mr. Washington, indicates the belief of those who raised Washington to power, that both Randolph and Paine had been sacrificed to please Great Britain.
Much as Pickering hated Paine, he admits that Paine is the only person who ever spoke the plain truth about Washington. Over time, historical research has stripped away Washington's saintly image, revealing a sharper intellect than anyone realized back then. Paine exposed what many were quietly saying while they were flattering Washington to gain power or using his influence for their own political agendas. During his second term, when he began to notice his own mental decline, Washington was seen by many prominent figures of his time as being controlled by minor political factions. Not only had Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, Monroe, and Livingston distanced themselves from him, but Hamilton's advice was also diminished by Wolcott and Pickering, who seemed to agree about the President's "mental abilities." If Paine hadn't already faced the odium theologicum, his pamphlet regarding Washington would have been even more damaging; even so, the general opinion was not particularly favorable towards the President, especially since the responses to Paine suggested that Washington had indeed neglected to try to save him from imminent death. (1) A pamphlet written by Bache, published anonymously in 1797, titled Remarks Occasioned by the Late Conduct of Mr. Washington, reflects the belief among those who elevated Washington to power that both Randolph and Paine had been sacrificed to appease Great Britain.
The Bien-informi (Paris, November 12, 1797) published a letter from Philadelphia, which may find translation here as part of the history of the pamphlet:
The Bien-informi (Paris, November 12, 1797) published a letter from Philadelphia, which may be translated here as part of the history of the pamphlet:
"The letter of Thomas Paine to General Washington is read here with avidity. We gather from the English papers that the Cabinet of St James has been unable to stop the circulation of that pamphlet in England, since it is allowable to reprint there any English work already published elsewhere, however disagreeable to Messrs. Pitt and Dundas. We read in the letter to Washington that Robespierre had declared to the Committee of Public Safety that it was desirable in the interests of both France and America that Thomas Paine, who, for seven or eight months had been kept a prisoner in the Luxembourg, should forthwith be brought up for judgment before the revolutionary tribunal. The proof of this fact is found in Robespierre's papers, and gives ground for strange suspicions."
"The letter from Thomas Paine to General Washington is being read here with great interest. We learn from English newspapers that the Cabinet at St. James has been unable to stop the distribution of that pamphlet in England, since it is permitted to reprint any English work that has already been published elsewhere, no matter how disagreeable it may be to Messrs. Pitt and Dundas. In the letter to Washington, it mentions that Robespierre told the Committee of Public Safety that it was important for both France and America that Thomas Paine, who had been imprisoned in the Luxembourg for seven or eight months, should be brought to trial before the revolutionary tribunal immediately. Evidence of this is found in Robespierre's documents, which raises some strange suspicions."
1 The main ones were "A Letter to Thomas Paine. By an American Citizen. New York, 1797," and "A Letter to the infamous Tom Paine, in response to his Letter to General Washington. December 1796. By Peter Porcupine" (Cobbett). Writing to David Stuart on January 8, 1797, Washington, referring to himself in the third person, says: "Although he is soon to become a private citizen, his opinions are going to be attacked, and his character dragged down as low as they can possibly take it, even using outright falsehoods. As proof of this, and of the plan they're following, I’m sending you a letter from Mr. Paine to me, printed in this city and spread around with much effort. You'll also find enclosed a work by Peter Porcupine, also known as William Cobbett. Considering the harshness typical of an Englishman, along with some of his blunt and crude expressions, and a lack of official information about many facts, it’s not completely unreasonable." The "many facts" referred to were, of course, Monroe's actions and the alleged actions of Morris in Paris, but not even to someone as close as Stuart are these revealed.
"It was long believed that Paine had returned to America with his friend James Monroe, and the lovers of freedom [there] congratulated themselves on being able to embrace that illustrious champion of the Rights of Man. Their hopes have been frustrated. We know positively that Thomas Paine is still living in France. The partizans of the late presidency [in America] also know it well, yet they have spread a rumor that after actually arriving he found his (really popular) principles no longer the order of the day, and thought best to re-embark.
"It was long believed that Paine returned to America with his friend James Monroe, and the lovers of freedom there congratulated themselves on being able to embrace that famous champion of human rights. Their hopes have been dashed. We know for sure that Thomas Paine is still living in France. The supporters of the former presidency in America also know this well, yet they spread a rumor that after actually arriving, he found his truly popular principles no longer in vogue, and decided it was best to leave again."
"The English journals, while repeating this idle rumor, observed that it was unfounded, and that Paine had not left France. Some French journals have copied these London paragraphs, but without comments; so that at the very moment when Thomas Paine's Letter on the 18th. Fructidor is published, La Clef du Cabinet says that this citizen is suffering unpleasantness in America."
"The English newspapers, while spreading this baseless rumor, noted that it was not true and that Paine had not left France. Some French publications have shared these London articles, but without any comments; so that at the very moment when Thomas Paine's Letter on the 18th Fructidor is published, La Clef du Cabinet says that this citizen is facing troubles in America."
Paine had intended to return with Monroe, in the spring of 1797, but, suspecting the Captain and a British cruiser in the distance, returned from Havre to Paris. The packet was indeed searched by the cruiser for Paine, and, had he been captured, England would have executed the sentence pronounced by Robespierre to please Washington.
Paine planned to return with Monroe in the spring of 1797, but, suspecting the Captain and a British cruiser in the distance, he returned from Havre to Paris. The cruiser actually searched the packet for Paine, and if he had been captured, England would have carried out the sentence issued by Robespierre to appease Washington.
MEMORIAL ADDRESSED TO JAMES MONROE, MINISTER FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.
MEMORIAL ADDRESSED TO JAMES MONROE, MINISTER FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.
Prison of the Luxembourg, Sept. 10th, 1794.
Prison of the Luxembourg, Sept. 10, 1794.
I address this memorial to you, in consequence of a letter I received from a friend, 18 Fructidor (September 4th,) in which he says, "Mr. Monroe has told me, that he has no orders [meaning from the American government] respecting you; but I am sure he will leave nothing undone to liberate you; but, from what I can learn, from all the late Americans, you are not considered either by the Government, or by the individuals, as an American citizen. You have been made a french Citizen, which you have accepted, and you have further made yourself a servant of the french Republic; and, therefore, it would be out of character for an American Minister to interfere in their internal concerns. You must therefore either be liberated out of Compliment to America, or stand your trial, which you have a right to demand."
I’m writing this memorial to you because of a letter I got from a friend on September 4th, in which he says, "Mr. Monroe told me that he has no orders from the American government regarding you, but I’m sure he’ll do everything he can to help you. However, from what I can gather from all the recent Americans, you’re not recognized by either the government or individuals as an American citizen. You’ve been granted French citizenship, which you accepted, and you’ve also made yourself a servant of the French Republic; therefore, it wouldn’t be appropriate for an American Minister to get involved in their internal affairs. So, you’ll either be released out of courtesy to America or you can stand trial, which you have the right to request."
This information was so unexpected by me, that I am at a loss how to answer it. I know not on what principle it originates; whether from an idea that I had voluntarily abandoned my Citizenship of America for that of France, or from any article of the American Constitution applied to me. The first is untrue with respect to any intention on my part; and the second is without foundation, as I shall shew in the course of this memorial.
This information caught me so off guard that I'm not sure how to respond. I have no idea where it comes from; whether it stems from the belief that I chose to give up my American citizenship for that of France, or from some article of the American Constitution that applies to me. The first is false regarding any intent on my part, and the second is unfounded, as I will demonstrate throughout this memorial.
The idea of conferring honor of Citizenship upon foreigners, who had distinguished themselves in propagating the principles of liberty and humanity, in opposition to despotism, war, and bloodshed, was first proposed by me to La Fayette, at the commencement of the french revolution, when his heart appeared to be warmed with those principles. My motive in making this proposal, was to render the people of different nations more fraternal than they had been, or then were. I observed that almost every branch of Science had possessed itself of the exercise of this right, so far as it regarded its own institution. Most of the Academies and Societies in Europe, and also those of America, conferred the rank of honorary member, upon foreigners eminent in knowledge, and made them, in fact, citizens of their literary or scientific republic, without affecting or anyways diminishing their rights of citizenship in their own country or in other societies: and why the Science of Government should not have the same advantage, or why the people of one nation should not, by their representatives, exercise the right of conferring the honor of Citizenship upon individuals eminent in another nation, without affecting their rights of citizenship, is a problem yet to be solved.
The idea of granting citizenship to foreigners who have distinguished themselves in promoting the principles of freedom and humanity, against tyranny, conflict, and violence, was first suggested by me to La Fayette at the start of the French Revolution, when he seemed genuinely inspired by those ideals. My reason for making this suggestion was to create a stronger sense of brotherhood among people from different nations than there had been before. I noticed that nearly every field of Science had taken advantage of this right within its own community. Most academies and societies in Europe, as well as in America, awarded honorary membership to foreigners who were prominent in knowledge, effectively making them citizens of their literary or scientific communities without impacting their citizenship rights in their own countries or in other societies. So, why shouldn't the field of Government have the same opportunity, or why shouldn't representatives of one nation be allowed to confer the honor of citizenship upon notable individuals from another nation without affecting their citizenship rights? This is a question that still needs an answer.
I now proceed to remark on that part of the letter, in which the writer says, that, from what he can learn from all the late Americans, I am not considered in America, either by the Government or by the individuals, as an American citizen.
I now want to talk about that part of the letter where the writer says that, from what he can gather from all the recent Americans, I’m not seen in America, either by the Government or by individuals, as an American citizen.
In the first place I wish to ask, what is here meant by the Government of America? The members who compose the Government are only individuals, when in conversation, and who, most probably, hold very different opinions upon the subject. Have Congress as a body made any declaration respecting me, that they now no longer consider me as a citizen? If they have not, anything they otherwise say is no more than the opinion of individuals, and consequently is not legal authority, nor anyways sufficient authority to deprive any man of his Citizenship. Besides, whether a man has forfeited his rights of Citizenship, is a question not determinable by Congress, but by a Court of Judicature and a Jury; and must depend upon evidence, and the application of some law or article of the Constitution to the case. No such proceeding has yet been had, and consequently I remain a Citizen until it be had, be that decision what it may; for there can be no such thing as a suspension of rights in the interim.
First of all, I want to ask, what do we mean by the Government of America? The members who make up the Government are just individuals who, when talking among themselves, probably have very different opinions on the matter. Has Congress as a whole made any statement about me, declaring that they no longer consider me a citizen? If they haven’t, then whatever else they say is just the opinion of individuals and isn’t legal authority or enough to take away anyone’s citizenship. Furthermore, whether a person has lost their citizenship rights is a question that can’t be decided by Congress, but by a court and a jury; it must be based on evidence and the application of some law or part of the Constitution to the situation. No such process has occurred yet, so I remain a citizen until it does, regardless of the outcome; because there can’t be a suspension of rights in the meantime.
I am very well aware, and always was, of the article of the Constitution which says, as nearly as I can recollect the words, that "any citizen of the United States, who shall accept any title, place, or office, from any foreign king, prince, or state, shall forfeit and lose his right of Citizenship of the United States."
I am fully aware, and always have been, of the part of the Constitution that says, as far as I can remember, that "any citizen of the United States who accepts any title, position, or office from any foreign king, prince, or state shall forfeit and lose their citizenship rights in the United States."
Had the Article said, that any citizen of the United States, who shall be a member of any foreign convention, for the purpose of forming a free constitution, shall forfeit and lose the right of citizenship of the United States, the article had been directly applicable to me; but the idea of such an article never could have entered the mind of the American Convention, and the present article is altogether foreign to the case with respect to me. It supposes a Government in active existence, and not a Government dissolved; and it supposes a citizen of America accepting titles and offices under that Government, and not a citizen of America who gives his assistance in a Convention chosen by the people, for the purpose of forming a Government de nouveau founded on their authority.
If the Article had stated that any citizen of the United States who becomes a member of any foreign convention to create a free constitution shall forfeit their right to U.S. citizenship, then it would directly apply to me; however, such an article could never have been conceived by the American Convention, and the current article is completely irrelevant to my situation. It assumes a Government that is actively functioning, not one that has been dissolved; and it assumes an American citizen accepting titles and positions under that Government, rather than an American citizen assisting in a Convention chosen by the people to create a new Government de nouveau based on their authority.
The late Constitution and Government of France was dissolved the 10th of August, 1792. The National legislative Assembly then in being, supposed itself without sufficient authority to continue its sittings, and it proposed to the departments to elect not another legislative Assembly, but a Convention for the express purpose of forming a new Constitution. When the Assembly were discoursing on this matter, some of the members said, that they wished to gain all the assistance possible upon the subject of free constitutions; and expressed a wish to elect and invite foreigners of any Nation to the Convention, who had distinguished themselves in defending, explaining, and propagating the principles of liberty. It was on this occasion that my name was mentioned in the Assembly. (I was then in England.)
The Constitution and Government of France were dissolved on August 10, 1792. The National Legislative Assembly at that time felt it didn't have enough authority to keep meeting, so it suggested that the departments elect not another legislative assembly, but a Convention specifically to create a new Constitution. During the Assembly's discussions on this topic, some members expressed a desire to seek as much help as possible regarding free constitutions and expressed a wish to invite foreigners from any nation who had made a name for themselves in defending, explaining, and promoting the principles of liberty. It was during this discussion that my name was brought up in the Assembly. (I was in England at the time.)
1 In the American pamphlet, a footnote, probably added by Bache, says: "Even this article doesn’t exist the way it’s stated here." It's a shame Paine didn’t have the article in his prison that says: "No person holding any office of profit or trust under them [the United States] shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any gift, payment, position, or title of any kind from any king, prince, or foreign State."—Editor.
After this, a deputation from a body of the french people, in order to remove any objection that might be made against my assisting at the proposed Convention, requested the Assembly, as their representatives, to give me the title of French Citizen; after which, I was elected a member of the Convention, in four different departments, as is already known.(1)
After this, a group representing the French people asked the Assembly, as their representatives, to grant me the title of French Citizen to eliminate any objections about my participation in the proposed Convention. Following that, I was elected as a member of the Convention in four different departments, as is already known.(1)
The case, therefore, is, that I accepted nothing from any king, prince, or state, nor from any Government: for France was without any Government, except what arose from common consent, and the necessity of the case. Neither did I make myself a servant of the french Republic, as the letter alluded to expresses; for at that time France was not a republic, not even in name. She was altogether a people in a state of revolution.
The situation is that I didn’t accept anything from any king, prince, or country, nor from any government: because France had no government except what came from common agreement and the need of the moment. I also didn’t make myself a servant of the French Republic, as the letter suggests; at that time, France wasn’t even a republic by name. It was simply a people in a state of revolution.
It was not until the Convention met that France was declared a republic, and monarchy abolished; soon after which a committee was elected, of which I was a member,(2) to form a Constitution, which was presented to the Convention [and read by Condorcet, who was also a member] the 15th and 16th of February following, but was not to be taken into consideration till after the expiration of two months,(3) and if approved of by the Convention, was then to be referred to the people for their acceptance, with such additions or amendments as the Convention should make.
It wasn’t until the Convention gathered that France was declared a republic and the monarchy was abolished. Shortly after, a committee was elected, of which I was a member,(2) to create a Constitution. This was presented to the Convention [and read by Condorcet, who was also a member] on the 15th and 16th of February that year, but wouldn’t be considered until two months later.(3) If the Convention approved it, the Constitution would then be presented to the people for their approval, along with any changes or amendments that the Convention decided to make.
1 The group mentioned was called the "Extraordinary Commission," under which M. Guadet proposed that the title of French Citizen be granted to Priestley, Paine, Bentham, Wilberforce, Clarkson, Mackintosh, David Williams, Cormelle, Paw, Pestalozzi, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Klopstock, Koscinsko, Gorani, Campe, Anacharsis Clootz, and Gilleers. This took place on August 26, and Paine was elected by Calais on September 6, 1792; the same week, he was also elected by Oise, Somme, and Puy-de-Dome.—Editor. 2 Sieves, Paine, Brissot, Pition, Vergniaud, Gensonne, Barhre, Danton, Condorcet.—Editor. 3 The rest of this sentence is changed in the American pamphlet to read: "The chaos and the revolutionary government that followed halted any further progress on the case."—Editor.
In thus employing myself upon the formation of a Constitution, I certainly did nothing inconsistent with the American Constitution. I took no oath of allegiance to France, or any other oath whatever. I considered the Citizenship they had presented me with as an honorary mark of respect paid to me not only as a friend to liberty, but as an American Citizen. My acceptance of that, or of the deputyship, not conferred on me by any king, prince, or state, but by a people in a state of revolution and contending for liberty, required no transfer of my allegiance or of my citizenship from America to France. There I was a real citizen, paying Taxes; here, I was a voluntary friend, employing myself on a temporary service. Every American in Paris knew that it was my constant intention to return to America, as soon as a constitution should be established, and that I anxiously waited for that event.
In working on the formation of a Constitution, I definitely did nothing against the American Constitution. I didn't take an oath of loyalty to France or any other oath at all. I viewed the citizenship they offered me as an honorary acknowledgment of my role as a supporter of freedom and as an American citizen. My acceptance of that citizenship, or of the position as deputy, wasn’t given to me by any king, prince, or government, but by a people in revolution fighting for their freedom, and it didn’t require me to shift my allegiance or citizenship from America to France. In France, I was a true citizen, paying taxes; here, I was a voluntary supporter, engaged in a temporary role. Everyone in Paris knew that I fully intended to return to America as soon as a constitution was in place, and I eagerly awaited that moment.
I know not what opinions have been circulated in America. It may have been supposed there that I had voluntarily and intentionally abandoned America, and that my citizenship had ceased by my own choice. I can easily [believe] there are those in that country who would take such a proceeding on my part somewhat in disgust. The idea of forsaking old friendships for new acquaintances is not agreeable. I am a little warranted in making this supposition by a letter I received some time ago from the wife of one of the Georgia delegates in which she says "Your friends on this side the water cannot be reconciled to the idea of your abandoning America."
I don’t know what opinions have been spread around in America. It might have been assumed there that I voluntarily and intentionally left America, and that I chose to give up my citizenship. I can easily believe there are people in that country who would react to my actions with disgust. The thought of leaving old friends for new ones isn’t appealing. I feel a bit justified in thinking this because of a letter I received a while back from the wife of one of the Georgia delegates, in which she says, "Your friends on this side of the water can’t accept the idea of you abandoning America."
I have never abandoned her in thought, word or deed; and I feel it incumbent upon me to give this assurance to the friends I have in that country and with whom I have always intended and am determined, if the possibility exists, to close the scene of my life. It is there that I have made myself a home. It is there that I have given the services of my best days. America never saw me flinch from her cause in the most gloomy and perilous of her situations; and I know there are those in that country who will not flinch from me. If I have enemies (and every man has some) I leave them to the enjoyment of their ingratitude.*
I have never left her behind in my thoughts, words, or actions; and I feel it's important to assure my friends in that country that I have always planned and am determined, if possible, to finish my life there. It’s where I’ve built my home. It’s where I’ve dedicated the best years of my life. America never saw me back down from her cause in her darkest and most dangerous moments; and I know there are people in that country who won’t back down from me. If I have enemies (and every man does), I leave them to enjoy their ingratitude.*
* I include in a note, to break the solitude of a prison, the response I gave to the part of the letter mentioned above. It isn’t irrelevant to the subject of this Memorial; however, it contains a somewhat sad notion, a bit prophetic, that I hope isn’t coming true so soon.
It is somewhat extraordinary that the idea of my not being a citizen of America should have arisen only at the time that I am imprisoned in France because, or on the pretence that, I am a foreigner. The case involves a strange contradiction of ideas. None of the Americans who came to France whilst I was in liberty had conceived any such idea or circulated any such opinion; and why it should arise now is a matter yet to be explained. However discordant the late American Minister G. M. [Gouverneur Morris] and the late French Committee of Public Safety were, it suited the purpose of both that I should be continued in arrestation. The former wished to prevent my return to America, that I should not expose his misconduct; and the latter, lest I should publish to the world the history of its wickedness. Whilst that Minister and the Committee continued I had no expectation of liberty. I speak here of the Committee of which Robespierre was member.(1)
It’s pretty incredible that the idea of me not being a citizen of America only came up while I’m stuck in prison in France, supposedly because I’m a foreigner. The situation highlights a strange contradiction. None of the Americans who were in France while I was free had ever thought or said anything like this; it raises the question of why it’s happening now. Despite their disagreements, both the former American Minister G. M. [Gouverneur Morris] and the former French Committee of Public Safety found it convenient for me to remain detained. The minister wanted to keep me from returning to America so I wouldn’t expose his mistakes, and the committee didn’t want me revealing the truth about its wrongdoing. As long as that minister and the committee were in power, I had no hope of gaining my freedom. I’m referring to the committee that Robespierre was part of. (1)
"You really hit a nerve when you say that my friends across the water can't accept the idea of me leaving America. They’re right. I’d rather see my horse Button grazing in Borden-Town or Morrisania than witness all the glitz and glamour of Europe. "A thousand years from now (if I may indulge in a few thoughts) maybe sooner, America could be what Europe is today. The innocence of its character, which once won the hearts of nations, might sound like a fairytale, and its unmatched virtue might seem like a thing of the past. The loss of the freedom that thousands fought and died for might only become fodder for a local story or evoke a sigh from someone in the countryside, while the fashionable crowd of that time, wrapped up in indulgence, will mock the principles and deny the reality. "When we think about the fall of empires and the disappearance of the ancient nations, there's not much to make us sad besides the crumbling ruins of grand palaces, magnificent museums, enormous pyramids, and towers of the finest craftsmanship; but when America's empire falls, the reasons for sorrow will be far greater than what decaying metal and stone can inspire. It won’t be said, here was a temple of great antiquity; here stood a towering structure; or there a palace of luxurious extravagance; but here, oh, painful thought! was the greatest achievement of human wisdom, the grandest display of human glory, the beautiful cause of freedom that rose and fell. Read this, and then ask if I forget America."—Author.
1 This letter, also cited in Paine's Letter to Washington, was written from London on January 6, 1789, to Col. Few's wife, formerly Kate Nicholson. It is presented in full in my "Life of Paine," i., p. 247.—Editor.
THE MEMORIAL TO MONROE.
The Monroe Memorial.
I ever must deny, that the article of the American constitution already mentioned, can be applied either verbally, intentionally, or constructively, to me. It undoubtedly was the intention of the Convention that framed it, to preserve the purity of the American republic from being debased by foreign and foppish customs; but it never could be its intention to act against the principles of liberty, by forbidding its citizens to assist in promoting those principles in foreign Countries; neither could it be its intention to act against the principles of gratitude.(1) France had aided America in the establishment of her revolution, when invaded and oppressed by England and her auxiliaries. France in her turn was invaded and oppressed by a combination of foreign despots. In this situation, I conceived it an act of gratitude in me, as a citizen of America, to render her in return the best services I could perform. I came to France (for I was in England when I received the invitation) not to enjoy ease, emoluments, and foppish honours, as the article supposes; but to encounter difficulties and dangers in defence of liberty; and I much question whether those who now malignantly seek (for some I believe do) to turn this to my injury, would have had courage to have done the same thing. I am sure Gouverneur Morris would not. He told me the second day after my arrival, (in Paris,) that the Austrians and Prussians, who were then at Verdun, would be in Paris in a fortnight. I have no idea, said he, that seventy thousand disciplined troops can be stopped in their march by any power in France.
I must deny that the part of the American Constitution I mentioned can be applied to me in any literal, intentional, or constructive way. The goal of the Convention that created it was clearly to protect the integrity of the American republic from being tainted by foreign and trivial customs; however, it was never meant to contradict the principles of liberty by preventing its citizens from helping promote those principles in other countries, nor was it intended to go against the principles of gratitude. France had aided America during its revolution when it was invaded and oppressed by England and its allies. Now, France was facing invasion and oppression from a group of foreign tyrants. In this context, I saw it as an act of gratitude as an American citizen to offer the best services I could in return. I came to France (I was in England when I got the invitation) not to seek comfort, rewards, and trivial honors as the article suggests, but to face the challenges and dangers in defense of liberty. I seriously doubt that those who now maliciously try to use this against me—some, I believe, genuinely will—would have had the courage to do the same. I'm sure Gouverneur Morris wouldn’t have. He told me the day after I arrived in Paris that the Austrians and Prussians at Verdun would be in Paris within two weeks. He said he didn’t think any force in France could stop seventy thousand trained troops on the march.
1 This and the two previous paragraphs, including the footnote, are completely left out of the American pamphlet. It becomes clear that Paine was starting to suspect a conspiracy involving Gouverneur Morris and those responsible for his imprisonment. After he was imprisoned, he reached out to Morris, who said he had advocated for him and included the letter from Deforgues that I referenced in my Introduction to this chapter, but he withheld his own letter to the Minister. Paine responded (Feb. 14, 1793): "You can’t leave me in the situation this letter puts me in. You know I don’t deserve this, and you see the uncomfortable position I’m in. I’ve drafted a response to the Minister’s letter, which I want you to use as a basis for your reply to him. They have no real case against me—except that they don’t want me to be free to express my thoughts on the things I’ve witnessed. Even though you and I aren’t on the best terms, I’m reaching out to you as the Minister of America, and you can add whatever you think my honesty deserves to that service. In any case, I expect you to inform Congress about my situation and send them copies of the correspondence on this issue. A reply to the Minister’s letter is absolutely essential, even if it's just to keep the advocacy going. Otherwise, your silence will seem like an agreement with his comments." Since Deforgues' "comments" had been dictated by Morris himself, no reply was sent to him, and no word to Congress.—Editor. 2 In the pamphlet, this last part of the sentence is omitted.—Editor.
Besides the reasons I have already given for accepting the invitations to the Convention, I had another that has reference particularly to America, and which I mentioned to Mr. Pinckney the night before I left London to come to Paris: "That it was to the interest of America that the system of European governments should be changed and placed on the same principle with her own." Mr. Pinckney agreed fully in the same opinion. I have done my part towards it.(1)
Besides the reasons I’ve already given for accepting the invitations to the Convention, I had another reason that specifically relates to America, which I mentioned to Mr. Pinckney the night before I left London to come to Paris: "It’s in America’s interest to change the system of European governments and align it with her own." Mr. Pinckney completely agreed with this view. I’ve done my part toward it.(1)
It is certain that governments upon similar systems agree better together than those that are founded on principles discordant with each other; and the same rule holds good with respect to the people living under them. In the latter case they offend each other by pity, or by reproach; and the discordancy carries itself to matters of commerce. I am not an ambitious man, but perhaps I have been an ambitious American. I have wished to see America the Mother Church of government, and I have done my utmost to exalt her character and her condition.
It's clear that governments with similar systems get along better than those based on conflicting principles; the same goes for the people living under them. In the latter case, they annoy each other with pity or blame, and this disagreement spills over into trade. I’m not an ambitious person, but I might have been an ambitious American. I have wanted to see America as the Mother Church of governance, and I have done my best to elevate her reputation and status.
1 In the American pamphlet, the name of Pinckney (American Minister in England) is left out in this paragraph, and the last two sentences are missing from both the French and American pamphlets.—Editor.,
I have now stated sufficient matter, to shew that the Article in question is not applicable to me; and that any such application to my injury, as well in circumstances as in Rights, is contrary both to the letter and intention of that Article, and is illegal and unconstitutional. Neither do I believe that any Jury in America, when they are informed of the whole of the case, would give a verdict to deprive me of my Rights upon that Article. The citizens of America, I believe, are not very fond of permitting forced and indirect explanations to be put upon matters of this kind. I know not what were the merits of the case with respect to the person who was prosecuted for acting as prize master to a french privateer, but I know that the jury gave a verdict against the prosecution. The Rights I have acquired are dear to me. They have been acquired by honourable means, and by dangerous service in the worst of times, and I cannot passively permit them to be wrested from me. I conceive it my duty to defend them, as the case involves a constitutional and public question, which is, how far the power of the federal government (1) extends, in depriving any citizen of his Rights of Citizenship, or of suspending them.
I have now provided enough information to show that the Article in question doesn’t apply to me. Any application of it that hurts me, both in terms of circumstances and rights, contradicts both the wording and the intention of that Article, making it illegal and unconstitutional. I also believe that no jury in America, once they understand the full situation, would rule against my rights based on that Article. The citizens of America aren’t keen on allowing forced or indirect interpretations of such matters. I’m not sure what the specifics were regarding the person prosecuted for being the prize master of a French privateer, but I know the jury ruled against the prosecution. The rights I have gained are precious to me. They were earned through honorable means and dangerous service in tough times, and I cannot just let them be taken from me. I feel it’s my responsibility to defend them, as this case raises a constitutional and public question about how far the federal government's power extends in depriving any citizen of their rights or suspending them.
That the explanation of National Treaties belongs to Congress is strictly constitutional; but not the explanation of the Constitution itself, any more than the explanation of Law in the case of individual citizens. These are altogether Judiciary questions. It is, however, worth observing, that Congress, in explaining the Article of the Treaty with respect to french prizes and french privateers, confined itself strictly to the letter of the Article. Let them explain the Article of the Constitution with respect to me in the same manner, and the decision, did it appertain to them, could not deprive me of my Rights of Citizenship, or suspend them, for I have accepted nothing from any king, prince, state, or Government.
The interpretation of National Treaties is clearly the responsibility of Congress; however, the interpretation of the Constitution itself is not, just like the interpretation of laws concerning individual citizens falls to the Judiciary. That said, it’s interesting to note that when Congress interpreted the article of the Treaty regarding French prizes and privateers, they stuck closely to the wording of the Article. If they would interpret the Article of the Constitution concerning me in the same way, their decision—if it were within their authority—still couldn't take away my rights of citizenship or put them on hold, because I've accepted nothing from any king, prince, state, or government.
You will please to observe, that I speak as if the federal Government had made some declaration upon the subject of my Citizenship; whereas the fact is otherwise; and your saying that you have no order respecting me is a proof of it. Those therefore who propagate the report of my not being considered as a Citizen of America by Government, do it to the prolongation of my imprisonment, and without authority; for Congress, as a government, has neither decided upon it, nor yet taken the matter into consideration; and I request you to caution such persons against spreading such reports. But be these matters as they may, I cannot have a doubt that you find and feel the case very different, since you have heard what I have to say, and known what my situation is [better] than you did before your arrival.
Please note that I’m speaking as if the federal government has made a decision about my citizenship, but that’s not the case; your statement that you have no orders regarding me proves this. Those who spread the rumor that I am not recognized as a citizen of America by the government do so to extend my imprisonment, and they have no right to do so; Congress, as a government, has not made a decision about this or even discussed it. I ask you to warn such individuals against spreading these rumors. Regardless of the circumstances, I have no doubt that you find my situation very different now that you’ve heard what I have to say and understand my situation [better] than you did before you arrived.
1 In the pamphlet, there's an important note from Bache: "it should have been mentioned in this case, how far the Executive."—Editor..
But it was not the Americans only, but the Convention also, that knew what my intentions were upon that subject. In my last discourse delivered at the Tribune of the Convention, January 19,1793, on the motion for suspending the execution of Louis 16th, I said (the Deputy Bancal read the translation in French): "It unfortunately happens that the person who is the subject of the present discussion, is considered by the Americans as having been the friend of their revolution. His execution will be an affliction to them, and it is in your power not to wound the feelings of your ally. Could I speak the french language I would descend to your bar, and in their name become your petitioner to respite the execution of the sentence/"—"As the convention was elected for the express purpose of forming a Constitution, its continuance cannot be longer than four or five months more at furthest; and if, after my return to America, I should employ myself in writing the history of the french Revolution, I had rather record a thousand errors on the side of mercy, than be obliged to tell one act of severe Justice."—"Ah Citizens! give not the tyrant of England the triumph of seeing the man perish on a scaffold who had aided my much-loved America."
But it wasn’t just the Americans who understood my intentions; the Convention did too. In my last speech delivered at the Tribune of the Convention on January 19, 1793, regarding the motion to suspend the execution of Louis 16th, I said (Deputy Bancal read the translation in French): "Unfortunately, the person we’re discussing is seen by the Americans as a supporter of their revolution. His execution will deeply upset them, and you have the power to avoid hurting the feelings of your ally. If I could speak French, I would come down to your bar and, on their behalf, ask you to delay the execution of the sentence."—"Since the convention was elected specifically to create a Constitution, it can’t last more than four or five months at most; and if, after my return to America, I decide to write the history of the French Revolution, I would prefer to record a thousand mistakes made out of mercy than to have to recount even one act of harsh justice."—"Oh Citizens! Don’t give the English tyrant the satisfaction of watching the man who helped my beloved America die on the scaffold."
Does this look as if I had abandoned America? But if she abandons me in the situation I am in, to gratify the enemies of humanity, let that disgrace be to herself. But I know the people of America better than to believe it,(1) tho' I undertake not to answer for every individual.
Does this look like I’ve abandoned America? But if she abandons me in my current situation to please the enemies of humanity, then that shame belongs to her. However, I know the people of America well enough not to believe it, although I can’t speak for every individual.
When this discourse was pronounced, Marat launched himself into the middle of the hall and said that "I voted against the punishment of death because I was a quaker." I replied that "I voted against it both morally and politically."
When this talk was given, Marat jumped into the middle of the hall and said, "I voted against the death penalty because I’m a Quaker." I responded, "I voted against it for both moral and political reasons."
1 In the French pamphlet: "to forever lend him such feelings."
I certainly went a great way, considering the rage of the times, in endeavouring to prevent that execution. I had many reasons for so doing. I judged, and events have shewn that I judged rightly, that if they once began shedding blood, there was no knowing where it would end; and as to what the world might call honour the execution would appear like a nation killing a mouse; and in a political view, would serve to transfer the hereditary claim to some more formidable Enemy. The man could do no more mischief; and that which he had done was not only from the vice of his education, but was as much the fault of the Nation in restoring him after he had absconded June 21st, 1791, as it was his. I made the proposal for imprisonment until the end of the war and perpetual banishment after the war, instead of the punishment of death. Upwards of three hundred members voted for that proposal. The sentence for absolute death (for some members had voted the punishment of death conditionally) was carried by a majority of twenty-five out of more than seven hundred.
I definitely went to great lengths, given the anger of the times, to try to stop that execution. I had many reasons for doing so. I believed, and events have shown that I was right, that once they started shedding blood, there was no telling where it would end; and as for what people might call honor, the execution would feel like a nation swatting a fly; politically, it would just hand over the hereditary claim to a more powerful enemy. The man couldn't cause any more harm, and the trouble he caused was not only due to his upbringing but also largely the fault of the nation for bringing him back after he went missing on June 21, 1791. I suggested imprisonment until the end of the war and permanent exile afterward instead of the death penalty. Over three hundred members supported that proposal. The sentence for outright death (since some members argued for the death penalty conditionally) passed by a majority of twenty-five out of more than seven hundred.
I return from this digression to the proper subject of my memorial.(1)
I’ll get back to the main topic of my memorial now.(1)
1 This and the previous five paragraphs, along with the five that follow the nest, are left out of the American pamphlet.— Editor..
Painful as the want of liberty may be, it is a consolation to me to believe, that my imprisonment proves to the world, that I had no share in the murderous system that then reigned. That I was an enemy to it, both morally and politically, is known to all who had any knowledge of me; and could I have written french as well as I can English, I would publicly have exposed its wickedness and shewn the ruin with which it was pregnant. They who have esteemed me on former occasions, whether in America or in Europe will, I know, feel no cause to abate that esteem, when they reflect, that imprisonment with preservation of character is preferable to liberty with disgrace.
As painful as the lack of freedom is, it comforts me to believe that my imprisonment shows the world that I had no part in the violent system that was in place at the time. Everyone who knows me understands that I was against it, both morally and politically. If I could write in French as well as I do in English, I would have publicly exposed its evil and highlighted the destruction it was causing. Those who have respected me in the past, whether in America or Europe, will, I believe, find no reason to lower that respect when they consider that being imprisoned while maintaining my integrity is better than being free with shame.
I here close my Memorial and proceed to offer you a proposal that appears to me suited to all the circumstances of the case; which is, that you reclaim me conditionally, until the opinion of Congress can be obtained on the subject of my citizenship of America; and that I remain in liberty under your protection during that time.
I now finish my statement and would like to present a proposal that I believe fits all the circumstances; namely, that you conditionally reclaim me until Congress can weigh in on my American citizenship, and that I remain free under your protection during that period.
I found this proposal upon the following grounds.
I found this proposal for the following reasons.
First, you say you have no orders respecting me; consequently, you have no orders not to reclaim me; and in this case you are left discretionary judge whether to reclaim or not. My proposal therefore unites a consideration of your situation with my own.
First, you say you have no instructions regarding me; therefore, you have no instructions not to bring me back; and in this case, you are free to decide whether to bring me back or not. My proposal, then, combines your situation with my own.
Secondly, I am put in arrestation because I am a foreigner. It is therefore necessary to determine to what country I belong. The right of determining this question cannot appertain exclusively to the Committee of Public Safety or General Surety; because I appeal to the Minister of the United States, and show that my citizenship of that country is good and valid, referring at the same time, thro' the agency of the Minister, my claim of right to the opinion of Congress. It being a matter between two Governments.
Secondly, I'm being held because I'm a foreigner. So, it's important to figure out which country I belong to. The authority to decide this issue shouldn't belong solely to the Committee of Public Safety or General Surety; I’m appealing to the Minister of the United States, demonstrating that my citizenship there is legitimate and valid. At the same time, I'm referring my claim to Congress's opinion through the Minister, since this is a matter between two governments.
Thirdly. France does not claim me fora citizen; neither do I set up any claim of citizenship in France. The question is simply, whether I am or am not a citizen of America. I am imprisoned here on the decree for imprisoning foreigners, because, say they, I was born in England. I say in answer that, though born in England, I am not a subject of the English Government any more than any other American who was born, as they all were, under the same Government, or than the Citizens of France are subjects of the French Monarchy under which they were born. I have twice taken the oath of abjuration to the British King and Government and of Allegiance to America,—once as a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania in 1776, and again before Congress, administered to me by the President, Mr. Hancock, when I was appointed Secretary in the Office of Foreign Affairs in 1777.
Thirdly, France doesn’t consider me a citizen, and I don’t claim citizenship in France either. The question is simply whether I am a citizen of America or not. I’m being held here under a decree for imprisoning foreigners because they say I was born in England. In response, I argue that, even though I was born in England, I am not a subject of the English Government, just like any other American who was born under the same government, or how citizens of France are subjects of the French Monarchy under which they were born. I have taken the oath of allegiance to America twice, having abjured my loyalty to the British King and Government—once as a citizen of Pennsylvania in 1776, and again before Congress, administered to me by the President, Mr. Hancock, when I was appointed Secretary in the Office of Foreign Affairs in 1777.
The letter before quoted in the first page of this memorial, says, "It would be out of character for an American minister to interfere in the internal affairs of France." This goes on the idea that I am a citizen of France, and a member of the Convention, which is not the fact. The Convention have declared me to be a foreigner; and consequently the citizenship and the election are null and void.(1) It also has the appearance of a Decision, that the article of the Constitution, respecting grants made to American Citizens by foreign kings, princes, or states, is applicable to me; which is the very point in question, and against the application of which I contend. I state evidence to the Minister, to shew that I am not within the letter or meaning of that Article; that it cannot operate against me; and I apply to him for the protection that I conceive I have a right to ask and to receive. The internal affairs of France are out of the question with respect to my application or his interference. I ask it not as a citizen of France, for I am not one: I ask it not as a member of the Convention, for I am not one; both these, as before said, have been rendered null and void; I ask it not as a man against whom there is any accusation, for there is none; I ask it not as an exile from America, whose liberties I have honourably and generously contributed to establish; I ask it as a Citizen of America, deprived of his liberty in France, under the plea of being a foreigner; and I ask it because I conceive I am entitled to it, upon every principle of Constitutional Justice and National honour.(2)
The letter referenced on the first page of this memorial states, "It would be out of character for an American minister to interfere in the internal affairs of France." This assumes that I am a citizen of France and a member of the Convention, which is not true. The Convention has declared me to be a foreigner; therefore, my citizenship and election are null and void. It also suggests a ruling that the part of the Constitution regarding grants made to American citizens by foreign kings, princes, or states applies to me; this is the very issue at hand, and I argue against its application to my situation. I present evidence to the Minister to show that I am not covered by that Article; it cannot be used against me, and I request his protection, which I believe I have the right to ask for and receive. The internal affairs of France are irrelevant to my request or his involvement. I am not asking as a citizen of France because I am not one; I am not asking as a member of the Convention since I am not one; both of these have been rendered null and void. I am not asking as someone with any accusations against them, because there are none; I am not asking as an exile from America, whose freedoms I have honorably and generously helped establish; I am asking as a Citizen of America, deprived of my liberty in France under the claim of being a foreigner; and I ask this because I believe I am entitled to it based on every principle of Constitutional Justice and National honor.
1 In the pamphlet: "The Convention allowed me to vote for the expulsion of foreigners from the Convention, and the Committees confined me as a foreigner."—Editor. 2 All previous editions of the pamphlet conclude with this statement.—Editor.
But tho' I thus positively assert my claim because I believe I have a right to do so, it is perhaps most eligible, in the present situation of things, to put that claim upon the footing I have already mentioned; that is, that the Minister reclaims me conditionally until the opinion of Congress can be obtained on the subject of my citizenship of America, and that I remain in liberty under the protection of the Minister during that interval.
But even though I'm confidently stating my claim because I believe I have the right to do so, it might be best, given the current situation, to frame that claim as I already mentioned; that is, that the Minister conditionally reclaims me until Congress can weigh in on my American citizenship, and that I stay free under the Minister's protection during that time.
N. B. I should have added that as Gouverneur Morris could not inform Congress of the cause of my arrestation, as he knew it not himself, it is to be supposed that Congress was not enough acquainted with the case to give any directions respecting me when you came away.
N. B. I should have mentioned that since Gouverneur Morris couldn't tell Congress the reason for my arrest, because he didn't know it himself, it's likely that Congress wasn't familiar enough with the situation to provide any instructions regarding me when you left.
T.P. ADDENDA.
T.P. Addendum.
Letters, hitherto unpublished, written by Paine to Monroe before his release on November 4., 1794.
Letters, previously unpublished, written by Paine to Monroe before his release on November 4, 1794.
1. Luxembourg Mem Vendemaire, Old Style Oct 4th 1794
1. Luxembourg Mem Vendemaire, Old Style Oct 4th 1794
Dear Sir: I thank you for your very friendly and affectionate letter of the 18th September which I did not receive till this morning.(1) It has relieved my mind from a load of disquietude. You will easily suppose that if the information I received had been exact, my situation was without hope. I had in that case neither section, department nor Country, to reclaim me; but that is not all, I felt a poignancy of grief, in having the least reason to suppose that America had so soon forgotten me who had never forgotten her.
Dear Sir, Thank you for your kind and heartfelt letter from September 18th, which I only received this morning. It has lifted a heavy weight of anxiety off my mind. You can easily imagine that if the information I received had been accurate, my situation would have been hopeless. In that case, I would have had no section, department, or country to turn to for help; but that’s not all—I felt a deep sadness at the thought that America had quickly forgotten me when I have never forgotten her.
Mr. Labonadaire, in a note of yesterday, directed me to write to the Convention. As I suppose this measure has been taken in concert with you, I have requested him to shew you the letter, of which he will make a translation to accompany the original.
Mr. Labonadaire, in a note from yesterday, asked me to write to the Convention. Since I assume this action was discussed with you, I've asked him to show you the letter, and he will provide a translation to go with the original.
(I cannot see what motive can induce them to keep me in prison. It will gratify the English Government and afflict the friends I have in America. The supporters of the system of Terror might apprehend that if I was in liberty and in America I should publish the history of their crimes, but the present persons who have overset that immoral System ought to have no such apprehension. On the contrary, they ought to consider me as one of themselves, at least as one of their friends. Had I been an insignificant character I had not been in arrestation. It was the literary and philosophical reputation I had gained, in the world, that made them my Enemies; and I am the victim of the principles, and if I may be permitted to say it, of the talents, that procured me the esteem of America. My character is the secret of my arrestation.)
(I can't see what reason they have to keep me in prison. It will please the English Government and upset my friends in America. The supporters of the system of Terror might worry that if I were free and in America, I would expose the history of their crimes, but those currently in power who have toppled that immoral System shouldn’t have any such fears. Instead, they should view me as one of them, or at least as one of their allies. If I had been an insignificant person, I wouldn't have been arrested. It was my literary and philosophical reputation that made me their Enemy; I’m a victim of the principles, and if I may say so, the talents, that earned me the respect of America. My character is the secret behind my arrest.)
1 Printed in the letter to Washington, chap. XXII. The sixteen-day delay in Monroe's letter was likely caused by the tactics of Paine's opponents on the Committee of Public Safety. He was freed only after they were removed from the Committee and Gouverneur Morris left. — Editor.,
If the letter I have written be not covered by other authority than my own it will have no effect, for they already know all that I can say. On what ground do they pretend to deprive America of the service of any of her citizens without assigning a cause, or only the flimsy one of my being born in England? Gates, were he here, might be arrested on the same pretence, and he and Burgoyne be confounded together.
If the letter I've written isn't backed by anything other than my own authority, it won’t mean anything, since they already know everything I have to say. On what basis do they claim to deny America the services of any of her citizens without giving a reason, or just the weak excuse that I was born in England? Gates, if he were here, could be arrested on the same grounds, and he and Burgoyne would be lumped together.
It is difficult for me to give an opinion, but among other things that occur to me, I think that if you were to say that, as it will be necessary to you to inform the Government of America of my situation, you require an explanation with the Committee upon that subject; that you are induced to make this proposal not only out of esteem for the character of the person who is the personal object of it, but because you know that his arrestation will distress the Americans, and the more so as it will appear to them to be contrary to their ideas of civil and national justice, it might perhaps have some effect. If the Committee [of Public Safety] will do nothing, it will be necessary to bring this matter openly before the Convention, for I do most sincerely assure you, from the observations that I hear, and I suppose the same are made in other places, that the character of America lies under some reproach. All the world knows that I have served her, and they see that I am still in prison; and you know that when people can form a conclusion upon a simple fact, they trouble not themselves about reasons. I had rather that America cleared herself of all suspicion of ingratitude, though I were to be the victim.
It’s hard for me to share my thoughts, but considering everything, I believe that if you mention that you need to inform the U.S. government about my situation, you should ask for clarification from the Committee on that topic. You're motivated to make this suggestion not only out of respect for the individual involved but also because you know that his arrest will upset Americans, especially since it seems to contradict their beliefs about civil and national justice. This might have some impact. If the Committee [of Public Safety] doesn’t take action, we’ll need to bring this issue to the Convention openly. I sincerely assure you, based on what I hear—and I assume similar discussions are happening elsewhere—that America’s reputation is under some scrutiny. Everyone knows I have served her, and they see that I’m still in prison. People often jump to conclusions based on a simple fact and don’t bother with the reasons behind it. I’d prefer that America remove any doubts about ingratitude, even if it means I suffer because of it.
You advise me to have patience, but I am fully persuaded that the longer I continue in prison the more difficult will be my liberation. There are two reasons for this: the one is that the present Committee, by continuing so long my imprisonment, will naturally suppose that my mind will be soured against them, as it was against those who put me in, and they will continue my imprisonment from the same apprehensions as the former Committee did; the other reason is, that it is now about two months since your arrival, and I am still in prison. They will explain this into an indifference upon my fate that will encourage them to continue my imprisonment. When I hear some people say that it is the Government of America that now keeps me in prison by not reclaiming me, and then pour forth a volley of execrations against her, I know not how to answer them otherwise than by a direct denial which they do not appear to believe. You will easily conclude that whatever relates to imprisonments and liberations makes a topic of prison conversation; and as I am now the oldest inhabitant within these walls, except two or three, I am often the subject of their remarks, because from the continuance of my imprisonment they auger ill to themselves. You see I write you every thing that occurs to me, and I conclude with thanking you again for your very friendly and affectionate letter, and am with great respect,
You suggest I be patient, but I'm convinced that the longer I stay in prison, the harder it will be for me to get out. There are two reasons for this: first, the current Committee, by keeping me imprisoned for so long, will naturally think that I'm becoming bitter towards them, just as I was towards those who put me here, so they'll extend my imprisonment out of the same fears as the previous Committee did; second, it’s been almost two months since you arrived, and I’m still in jail. They might interpret this as a sign that I don’t care about my situation, which would only encourage them to keep me locked up. When I hear some people say it's the U.S. government that keeps me in here by not intervening and then launch into a tirade against it, I can only reply with a flat denial that they seem not to believe. You can easily guess that discussions about imprisonment and freedom are common topics among inmates; since I'm now one of the longest-serving residents behind these walls, aside from a couple of others, I often become the topic of their conversations, as my ongoing imprisonment worries them about their own situations. As you can see, I share everything that comes to my mind, and I want to end by thanking you again for your thoughtful and kind letter. I remain, with great respect,
Your's affectionately,
Yours affectionately,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
(To day is the anniversary of the action at German Town. [October 4, 1777.] Your letter has enabled me to contradict the observations before mentioned.)
(To day is the anniversary of the battle at Germantown. [October 4, 1777.] Your letter has allowed me to refute the comments made earlier.)
2. Oct 13, 1794 Dear Sir: On the 28th of this Month (October) I shall have suffered ten months imprisonment, to the dishonour of America as well as of myself, and I speak to you very honestly when I say that my patience is exhausted. It is only my actual liberation that can make me believe it. Had any person told me that I should remain in prison two months after the arrival of a new Minister, I should have supposed that he meant to affront me as an American. By the friendship and sympathy you express in your letter you seem to consider my imprisonment as having connection only with myself, but I am certain that the inferences that follow from it have relation also to the National character of America, I already feel this in myself, for I no longer speak with pride of being a citizen of that country. Is it possible Sir that I should, when I am suffering unjust imprisonment under the very eye of her new Minister?
2. Oct 13, 1794 Dear Sir: On the 28th of this month (October), I will have been imprisoned for ten months, which is a disgrace to both America and myself. I’m being completely honest when I say that I’ve run out of patience. Only my release will convince me of that. If anyone had told me I would still be in prison two months after the new Minister arrived, I would have thought they were trying to insult me as an American. By the friendship and sympathy you show in your letter, it seems you view my imprisonment as solely my issue, but I’m certain the implications extend to the national character of America as well. I already feel this personally, as I no longer take pride in being a citizen of that country. How can it be, Sir, that I am unjustly imprisoned right under the new Minister’s watch?
While there was no Minister here (for I consider Morris as none) nobody wondered at my imprisonment, but now everybody wonders. The continuance of it under a change of diplomatic circumstances, subjects me to the suspicion of having merited it, and also to the suspicion of having forfeited my reputation with America; and it subjects her at the same time to the suspicion of ingratitude, or to the reproach of wanting national or diplomatic importance. The language that some Americans have held of my not being considered as an American citizen, tho' contradicted by yourself, proceeds, I believe, from no other motive, than the shame and dishonour they feel at the imprisonment of a fellow-citizen, and they adopt this apology, at my expence, to get rid of that disgrace. Is it not enough that I suffer imprisonment, but my mind also must be wounded and tortured with subjects of this kind? Did I reason from personal considerations only, independent of principles and the pride of having practiced those principles honourably, I should be tempted to curse the day I knew America. By contributing to her liberty I have lost my own, and yet her Government beholds my situation in silence. Wonder not, Sir, at the ideas I express or the language in which I express them. If I have a heart to feel for others I can feel also for myself, and if I have anxiety for my own honour, I have it also for a country whose suffering infancy I endeavoured to nourish and to which I have been enthusiastically attached. As to patience I have practiced it long—as long as it was honorable to do so, and when it goes beyond that point it becomes meanness.
While there was no Minister here (since I don’t consider Morris one), no one was surprised by my imprisonment, but now everyone is curious. The fact that I’m still imprisoned under changing diplomatic circumstances makes people suspect that I deserve this fate and that I’ve lost my reputation with America. It also casts doubt on America's gratitude or suggests a lack of national or diplomatic significance. The way some Americans claim that I’m not considered an American citizen, even though you’ve contradicted that, I believe stems from their shame and dishonor over the imprisonment of a fellow citizen, and they use this excuse at my expense to escape that disgrace. Is it not enough that I endure confinement; must my mind also suffer and be tormented by such issues? If I only thought about personal matters, without considering principles and the pride of having upheld those principles honorably, I would be tempted to curse the day I became associated with America. By supporting her freedom, I’ve lost my own, and yet her government remains silent about my plight. Don’t be surprised, Sir, by the thoughts I express or the words I choose. If I can empathize with others, I can also empathize with myself, and if I care about my own honor, I also care about a country whose struggling beginnings I tried to nurture and to which I've been passionately devoted. As for patience, I have practiced it for a long time—long enough for it to be honorable, and when it goes beyond that, it becomes cowardice.
I am inclined to believe that you have attended to my imprisonment more as a friend than as a Minister. As a friend I thank you for your affectionate attachment. As a Minister you have to look beyond me to the honour and reputation of your Government; and your Countrymen, who have accustomed themselves to consider any subject in one line of thinking only, more especially if it makes a strong [impression] upon them, as I believe my situation has made upon you, do not immediately see the matters that have relation to it in another line; and it is to bring these two into one point that I offer you these observations. A citizen and his country, in a case like mine, are so closely connected that the case of one is the case of both.
I believe you've looked after my imprisonment more as a friend than as a Minister. As a friend, I appreciate your caring support. As a Minister, you must consider the honor and reputation of your Government; and your fellow citizens, who tend to view any issue in a single perspective, especially if it strongly affects them—as I think my situation has affected you—often overlook the broader aspects. I'm sharing these thoughts to help you see both sides as interrelated. A citizen and their country are so intertwined in situations like mine that what affects one affects the other.
When you first arrived the path you had to pursue with respect to my liberation was simple. I was imprisoned as a foreigner; you knew that foreigner to be a citizen of America, and you knew also his character, and as such you should immediately have reclaimed him. You could lose nothing by taking strong ground, but you might lose much by taking an inferior one; but instead of this, which I conceive would have been the right line of acting, you left me in their hands on the loose intimation that my liberation would take place without your direct interference, and you strongly recommended it to me to wait the issue. This is more than seven weeks ago and I am still in prison. I suspect these people are trifling with you, and if they once believe they can do that, you will not easily get any business done except what they wish to have done.
When you first arrived, the path you needed to take for my freedom was straightforward. I was locked up as a foreigner; you knew that foreigner was an American citizen, and you also knew his character, so you should have immediately claimed him. You wouldn't have lost anything by taking a firm stance, but you could lose a lot by taking a weaker one. Instead of this approach, which I believe would have been the right way to act, you left me in their hands with the vague suggestion that my release would happen without your direct involvement, and you strongly advised me to wait and see what happened. That was more than seven weeks ago, and I'm still in jail. I suspect these people are messing with you, and if they think they can get away with that, you won’t easily get anything done except what they want done.
When I take a review of my whole situation—my circumstances ruined, my health half destroyed, my person imprisoned, and the prospect of imprisonment still staring me in the face, can you wonder at the agony of my feelings? You lie down in safety and rise to plenty; it is otherwise with me; I am deprived of more than half the common necessaries of life; I have not a candle to burn and cannot get one. Fuel can be procured only in small quantities and that with great difficulty and very dear, and to add to the rest, I am fallen into a relapse and am again on the sick list. Did you feel the whole force of what I suffer, and the disgrace put upon America by this injustice done to one of her best and most affectionate citizens, you would not, either as a friend or Minister, rest a day till you had procured my liberation. It is the work of two or three hours when you set heartily about it, that is, when you demand me as an American citizen, or propose a conference with the Committee upon that subject; or you may make it the work of a twelve-month and not succeed. I know these people better than you do.
When I look at my entire situation—my circumstances ruined, my health seriously damaged, my freedom taken away, and the prospect of imprisonment still looming over me—can you blame me for the pain I feel? You go to bed in safety and wake up with abundance; that's not the case for me. I'm missing more than half of the basic necessities of life; I don’t even have a candle to use and can’t get one. Fuel is hard to come by, and when I do manage to find it, it’s in tiny amounts and really expensive. To make matters worse, I’ve relapsed and am sick again. If you truly understood the full extent of what I’m going through and the shame brought upon America by this unfair treatment of one of her most devoted citizens, you wouldn’t rest a single day, either as a friend or a Minister, until you secured my release. It only takes two or three hours of your genuine effort; that is, if you demand my release as an American citizen or suggest a meeting with the Committee about it. Otherwise, you might spend a year trying and still not succeed. I know these people better than you do.
You desire me to believe that "you are placed here on a difficult Theatre with many important objects to attend to, and with but few to consult with, and that it becomes you in pursuit of these to regulate your conduct with respect to each, as to manner and time, as will in your judgment be best calculated to accomplish the whole." As I know not what these objects are I can say nothing to that point. But I have always been taught to believe that the liberty of a Citizen was the first object of all free Governments, and that it ought not to give preference to, or be blended with, any other. It is that public object that all the world can see, and which obtains an influence upon public opinion more than any other. This is not the case with the objects you allude to. But be those objects what they may, can you suppose you will accomplish them the easier by holding me in the back-ground, or making me only an accident in the negotiation? Those with whom you confer will conclude from thence that you do not feel yourself very strong upon those points, and that you politically keep me out of sight in the meantime to make your approach the easier.
You want me to believe that "you're in a tough situation with a lot of important things to focus on, and not many people to consult with, so you need to manage your actions regarding each one, in terms of how and when, in a way that you think will best help you achieve everything." Since I have no idea what these things are, I can't comment on that. However, I've always been taught that a citizen's freedom is the primary goal of all free governments and that it shouldn't be prioritized over or mixed with anything else. This is a public issue that everyone can see, and it influences public opinion more than anything else. The things you're referring to don't have that kind of visibility. But no matter what those things are, do you really think you'll achieve them more easily by keeping me in the background or by making me just a minor player in the negotiation? Those you talk to will assume you're not very confident about those points and that you're keeping me out of the picture to make your approach easier.
There is one part in your letter that is equally as proper should be communicated to the Committee as to me, and which I conceive you are under some diplomatic obligation to do. It is that part which you conclude by saying that "to the welfare of Thomas Paine the Americans are not and cannot be indifferent." As it is impossible the Americans can preserve their esteem for me and for my oppressors at the same time, the injustice to me strikes at the popular part of the Treaty of Alliance. If it be the wish of the Committee to reduce the treaty to a mere skeleton of Government forms, they are taking the right method to do it, and it is not improbable they will blame you afterwards for not in-forming them upon the subject. The disposition to retort has been so notorious here, that you ought to be guarded against it at all points.
There’s one part in your letter that should definitely be shared with the Committee just as much as with me, and I think you have a diplomatic duty to do so. It’s the part where you end by saying that "to the welfare of Thomas Paine the Americans are not and cannot be indifferent." Since it’s impossible for Americans to keep their respect for me and for my oppressors at the same time, the injustice against me directly affects the popular aspect of the Treaty of Alliance. If the Committee wants to reduce the treaty to just a bare outline of government formalities, they’re on the right track, and it’s likely they will later blame you for not informing them about this. The tendency to retaliate has been so evident here that you should be on guard against it at all times.
You say in your letter that you doubt whether the gentleman who informed me of the language held by some Americans respecting my citizenship of America conveyed even his own ideas clearly upon the subject.(1) I know not how this may be, but I believe he told me the truth. I received a letter a few days ago from a friend and former comrade of mine in which he tells me, that all the Americans he converses with, say, that I should have been in liberty long ago if the Minister could have reclaimed me as an American citizen. When I compare this with the counter-declarations in your letter I can explain the case no otherwise than I have already done, that it is an apology to get rid of the shame and dishonour they feel at the imprisonment of an American citizen, and because they are not willing it should be supposed there is want of influence in the American Embassy. But they ought to see that this language is injurious to me.
You mention in your letter that you’re not sure if the guy who told me about how some Americans view my citizenship in the U.S. really expressed his own thoughts clearly on the matter.(1) I can't say for sure, but I believe he was being honest with me. A few days ago, I got a letter from a friend and former comrade who said that everyone he talks to in America believes I would have been free long ago if the Minister could have claimed me as an American citizen. When I compare this with the opposing statements in your letter, I can only interpret it the way I already have: it's an excuse to escape the shame and dishonor they feel over the imprisonment of an American citizen, and because they don’t want it to seem like there’s a lack of influence from the American Embassy. But they should realize that this talk is harmful to me.
On the 2d of this month Vendemaire I received a line from Mr. Beresford in which he tells me I shall be in liberty in two or three days, and that he has this from good authority. On the 12th I received a note from Mr. Labonadaire, written at the Bureau of the Concierge, in which he tells me of the interest you take in procuring my liberation, and that after the steps that had been already taken that I ought to write to the Convention to demand my liberty purely and simply as a citizen of the United States of America. He advised me to send the letter to him, and he would translate it. I sent the letter inclosing at the same time a letter to you. I have heard nothing since of the letter to the Convention. On the 17th I received a letter from my former comrade Vanhuele, in which he says "I am just come from Mr. Russell who had yesterday a conversation with your Minister and your liberation is certain—you will be in liberty to-morrow." Vanhuele also adds, "I find the advice of Mr. Labonadaire good, for tho' you have some enemies in the Convention, the strongest and best part are in your favour." But the case is, and I felt it whilst I was writing the letter to the Convention, that there is an awkwardness in my appearing, you being present; for every foreigner should apply thro' his Minister, or rather his Minister for him.
On the 2nd of this month, Vendemaire, I received a message from Mr. Beresford, where he tells me I should be free in two or three days, and he got this information from a reliable source. On the 12th, I got a note from Mr. Labonadaire, written at the Bureau of the Concierge, letting me know about your efforts to secure my release. He mentioned that, given the steps already taken, I should write to the Convention to request my freedom purely and simply as a citizen of the United States of America. He suggested I send the letter to him so he could translate it. I sent the letter along with one addressed to you. I haven't heard anything since regarding the letter to the Convention. On the 17th, I received a letter from my former comrade Vanhuele, in which he writes, "I just came from Mr. Russell, who had a conversation yesterday with your Minister, and your release is certain—you will be free tomorrow." Vanhuele also adds, "I think Mr. Labonadaire's advice is good because, although you have some enemies in the Convention, the strongest and most supportive members are on your side." However, I felt it was awkward to be asking for my release while you were present, since every foreigner should go through their Minister, or rather have their Minister act on their behalf.
1 The letter from Peter Whiteside, mentioned at the beginning of the Memorial. See the introduction to the Memorial. It seems from the entire letter that Americans in Paris were unaware that Monroe had been kept out of his office by Morris for almost a month after he arrived in Paris.—Editor.
When I thus see day after day and month after month, and promise after promise, pass away without effect, what can I conclude but that either the Committees are secretly determined not to let me go, or that the measures you take are not pursued with the vigor necessary to give them effect; or that the American National character is without sufficient importance in the French Republic? The latter will be gratifying to the English Government. In short, Sir, the case is now arrived to that crisis, that for the sake of your own reputation as a Minister you ought to require a positive answer from the Committee. As to myself, it is more agreeable to me now to contemplate an honourable destruction, and to perish in the act of protesting against the injustice I suffer, and to caution the people of America against confiding too much in the Treaty of Alliance, violated as it has been in every principle, and in my imprisonment though an American Citizen, than remain in the wretched condition I am. I am no longer of any use to the world or to myself.
When I see day after day and month after month, and promise after promise, slip by without any results, what can I conclude except that either the Committees are secretly set on not letting me go, or that the actions you take aren’t being pursued with the necessary intensity to make them effective; or that the American national character isn’t valued enough in the French Republic? The last point would please the English Government. In short, Sir, we’ve reached a point where, for the sake of your reputation as a Minister, you should demand a definitive answer from the Committee. As for me, I’d rather face an honorable end and die while protesting against the injustice I’m suffering, and warn the people of America not to rely too much on the Treaty of Alliance, which has been violated in every way, and during my imprisonment despite being an American citizen, rather than continue in this miserable situation. I am no longer useful to the world or to myself.
There was a time when I beheld the Revolution of the 10th. Thermidor [the fall of Robespierre] with enthusiasm. It was the first news my comrade Vanhuele communicated to me during my illness, and it contributed to my recovery. But there is still something rotten at the Center, and the Enemies that I have, though perhaps not numerous, are more active than my friends. If I form a wrong opinion of men or things it is to you I must look to set me right. You are in possession of the secret. I know nothing of it. But that I may be guarded against as many wants as possible I shall set about writing a memorial to Congress, another to the State of Pennsylvania, and an address to the people of America; but it will be difficult for me to finish these until I know from yourself what applications you have made for my liberation, and what answers you have received.
There was a time when I watched the Revolution of the 10th of Thermidor [the fall of Robespierre] with excitement. It was the first news my friend Vanhuele shared with me during my illness, and it helped me get better. But there's still something wrong at the core, and the enemies I have, though maybe not many, are more active than my friends. If I have a misunderstanding about people or things, I look to you to help me see clearly. You hold the answers. I don't know anything about it. To prepare for as many needs as possible, I’ll start writing a memorial to Congress, another to the State of Pennsylvania, and a message to the people of America; but it will be hard for me to finish these until I hear from you about what requests you've made for my freedom and what responses you've received.
Ah, Sir, you would have gotten a load of trouble and difficulties off your hands that I fear will multiply every day, had you made it a point to procure my liberty when you first arrived, and not left me floating on the promises of men whom you did not know. You were then a new character. You had come in consequence of their own request that Morris should be recalled; and had you then, before you opened any subject of negociation that might arise into controversy, demanded my liberty either as a Civility or as a Right I see not how they could have refused it.
Ah, Sir, you would have saved yourself a lot of trouble and difficulties that I’m afraid will only increase every day if you had made it a priority to secure my freedom when you first arrived, instead of leaving me dependent on the promises of people you didn’t know. You were a new figure back then. You came because they requested that Morris be recalled; and if you had, before discussing any topics that might lead to disputes, asked for my freedom as a courtesy or a right, I don't see how they could have denied it.
I have already said that after all the promises that have been made I am still in prison. I am in the dark upon all the matters that relate to myself. I know not if it be to the Convention, to the Committee of Public Safety, of General Surety, or to the deputies who come sometimes to the Luxembourg to examine and put persons in liberty, that applications have been made for my liberation. But be it to whom it may, my earnest and pressing request to you as Minister is that you will bring this matter to a conclusion by reclaiming me as an American citizen imprisoned in France under the plea of being a foreigner born in England; that I may know the result, and how to prepare the Memorials I have mentioned, should there be occasion for them. The right of determining who are American citizens can belong only to America. The Convention have declared I am not a French Citizen because she has declared me to be a foreigner, and have by that declaration cancelled and annulled the vote of the former assembly that conferred the Title of Citizen upon Citizens or subjects of other Countries. I should not be honest to you nor to myself were I not to express myself as I have done in this letter, and I confide and request you will accept it in that sense and in no other.
I've already mentioned that despite all the promises made, I’m still in prison. I'm completely in the dark about everything concerning my situation. I don’t know if the applications for my release have been submitted to the Convention, the Committee of Public Safety, the Committee of General Surety, or to the deputies who occasionally come to the Luxembourg to assess and release detainees. Regardless of whom it may concern, my urgent and sincere request to you as Minister is to resolve this matter by advocating for me as an American citizen imprisoned in France under the claim of being a foreigner born in England; I need to know the outcome so that I can prepare the memorials I previously mentioned, if necessary. The authority to determine who qualifies as American citizens can only belong to America. The Convention has declared that I am not a French citizen because they consider me a foreigner, and with that declaration, they have effectively canceled and annulled the decision of the previous assembly that granted citizenship to individuals from other countries. I wouldn't be honest with you or myself if I didn't express my thoughts as I have in this letter, and I trust you will accept it in that spirit and no other.
I am, with great respect, your suffering fellow-citizen,
I am, with great respect, your suffering fellow citizen,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
P. S.—If my imprisonment is to continue, and I indulge very little hope to the contrary, I shall be under the absolute necessity of applying to you for a supply of several articles. Every person here have their families or friends upon the spot who make provision for them. This is not the case with me; I have no person I can apply to but the American Minister, and I can have no doubt that if events should prevent my repaying the expence Congress or the State of Pennsylvania will discharge it for me.
P. S.—If I'm going to stay in prison for a while longer, which I hardly hope won't happen, I'll need to ask you for some supplies. Everyone else here has family or friends nearby who take care of them. That's not true for me; I have no one to turn to except the American Minister, and I'm sure that if I can't pay back the costs, Congress or the State of Pennsylvania will cover it for me.
To day is 22 Vendemaire Monday October 13, but you will not receive this letter till the 14th. I will send the bearer to you again on the 15th, Wednesday, and I will be obliged to you to send me for the present, three or four candles, a little sugar of any kind, and some soap for shaving; and I should be glad at the same time to receive a line from you and a memorandum of the articles. Were I in your place I would order a Hogshead of Sugar, some boxes of Candles and Soap from America, for they will become still more scarce. Perhaps the best method for you to procure them at present is by applying to the American Consuls at Bordeaux and Havre, and have them up by the diligence.
Today is 22 Vendemaire, Monday, October 13, but you won't get this letter until the 14th. I will send the messenger to you again on the 15th, Wednesday, and I would appreciate it if you could send me, for now, three or four candles, a little sugar of any kind, and some shaving soap; and I would also be glad to receive a note from you along with a list of the items. If I were in your position, I would order a hogshead of sugar, some boxes of candles, and soap from America because they will become even more scarce. The best way for you to get them right now might be to ask the American consuls in Bordeaux and Havre and have them sent by the diligence.
3. [Undated.]
3. [No date.]
Dear Sir: As I have not yet received any answer to my last, I have amused myself with writing you the inclosed memoranda. Though you recommend patience to me I cannot but feel very pointedly the uncomfortableness of my situation, and among other reflections that occur to me I cannot think that America receives any credit from the long imprisonment that I suffer. It has the appearance of neglecting her citizens and her friends and of encouraging the insults of foreign nations upon them, and upon her commerce. My imprisonment is as well and perhaps more known in England than in France, and they (the English) will not be intimidated from molesting an American ship when they see that one of her best citizens (for I have a right to call myself so) can be imprisoned in another country at the mere discretion of a Committee, because he is a foreigner.
Dear Sir: Since I haven't received a reply to my last message, I've occupied myself by writing the enclosed notes. While you advise me to be patient, I can't help but feel the discomfort of my situation very acutely. Among other thoughts that come to mind, I can’t believe that America gains any respect from the prolonged imprisonment I’m enduring. It looks like she is neglecting her citizens and friends and allowing foreign nations to insult them and her trade. My imprisonment is as well-known, if not more so, in England than in France, and the English won't be deterred from bothering American ships when they see that one of her best citizens (and I have the right to call myself that) can be locked up in another country at the whim of a Committee, simply because he is a foreigner.
When you first arrived every body congratulated me that I should soon, if not immediately, be in liberty. Since that time about two hundred have been set free from this prison on the applications of their sections or of individuals—and I am continually hurt by the observations that are made—"that a section in Paris has more influence than America."
When you first got here, everyone congratulated me and said I should be free soon, if not right away. Since then, about two hundred people have been released from this prison due to requests from their groups or individuals—and I'm constantly hurt by the comments that are made—"that a group in Paris has more influence than America."
It is right that I furnish you with these circumstances. It is the effect of my anxiety that the character of America suffer no reproach; for the world knows that I have acted a generous duty by her. I am the third American that has been imprisoned. Griffiths nine weeks, Haskins about five, and myself eight [months] and yet in prison. With respect to the two former there was then no Minister, for I consider Morris as none; and they were liberated on the applications of the Americans in Paris. As to myself I had rather be publicly and honorably reclaimed, tho' the reclamation was refused, than remain in the uncertain situation that I am. Though my health has suffered my spirits are not broken. I have nothing to fear unless innocence and fortitude be crimes. America, whatever may be my fate, will have no cause to blush for me as a citizen; I hope I shall have none to blush for her as a country. If, my dear Sir, there is any-thing in the perplexity of ideas I have mistaken, only suppose yourself in my situation, and you will easily find an excuse for it. I need not say how much I shall rejoice to pay my respects to you without-side the walls of this prison, and to enquire after my American friends. But I know that nothing can be accomplished here but by unceasing perseverance and application. Yours affectionately.
I think it’s important to share these details with you. My anxiety comes from wanting to protect America's reputation; the world knows I have done my duty by her. I am the third American to be imprisoned. Griffiths was in jail for nine weeks, Haskins for about five, and I have been here for eight months and counting. At that time, there was no Minister for the first two—I don’t consider Morris one—and they were released due to the efforts of Americans in Paris. As for me, I would rather be publicly and honorably freed, even though that was denied, than stay in this uncertain situation. My health has suffered, but my spirits are still strong. I have nothing to fear unless innocence and strength are considered crimes. Regardless of my fate, America won’t have any reason to be embarrassed by me as a citizen; I hope I won't have any reason to be embarrassed by her as a country. If, my dear Sir, there's anything in my confusing thoughts I’ve gotten wrong, just imagine yourself in my position, and you’ll find an easy explanation. I can’t express how much I look forward to visiting you outside these prison walls and checking in on my American friends. But I know that nothing can be achieved here without constant perseverance and effort. Yours affectionately.
4. October 20, 1794.
October 20, 1794.
Dear Sir: I recd. your friendly letter of the 26 Vendemaire on the day it was written, and I thank you for communicating to me your opinion upon my case. Ideas serve to beget ideas, and as it is from a review of every thing that can be said upon a subject, or is any ways connected with it, that the best judgment can be formed how to proceed, I present you with such ideas as occur to me. I am sure of one thing, which is that you will give them a patient and attentive perusal.
Dear Sir: I received your friendly letter dated the 26th of Vendemaire on the same day you wrote it, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts about my situation. Ideas inspire more ideas, and I believe that by reviewing everything related to a topic, we can make the best decision on how to move forward. Here are the ideas I have, and I’m confident that you will read them carefully and attentively.
You say in your letter that "I must be sensible that although I am an American citizen, yet if you interfere in my behalf as the Minister of my country you must demand my liberation only in case there be no charge against me; and that if there is I must be brought to trial previously, since no person in a private character can be exempt from the laws of the country in which he resides."—This is what I have twice attempted to do. I wrote a letter on the 3d Sans Culottodi(1) to the Deputies, members of the Committee of Surety General, who came to the Luxembourg to examine the persons detained. The letter was as follows:—"Citizens Representatives: I offer myself for examination. Justice is due to every Man. It is Justice only that I ask.—Thomas Paine."
You mention in your letter that "I need to understand that even though I am an American citizen, if you advocate for me as the Minister of my country, you can only request my release if there are no charges against me; and if there are, I must first be tried, since no one in a private capacity can be exempt from the laws of the country where they live."—This is what I have tried to do twice. On the 3rd of Sans Culottodi(1), I wrote to the Deputies, members of the Committee of Surety General, who came to the Luxembourg to review the detained individuals. The letter stated:—"Citizens Representatives: I offer myself for examination. Justice is owed to every person. It is justice that I seek.—Thomas Paine."
As I was not called for examination, nor heard anything in consequence of my letter the first time of sending it, I sent a duplicate of it a few days after. It was carried to them by my good friend and comrade Vanhuele, who was then going in liberty, having been examined the day before. Vanhuele wrote me on the next day and said: "Bourdon de l'Oise [who was one of the examining Deputies] is the most inveterate enemy you can have. The answer he gave me when I presented your letter put me in such a passion with him that I expected I should be sent back again to prison." I then wrote a third letter but had not an opportunity of sending it, as Bourdon did not come any more till after I received Mr. Labonadaire's letter advising me to write to the Convention. The letter was as follows:—"Citizens, I have twice offered myself for examination, and I chose to do this while Bourdon de l'Oise was one of the Commissioners.
Since I wasn't called for an examination and didn't hear anything after I sent my letter the first time, I sent a duplicate a few days later. It was delivered by my good friend and teammate Vanhuele, who had just been examined the day before and was allowed to leave. Vanhuele wrote to me the next day, saying: "Bourdon de l'Oise [who was one of the examining Deputies] is your biggest enemy. The response he gave me when I presented your letter made me so angry that I thought I might end up back in prison." I then wrote a third letter but didn't have a chance to send it because Bourdon didn't return until after I got Mr. Labonadaire's letter advising me to write to the Convention. The letter was as follows:—"Citizens, I have offered myself for examination twice, and I chose to do this while Bourdon de l'Oise was one of the Commissioners.
1 Festival of Labor, September 19, 1794.—Editor..
This Deputy has said in the Convention that I intrigued with an ancient agent of the Bureau of Foreign Affairs. My examination therefore while he is present will give him an opportunity of proving his charge or of convincing himself of his error. If Bourdon de l'Oise is an honest man he will examine me, but lest he should not I subjoin the following. That which B[ourdon] calls an intrigue was at the request of a member of the former Committee of Salut Public, last August was a twelvemonth. I met the member on the Boulevard. He asked me something in French which I did not understand and we went together to the Bureau of Foreign Affairs which was near at hand. The Agent (Otto, whom you probably knew in America) served as interpreter, The member (it was Barhre) then asked me 1st, If I could furnish him with the plan of Constitution I had presented to the Committee of Constitution of which I was member with himself, because, he said, it contained several things which he wished had been adopted: 2dly, He asked me my opinion upon sending Commissioners to the United States of America: 3dly, If fifty or an hundred ship loads of flour could be procured from America. As verbal interpretation was tedious, it was agreed that I should give him my opinion in writing, and that the Agent [Otto] should translate it, which he did. I answered the first question by sending him the plan [of a Constitution] which he still has. To the second, I replied that I thought it would be proper to send Commissioners, because that in Revolutions circumstances change so fast that it was often necessary to send a better supply of information to an Ally than could be communicated by writing; and that Congress had done the same thing during the American War; and I gave him some information that the Commissioners would find useful on their arrival. I answered the third question by sending him a list of American exports two years before, distinguishing the several articles by which he would see that the supply he mentioned could be obtained. I sent him also the plan of Paul Jones, giving it as his, for procuring salt-petre, which was to send a squadron (it did not require a large one) to take possession of the Island of St. Helen's, to keep the English flag flying at the port, that the English East India ships coming from the East Indies, and that ballast with salt-petre, might be induced to enter as usual; And that it would be a considerable time before the English Government could know of what had happened at St. Helen's. See here what Bourdon de l'Oise has called an intrigue.—If it was an intrigue it was between a Committee of Salut Public and myself, for the Agent was no more than the interpreter and translator, and the object of the intrigue was to furnish France with flour and salt-petre."—I suppose Bourdon had heard that the agent and I were seen together talking English, and this was enough for him to found his charge upon.(1)
This Deputy claimed at the Convention that I was involved with an old agent from the Bureau of Foreign Affairs. My investigation while he is here will give him the chance to back up his accusation or realize he’s mistaken. If Bourdon de l'Oise is honest, he will examine me, but just in case he doesn’t, I want to clarify the following. What B[ourdon] calls an intrigue happened at the request of a member of the former Committee of Salut Public last August. I met this member on the Boulevard. He asked me something in French that I didn’t understand, so we went together to the Bureau of Foreign Affairs, which was close by. The Agent (Otto, who you probably knew in America) acted as our interpreter. The member (it was Barhre) then asked me first if I could provide the Constitution plan I had presented to the Committee of Constitution, of which he and I were members, because he said it included several things he wished had been adopted; secondly, he asked for my opinion on sending Commissioners to the United States; and thirdly, whether it was possible to procure fifty or a hundred shiploads of flour from America. Since verbal interpretation was slow, we agreed that I would write down my opinions and that the Agent [Otto] would translate them, which he did. I responded to the first question by sending him the plan [of a Constitution], which he still has. To the second, I replied that I thought it was right to send Commissioners because in Revolutions, things change so quickly that it’s often necessary to provide better information to an Ally than could be expressed in writing; and I pointed out that Congress had done the same during the American War; I also provided him with some useful information for the Commissioners upon their arrival. For the third question, I sent him a list of American exports from two years prior, distinguishing the various items to show that the supply he mentioned could indeed be obtained. I also sent him the plan from Paul Jones, presenting it as his, for procuring saltpeter, which involved sending a squadron (not a large one) to take control of the Island of St. Helen’s, ensuring the English flag was flown at the port, so that English East India ships coming from the East Indies, along with ballast and saltpeter, could be encouraged to dock as they usually would; and that it would take considerable time before the English Government learned of what had happened at St. Helen’s. So here’s what Bourdon de l'Oise has labeled an intrigue. If it was an intrigue, it was between a Committee of Salut Public and me, because the Agent was just an interpreter and translator, and the purpose was to provide France with flour and saltpeter. I imagine Bourdon heard that the agent and I were seen speaking English, and that was enough for him to base his accusation on.
You next say that "I must likewise be sensible that although I am an American citizen that it is likewise believed there [in America] that I am become a citizen of France, and that in consequence this latter character has so far [illegible] the former as to weaken if not destroy any claim you might have to interpose in my behalf." I am sorry I cannot add any new arguments to those I have already advanced on this part of the subject. But I cannot help asking myself, and I wish you would ask the Committee, if it could possibly be the intention of France to kidnap citizens from America under the pretence of dubbing them with the title of French citizens, and then, after inviting or rather enveigling them into France, make it a pretence for detaining them? If it was, (which I am sure it was not, tho' they now act as if it was) the insult was to America, tho' the injury was to me, and the treachery was to both.
You next say that "I must also be aware that although I am an American citizen, it is also believed here [in America] that I have become a citizen of France, and that as a result, this new status has somewhat undermined the former to the point of weakening, if not completely destroying, any claim you might have to intervene on my behalf." I regret that I cannot offer any new arguments beyond what I have already presented on this matter. However, I can't help but wonder, and I hope you will ask the Committee, whether it could really be France's intention to kidnap citizens from America under the guise of granting them the title of French citizens, and then, after luring them to France, use that as an excuse to hold them against their will? If that were the case (which I am sure it is not, though they are acting as if it is), the insult is aimed at America, while the harm falls on me, and the betrayal affects us both.
1 The communications of Paine to Barhre are provided in my "Life of Paine," vol. ii-i PP. 73, 87. Otto was the Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he acted as the interpreter between Paine and Barhre. There was never any accusation made against Paine, as the Archives of France now show, except that he was a "foreigner." Paine was completely unaware of the conspiracy between Morris and Deforgues that had imprisoned him. Bourdon de l'Oise, one of the most ruthless Jacobins and Terrorists, later conspired with Pichegru to overthrow the Republic and was banished (1797) with him to Sinamari, South America, where he died shortly after his arrival.—Editor.
Did they mean to kidnap General Washington, Mr. Madison, and several other Americans whom they dubbed with the same title as well as me? Let any man look at the condition of France when I arrived in it,—invaded by Austrians and Prussians and declared to be in danger,—and then ask if any man who had a home and a country to go to, as I had in America, would have come amongst them from any other motive than of assisting them. If I could possibly have supposed them capable of treachery I certainly would not have trusted myself in their power. Instead therefore of your being unwilling or apprehensive of meeting the question of French citizenship, they ought to be ashamed of advancing it, and this will be the case unless you admit their arguments or objections too passively. It is a case on their part fit only for the continuations of Robespierre to set up. As to the name of French citizen, I never considered it in any other light, so far as regarded myself, than as a token of honorary respect. I never made them any promise nor took any oath of allegiance or of citizenship, nor bound myself by an act or means whatever to the performance of any thing. I acted altogether as a friend invited among them as I supposed on honorable terms. I did not come to join myself to a Government already formed, but to assist in forming one de nouveau, which was afterwards to be submitted to the people whether they would accept it or not, and this any foreigner might do. And strictly speaking there are no citizens before this is a government. They are all of the People. The Americans were not called citizens till after Government was established, and not even then until they had taken the oath of allegiance. This was the case in Pennsylvania. But be this French citizenship more or less, the Convention have swept it away by declaring me to be a foreigner, and imprisoning me as such; and this is a short answer to all those who affect to say or to believe that I am French Citizen. A Citizen without Citizenship is a term non-descript.
Did they really intend to kidnap General Washington, Mr. Madison, and several other Americans they called by the same title, including me? Just look at the state of France when I got there—overrun by Austrians and Prussians and declared to be in danger—and then ask yourself if any person with a home and a country like I had in America would have come to help them for any reason other than to assist. If I could have imagined they were capable of betrayal, I certainly wouldn’t have put myself in their hands. So instead of you being hesitant or worried about discussing French citizenship, they should be ashamed for even bringing it up, unless you accept their arguments or objections too passively. It’s a matter only fitting for the likes of Robespierre to pursue. As for the title of French citizen, I never thought of it as anything other than a sign of honorary respect. I never made any promise or took any oath of allegiance or citizenship, nor did I bind myself to fulfill anything in any way. I acted entirely as a friend who was invited among them, or so I believed, on honorable terms. I didn’t come to join an already established Government, but to help form a new one that would later be presented to the people to decide whether to accept it or not, and this is something any foreigner could do. Strictly speaking, there aren’t any citizens until there is a government. They are all of the People. Americans weren’t called citizens until after the Government was set up, and even then only after they took an oath of allegiance. That was the case in Pennsylvania. But whether this French citizenship means more or less, the Convention has thrown it aside by declaring me a foreigner and imprisoning me as such; and that’s a quick response to anyone who claims or believes I am a French Citizen. A Citizen without Citizenship is a meaningless term.
After the two preceeding paragraphs you ask—"If it be my wish that you should embark in this controversy (meaning that of reclaiming me) and risque the consequences with respect to myself and the good understanding subsisting between the two countries, or, without relinquishing any point of right, and which might be insisted on in case of extremities, pursue according to your best judgment and with the light before you, the object of my liberation?"
After the two previous paragraphs, you ask, "Is it my wish for you to get involved in this debate (referring to the effort to reclaim me) and face the fallout on my behalf and the good relationship between our two countries? Or should you, without giving up any rights that might be argued in extreme cases, follow your best judgment and the guidance you have in pursuing my freedom?"
As I believe from the apparent obstinacy of the Committees that circumstances will grow towards the extremity you mention, unless prevented beforehand, I will endeavour to throw into your hands all the lights I can upon the subject.
As I see it, given the clear stubbornness of the Committees, it seems that things will head towards the extreme situation you mentioned unless we take action first. I will do my best to share all the insights I can on the topic with you.
In the first place, reclamation may mean two distinct things. All the reclamations that are made by the sections in behalf of persons detained as suspect are made on the ground that the persons so detained are patriots, and the reclamation is good against the charge of "suspect" because it proves the contrary. But my situation includes another circumstance. I am imprisoned on the charge (if it can be called one) of being a foreigner born in England. You know that foreigner to be a citizen of the United States of America, and that he has been such since the 4th of July 1776, the political birthday of the United States, and of every American citizen, for before that period all were British subjects, and the States, then provinces, were British dominions.—Your reclamation of me therefore as a citizen of the United States (all other considerations apart) is good against the pretence for imprisoning me, or that pretence is equally good against every American citizen born in England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, or Holland, and you know this description of men compose a very great part of the population of the three States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and make also a part of Congress, and of the State Legislatures.
First of all, reclamation can mean two different things. All the claims made by the sections on behalf of people detained as suspect are based on the argument that those detained are patriots, and the claim is valid against the charge of "suspect" because it proves the opposite. But my situation involves another factor. I'm imprisoned on the charge (if you can even call it that) of being a foreigner born in England. You know that this foreigner is a citizen of the United States of America and that he has been one since July 4, 1776, the political birthday of the United States and every American citizen. Before that date, everyone was a British subject, and the States, which were then provinces, were British dominions. Therefore, your claim of me as a citizen of the United States (setting aside all other considerations) is valid against the reason for my imprisonment, or that reason is equally valid against every American citizen born in England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, or Holland, and you know that these groups make up a significant portion of the population of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and they also form part of Congress and the State Legislatures.
Every politician ought to know, and every civilian does know, that the Law of Treaty of Alliance, and also that of Amity and Commerce knows no distinction of American Citizens on account of the place of their birth, but recognizes all to be Citizens whom the Constitution and laws of the United States of America recognize as such; and if I recollect rightly there is an article in the Treaty of Commerce particular to this point. The law therefore which they have here, to put all persons in arrestation born in any of the Countries at war with France, is, when applied to Citizens of America born in England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, or holland, a violation of the treaties of Alliance and of Commerce, because it assumes to make a distinction of Citizens which those Treaties and the Constitution of America know nothing of. This is a subject that officially comes under your cognizance as Minister, and it would be consistent that you expostulated with them upon the Case. That foolish old man Vadier, who was president of the Convention and of the Committee of Surety general when the Americans then in Paris went to the Bar of the Convention to reclaim me, gave them for answer that my being born in England was cause sufficient for imprisoning me. It happened that at least half those who went up with that address were in the same case with myself.
Every politician should know, and every citizen does know, that the Treaty of Alliance and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce don’t differentiate between American citizens based on where they were born. They recognize all individuals as citizens whom the Constitution and laws of the United States acknowledge as such. If I remember correctly, there’s an article in the Treaty of Commerce that specifically addresses this issue. Therefore, the law they have here, which arrests all individuals born in countries at war with France, is, when directed at American citizens born in England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, or Holland, a violation of the treaties of Alliance and Commerce because it attempts to create a distinction among citizens that those treaties and the Constitution of America do not recognize. This matter officially falls within your responsibility as Minister, and it would make sense for you to express concerns to them about it. That foolish old man Vadier, who was president of the Convention and of the Committee of General Security when the Americans in Paris went to the Convention to advocate for me, responded that my being born in England was sufficient reason for my imprisonment. Interestingly, at least half of those who presented that petition were in the same situation as me.
As to reclamations on the ground of Patriotism it is difficult to know what is to be understood by Patriotism here. There is not a vice, and scarcely a virtue, that has not as the fashion of the moment suited been called by the name of Patriotism. The wretches who composed the revolutionary tribunal of Nantz were the Patriots of that day and the criminals of this. The Jacobins called themselves Patriots of the first order, men up to the height of the circumstances, and they are now considered as an antidote to Patriotism. But if we give to Patriotism a fixed idea consistent with that of a Republic, it would signify a strict adherence to the principles of Moral Justice, to the equality of civil and political Rights, to the System of representative Government, and an opposition to every hereditary claim to govern; and of this species of Patriotism you know my character. But, Sir, there are men on the Committee who have changed their Party but not their principles. Their aim is to hold power as long as possible by preventing the establishment of a Constitution, and these men are and will be my Enemies, and seek to hold me in prison as long as they can. I am too good a Patriot for them. It is not improbable that they have heard of the strange language held by some Americans that I am not considered in America as an American citizen, and they may also have heard say, that you had no orders respecting me, and it is not improbable that they interpret that language and that silence into a connivance at my imprisonment. If they had not some ideas of this kind would they resist so long the civil efforts you make for my liberation, or would they attach so much importance to the imprisonment of an Individual as to risque (as you say to me) the good understanding that exists between the two Countries?You also say that it is impossible for any person to do more than you have done without adopting the other means, meaning that of reclaiming me. How then can you account for the want of success after so many efforts, and such a length of time, upwards of ten weeks, without supposing that they fortify themselves in the interpretation I have just mentioned? I can admit that it was not necessary to give orders, and that it was difficult to give direct orders, for I much question if Morris had informed Congress or the President of the whole of the case, or had sent copies of my letters to him as I had desired him to do. You would find the case here when you came, and you could not fully understand it till you did come, and as Minister you would have authority to act upon it. But as you inform me that you know what the wishes of the President are, you will see also that his reputation is exposed to some risque, admitting there to be ground for the supposition I have made. It will not add to his popularity to have it believed in America, as I am inclined to think the Committee believe here, that he connives at my imprisonment. You say also that it is known to everybody that you wish my liberation. It is, Sir, because they know your wishes that they misinterpret the means you use. They suppose that those mild means arise from a restriction that you cannot use others, or from a consciousness of some defect on my part of which you are unwilling to provoke the enquiry.
When it comes to claims based on Patriotism, it’s hard to say what we mean by Patriotism in this context. There isn’t a vice or even a virtue that hasn’t been labeled as Patriotism at some point. The miserable people who made up the revolutionary tribunal in Nantz were considered the Patriots of their time but are seen as criminals now. The Jacobins called themselves the highest-level Patriots, claiming to be up to the challenges of the moment, but today they are viewed as a counter to real Patriotism. However, if we define Patriotism in a way that matches the ideals of a Republic, it would mean a firm commitment to the principles of Moral Justice, equality in civil and political rights, a representative Government, and a rejection of any hereditary right to rule; and you know my stance on this type of Patriotism. But, Sir, there are people on the Committee who have switched their Party but not their principles. Their goal is to cling to power as long as possible by blocking the creation of a Constitution, and these individuals will be my adversaries, aiming to keep me imprisoned for as long as they can. I am too devoted a Patriot for their liking. It’s likely they’ve heard rumors from some Americans that I am not recognized as an American citizen, and they may have also heard that you haven't issued any orders concerning me, which they could interpret as a nod to my imprisonment. If they didn’t entertain such thoughts, why would they resist your civil efforts for my release for so long, or care so much about the imprisonment of one individual as to jeopardize the good relations between our two Countries? You also said that “it is impossible for anyone to do more than you have done without taking other measures,” meaning the effort to reclaim me. How then can you explain the lack of success after so many efforts and more than ten weeks have passed, without suggesting that they are fortified in the interpretation I mentioned? I can accept that it wasn’t necessary to give orders, and that it was tricky to give direct orders, because I seriously doubt Morris fully informed Congress or the President about the case or sent copies of my letters to him as I wanted him to do. You would have found out the details once you arrived, and you couldn’t fully grasp it until you did, and as Minister, you would have had the authority to act on it. But since you mention you know the President's wishes, you’ll also see that his reputation is at risk if my assumption has any merit. It won’t enhance his popularity if it’s believed in America, as I suspect the Committee thinks here, that he is complicit in my imprisonment. You also say that “it is known by everyone that you want my release.” Sir, it’s precisely because they know your wishes that they misinterpret the means you are using. They assume that those gentle means stem from a limitation where you can’t employ others, or from a fear of exposing a flaw on my part that you don’t wish to provoke an inquiry about.
But as you ask me if it be my wish that you should embark in this controversy and risque the consequences with respect to myself, I will answer this part of the question by marking out precisely the part I wish you to take. What I mean is a sort of middle line above what you have yet gone, and not up to the full extremity of the case, which will still lie in reserve. It is to write a letter to the Committee that shall in the first place defeat by anticipation all the objections they might make to a simple reclamation, and at the same time make the ground good for that object. But, instead of sending the letter immediately, to invite some of the Committee to your house and to make that invitation the opportunity of shewing them the letter, expressing at the same time a wish that you had done this, from a hope that the business might be settled in an amicable manner without your being forced into an official interference, that would excite the observations of the Enemies of both Countries, and probably interrupt the harmony that subsisted between the two republics. But as I can not convey the ideas I wish you to use by any means so concisely or so well as to suppose myself the writer of the letter I shall adopt this method and you will make use of such parts or such ideas of it as you please if you approve the plan. Here follows the supposed letter:
But since you’re asking if I want you to get involved in this issue and risk the consequences for me, I’ll clearly outline what I hope you’ll do. I’m suggesting a balanced approach that goes beyond what you’ve done so far, but doesn’t go to the full extent of the situation, which I want to keep as a backup. You should write a letter to the Committee that anticipates and counters any objections they might raise against a simple request, while also laying the groundwork for that request. But, instead of sending the letter right away, invite some members of the Committee to your home and use that invitation to show them the letter. At the same time, express that you wish you had done this sooner, hoping to settle the matter amicably without forcing you into an official intervention that could attract scrutiny from the enemies of both countries, potentially disrupting the harmony between the two republics. Since I can't convey my ideas as clearly or effectively as if I were writing the letter myself, I’ll take this approach, and you can use any parts or ideas from it that you think work, if you like the plan. Here’s the draft letter:
Citizens: When I first arrived amongst you as Minister from the United States of America I was given to understand that the liberation of Thomas Paine would take place without any official interference on my part. This was the more agreeable to me as it would not only supercede the necessity of that interference, but would leave to yourselves the whole opportunity of doing justice to a man who as far as I have been able to learn has suffered much cruel treatment under what you have denominated the system of Terror. But as I find my expectations have not been fulfilled I am under the official necessity of being more explicit upon the subject than I have hitherto been.
Citizens: When I first arrived among you as the Minister from the United States, I was led to believe that the release of Thomas Paine would happen without any official involvement from me. This was more pleasing to me because it would not only eliminate the need for my involvement, but it would also give you the chance to do justice for a man who, as far as I’ve been able to gather, has faced a lot of cruel treatment under what you call the system of Terror. However, since I see that my expectations have not been met, I must officially clarify the matter more than I have so far.
Permit me, in the first place, to observe that as it is impossible for me to suppose that it could have been the intention of France to seduce any citizens of America from their allegiance to their proper country by offering them the title of French citizen, so must I be compelled to believe, that the title of French citizen conferred on Thomas Paine was intended only as a mark of honorary respect towards a man who had so eminently distinguished himself in defence of liberty, and on no occasion more so than in promoting and defending your own revolution. For a proof of this I refer you to his two works entitled Rights of Man. Those works have procured to him an addition of esteem in America, and I am sorry they have been so ill rewarded in France. But be this title of French Citizen more or less, it is now entirely swept away by the vote of the Convention which declares him to be a foreigner, and which supercedes the vote of the Assembly that conferred that title upon him, consequently upon the case superceded with it.
First of all, I want to point out that I can’t believe it was France’s intention to lure any American citizens away from their loyalty to their country by giving them the title of French citizen. I must think that the title given to Thomas Paine was meant only as a sign of honorary respect for a man who has greatly distinguished himself in defense of liberty, especially in supporting and defending your own revolution. As proof of this, I refer you to his two works titled Rights of Man. Those works have earned him more respect in America, and I regret that they have been so poorly rewarded in France. However, whether this title of French Citizen means more or less, it has now been completely nullified by the Convention's vote that declares him a foreigner, which overrides the earlier Assembly vote that granted him that title, and thus the case is rendered moot along with it.
In consequence of this vote of the Convention declaring him to be a foreigner the former Committees have imprisoned him. It is therefore become my official duty to declare to you that the foreigner thus imprisoned is a citizen of the United States of America as fully, as legally, as constitutionally as myself, and that he is moreover one of the principal founders of the American Republic.
As a result of this vote from the Convention declaring him a foreigner, the previous Committees have imprisoned him. It is now my official duty to inform you that the foreigner in custody is a citizen of the United States of America just as fully, legally, and constitutionally as I am, and that he is also one of the main founders of the American Republic.
I have been informed of a law or decree of the Convention which subjects foreigners born in any of the countries at war with France to arrestation and imprisonment. This law when applied to citizens of America born in England is an infraction of the Treaty of Alliance and of Amity and Commerce, which knows no distinction of American citizens on account of the place of their birth, but recognizes all to be citizens whom the Constitution and laws of America recognize as such. The circumstances under which America has been peopled requires this guard on her Treaties, because the mass of her citizens are composed not of natives only but also of the natives of almost all the countries of Europe who have sought an asylum there from the persecutions they experienced in their own countries. After this intimation you will without doubt see the propriety of modelling that law to the principles of the Treaty, because the law of Treaty in cases where it applies is the governing law to both parties alike, and it cannot be infracted without hazarding the existence of the Treaty.
I have been informed of a law or decree by the Convention that subjects foreigners born in any countries at war with France to arrest and imprisonment. This law, when applied to American citizens born in England, violates the Treaty of Alliance and of Amity and Commerce, which makes no distinctions among American citizens based on their place of birth, but recognizes all individuals who are acknowledged as citizens by the Constitution and laws of America. The way America has become populated requires this protection for her treaties, as most of her citizens come not only from natives but also from people native to almost all the countries of Europe who sought refuge from the persecutions they faced in their homelands. After this notice, you will undoubtedly see the importance of aligning that law with the principles of the Treaty, because the law of the Treaty, where it applies, governs both parties equally, and it cannot be violated without jeopardizing the existence of the Treaty.
Of the Patriotism of Thomas Paine I can speak fully, if we agree to give to patriotism a fixed idea consistent with that of a republic. It would then signify a strict adherence to Moral Justice, to the equality of civil and political rights, to the system of representative government, and an opposition to all hereditary claims to govern. Admitting patriotism to consist in these principles, I know of no man who has gone beyond Thomas Paine in promulgating and defending them, and that for almost twenty years past.
Of Thomas Paine's patriotism, I can speak openly if we agree to define patriotism in a way that aligns with a republic. It would then mean a strong commitment to Moral Justice, the equality of civil and political rights, a representative government, and a rejection of all hereditary claims to rule. If we accept that patriotism consists of these principles, I don’t know anyone who has gone further than Thomas Paine in promoting and defending them, and he's been doing so for almost twenty years.
I have now spoken to you on the principal matters concerned in the case of Thomas Paine. The title of French citizen which you had enforced upon him, you have since taken away by declaring him to be a foreigner, and consequently this part of the subject ceases of itself. I have declared to you that this foreigner is a citizen of the United States of America, and have assured you of his patriotism.
I have now talked to you about the main issues regarding the case of Thomas Paine. The title of French citizen that you imposed on him, you have since revoked by labeling him a foreigner, and therefore this part of the matter is settled on its own. I have told you that this foreigner is a citizen of the United States of America, and I have assured you of his patriotism.
I cannot help at the same time repeating to you my wish that his liberation had taken place without my being obliged to go thus far into the subject, because it is the mutual interest of both republics to avoid as much as possible all subjects of controversy, especially those from which no possible good can flow. I still hope that you will save me the unpleasant task of proceeding any farther by sending me an order for his liberation, which the injured state of his health absolutely requires. I shall be happy to receive such an order from you and happy in presenting it to him, for to the welfare of Thomas Paine the Americans are not and cannot be indifferent.
I can’t help but say again that I wish his release had happened without me having to go this deep into the issue, because it’s in both our countries' best interest to avoid any points of contention, especially those that won't lead to any benefit. I still hope you can spare me the uncomfortable task of pushing this further by sending me an order for his release, which is absolutely necessary due to his poor health. I would be pleased to receive such an order from you and would be glad to pass it on to him, as the well-being of Thomas Paine is something Americans care about and cannot ignore.
This is the sort of letter I wish you to write, for I have no idea that you will succeed by any measures that can, by any kind of construction, be interpreted into a want of confidence or an apprehension of consequences. It is themselves that ought to be apprehensive of consequences if any are to be apprehended. They, I mean the Committees, are not certain that the Convention or the nation would support them in forcing any question to extremity that might interrupt the good understanding subsisting between the two countries; and I know of no question [so likely] to do this as that which involves the rights and liberty of a citizen.
This is the kind of letter I want you to write because I have no doubt you'll succeed without anything being interpreted as a lack of confidence or fear of the outcome. They should be the ones worried about the consequences if there are any to be concerned about. I'm referring to the Committees; they aren’t sure that the Convention or the nation would back them in pushing any issue to a point that could disrupt the good relationship between the two countries. And I can't think of any issue more likely to do that than one that touches on the rights and freedom of a citizen.
You will please to observe that I have put the case of French citizenship in a point of view that ought not only to preclude, but to make them ashamed to advance any thing upon this subject; and this is better than to have to answer their counter-reclamation afterwards. Either the Citizenship was intended as a token of honorary respect, or it was in-tended to deprive America of a citizen or to seduce him from his allegiance to his proper country. If it was intended as an honour they must act consistently with the principle of honour. But if they make a pretence for detaining me, they convict themselves of the act of seduction. Had America singled out any particular French citizen, complimented him with the title of Citizen of America, which he without suspecting any fraudulent intention might accept, and then after having invited or rather inveigled him into America made his acceptance of that Title a pretence for seducing or forcing him from his allegiance to France, would not France have just cause to be offended at America? And ought not America to have the same right to be offended at France? And will the Committees take upon themselves to answer for the dishonour they bring upon the National Character of their Country? If these arguments are stated beforehand they will prevent the Committees going into the subject of French Citizenship. They must be ashamed of it. But after all the case comes to this, that this French Citizenship appertains no longer to me because the Convention, as I have already said, have swept it away by declaring me to be foreigner, and it is not in the power of the Committees to reverse it. But if I am to be citizen and foreigner, and citizen again, just when and how and for any purpose they please, they take the Government of America into their own hands and make her only a Cypher in their system.
Please note that I have presented the issue of French citizenship in a way that shouldn’t just prevent any claims, but should also make them ashamed to bring up the topic. This is better than having to respond to their objections later. Either the citizenship was meant to be an honorary recognition, or it was intended to take away an American citizen or persuade him to abandon his loyalty to his own country. If it was meant as an honor, they need to act consistently with that principle. But if they use it as an excuse to keep me here, they expose themselves as guilty of seduction. If America had singled out a specific French citizen, honored him with the title of Citizen of America, which he might accept without suspecting any deceitful intent, and then, once he was in America, used that acceptance as a reason to lure or force him away from his loyalty to France, wouldn’t France justifiably be upset with America? And doesn’t America have the same right to be upset with France? Will the Committees take responsibility for the dishonor they are bringing upon their country's national character? If these points are raised beforehand, they will prevent the Committees from discussing French citizenship. They should be embarrassed by it. But ultimately, the situation is that this French citizenship no longer belongs to me because the Convention, as I mentioned earlier, has dismissed it by declaring me a foreigner, and the Committees can't change that. Yet, if I’m to be a citizen one moment and a foreigner the next, and then a citizen again, whenever it suits them, they are taking control of the American government and reducing it to a mere figure in their scheme.
Though these ideas have been long with me they have been more particularly matured by reading your last Communication, and I have many reasons to wish you had opened that Communication sooner. I am best acquainted with the persons you have to deal with and the circumstances of my own case. If you chuse to adopt the letter as it is, I send you a translation for the sake of expediting the business. I have endeavoured to conceive your own manner of expression as well as I could, and the civility of language you would use, but the matter of the letter is essential to me.
Although I've had these ideas for a long time, they've been particularly refined by reading your recent communication, and I really wish you had shared it with me sooner. I know the people involved and the details of my own situation best. If you decide to use the letter as it is, I'm sending you a translation to speed things up. I've tried to capture your style of expression and the polite language you would choose, but the content of the letter is crucial for me.
If you chuse to confer with some of the members of the Committee at your own house on the subject of the letter it may render the sending it unnecessary; but in either case I must request and press you not to give away to evasion and delay, and that you will fix positively with them that they shall give you an answer in three or four days whether they will liberate me on the representation you have made in the letter, or whether you must be forced to go further into the subject. The state of my health will not admit of delay, and besides the tortured state of my mind wears me down. If they talk of bringing me to trial (and I well know there is no accusation against me and that they can bring none) I certainly summons you as an Evidence to my Character. This you may mention to them either as what I intend to do or what you intend to do voluntarily for me.
If you choose to discuss the letter with some of the Committee members at your home, it might make sending it unnecessary; however, in either case, I must insist that you don’t give in to evasion and delay. Please make sure to get a definite response from them within three to four days about whether they will release me based on the points you raised in the letter, or if you will need to pursue the matter further. My health can’t handle any delays, and the strain on my mind is wearing me down. If they mention bringing me to trial (and I know for a fact that there are no charges against me and they can't bring any), I will definitely call on you as a character witness. You can either mention this to them as something I plan to do or as something you intend to do on my behalf.
I am anxious that you undertake this business without losing time, because if I am not liberated in the course of this decade, I intend, if in case the seventy-one detained deputies are liberated, to follow the same track that they have done, and publish my own case myself.(1) I cannot rest any longer in this state of miserable suspense, be the consequences what they may.
I’m worried that you take care of this matter quickly because if I’m not freed within this decade, I plan, if the seventy-one detained deputies are released, to do the same thing they did and publish my own situation myself. I can’t stay in this miserable state of uncertainty any longer, no matter what the consequences are.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
1 Those representatives, imprisoned for protesting the overthrow of the Girondin government on May 31, 1793, when armed groups from Paris invaded and intimidated the Convention. These representatives were freed and brought back to the Convention on December 8, 1794. Paine was invited to return to his seat the day before, through a special act of the Convention, after an inspiring speech by Thibaudeau.— Editor..
Dear Sir: I need not mention to you the happiness I received from the information you sent me by Mr. Beresford. I easily guess the persons you have conversed with on the subject of my liberation—but matters and even promises that pass in conversation are not quite so strictly attended to here as in the Country you come from. I am not, my Dear Sir, impatient from any thing in my disposition, but the state of my health requires liberty and a better air; and besides this, the rules of the prison do not permit me, though I have all the indulgences the Concierge can give, to procure the things necessary to my recovery, which is slow as to strength. I have a tolerable appetite but the allowance of provision is scanty. We are not allowed a knife to cut our victuals with, nor a razor to shave; but they have lately allowed some barbers that are here to shave. The room where I am lodged is a ground floor level with the earth in the garden and floored with brick, and is so wet after every rain that I cannot guard against taking colds that continually cheat my recovery. If you could, without interfering with or deranging the mode proposed for my liberation, inform the Committee that the state of my health requires liberty and air, it would be good ground to hasten my liberation. The length of my imprisonment is also a reason, for I am now almost the oldest inhabitant of this uncomfortable mansion, and I see twenty, thirty and sometimes forty persons a day put in liberty who have not been so long confined as myself. Their liberation is a happiness to me; but I feel sometimes, a little mortification that I am thus left behind. I leave it entirely to you to arrange this matter. The messenger waits. Your's affectionately,
Dear Sir: I don't need to tell you how happy I was to get the news you sent through Mr. Beresford. I can easily guess who you've spoken to about my release, but discussions and even promises made in conversation aren't taken as seriously here as they are in your country. I'm not, my dear Sir, impatient due to my personality, but my health needs freedom and fresh air; plus, the prison rules prevent me, even with all the allowances the Concierge gives me, from getting the things I need for my slow recovery. I have a fair appetite, but the food portions are meager. We're not allowed a knife to cut our food, nor a razor to shave; although they've recently allowed some barbers here to shave us. The room where I'm staying is on the ground floor, level with the garden, and has a brick floor, which gets so damp after every rain that I can't avoid catching colds that continually hinder my recovery. If you could, without disrupting the plan for my release, inform the Committee that my health requires freedom and fresh air, it would be a good reason to speed up my release. The length of my imprisonment is another factor, as I'm almost the longest-serving resident of this uncomfortable place, and I see twenty, thirty, and sometimes forty people a day being released who haven't been locked up as long as I have. Their freedom brings me joy, but I do feel a bit of disappointment being left behind. I'll leave it entirely to you to handle this. The messenger is waiting. Yours affectionately,
T. P.
T.P.
I hope and wish much to see you. I have much to say. I have had the attendance of Dr. Graham (Physician to Genl. O'Hara, who is prisoner here) and of Dr. Makouski, house physician, who has been most exceedingly kind to me. After I am at liberty I shall be glad to introduce him to you.
I really hope to see you soon. I have a lot to say. I've been visited by Dr. Graham (the doctor for General O'Hara, who is a prisoner here) and Dr. Makouski, the house physician, who has been incredibly kind to me. Once I'm free, I'd be happy to introduce him to you.
1 This letter, written in shaky handwriting, isn’t dated, but Monroe's note, "2d. Luxembourg," shows it’s from November 2, just two days before Paine's release.— Editor..
XXII. LETTER TO GEORGE WASHINGTON.
Paris, July 30, 1796.
As censure is but awkwardly softened by apology. I shall offer you no apology for this letter. The eventful crisis to which your double politics have conducted the affairs of your country, requires an investigation uncramped by ceremony.
As criticism is only awkwardly eased by an apology, I won’t offer you one for this letter. The significant crisis that your conflicting politics have brought upon your country demands an investigation that isn’t limited by formalities.
There was a time when the fame of America, moral and political, stood fair and high in the world. The lustre of her revolution extended itself to every individual; and to be a citizen of America gave a title to respect in Europe. Neither meanness nor ingratitude had been mingled in the composition of her character. Her resistance to the attempted tyranny of England left her unsuspected of the one, and her open acknowledgment of the aid she received from France precluded all suspicion of the other. The Washington of politics had not then appeared.
There was a time when America’s reputation, both moral and political, was strong and respected around the world. The brilliance of its revolution inspired everyone, and being an American citizen was a badge of honor in Europe. There was no hint of dishonor or ingratitude in her character. Her fight against England’s attempted tyranny kept her free from suspicion of tyranny herself, and her public acknowledgment of the help she got from France eliminated any suspicion of ingratitude. The political figure of Washington had not yet come onto the scene.
At the time I left America (April 1787) the Continental Convention, that formed the federal Constitution was on the point of meeting. Since that time new schemes of politics, and new distinctions of parties, have arisen. The term Antifederalist has been applied to all those who combated the defects of that constitution, or opposed the measures of your administration. It was only to the absolute necessity of establishing some federal authority, extending equally over all the States, that an instrument so inconsistent as the present federal Constitution is, obtained a suffrage. I would have voted for it myself, had I been in America, or even for a worse, rather than have had none, provided it contained the means of remedying its defects by the same appeal to the people by which it was to be established. It is always better policy to leave removeable errors to expose themselves, than to hazard too much in contending against them theoretically. I have introduced these observations, not only to mark the general difference between Antifederalist and Anti-constitutionalist, but to preclude the effect, and even the application, of the former of these terms to myself. I declare myself opposed to several matters in the Constitution, particularly to the manner in which what is called the Executive is formed, and to the long duration of the Senate; and if I live to return to America, I will use all my endeavours to have them altered.(*) I also declare myself opposed to almost the whole of your administration; for I know it to have been deceitful, if not perfidious, as I shall shew in the course of this letter. But as to the point of consolidating the States into a Federal Government, it so happens, that the proposition for that purpose came originally from myself. I proposed it in a letter to Chancellor Livingston in the spring of 1782, while that gentleman was Minister for Foreign Affairs. The five per cent, duty recommended by Congress had then fallen through, having been adopted by some of the States, altered by others, rejected by Rhode Island, and repealed by Virginia after it had been consented to. The proposal in the letter I allude to, was to get over the whole difficulty at once, by annexing a continental legislative body to Congress; for in order to have any law of the Union uniform, the case could only be, that either Congress, as it then stood, must frame the law, and the States severally adopt it without alteration, or the States must erect a Continental Legislature for the purpose. Chancellor Livingston, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, and myself, had a meeting at the house of Robert Morris on the subject of that letter. There was no diversity of opinion on the proposition for a Continental Legislature: the only difficulty was on the manner of bringing the proposition forward. For my own part, as I considered it as a remedy in reserve, that could be applied at any time when the States saw themselves wrong enough to be put right, (which did not appear to be the case at that time) I did not see the propriety of urging it precipitately, and declined being the publisher of it myself. After this account of a fact, the leaders of your party will scarcely have the hardiness to apply to me the term of Antifederalist. But I can go to a date and to a fact beyond this; for the proposition for electing a continental convention to form the Continental Government is one of the subjects treated of in the pamphlet Common Sense.(1)
At the time I left America (April 1787), the Continental Convention that created the federal Constitution was about to convene. Since then, new political ideas and party divisions have emerged. The term Antifederalist has been used to describe those who challenged the flaws in that constitution or opposed your administration's actions. It was only due to the urgent need to establish some federal authority that would apply equally to all the States that such an inconsistent document as the current federal Constitution was approved. I would have voted for it myself if I had been in America, or even for something worse, rather than have nothing, as long as it included a way to fix its flaws through the same public appeal it was based on. It's generally better to let removable mistakes reveal themselves than to risk too much by arguing against them in theory. I mention this to emphasize the general difference between Antifederalist and Anti-constitutionalist views, and to clarify that I don’t identify with the former. I oppose several aspects of the Constitution, particularly how the so-called Executive is structured and the lengthy terms of the Senate; if I return to America, I will do everything I can to push for their changes. I also oppose most of your administration, as I believe it has been deceptive, if not treacherous, as I will explain in this letter. However, regarding the idea of uniting the States under a Federal Government, the proposal for that originally came from me. I suggested it in a letter to Chancellor Livingston in the spring of 1782 while he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. At that time, the five percent duty recommended by Congress had fallen through, being adopted by some states, modified by others, rejected by Rhode Island, and repealed by Virginia after it had been agreed upon. The proposal in my letter was to resolve the entire issue by adding a continental legislative body to Congress; to ensure any law of the Union was uniform, either Congress as it stood would need to create the law and the states would adopt it unchanged, or the states would need to establish a Continental Legislature for that purpose. Chancellor Livingston, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, and I met at Robert Morris's house to discuss the matter. There was unanimous agreement on the proposal for a Continental Legislature; the only challenge was how to advance the idea. Personally, since I viewed it as a potential remedy that could be activated when the States recognized their need for correction (which didn’t seem to be the situation at that time), I felt it inappropriate to rush it and chose not to promote it myself. After this account, the leaders of your party will hardly be bold enough to label me an Antifederalist. But I can point to a date and fact even earlier; the proposal for electing a continental convention to establish the Continental Government is one of the issues discussed in the pamphlet Common Sense.(1)
* I've always been against the idea of refining government down to a single individual, or what’s called a single Executive. That person will inevitably become the leader of a party. Having multiple leaders is much better: It brings the whole nation together more effectively. Plus, it’s essential for the strength of a republic that we move away from the degrading notion of obeying one person.—Author.
1 See vol. i. of this work, pp. 97, 98, 109, no.—Editor..
Having thus cleared away a little of the rubbish that might otherwise have lain in my way, I return to the point of time at which the present Federal Constitution and your administration began. It was very well said by an anonymous writer in Philadelphia, about a year before that period, that "thirteen staves and ne'er a hoop will not make a barrel" and as any kind of hooping the barrel, however defectively executed, would be better than none, it was scarcely possible but that considerable advantages must arise from the federal hooping of the States. It was with pleasure that every sincere friend of America beheld, as the natural effect of union, her rising prosperity; and it was with grief they saw that prosperity mixed, even in the blossom, with the germ of corruption. Monopolies of every kind marked your administration almost in the moment of its commencement. The lands obtained by the revolution were lavished upon partisans; the interest of the disbanded soldier was sold to the speculator; injustice was acted under the pretence of faith; and the chief of the army became the patron of the fraud.(2) From such a beginning what else could be expected, than what has happened? A mean and servile submission to the insults of one nation; treachery and ingratitude to another.
Having cleared away some of the obstacles that could have stood in my way, I’ll return to the time when the current Federal Constitution and your administration started. An anonymous writer in Philadelphia said about a year before that period, "thirteen staves and ne'er a hoop will not make a barrel". Any attempt to hoop the barrel, even if done poorly, would be better than nothing, so it was unlikely that there wouldn't be significant advantages from the federal unification of the States. Every true friend of America watched with pleasure as her prosperity grew as a natural result of that union, but it was painful to see that prosperity intertwined, even in its early stages, with the seeds of corruption. Your administration was marked by various monopolies almost from the start. The lands acquired through the revolution were handed out to supporters; the interests of disbanded soldiers were sold to speculators; injustices were committed under the guise of loyalty; and the army's leader became complicit in the fraud. With such a beginning, what else could be expected than what has occurred? A weak and submissive response to one nation's insults; betrayal and lack of gratitude towards another.
2 The history of the Scioto Company, which caused the downfall of many Frenchmen as well as Americans, justified an even stronger statement. Although Washington was unaware of the situation, he cannot escape responsibility for not being cautious in supporting the main figures behind these schemes and introducing them in France.—Editor.
Some vices make their approach with such a splendid appearance, that we scarcely know to what class of moral distinctions they belong. They are rather virtues corrupted than vices, originally. But meanness and ingratitude have nothing equivocal in their character. There is not a trait in them that renders them doubtful. They are so originally vice, that they are generated in the dung of other vices, and crawl into existence with the filth upon their back. The fugitives have found protection in you, and the levee-room is their place of rendezvous.
Some vices come across with such a dazzling facade that it's hard to tell what moral category they fit into. They are more like twisted virtues than outright vices, to begin with. But meanness and ingratitude have no ambiguity about them. There's nothing about them that makes them questionable. They are so inherently vile that they emerge from the muck of other vices, crawling into existence burdened by their filth. The outcasts have found shelter in you, and the waiting room is their meeting place.
As the Federal Constitution is a copy, though not quite so base as the original, of the form of the British Government, an imitation of its vices was naturally to be expected. So intimate is the connection between form and practice, that to adopt the one is to invite the other. Imitation is naturally progressive, and is rapidly so in matters that are vicious.
As the Federal Constitution is a version, though not as flawed as the original, of the structure of the British Government, it was to be expected that some of its faults would be imitated. The relationship between form and practice is so close that adopting one brings the other along. Imitation tends to evolve quickly, especially in negative aspects.
Soon after the Federal Constitution arrived in England, I received a letter from a female literary correspondent (a native of New York) very well mixed with friendship, sentiment, and politics. In my answer to that letter, I permitted myself to ramble into the wilderness of imagination, and to anticipate what might hereafter be the condition of America. I had no idea that the picture I then drew was realizing so fast, and still less that Mr. Washington was hurrying it on. As the extract I allude to is congenial with the subject I am upon, I here transcribe it:
Soon after the Federal Constitution made its way to England, I got a letter from a woman writer (a native of New York) that was filled with friendship, emotions, and politics. In my response to her letter, I allowed myself to wander into the realm of imagination and speculate about what America's future might be like. I had no clue that the vision I painted was coming to life so quickly, and even less that Mr. Washington was pushing it forward. Since the excerpt I'm referring to relates to the topic I'm discussing, I’ll transcribe it here:
[The extract is the same as that given in a footnote, in the Memorial to Monroe, p. 180.]
Impressed, as I was, with apprehensions of this kind, I had America constantly in my mind in all the publications I afterwards made. The First, and still more the Second, Part of the Rights of Man, bear evident marks of this watchfulness; and the Dissertation on First Principles of Government [XXIV.] goes more directly to the point than either of the former. I now pass on to other subjects.
Impressed as I was with these kinds of worries, I kept America in mind in all the writings I published afterward. The First, and even more the Second, Part of the Rights of Man clearly show this awareness; and the Dissertation on First Principles of Government [XXIV.] addresses the issue more directly than either of the previous ones. I will now move on to other topics.
It will be supposed by those into whose hands this letter may fall, that I have some personal resentment against you; I will therefore settle this point before I proceed further.
It may be assumed by anyone who receives this letter that I have some personal grudge against you; so I'll clarify this point before moving on.
If I have any resentment, you must acknowledge that I have not been hasty in declaring it; neither would it now be declared (for what are private resentments to the public) if the cause of it did not unite itself as well with your public as with your private character, and with the motives of your political conduct.
If I feel any resentment, you have to admit that I haven’t rushed to express it; nor would I do so now (because what do personal resentments matter to the public) if the reason for it didn’t connect to both your public and private character, as well as the motives behind your political actions.
The part I acted in the American revolution is well known; I shall not here repeat it. I know also that had it not been for the aid received from France, in men, money and ships, that your cold and unmilitary conduct (as I shall shew in the course of this letter) would in all probability have lost America; at least she would not have been the independent nation she now is. You slept away your time in the field, till the finances of the country were completely exhausted, and you have but little share in the glory of the final event. It is time, sir, to speak the undisguised language of historical truth.
The role I played in the American Revolution is well-known, so I won't go over it again. I also recognize that without the support from France— in terms of troops, funding, and ships—your lackluster and unmilitary approach (as I will demonstrate throughout this letter) would likely have cost America its chance at independence; at the very least, we wouldn't be the independent nation we are today. You spent too much time inactive on the battlefield while the country’s finances ran dry, and you share very little in the credit for the final outcome. It's time to speak frankly about the facts of history.
Elevated to the chair of the Presidency, you assumed the merit of every thing to yourself, and the natural ingratitude of your constitution began to appear. You commenced your Presidential career by encouraging and swallowing the grossest adulation, and you travelled America from one end to the other to put yourself in the way of receiving it. You have as many addresses in your chest as James the II. As to what were your views, for if you are not great enough to have ambition you are little enough to have vanity, they cannot be directly inferred from expressions of your own; but the partizans of your politics have divulged the secret.
Once you took the presidency, you started taking credit for everything, and your natural ingratitude became obvious. You kicked off your time as President by welcoming and soaking up the most outrageous flattery, traveling across America just to hear it. You have as many accolades stored up as James II. As for your true intentions, if you lack the ambition to be great, then you’re small-minded enough to be vain; they can't be clearly derived from your own words, but your political supporters have revealed the truth.
John Adams has said, (and John it is known was always a speller after places and offices, and never thought his little services were highly enough paid,)—John has said, that as Mr. Washington had no child, the Presidency should be made hereditary in the family of Lund Washington. John might then have counted upon some sinecure himself, and a provision for his descendants. He did not go so far as to say, also, that the Vice-Presidency should be hereditary in the family of John Adams. He prudently left that to stand on the ground that one good turn deserves another.(*)
John Adams once claimed (and it's well-known that he was always on the lookout for positions and titles, believing his contributions weren’t compensated enough) that since Mr. Washington had no children, the Presidency should be passed down through the family of Lund Washington. Adams might have hoped for a comfortable position for himself and financial security for his descendants. However, he didn't suggest that the Vice-Presidency should also be hereditary in the Adams family. He wisely chose to let that idea rest on the principle that one good deed deserves another.
John Adams is one of those men who never contemplated the origin of government, or comprehended any thing of first principles. If he had, he might have seen, that the right to set up and establish hereditary government, never did, and never can, exist in any generation at any time whatever; that it is of the nature of treason; because it is an attempt to take away the rights of all the minors living at that time, and of all succeeding generations. It is of a degree beyond common treason. It is a sin against nature. The equal right of every generation is a right fixed in the nature of things. It belongs to the son when of age, as it belonged to the father before him. John Adams would himself deny the right that any former deceased generation could have to decree authoritatively a succession of governors over him, or over his children; and yet he assumes the pretended right, treasonable as it is, of acting it himself. His ignorance is his best excuse.
John Adams is one of those people who never thought about where government comes from or understood any basic principles. If he had, he might have realized that the right to create and maintain hereditary government never did and never can exist in any generation at any time; that it's fundamentally treasonous because it tries to take away the rights of all the young people alive at that moment and all future generations. It goes beyond ordinary treason. It goes against nature. The equal right of every generation is a right anchored in the nature of things. It belongs to the son when he comes of age, just as it belonged to the father before him. John Adams would himself argue that no previous deceased generation should have the definitive right to impose a series of governors over him or his children; yet, he claims the questionable right, as treasonous as it is, to exercise that authority himself. His ignorance is his best excuse.
John Jay has said,(**) (and this John was always the sycophant of every thing in power, from Mr. Girard in America, to Grenville in England,)—John Jay has said, that the Senate should have been appointed for life. He would then have been sure of never wanting a lucrative appointment for himself, and have had no fears about impeachment. These are the disguised traitors that call themselves Federalists.(**)
John Jay has said,(**) (and this John was always a yes-man to everyone in power, from Mr. Girard in America to Grenville in England)—John Jay has said that the Senate should have been appointed for life. He would have been sure of never needing a well-paying job for himself and wouldn't have had any worries about impeachment. These are the hidden traitors who call themselves Federalists.(**)
Could I have known to what degree of corruption and perfidy the administrative part of the government of America had descended, I could have been at no loss to have understood the reservedness of Mr. Washington towards me, during my imprisonment in the Luxembourg. There are cases in which silence is a loud language. I will here explain the cause of that imprisonment, and return to Mr. Washington afterwards.
Could I have known how deeply the administrative side of the American government had fallen into corruption and betrayal, I would have understood why Mr. Washington was so distant with me during my time in prison at the Luxembourg. Sometimes, silence speaks volumes. I'll explain why I was imprisoned here and then return to discuss Mr. Washington later.
* Two people that John Adams mentioned this to, told me about it. The secretary of Mr. Jay was there when it was shared with me.—Author. ** If Mr. John Jay wants to know what authority I have for saying this, I will provide that authority publicly whenever he asks for it.—Author.
In the course of that rage, terror and suspicion, which the brutal letter of the Duke of Brunswick first started into existence in France, it happened that almost every man who was opposed to violence, or who was not violent himself, became suspected. I had constantly been opposed to every thing which was of the nature or of the appearance of violence; but as I had always done it in a manner that shewed it to be a principle founded in my heart, and not a political manouvre, it precluded the pretence of accusing me. I was reached, however, under another pretence.
During that time of anger, fear, and distrust that the harsh letter from the Duke of Brunswick triggered in France, almost every person who was against violence, or who wasn’t violent himself, became a suspect. I had always opposed anything that resembled violence, but because I did it in a way that showed it was a principle from my heart, not just a political tactic, it made it hard for anyone to accuse me. However, I was still targeted under a different pretense.
A decree was passed to imprison all persons born in England; but as I was a member of the Convention, and had been complimented with the honorary style of Citizen of France, as Mr. Washington and some other Americans had been, this decree fell short of reaching me. A motion was afterwards made and carried, supported chiefly by Bourdon de l'Oise, for expelling foreigners from the Convention. My expulsion being thus effected, the two committees of Public Safety and of General Surety, of which Robespierre was the dictator, put me in arrestation under the former decree for imprisoning persons born in England. Having thus shewn under what pretence the imprisonment was effected, I come to speak of such parts of the case as apply between me and Mr. Washington, either as a President or as an individual.
A decree was issued to imprison all individuals born in England; however, since I was a member of the Convention and had been honored with the title Citizen of France, like Mr. Washington and some other Americans, this decree did not affect me. Later, a motion was proposed and passed, primarily supported by Bourdon de l'Oise, to expel foreigners from the Convention. As a result, I was expelled, and the two committees of Public Safety and General Surety, led by Robespierre, placed me under arrest according to the earlier decree regarding the imprisonment of people born in England. Having explained the reasons behind my imprisonment, I will now discuss the aspects of the case that involve my relationship with Mr. Washington, both as President and as a person.
I have always considered that a foreigner, such as I was in fact, with respect to France, might be a member of a Convention for framing a Constitution, without affecting his right of citizenship in the country to which he belongs, but not a member of a government after a Constitution is formed; and I have uniformly acted upon this distinction; To be a member of a government requires that a person be in allegiance to that government and to the country locally. But a Constitution, being a thing of principle, and not of action, and which, after it is formed, is to be referred to the people for their approbation or rejection, does not require allegiance in the persons forming and proposing it; and besides this, it is only to the thing after it be formed and established, and to the country after its governmental character is fixed by the adoption of a constitution, that the allegiance can be given. No oath of allegiance or of citizenship was required of the members who composed the Convention: there was nothing existing in form to swear allegiance to. If any such condition had been required, I could not, as Citizen of America in fact, though Citizen of France by compliment, have accepted a seat in the Convention.
I have always believed that a foreigner, like I was in relation to France, could be part of a convention to create a Constitution without impacting their citizenship rights in their home country. However, I think that once a Constitution is established, that person shouldn't be part of the government. Being in government means you owe loyalty to that government and the local country. A Constitution is based on principles rather than actions, and once it’s created, it’s put to the people for approval or rejection, so those involved in forming it don’t necessarily need to have that loyalty. Moreover, true allegiance can only be given to the Constitution after it's established and to the country after the Constitution defines its government. No oath of allegiance or citizenship was needed from those who were part of the Convention; there was nothing in place at the time to swear allegiance to. If such a condition had been required, I, as a Citizen of America in reality, although a Citizen of France by courtesy, wouldn't have been able to accept a position in the Convention.
As my citizenship in America was not altered or diminished by any thing I had done in Europe, (on the contrary, it ought to be considered as strengthened, for it was the American principle of government that I was endeavouring to spread in Europe,) and as it is the duty of every govern-ment to charge itself with the care of any of its citizens who may happen to fall under an arbitrary persecution abroad, and is also one of the reasons for which ambassadors or ministers are appointed,—it was the duty of the Executive department in America, to have made (at least) some enquiries about me, as soon as it heard of my imprisonment. But if this had not been the case, that government owed it to me on every ground and principle of honour and gratitude. Mr. Washington owed it to me on every score of private acquaintance, I will not now say, friendship; for it has some time been known by those who know him, that he has no friendships; that he is incapable of forming any; he can serve or desert a man, or a cause, with constitutional indifference; and it is this cold hermaphrodite faculty that imposed itself upon the world, and was credited for a while by enemies as by friends, for prudence, moderation and impartiality.(1)
As my citizenship in America wasn't changed or diminished by anything I did in Europe—on the contrary, it should be seen as strengthened since I was trying to promote the American principles of government in Europe—and since it's the responsibility of every government to protect its citizens from arbitrary persecution abroad, which is also one of the reasons ambassadors or ministers are appointed, it was the duty of the Executive branch in America to at least make some inquiries about me as soon as it learned of my imprisonment. Even if that wasn’t the case, the government owed me that on every basis of honor and gratitude. Mr. Washington owed me that because of our personal acquaintance; I won’t call it friendship, since those who really know him have recognized that he doesn’t form friendships; he can support or abandon a person or a cause with a dispassionate indifference. It’s this detached ability that imposed itself on the world and was mistakenly recognized for a while by both enemies and friends as prudence, moderation, and impartiality. (1)
1 "One could say that he [Washington] enjoys all possible advantages except for the pleasures of friendship."—Louis Otto, Chargé d'Affaires (at New York) to his government, June 13, 1790. French Archives, vol. 35, No. 32.—Editor.
Soon after I was put into arrestation, and imprisoned in the Luxembourg, the Americans who were then in Paris went in a body to the bar of the Convention to reclaim me. They were answered by the then President Vadier, who has since absconded, that I was born in England, and it was signified to them, by some of the Committee of General Surety, to whom they were referred (I have been told it was Billaud Varennes,) that their reclamation of me was only the act of individuals, without any authority from the American government.
Soon after I was arrested and imprisoned in Luxembourg, the Americans who were in Paris at that time went to the Convention to ask for my release. They were told by the then President Vadier, who has since fled, that I was born in England. Some members of the Committee of General Surety, to whom they were directed (I've been told it was Billaud Varennes), informed them that their request was just the action of individuals and didn’t have any backing from the American government.
A few days after this, all communications from persons imprisoned to any person without the prison was cut off by an order of the Police. I neither saw, nor heard from, any body for six months; and the only hope that remained to me was, that a new Minister would arrive from America to supercede Morris, and that he would be authorized to enquire into the cause of my imprisonment. But even this hope, in the state to which matters were daily arriving, was too remote to have any consolatory effect, and I contented myself with the thought, that I might be remembered when it would be too late. There is perhaps no condition from which a man conscious of his own uprightness cannot derive consolation; for it is in itself a consolation for him to find, that he can bear that condition with calmness and fortitude.
A few days later, all communication from prisoners to anyone outside the prison was cut off by an order from the Police. I didn’t see or hear from anyone for six months, and the only hope I had left was that a new Minister would come from America to replace Morris and that he would be allowed to investigate the reason for my imprisonment. But even that hope, given how things were getting worse every day, felt too unlikely to offer any real comfort, and I settled for the thought that I might be remembered when it was too late. There may be no situation from which a person aware of their own integrity cannot find comfort; for just realizing that they can endure that situation with calmness and strength is a consolation in itself.
From about the middle of March (1794) to the fall of Robespierre July 29, (9th of Thermidor,) the state of things in the prisons was a continued scene of horror. No man could count upon life for twenty-four hours. To such a pitch of rage and suspicion were Robespierre and his Committee arrived, that it seemed as if they feared to leave a man living. Scarcely a night passed in which ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or more, were not taken out of the prison, carried before a pretended tribunal in the morning, and guillotined before night. One hundred and sixty-nine were taken out of the Luxembourg one night, in the month of July, and one hundred and sixty of them guillotined. A list of two hundred more, according to the report in the prison, was preparing a few days before Robespierre fell. In this last list I have good reason to believe I was included. A memorandum in the hand-writing of Robespierre was afterwards produced in the Convention, by the committee to whom the papers of Robespierre were referred, in these words:
From around mid-March (1794) until Robespierre's fall on July 29 (9th of Thermidor), the situation in the prisons was nothing short of horrific. No one could count on living for even twenty-four hours. Robespierre and his Committee had reached such a level of rage and paranoia that it seemed they were afraid to leave anyone alive. Hardly a night went by without ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or more prisoners being taken out, brought before a sham tribunal in the morning, and guillotined by nightfall. One night in July, one hundred sixty-nine were taken out of the Luxembourg, and one hundred sixty of them were executed. A list of two hundred more prisoners was being prepared just a few days before Robespierre fell. I have strong reasons to believe that I was on that last list. A note in Robespierre's handwriting was later presented in the Convention by the committee that received his papers, stating:
"I Demand that Thomas Paine be decreed of accusation for the interests of America as well as of France."
1 In reading this, the Committee added, "Why Thomas Paine more than anyone else? Because he helped to establish the freedom of both worlds."—Editor.
I had then been imprisoned seven months, and the silence of the Executive part of the government of America (Mr. Washington) upon the case, and upon every thing respecting me, was explanation enough to Robespierre that he might proceed to extremities.
I had been imprisoned for seven months, and the silence of the Executive branch of the U.S. government (Mr. Washington) regarding my situation and everything related to me was sufficient explanation for Robespierre to take drastic action.
A violent fever which had nearly terminated my existence, was, I believe, the circumstance that preserved it. I was not in a condition to be removed, or to know of what was passing, or of what had passed, for more than a month. It makes a blank in my remembrance of life. The first thing I was informed of was the fall of Robespierre.
A severe fever that almost took my life, I believe, is what kept me alive. I was not in a state to be moved or to grasp what was happening, or what had happened, for over a month. It creates a gap in my memory of life. The first thing I learned about was the fall of Robespierre.
About a week after this, Mr. Monroe arrived to supercede Gouverneur Morris, and as soon as I was able to write a note legible enough to be read, I found a way to convey one to him by means of the man who lighted the lamps in the prison; and whose unabated friendship to me, from whom he had never received any service, and with difficulty accepted any recompense, puts the character of Mr. Washington to shame.
About a week later, Mr. Monroe arrived to take over for Gouverneur Morris, and as soon as I could write a note that was legible enough to be read, I found a way to send it to him through the guy who lit the lamps in the prison. His unwavering friendship towards me, someone he had never received any help from and who he only reluctantly accepted any compensation from, puts Mr. Washington's character to shame.
In a few days I received a message from Mr. Monroe, conveyed to me in a note from an intermediate person, with assurance of his friendship, and expressing a desire that I would rest the case in his hands. After a fortnight or more had passed, and hearing nothing farther, I wrote to a friend who was then in Paris, a citizen of Philadelphia, requesting him to inform me what was the true situation of things with respect to me. I was sure that something was the matter; I began to have hard thoughts of Mr. Washington, but I was unwilling to encourage them.
In a few days, I got a message from Mr. Monroe, sent through a mutual acquaintance, assuring me of his support and expressing a wish that I let him handle the situation. After about two weeks had gone by without any further news, I reached out to a friend who was in Paris at the time, a resident of Philadelphia, asking him to update me on what was really happening regarding my situation. I was certain something was up; I started to have negative thoughts about Mr. Washington, but I was reluctant to entertain them.
In about ten days, I received an answer to my letter, in which the writer says, "Mr. Monroe has told me that he has no order [meaning from the President, Mr. Washington] respecting you, but that he (Mr. Monroe) will do every thing in his power to liberate you; but, from what I learn from the Americans lately arrived in Paris, you are not considered, either by the American government, or by the individuals, as an American citizen."
In about ten days, I got a response to my letter, where the writer mentions, "Mr. Monroe has informed me that he has no instructions [meaning from the President, Mr. Washington] regarding you, but he (Mr. Monroe) will do everything he can to help set you free; however, from what I've learned from Americans who have recently arrived in Paris, you are not recognized, either by the American government or by individuals, as an American citizen."
I was now at no loss to understand Mr. Washington and his new fangled faction, and that their policy was silently to leave me to fall in France. They were rushing as fast as they could venture, without awakening the jealousy of America, into all the vices and corruptions of the British government; and it was no more consistent with the policy of Mr. Washington, and those who immediately surrounded him, than it was with that of Robespierre or of Pitt, that I should survive. They have, however, missed the mark, and the reaction is upon themselves.
I now fully understood Mr. Washington and his new faction, and that their strategy was quietly allowing me to fail in France. They were moving as fast as they dared, without triggering America's jealousy, into all the vices and corruptions of the British government; and it was just as inconsistent with the policies of Mr. Washington and his inner circle as it was with those of Robespierre or Pitt that I should survive. However, they have missed their target, and the backlash is hitting them instead.
Upon the receipt of the letter just alluded to, I sent a memorial to Mr. Monroe, which the reader will find in the appendix, and I received from him the following answer.(1) It is dated the 18th of September, but did not come to hand till about the 4th of October. I was then failing into a relapse, the weather was becoming damp and cold, fuel was not to be had, and the abscess in my side, the consequence of these things, and of the want of air and exercise, was beginning to form, and which has continued immoveable ever since. Here follows Mr. Monroe's letter.
Upon receiving the letter I just mentioned, I sent a note to Mr. Monroe, which you’ll find in the appendix. I got the following reply from him. It’s dated September 18th, but I didn’t receive it until around October 4th. At that time, I was starting to slip back into a relapse; the weather was getting damp and cold, there was no fuel available, and the abscess in my side, due to these issues and the lack of fresh air and exercise, was beginning to develop. It has remained unchanged ever since. Here’s Mr. Monroe's letter.
1 The appendix included a summary of the Memorial, which is in the previous chapter (XXI.) in this volume.— Editor..
Paris, September 18th, 1794. "Dear Sir,
Paris, September 18th, 1794. "Dear Sir,
"I was favoured soon after my arrival here with several letters from you, and more latterly with one in the character of memorial upon the subject of your confinement; and should have answered them at the times they were respectively written had I not concluded you would have calculated with certainty upon the deep interest I take in your welfare, and the pleasure with which I shall embrace every opportunity in my power to serve you. I should still pursue the same course, and for reasons which must obviously occur, if I did not find that you are disquieted with apprehensions upon interesting points, and which justice to you and our country equally forbid you should entertain. You mention that you have been informed you are not considered as an American citizen by the Americans, and that you have likewise heard that I had no instructions respecting you by the government. I doubt not the person who gave you the information meant well, but I suspect he did not even convey accurately his own ideas on the first point: for I presume the most he could say is, that you had likewise become a French citizen, and which by no means deprived you of being an American one. Even this, however, may be doubted, I mean the acquisition of citizenship in France, and I confess you have said much to show that it has not been made. I really suspect that this was all that the gentleman who wrote to you, and those Americans he heard speak upon the subject meant. It becomes my duty, however, to declare to you, that I consider you as an American citizen, and that you are considered universally in that character by the people of America. As such you are entitled to my attention; and so far as it can be given consistently with those obligations which are mutual between every government and even a transient passenger, you shall receive it.
I was fortunate enough to receive several letters from you shortly after I arrived here, and more recently one addressing your confinement. I would have replied at the time each was written, but I thought you would be certain of my deep concern for your well-being and the pleasure I feel in seizing every opportunity to help you. I would still follow the same approach, except for the fact that I see you are troubled by concerns about important issues that justice to you and our country should not allow you to have. You mentioned that you’ve been told you are not recognized as an American citizen by Americans and that you’ve also heard I had no instructions from the government regarding you. I have no doubt that the person who gave you this information meant well, but I suspect he didn’t convey accurately his own thoughts on the first point. Presumably, all he could say is that you have also become a French citizen, which does not negate your status as an American citizen. However, even this can be questioned; I mean the idea of acquiring citizenship in France, and I honestly acknowledge that you have provided a lot of reasons to show that this hasn’t happened. I really think this is what the gentleman who wrote to you, along with the Americans he heard discussing the matter, intended. Nonetheless, it is my duty to tell you that I consider you an American citizen, and you are seen universally as one by the people of America. As such, you are entitled to my attention; and as much as I can provide it, while respecting the obligations that exist between any government and even a temporary visitor, you will receive it.
"The Congress have never decided upon the subject of citizenship in a manner to regard the present case. By being with us through the revolution you are of our country as absolutely as if you had been born there, and you are no more of England, than every native American is. This is the true doctrine in the present case, so far as it becomes complicated with any other consideration. I have mentioned it to make you easy upon the only point which could give you any disquietude.
"The Congress has never made a decision about citizenship that applies to this situation. By standing with us during the revolution, you are as much a part of our country as if you had been born here, and you are no more a part of England than any native American is. This is the correct principle in this case, especially as it gets entangled with other factors. I bring this up to reassure you about the only thing that might be troubling you."
"Is it necessary for me to tell you how much all your countrymen, I speak of the great mass of the people, are interested in your welfare? They have not forgotten the history of their own revolution and the difficult scenes through which they passed; nor do they review its several stages without reviving in their bosoms a due sensibility of the merits of those who served them in that great and arduous conflict. The crime of ingratitude has not yet stained, and I trust never will stain, our national character. You are considered by them as not only having rendered important service in our own revolution, but as being, on a more extensive scale, the friend of human rights, and a distinguished and able advocate in favour of public liberty. To the welfare of Thomas Paine, the Americans are not, nor can they be, indifferent.
"Do I really need to tell you how much all your fellow countrymen, I mean the vast majority of the people, care about your well-being? They haven’t forgotten the history of their own revolution and the tough times they went through; nor do they reflect on its various stages without feeling a strong appreciation for those who supported them during that monumental struggle. The sin of ingratitude hasn’t clouded, and I hope it never will cloud, our national character. They view you as someone who not only provided significant support in our own revolution but also as a broader advocate for human rights and a notable and capable champion of public liberty. The welfare of Thomas Paine is something the Americans are not, and cannot be, indifferent to."
"Of the sense which the President has always entertained of your merits, and of his friendly disposition towards you, you are too well assured to require any declaration of it from me. That I forward his wishes in seeking your safety is what I well know, and this will form an additional obligation on me to perform what I should otherwise consider as a duty.
"You're already well aware of how the President values your talents and his positive feelings towards you, so I don't need to say it outright. I know that I'm acting on his wishes by looking out for your safety, and this only adds to my sense of obligation to do what I would already see as my duty."
"You are, in my opinion, at present menaced by no kind of danger. To liberate you, will be an object of my endeavours, and as soon as possible. But you must, until that event shall be accomplished, bear your situation with patience and fortitude. You will likewise have the justice to recollect, that I am placed here upon a difficult theatre* many important objects to attend to, with few to consult It becomes me in pursuit of those to regulate my conduct in respect to each, as to the manner and the time, as will, in my judgment, be best calculated to accomplish the whole.
You are currently not in any kind of danger, in my view. I will make it my mission to free you as soon as I can. But until that happens, you need to endure your situation with patience and strength. You should also remember that I am in a tough position with many important matters to handle and few people to consult. It's necessary for me to manage my actions regarding each situation in a way and at a time that I believe will best help achieve everything.
"With great esteem and respect consider me personally your friend,
"With deep appreciation and respect, think of me as your friend,"
"James Monroe."
"James Monroe."
The part in Mr. Monroe's letter, in which he speaks of the President, (Mr. Washington,) is put in soft language. Mr. Monroe knew what Mr. Washington had said formerly, and he was willing to keep that in view. But the fact is, not only that Mr. Washington had given no orders to Mr. Monroe, as the letter [of Whiteside] stated, but he did not so much as say to him, enquire if Mr. Paine be dead or alive, in prison or out, or see if there be any assistance we can give him.
The section in Mr. Monroe's letter where he talks about the President (Mr. Washington) is phrased delicately. Mr. Monroe was aware of Mr. Washington's previous statements and kept those in mind. However, the truth is, not only did Mr. Washington not give any instructions to Mr. Monroe, as mentioned in Whiteside's letter, but he also never even asked him to check if Mr. Paine was dead or alive, in prison or out, or if there was any help we could provide him.
This I think refers to the awkward situations that Gouverneur Morris's unusual behavior caused, and which, I know for sure, raised doubts about Mr. Washington's sincerity.—Author. voi. m—ij
While these matters were passing, the liberations from the prisons were numerous; from twenty to forty in the course of almost every twenty-four hours. The continuance of my imprisonment after a new Minister had arrived immediately from America, which was now more than two months, was a matter so obviously strange, that I found the character of the American government spoken of in very unqualified terms of reproach; not only by those who still remained in prison, but by those who were liberated, and by persons who had access to the prison from without. Under these circumstances I wrote again to Mr. Monroe, and found occasion, among other things, to say: "It will not add to the popularity of Mr. Washington to have it believed in America, as it is believed here, that he connives at my imprisonment."
While all this was happening, there were many releases from the prisons—about twenty to forty every day. The fact that I was still imprisoned after a new Minister had arrived from America, which had been over two months now, was so clearly strange that I heard people talk about the American government in very harsh terms. This was true not only for those still locked up but also for those who had been released and for people who could visit the prison from outside. Given this situation, I wrote to Mr. Monroe again and took the opportunity to say among other things, "It won't help Mr. Washington's reputation if it's believed in America, as it is believed here, that he supports my imprisonment."
The case, so far as it respected Mr. Monroe, was, that having to get over the difficulties, which the strange conduct of Gouverneur Morris had thrown in the way of a successor, and having no authority from the American government to speak officially upon any thing relating to me, he found himself obliged to proceed by unofficial means with individual members; for though Robespierre was overthrown, the Robespierrian members of the Committee of Public Safety still remained in considerable force, and had they found out that Mr. Monroe had no official authority upon the case, they would have paid little or no regard to his reclamation of me. In the mean time my health was suffering exceedingly, the dreary prospect of winter was coming on, and imprisonment was still a thing of danger. After the Robespierrian members of the Committee were removed by the expiration of their time of serving, Mr. Monroe reclaimed me, and I was liberated the 4th of November. Mr. Monroe arrived in Paris the beginning of August before. All that period of my imprisonment, at least, I owe not to Robespierre, but to his colleague in projects, George Washington. Immediately upon my liberation, Mr. Monroe invited me to his house, where I remained more than a year and a half; and I speak of his aid and friendship, as an open-hearted man will always do in such a case, with respect and gratitude.
The situation regarding Mr. Monroe was that he had to navigate the challenges created by Gouverneur Morris's strange behavior, making it difficult for a successor. With no official authority from the American government to address anything related to me, he had to rely on informal channels with individual members. Although Robespierre had been overthrown, the remaining members of the Committee of Public Safety who supported him were still significant in number. If they had discovered that Mr. Monroe lacked official authority in this matter, they would have largely ignored his request for my release. Meanwhile, my health was deteriorating, winter was approaching, and imprisonment remained a serious threat. After the Robespierre supporters on the Committee were removed when their term ended, Mr. Monroe advocated for my release, and I was freed on November 4th. Mr. Monroe arrived in Paris at the beginning of the previous August. Throughout my imprisonment, at least, I do not attribute my situation to Robespierre, but rather to his ally in schemes, George Washington. Right after my release, Mr. Monroe welcomed me into his home, where I stayed for over a year and a half. I speak of his support and friendship, as any grateful person would, with respect and appreciation.
Soon after my liberation, the Convention passed an unanimous vote, to invite me to return to my seat among them. The times were still unsettled and dangerous, as well from without as within, for the coalition was unbroken, and the constitution not settled. I chose, however, to accept the invitation: for as I undertake nothing but what I believe to be right, I abandon nothing that I undertake; and I was willing also to shew, that, as I was not of a cast of mind to be deterred by prospects or retrospects of danger, so neither were my principles to be weakened by misfortune or perverted by disgust.
Soon after I was freed, the Convention voted unanimously to invite me back to my seat among them. The times were still unstable and dangerous, both from outside and within, because the coalition was strong and the constitution hadn’t been finalized. However, I decided to accept the invitation: I only take on what I believe is right, and I don’t give up on what I take on; I also wanted to show that I wouldn’t be discouraged by the possibility of danger or by reflecting on past dangers, nor would my principles be weakened by setbacks or twisted by disappointment.
Being now once more abroad in the world, I began to find that I was not the only one who had conceived an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Washington; it was evident that his character was on the decline as well among Americans as among foreigners of different nations. From being the chief of the government, he had made himself the chief of a party; and his integrity was questioned, for his politics had a doubtful appearance. The mission of Mr. Jay to London, notwithstanding there was an American Minister there already, had then taken place, and was beginning to be talked of. It appeared to others, as it did to me, to be enveloped in mystery, which every day served either to increase or to explain into matter of suspicion.
Now that I was out in the world again, I started to realize that I wasn’t the only one who had a negative view of Mr. Washington; it was clear that his reputation was declining both among Americans and foreigners from various countries. Once the head of the government, he had become the leader of a political party, and his integrity was being questioned because his politics seemed questionable. Mr. Jay's mission to London, even though there was already an American Minister there, had recently taken place and was starting to be discussed. It seemed to everyone, just as it did to me, to be shrouded in mystery, which each passing day either deepened or turned into something suspicious.
In the year 1790, or about that time, Mr. Washington, as President, had sent Gouverneur Morris to London, as his secret agent to have some communication with the British Ministry. To cover the agency of Morris it was given out, I know not by whom, that he went as an agent from Robert Morris to borrow money in Europe, and the report was permitted to pass uncontradicted. The event of Morris's negociation was, that Mr. Hammond was sent Minister from England to America, Pinckney from America to England, and himself Minister to France. If, while Morris was Minister in France, he was not a emissary of the British Ministry and the coalesced powers, he gave strong reasons to suspect him of it. No one who saw his conduct, and heard his conversation, could doubt his being in their interest; and had he not got off the time he did, after his recall, he would have been in arrestation. Some letters of his had fallen into the hands of the Committee of Public Safety, and enquiry was making after him.
In 1790, or around that time, President Washington sent Gouverneur Morris to London as a secret agent to communicate with the British government. To disguise Morris's mission, it was claimed—though I don't know by whom—that he was there as an agent for Robert Morris to secure a loan in Europe, and this story was allowed to circulate without challenge. The outcome of Morris's negotiations was that Mr. Hammond was appointed Minister from England to America, Pinckney was sent from America to England, and Morris himself became Minister to France. While Morris was Minister in France, if he wasn't an agent for the British government and its allied powers, he certainly gave strong reasons to suspect that he was. Anyone who observed his behavior and listened to his conversations could not doubt that he was acting in their interest; had he not left when he did after his recall, he would have been arrested. Some of his letters had been seized by the Committee of Public Safety, and inquiries were being made about him.
A great bustle had been made by Mr. Washington about the conduct of Genet in America, while that of his own Minister, Morris, in France, was infinitely more reproachable. If Genet was imprudent or rash, he was not treacherous; but Morris was all three. He was the enemy of the French revolution, in every stage of it. But notwithstanding this conduct on the part of Morris, and the known profligacy of his character, Mr. Washington in a letter he wrote to him at the time of recalling him on the complaint and request of the Committee of Public Safety, assures him, that though he had complied with that request, he still retained the same esteem and friendship for him as before. This letter Morris was foolish enough to tell of; and, as his own char-acter and conduct were notorious, the telling of it could have but one effect, which was that of implicating the character of the writer.(1) Morris still loiters in Europe, chiefly in England; and Mr. Washington is still in correspondence with him. Mr. Washington ought, therefore, to expect, especially since his conduct in the affairs of Jay's treaty, that France must consider Morris and Washington as men of the same description. The chief difference, however, between the two is, (for in politics there is none,) that the one is profligate enough to profess an indifference about moral principles, and the other is prudent enough to conceal the want of them.
Mr. Washington made a huge fuss about Genet's behavior in America, while his own Minister, Morris, was far more blameworthy in France. If Genet was reckless or foolish, he wasn't deceitful; but Morris was all three. He opposed the French revolution at every point. Yet, despite Morris's actions and his known questionable character, Mr. Washington assured him in a letter, written when he was recalling him at the request of the Committee of Public Safety, that even though he complied with that request, he still held the same respect and friendship for him as before. Morris was foolish enough to mention this letter, and given his notorious reputation, mentioning it could only have one outcome: it would tarnish the writer's reputation. Morris still lingers in Europe, mostly in England, and Mr. Washington continues to correspond with him. Therefore, Mr. Washington should expect that, especially in light of Morris's behavior regarding Jay's treaty, France will view both Morris and Washington as similar figures. The main difference, however, is that one is reckless enough to openly disregard moral principles, while the other is careful enough to hide the lack of them.
1 Washington wrote to Morris on June 19, 1794, "my confidence in and friendship for you remain strong." It wasn’t "foolish" but wise to share this one sentence, without which Morris might not have gotten out of France. The letter shows Washington's mental decline. He states, "until then [Fauchet's demand for the recall of Morris, early 1794] I had thought you were on good terms with the powers that be." Lafayette had argued for Morris's removal, and two French Ministers before Fauchet, Ternant and Genet, had shown their Government's dissatisfaction with him. See Ford's Writings of Washington, vii., p. 453; also Editor's Introduction to XXI.—Editor.
About three months after I was at liberty, the official note of Jay to Grenville on the subject of the capture of American vessels by the British cruisers, appeared in the American papers that arrived at Paris. Every thing was of a-piece. Every thing was mean. The same kind of character went to all circumstances public or private. Disgusted at this national degradation, as well as at the particular conduct of Mr. Washington to me, I wrote to him (Mr. Washington) on the 22d of February (1795) under cover to the then Secretary of State, (Mr. Randolph,) and entrusted the letter to Mr. Le-tombe, who was appointed French consul to Philadelphia, and was on the point of taking his departure. When I supposed Mr. Letombe had sailed, I mentioned the letter to Mr. Monroe, and as I was then in his house, I shewed it to him. He expressed a wish that I would recall it, which he supposed might be done, as he had learnt that Mr. Letombe had not then sailed. I agreed to do so, and it was returned by Mr. Letombe under cover to Mr. Monroe.
About three months after I was free, the official note from Jay to Grenville regarding the capture of American ships by British cruisers appeared in the American newspapers that arrived in Paris. Everything was consistent. Everything was low. The same kind of attitude affected all situations, public or private. Disgusted by this national humiliation, as well as by Mr. Washington's specific actions toward me, I wrote to him on February 22, 1795, sending the letter through the then Secretary of State, Mr. Randolph, and entrusted it to Mr. Le-tombe, who had been appointed as French consul to Philadelphia and was about to leave. When I thought Mr. Letombe had set sail, I mentioned the letter to Mr. Monroe, and since I was at his house, I showed it to him. He expressed a desire for me to recall it, thinking it was still possible since he had learned that Mr. Letombe had not yet sailed. I agreed to do that, and it was returned by Mr. Letombe under cover to Mr. Monroe.
The letter, however, will now reach Mr. Washington publicly in the course of this work.
The letter will now be publicly delivered to Mr. Washington during this work.
About the month of September following, I had a severe relapse which gave occasion to the report of my death. I had felt it coming on a considerable time before, which occasioned me to hasten the work I had then in hand, the Second part of the Age of Reason. When I had finished that work, I bestowed another letter on Mr. Washington, which I sent under cover to Mr. Benj. Franklin Bache of Philadelphia. The letter is as follows:
About September of the following year, I had a serious relapse that led to rumors of my death. I had sensed it coming for some time, which prompted me to speed up the work I was doing at the time, the Second part of the Age of Reason. Once I finished that work, I wrote another letter to Mr. Washington, which I sent through Mr. Benj. Franklin Bache in Philadelphia. The letter is as follows:
"Paris, September 20th, 1795.
Paris, September 20, 1795.
"Sir,
"Mr.
"I had written you a letter by Mr. Letombe, French consul, but, at the request of Mr. Monroe, I withdrew it, and the letter is still by me. I was the more easily prevailed upon to do this, as it was then my intention to have returned to America the latter end of the present year, 1795; but the illness I now suffer prevents me. In case I had come, I should have applied to you for such parts of your official letters (and of your private ones, if you had chosen to give them) as contained any instructions or directions either to Mr. Monroe, or to Mr. Morris, or to any other person respecting me; for after you were informed of my imprisonment in France, it was incumbent on you to have made some enquiry into the cause, as you might very well conclude that I had not the opportunity of informing you of it. I cannot understand your silence upon this subject upon any other ground, than as connivance at my imprisonment; and this is the manner it is understood here, and will be understood in America, unless you give me authority for contradicting it. I therefore write you this letter, to propose to you to send me copies of any letters you have written, that may remove that suspicion. In the preface to the second part of the Age of Reason, I have given a memorandum from the hand-writing of Robespierre, in which he proposed a decree of accusation against me, 'for the interests of America as well as of France!' He could have no cause for putting America in the case, but by interpreting the silence of the American government into connivance and consent. I was imprisoned on the ground of being born in England; and your silence in not enquiring into the cause of that imprisonment, and reclaiming me against it, was tacitly giving me up. I ought not to have suspected you of treachery; but whether I recover from the illness I now suffer or not, I shall continue to think you treacherous, till you give me cause to think otherwise. I am sure you would have found yourself more at your ease, had you acted by me as you ought; for whether your desertion of me was intended to gratify the English Government, or to let me fall into destruction in France that you might exclaim the louder against the French Revolution, or whether you hoped by my extinction to meet with less opposition in mounting up the American government—either of these will involve you in reproach you will not easily shake off.
"I had written you a letter through Mr. Letombe, the French consul, but at Mr. Monroe's request, I took it back, and the letter is still with me. It was easier for me to agree to this since I had planned to return to America toward the end of this year, 1795; however, my current illness prevents me from doing so. Had I made the trip, I would have asked you for copies of any official letters (or private ones, if you were willing to provide them) that contained instructions or details for Mr. Monroe, Mr. Morris, or anyone else regarding me. After you were informed of my imprisonment in France, it was your duty to investigate the reasons behind it, as it would be understandable that I couldn't update you myself. I can't see your silence on this matter as anything other than complicity in my imprisonment; this is how it’s interpreted here and will be in America unless you give me permission to say otherwise. I'm therefore writing this letter to ask you to send me copies of any correspondence you've sent that could clear that suspicion. In the preface to the second part of the Age of Reason, I've included a note in Robespierre's handwriting where he proposed a decree to accuse me, 'for the interests of America as well as of France!' He had no reason to involve America other than assuming the American government was complicit and consented to my situation. I was imprisoned because I was born in England, and your silence in not investigating the reasons behind that imprisonment and not advocating for my release suggested you had given up on me. I shouldn’t have suspected you of betrayal; however, whether I recover from this illness or not, I will continue to view you as treacherous until you give me a reason to believe otherwise. I’m sure you would have felt more at ease if you had acted as you should have; whether your abandonment of me was intended to please the English Government, to let me suffer in France so you could complain louder about the French Revolution, or if you thought my demise would lead to less opposition in establishing the American government—whichever it is, will bring you shame that won’t be easy to escape."
"THOMAS Paine."
"Thomas Paine."
1 Washington Papers in State Department. Endorsed by Bache: "Jan. 18, 1796. Sent to Benj. Franklin Bache, and he forwarded it right away after getting it."—Editor..
Here follows the letter above alluded to, which I had stopped in complaisance to Mr. Monroe.
Here is the letter mentioned earlier, which I held back to be polite to Mr. Monroe.
"Paris, February aad, 1795.
"Paris, February 2, 1795."
"Sir,
"Hey,"
"As it is always painful to reproach those one would wish to respect, it is not without some difficulty that I have taken the resolution to write to you. The dangers to which I have been exposed cannot have been unknown to you, and the guarded silence you have observed upon that circumstance is what I ought not to have expected from you, either as a friend or as President of the United States.
"As it’s always hard to criticize those we want to respect, I’ve found it difficult to decide to write to you. You must have been aware of the dangers I’ve faced, and your silence on that matter is something I shouldn’t have anticipated from you, both as a friend and as President of the United States."
"You knew enough of my character to be assured that I could not have deserved imprisonment in France; and, without knowing any thing more than this, you had sufficient ground to have taken some interest for my safety. Every motive arising from recollection of times past, ought to have suggested to you the propriety of such a measure. But I cannot find that you have so much as directed any enquiry to be made whether I was in prison or at liberty, dead or alive; what the cause of that imprisonment was, or whether there was any service or assistance you could render. Is this what I ought to have expected from America, after the part I had acted towards her, or will it redound to her honour or to yours, that I tell the story? I do not hesitate to say, that you have not served America with more disinterestedness, or greater zeal, or more fidelity, than myself, and I know not if with better effect. After the revolution of America was established I ventured into new scenes of difficulties to extend the principles which that revolution had produced, and you rested at home to partake of the advantages. In the progress of events, you beheld yourself a President in America, and me a prisoner in France. You folded your arms, forgot your friend, and became silent.
You knew enough about my character to be sure that I didn’t deserve to be imprisoned in France; and even without knowing anything else, you had enough reason to care about my safety. Every reason based on our past should have suggested that you take some action on my behalf. But I can't find that you even bothered to ask whether I was in prison or free, alive or dead; what the reason for my imprisonment was, or if there was anything you could do to help. Is this what I should have expected from America after everything I did for her, or will telling this story bring honor to her or to you? I don’t hesitate to say that you haven't served America with more selflessness, zeal, or loyalty than I have, and I don’t know if you’ve done so with better results. After the American Revolution was established, I faced new challenges to spread the principles that arose from it while you stayed home to enjoy the benefits. As events unfolded, you found yourself as President in America, and me as a prisoner in France. You crossed your arms, forgot about your friend, and went quiet.
"As every thing I have been doing in Europe was connected with my wishes for the prosperity of America, I ought to be the more surprised at this conduct on the part of her government. It leaves me but one mode of explanation, which is, that every thing is not as it ought to be amongst you, and that the presence of a man who might disapprove, and who had credit enough with the country to be heard and believed, was not wished for. This was the operating motive with the despotic faction that imprisoned me in France, (though the pretence was, that I was a foreigner,) and those that have been silent and inactive towards me in America, appear to me to have acted from the same motive. It is impossible for me to discover any other.(1)
"Since everything I’ve been doing in Europe has been linked to my hopes for America’s success, I should be even more surprised by this behavior from its government. It leaves me with only one possible explanation, which is, that not everything is as it should be among you, and that my presence—a man who might disagree and who had enough influence to be heard and believed—wasn't wanted. This was the driving force behind the authoritarian group that imprisoned me in France (though the excuse was that I was a foreigner), and those who have been silent and inactive towards me in America seem to have acted out of the same motivation. I can’t find any other explanation."(1)
"After the part I have taken in the revolution of America, it is natural that I feel interested in whatever relates to her character and prosperity. Though I am not on the spot to see what is immediately acting there, I see some part of what she is acting in Europe. For your own sake, as well as for that of America, I was both surprised and concerned at the appointment of Gouverneur Morris to be Minister to France. His conduct has proved that the opinion I had formed of that appointment was well founded. I wrote that opinion to Mr. Jefferson at the time, and I was frank enough to say the same thing to Morris—that it was an unfortunate appointment? His prating, insignificant pomposity, rendered him at once offensive, suspected, and ridiculous; and his total neglect of all business had so disgusted the Americans, that they proposed drawing up a protest against him. He carried this neglect to such an extreme, that it was necessary to inform him of it; and I asked him one day, if he did not feel himself ashamed to take the money of the country, and do nothing for it?' But Morris is so fond of profit and voluptousness, that he cares nothing about character. Had he not been removed at the time he was, I think his conduct would have precipitated the two countries into a rupture; and in this case, hated systematically as America is and ever will be by the British government, and at the same time suspected by France, the commerce of America would have fallen a prey to both countries.
"Given the role I played in the American revolution, it makes sense that I care about her character and success. Even though I’m not there to witness what’s happening directly, I can see some of her actions in Europe. For both your sake and America’s, I was surprised and worried about Gouverneur Morris being appointed as Minister to France. His behavior confirmed my concerns about that appointment. I shared my thoughts with Mr. Jefferson at the time and was honest with Morris, saying he was an unfortunate choice. His irritating, pompous talk made him seem offensive, suspicious, and ridiculous; and his complete neglect of his responsibilities disgusted many Americans, prompting them to consider writing a protest against him. He was so dismissive of his duties that I felt the need to tell him; I asked him one day if he didn’t feel ashamed to take the country’s money without doing anything for it. Yet, Morris is so focused on profit and pleasure that he doesn’t care about his reputation. If he hadn’t been removed when he was, I believe his actions would have led to a conflict between the two countries. In that case, with America already hated systematically by the British government and also viewed with suspicion by France, American commerce would have suffered at the hands of both nations."
1 This paragraph from the original letter was left out of the American pamphlet, likely due to Mr. Bache's caution.— Editor. 2 "I just heard about Gouverneur Morris's appointment. It's a really unfortunate choice; and since I'll mention this to him when I see him, I'm not telling you this under the condition of confidentiality."—Paine to Jefferson, Feb. 13, 1792.—Editor. 3 Paine obviously didn’t know that Morris was okay with the Americans, referring to the captains of captured ships, suffering so there could be a case against France for breaking the treaty, which would allow the United States to switch their alliance to England. See Introduction to XXI.. also my "Life of Paine," ii., p. 83.—Editor..
"If the inconsistent conduct of Morris exposed the interest of America to some hazard in France, the pusillanimous conduct of Mr. Jay in England has rendered the American government contemptible in Europe. Is it possible that any man who has contributed to the independence of Amer-ica, and to free her from the tyranny and injustice of the British government, can read without shame and indignation the note of Jay to Grenville? It is a satire upon the declaration of Independence, and an encouragement to the British government to treat America with contempt. At the time this Minister of Petitions was acting this miserable part, he had every means in his hands to enable him to have done his business as he ought. The success or failure of his mission depended upon the success or failure of the French arms. Had France failed, Mr. Jay might have put his humble petition in his pocket, and gone home. The case happened to be otherwise, and he has sacrificed the honour and perhaps all the advantages of it, by turning petitioner. I take it for granted, that he was sent over to demand indemnification for the captured property; and, in this case, if he thought he wanted a preamble to his demand, he might have said,
"If Morris's inconsistent behavior put America's interests at risk in France, Mr. Jay's cowardly actions in England have made the American government look weak in Europe. Can anyone who helped secure America's independence from the tyranny and injustice of British rule read Jay's note to Grenville without feeling shame and anger? It's an insult to the Declaration of Independence and encourages the British government to regard America with disdain. While this Minister of Petitions was playing this pathetic role, he had every opportunity to handle his duties properly. The success of his mission relied on the outcome of French military efforts. If France had failed, Mr. Jay could have tucked his humble petition away and gone home. Instead, the situation turned out differently, and he has sacrificed his honor and potentially all its benefits by acting like a petitioner. I assume he was sent to request compensation for the seized property; in that case, if he thought he needed a preamble to his request, he could have said,"
'That, tho' the government of England might suppose itself under the necessity of seizing American property bound to France, yet that supposed necessity could not preclude indemnification to the proprietors, who, acting under the authority of their own government, were not accountable to any other.'
'Even though the English government might think it needs to confiscate American property headed for France, that supposed need doesn’t eliminate the obligation to compensate the owners, who, acting under the authority of their own government, aren't answerable to anyone else.'
"But Mr. Jay sets out with an implied recognition of the right of the British government to seize and condemn: for he enters his complaint against the irregularity of the seizures and the condemnation, as if they were reprehensible only by not being conformable to the terms of the proclamation under which they were seized. Instead of being the Envoy of a government, he goes over like a lawyer to demand a new trial. I can hardly help thinking that Grenville wrote that note himself and Jay signed it; for the style of it is domestic and not diplomatic. The term, His Majesty, used without any descriptive epithet, always signifies the King whom the Minister that speaks represents. If this sinking of the demand into a petition was a juggle between Grenville and Jay, to cover the indemnification, I think it will end in another juggle, that of never paying the money, and be made use of afterwards to preclude the right of demanding it: for Mr. Jay has virtually disowned the right by appealing to the magnanimity of his Majesty against the capturers. He has made this magnanimous Majesty the umpire in the case, and the government of the United States must abide by the decision. If, Sir, I turn some part of this business into ridicule, it is to avoid the unpleasant sensation of serious indignation.
"But Mr. Jay begins with an implicit acknowledgment of the British government's authority to seize and condemn: he files his complaint about the irregularity of the seizures and the condemnation, as if they were only wrong for not being conformable to the terms of the proclamation under which they were seized. Instead of acting as an envoy of a government, he approaches like a lawyer to request a new trial. I can't help but think that Grenville wrote that note himself and Jay just signed it; the tone is more domestic than diplomatic. The term His Majesty, used without any descriptive title, always refers to the King that the Minister represents. If this downplaying of the demand into a petition was a trick between Grenville and Jay to cover the compensation, I suspect it will lead to another trick of not paying the money and will later be used to deny the right to demand it: because Mr. Jay has practically renounced the right by appealing to the magnanimity of his Majesty against the captors. He has made this generous Majesty the referee in the case, and the United States government will have to accept the ruling. If I, Sir, turn some parts of this matter into a joke, it’s to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of serious anger."
"Among other things which I confess I do not understand, is the proclamation of neutrality. This has always appeared to me as an assumption on the part of the executive not warranted by the Constitution. But passing this over, as a disputable case, and considering it only as political, the consequence has been that of sustaining the losses of war, without the balance of reprisals. When the profession of neutrality, on the part of America, was answered by hostilities on the part of Britain, the object and intention of that neutrality existed no longer; and to maintain it after this, was not only to encourage farther insults and depredations, but was an informal breach of neutrality towards France, by passively contributing to the aid of her enemy. That the government of England considered the American government as pusillanimous, is evident from the encreasing insolence of the conduct of the former towards the latter, till the affair of General Wayne. She then saw that it might be possible to kick a government into some degree of spirit.(1) So far as the proclamation of neutrality was intended to prevent a dissolute spirit of privateering in America under foreign colors, it was undoubtedly laudable; but to continue it as a government neutrality, after the commerce of America was made war upon, was submission and not neutrality. I have heard so much about this thing called neutrality, that I know not if the ungenerous and dishonorable silence (for I must call it such,) that has been observed by your part of the government towards me, during my imprisonment, has not in some measure arisen from that policy.
"Among other things I admit I don’t understand is the declaration of neutrality. To me, it always seemed like an assumption by the executive that isn't backed by the Constitution. But putting that aside, and viewing it purely as a political matter, the result has been that we’ve borne the losses of war without any retaliation. When America’s claim of neutrality was met with hostilities from Britain, the purpose of that neutrality disappeared; maintaining it afterward only encouraged further insults and attacks, and it was also an unofficial violation of neutrality towards France, as it meant supporting her enemy passively. It’s clear that the British government viewed the American government as weak, given the increasing disrespect shown by the former toward the latter, up until the situation with General Wayne. At that point, they realized it might be possible to provoke some vigor in the American government. While the proclamation of neutrality was meant to curb reckless privateering in America under foreign flags, it was certainly admirable; but to keep it as a government stance after American commerce was attacked was just submission, not neutrality. I’ve heard so much about this thing called neutrality that I wonder if the unkind and dishonorable silence (because I must call it that) from your side of the government towards me during my imprisonment has come about because of that policy."
1 Wayne's victory over the Six Nations Indians in 1794 was seen by Washington as a setback for England as well. In a letter to Pendleton on January 22, 1795, he stated, "There's reason to believe that the Indians...along with their supporters; are starting to see things differently." (Italics mine).—Editor.
"Tho' I have written you this letter, you ought not to suppose it has been an agreeable undertaking to me. On the contrary, I assure you, it has caused me some disquietude. I am sorry you have given me cause to do it; for, as I have always remembered your former friendship with pleasure, I suffer a loss by your depriving me of that sentiment.
"Even though I’ve written you this letter, you shouldn’t think it was an enjoyable task for me. On the contrary, I assure you it has caused me some unease. I regret that you have given me reason to do this; because, as I have always looked back on your previous friendship fondly, I am losing that feeling because of you."
"Thomas Paine."
"Thomas Paine."
That this letter was not written in very good temper, is very evident; but it was just such a letter as his conduct appeared to me to merit, and every thing on his part since has served to confirm that opinion. Had I wanted a commentary on his silence, with respect to my imprisonment in France, some of his faction have furnished me with it. What I here allude to, is a publication in a Philadelphia paper, copied afterwards into a New York paper, both under the patronage of the Washington faction, in which the writer, still supposing me in prison in France, wonders at my lengthy respite from the scaffold; and he marks his politics still farther, by saying:
It’s clear that this letter wasn’t written in the best mood, but it reflects exactly what I believed his actions deserved, and everything he’s done since has only reinforced that view. If I needed an explanation for his silence about my imprisonment in France, some of his supporters provided one. What I’m referring to is an article in a Philadelphia newspaper, which was later published in a New York paper, both backed by the Washington group, where the writer, still thinking I’m in prison in France, questions how I’ve avoided execution for so long; and he shows his political stance further by saying:
"It appears, moreover, that the people of England did not relish his (Thomas Paine's) opinions quite so well as he expected, and that for one of his last pieces, as destructive to the peace and happiness of their country, (meaning, I suppose, the Rights of Man,) they threatened our knight-errant with such serious vengeance, that, to avoid a trip to Botany Bay, he fled over to France, as a less dangerous voyage."
"It seems, moreover, that the people of England didn't take too kindly to his (Thomas Paine's) opinions as he had hoped, and that for one of his last works, which was harmful to the peace and happiness of their country (referring, I guess, to the Rights of Man), they threatened our knight-errant with such serious consequences that, to avoid being sent to Botany Bay, he escaped to France, which seemed like a safer option."
I am not refuting or contradicting the falsehood of this publication, for it is sufficiently notorious; neither am I censuring the writer: on the contrary, I thank him for the explanation he has incautiously given of the principles of the Washington faction. Insignificant, however, as the piece is, it was capable of having some ill effects, had it arrived in France during my imprisonment, and in the time of Robespierre; and I am not uncharitable in supposing that this was one of the intentions of the writer.(*)
I’m not denying or contradicting the falsehood of this publication because it’s widely known; I’m also not criticizing the writer. On the contrary, I appreciate the explanation he has unintentionally provided about the principles of the Washington faction. However insignificant the piece may be, it could have had some negative effects if it had reached France during my imprisonment and during Robespierre's time; I’m not being unfair in thinking that this might have been one of the writer's intentions.(*)
* I don’t know who wrote this piece, but some Americans say it’s Phineas Bond, an American refugee who is now a British consul; they say he writes under the names Peter Skunk or Peter Porcupine, or something like that.—Author. This footnote probably added to the annoyance of Porcupine's (Cobbett's) "Letter to the Infamous Tom Paine, in Response to his Letter to General Washington" (Polit. Censor, Dec., 1796), which he (Cobbett) later regretted. Phineas Bond had nothing to do with it.—Editor.
I have now done with Mr. Washington on the score of private affairs. It would have been far more agreeable to me, had his conduct been such as not to have merited these reproaches. Errors or caprices of the temper can be pardoned and forgotten; but a cold deliberate crime of the heart, such as Mr. Washington is capable of acting, is not to be washed away. I now proceed to other matter.
I’m done dealing with Mr. Washington regarding personal matters. It would have been much nicer for me if his behavior hadn’t deserved these complaints. Mood swings or quirks can be forgiven and forgotten, but a calculated betrayal, like what Mr. Washington is capable of, can't just be brushed aside. I’ll now move on to other topics.
After Jay's note to Grenville arrived in Paris from America, the character of every thing that was to follow might be easily foreseen; and it was upon this anticipation that my letter of February the 22d was founded. The event has proved that I was not mistaken, except that it has been much worse than I expected.
After Jay's note to Grenville arrived in Paris from America, it was easy to predict everything that would come next; my letter from February 22nd was based on that expectation. The outcome has shown that I wasn't wrong, but it has turned out to be much worse than I anticipated.
It would naturally occur to Mr. Washington, that the secrecy of Jay's mission to England, where there was already an American Minister, could not but create some suspicion in the French government; especially as the conduct of Morris had been notorious, and the intimacy of Mr. Washington with Morris was known.
It would naturally occur to Mr. Washington that the secrecy of Jay's mission to England, where there was already an American Minister, would inevitably raise some suspicion in the French government, especially since Morris's behavior had been well-known and Mr. Washington's close relationship with Morris was recognized.
The character which Mr. Washington has attempted to act in the world, is a sort of non-describable, camelion-colored thing, called prudence. It is, in many cases, a substitute for principle, and is so nearly allied to hypocrisy that it easily slides into it. His genius for prudence furnished him in this instance with an expedient that served, as is the natural and general character of all expedients, to diminish the embarrassments of the moment and multiply them afterwards; for he authorized it to be made known to the French government, as a confidential matter, (Mr. Washington should recollect that I was a member of the Convention, and had the means of knowing what I here state) he authorized it, I say, to be announced, and that for the purpose of preventing any uneasiness to France on the score of Mr. Jay's mission to England, that the object of that mission, and of Mr. Jay's authority, was restricted to that of demanding the surrender of the western posts, and indemnification for the cargoes captured in American vessels. Mr. Washington knows that this was untrue; and knowing this, he had good reason to himself for refusing to furnish the House of Representatives with copies of the instructions given to Jay, as he might suspect, among other things, that he should also be called upon for copies of instructions given to other Ministers, and that, in the contradiction of instructions, his want of integrity would be detected.(1) Mr. Washington may now, perhaps, learn, when it is too late to be of any use to him, that a man will pass better through the world with a thousand open errors upon his back, than in being detected in one sly falsehood. When one is detected, a thousand are suspected.
The persona that Mr. Washington has tried to portray in the world is a sort of indescribable, chameleon-like thing called prudence. In many cases, it acts as a substitute for principle and is so closely related to hypocrisy that it easily slips into it. His knack for prudence provided him with a strategy that, as is typical with all such strategies, eased the immediate troubles but multiplied them later. He allowed it to be communicated to the French government as a confidential matter—(Mr. Washington should remember that I was a member of the Convention, and I had ways of knowing what I'm stating here)—he authorized it, I say, to be disclosed, to prevent any concern for France regarding Mr. Jay's mission to England; the goal of that mission and Mr. Jay's authority was limited to demanding the return of the western posts and compensation for the cargoes seized from American ships. Mr. Washington knows this was false; and knowing this, he had good reason to refuse to provide the House of Representatives with copies of the instructions given to Jay, as he might suspect, among other things, that he would also be asked for copies of instructions given to other Ministers, and that the inconsistencies in those instructions would expose his lack of integrity. Mr. Washington may now, perhaps, realize—though it might be too late to benefit him—that a person can navigate the world with a thousand obvious mistakes more easily than being caught in one sneaky lie. Once you're discovered, a thousand are suspected.
The first account that arrived in Paris of a treaty being negotiated by Mr. Jay, (for nobody suspected any,) came in an English newspaper, which announced that a treaty offensive and defensive had been concluded between the United States of America and England. This was immediately denied by every American in Paris, as an impossible thing; and though it was disbelieved by the French, it imprinted a suspicion that some underhand business was going forward.(*) At length the treaty itself arrived, and every well-affected American blushed with shame.
The first report that got to Paris about a treaty being negotiated by Mr. Jay (which nobody suspected) came from an English newspaper, stating that an offensive and defensive treaty had been finalized between the United States and England. Every American in Paris quickly denied it, saying it was impossible. Although the French didn't believe it either, it raised suspicions that some shady dealings were happening. Eventually, the treaty itself arrived, and every patriotic American felt a sense of shame.
1 When the British treaty was ratified by the Senate (with one condition) and signed by the President, the House of Representatives, which was responsible for providing the means to implement it, believed that its power over spending allowed it to challenge what a large majority felt was an affront to both the country and France. This view was shared by Edmund Randolph (the first Attorney General), Jefferson, Madison, and other prominent figures. The House, having respectfully asked the President to send them any relevant documents regarding the treaty that wouldn’t impact ongoing negotiations, received a refusal in a message (March 30, 1796) which Madison described as "improper and indelicate." The President stated, "the assent of the House of Representatives is not necessary for the validity of a treaty." The House saw this message as signaling the potential for a serious conflict, and decided to back down.— Editor. * It was the embarrassment caused by the situation and credit of America at that moment that made it essential to contradict the report, using every means available based on opinion or authority. The Committee of Public Safety, which was operating at the time, had committed to fully executing the treaty between America and France, despite some ambiguous actions from the American government that didn’t align well with the trust expected from an ally; however, they were not inclined to accept a counter-treaty. It was widely believed in America, England, and France that Jay had no instructions beyond the points mentioned, nor any that could be interpreted as extending to the breadth of the British treaty. This was clear from the President’s message to Congress when he nominated Jay for that mission. Soon after the treaty with England was signed, Mr. Jay's secretary came to Paris and offered to show me a copy of Jay's instructions as justification of Jay. I advised him, as a friend, not to show them to anyone, and did not allow him to show them to me. "Who is it," I asked him, "that you intend to implicate as blameworthy by showing those instructions? Perhaps that implication could fall on your own government." Although I didn’t see the instructions, I could easily grasp that the American administration had been playing a double game.— Author. The existence of a "double game" in this situation, from start to finish, is now a historical fact. Jay was confirmed by the Senate based on a statement from the President that gave no hint of a treaty, but only about the "adjustment of our complaints," "vindication of our rights," and fostering of "peace." Only after the Envoy was confirmed did the Cabinet add the crucial detail: his authority to negotiate a commercial treaty. This was done despite the opposition of the only lawyer in the group, Edmund Randolph, Secretary of State, who argued that such a power exercised by Jay would infringe upon the rights of the Senate and the nation. See my "Life of Randolph," p. 220. For Jay's Instructions, etc., see I. Am. State Papers, Foreign Relations.—Editor.
It is curious to observe, how the appearance of characters will change, whilst the root that produces them remains the same. The Washington faction having waded through the slough of negociation, and whilst it amused France with professions of friendship contrived to injure her, immediately throws off the hypocrite, and assumes the swaggering air of a bravado. The party papers of that imbecile administration were on this occasion filled with paragraphs about Sovereignty. A paltroon may boast of his sovereign right to let another kick him, and this is the only kind of sovereignty shewn in the treaty with England. But those daring paragraphs, as Timothy Pickering(1) well knows, were intended for France; without whose assistance, in men, money, and ships, Mr. Washington would have cut but a poor figure in the American war. But of his military talents I shall speak hereafter.
It’s interesting to see how the appearance of people can change, while the underlying motives stay the same. The Washington faction, after muddling through negotiations and while pretending to be friendly with France, really worked to undermine her. They soon dropped the act and adopted a bold, arrogant attitude. The party's publications from that clueless administration were filled with talk about Sovereignty. A coward can brag about his sovereign right to let someone else push him around, and that’s the only real sovereignty shown in the treaty with England. But those audacious statements, as Timothy Pickering(1) knows well, were aimed at France; without her support in terms of troops, money, and ships, Mr. Washington would have looked pretty pathetic in the American war. I’ll discuss his military skills later.
I mean not to enter into any discussion of any article of Jay's treaty; I shall speak only upon the whole of it. It is attempted to be justified on the ground of its not being a violation of any article or articles of the treaty pre-existing with France. But the sovereign right of explanation does not lie with George Washington and his man Timothy; France, on her part, has, at least, an equal right: and when nations dispute, it is not so much about words as about things.
I don’t intend to get into a debate about any specific part of Jay's treaty; I’ll only address it as a whole. Some are trying to justify it by claiming it doesn’t break any parts of the existing treaty with France. However, the power to interpret doesn't solely belong to George Washington and his associate Timothy; France has at least an equal claim to that right. When countries argue, it’s more about the real issues than just the wording.
A man, such as the world calls a sharper, and versed as Jay must be supposed to be in the quibbles of the law, may find a way to enter into engagements, and make bargains, in such a manner as to cheat some other party, without that party being able, as the phrase is, to take the law of him. This often happens in the cabalistical circle of what is called law. But when this is attempted to be acted on the national scale of treaties, it is too despicable to be defended, or to be permitted to exist. Yet this is the trick upon which Jay's treaty is founded, so far as it has relation to the treaty pre-existing with France. It is a counter-treaty to that treaty, and perverts all the great articles of that treaty to the injury of France, and makes them operate as a bounty to England, with whom France is at war.
A man, often referred to as a sharper and as knowledgeable about legal loopholes as Jay is supposed to be, might find ways to enter into agreements and make deals in such a way that he cheats another party without that party being able, as the saying goes, to take the law of him. This frequently happens within the complicated realm of what is known as law. However, when such tactics are attempted on a national scale regarding treaties, they are too shameful to justify or allow to continue. Yet this is the trick that underpins Jay's treaty, particularly in its connection to the existing treaty with France. It acts as a counter-treaty to that agreement, twisting all the major provisions of that treaty to the disadvantage of France and turning them into a benefit for England, with whom France is currently at war.
1 Secretary of State.—Editor..
The Washington administration shews great desire that the treaty between France and the United States be preserved. Nobody can doubt their sincerity upon this matter. There is not a British Minister, a British merchant, or a British agent or sailor in America, that does not anxiously wish the same thing. The treaty with France serves now as a passport to supply England with naval stores and other articles of American produce, whilst the same articles, when coming to France, are made contraband or seizable by Jay's treaty with England. The treaty with France says, that neutral ships make neutral property, and thereby gives protection to English property on board American ships; and Jay's treaty delivers up French property on board American ships to be seized by the English. It is too paltry to talk of faith, of national honour, and of the preservation of treaties, whilst such a bare-faced treachery as this stares the world in the face.
The Washington administration shows a strong desire to maintain the treaty between France and the United States. No one doubts their sincerity on this issue. There isn’t a British minister, merchant, agent, or sailor in America who doesn’t also hope for the same. The treaty with France currently acts as a way for England to get naval supplies and other American products, while those same products, when sent to France, are deemed contraband or subject to seizure under Jay's treaty with England. The treaty with France states that neutral ships mean neutral property, which protects English goods on American vessels; meanwhile, Jay's treaty allows for the seizure of French goods on American ships by the English. It's too petty to talk about faith, national honor, and the preservation of treaties when such blatant treachery is so obvious to the world.
The Washington administration may save itself the trouble of proving to the French government its most faithful intentions of preserving the treaty with France; for France has now no desire that it should be preserved. She had nominated an Envoy extraordinary to America, to make Mr. Washington and his government a present of the treaty, and to have no more to do with that, or with him. It was at the same time officially declared to the American Minister at Paris, that the French Republic had rather have the American government for an open enemy than a treacherous friend. This, sir, together with the internal distractions caused in America, and the loss of character in the world, is the eventful crisis, alluded to in the beginning of this letter, to which your double politics have brought the affairs of your country. It is time that the eyes of America be opened upon you.
The Washington administration might as well save itself the effort of proving to the French government its *sincere* intentions to uphold the treaty with France, because France now has no interest in keeping it. They had sent an envoy to America to hand over the treaty as a gift and to cut ties with *that* or with *him*. At the same time, it was officially stated to the American Minister in Paris that *the French Republic would prefer to have the American government as an open enemy rather than a deceitful friend*. This, sir, along with the internal conflicts in America and the loss of reputation in the world, is the *crucial moment* referred to at the beginning of this letter, which your double-faced politics have brought upon your country's affairs. It's time for America to see you for what you really are.
How France would have conducted herself towards America and American commerce, after all treaty stipulations had ceased, and under the sense of services rendered and injuries received, I know not. It is, however, an unpleasant reflection, that in all national quarrels, the innocent, and even the friendly part of the community, become involved with the culpable and the unfriendly; and as the accounts that arrived from America continued to manifest an invariable attachment in the general mass of the people to their original ally, in opposition to the new-fangled Washington faction,—the resolutions that had been taken in France were suspended. It happened also, fortunately enough, that Gouverneur Morris was not Minister at this time.
How France would have behaved towards America and American trade, once all treaty agreements ended, and considering the help provided and the harms suffered, I don’t know. However, it’s an unpleasant thought that in all national disputes, the innocent and even the friendly members of the community get caught up with the guilty and the hostile. As reports from America continued to show a consistent loyalty among most people to their original ally, in contrast to the new Washington faction, the decisions made in France were put on hold. Luckily, Gouverneur Morris was not the Minister at this time.
There is, however, one point that still remains in embryo, and which, among other things, serves to shew the ignorance of Washington treaty-makers, and their inattention to preexisting treaties, when they were employing themselves in framing or ratifying the new treaty with England.
There is, however, one point that still remains undeveloped, which, among other things, highlights the ignorance of the Washington treaty-makers and their disregard for existing treaties while they were working on creating or approving the new treaty with England.
The second article of the treaty of commerce between the United States and France says:
The second article of the treaty of commerce between the United States and France states:
"The most christian king and the United States engage mutually, not to grant any particular favour to other nations in respect of commerce and navigation that shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same favour freely, if the concession was freely made, or on allowing the same compensation if the concession was conditional."
"The most Christian king and the United States agree not to grant any special favors to other nations regarding trade and navigation that won't also be extended to the other party, who will receive the same favor freely if it was given freely, or will receive the same compensation if the favor was conditional."
All the concessions, therefore, made to England by Jay's treaty are, through the medium of this second article in the pre-existing treaty, made to France, and become engrafted into the treaty with France, and can be exercised by her as a matter of right, the same as by England.
All the concessions made to England by Jay's treaty are, through this second article in the existing treaty, extended to France, and are incorporated into the treaty with France, allowing her to exercise them as a matter of right, just like England.
Jay's treaty makes a concession to England, and that unconditionally, of seizing naval stores in American ships, and condemning them as contraband. It makes also a concession to England to seize provisions and other articles in American ships. Other articles are all other articles, and none but an ignoramus, or something worse, would have put such a phrase into a treaty. The condition annexed in this case is, that the provisions and other articles so seized, are to be paid for at a price to be agreed upon. Mr. Washington, as President, ratified this treaty after he knew the British Government had recommended an indiscriminate seizure of provisions and all other articles in American ships; and it is now known that those seizures were made to fit out the expedition going to Quiberon Bay, and it was known before hand that they would be made. The evidence goes also a good way to prove that Jay and Grenville understood each other upon that subject. Mr. Pinckney,(1) when he passed through France on his way to Spain, spoke of the recommencement of the seizures as a thing that would take place.
Jay's treaty makes a concession to England by allowing the seizure of naval supplies in American ships, labeling them as contraband. It also allows England to seize provisions and other articles in American ships. Other articles are all other articles, and only someone clueless or worse would have included such vague language in a treaty. The stipulation is that the provisions and other articles seized must be paid for at a price yet to be determined. Mr. Washington, as President, approved this treaty after learning that the British Government had recommended indiscriminate seizures of provisions and all other articles in American ships; it is now clear that these seizures were intended to supply the expedition heading to Quiberon Bay, and it was known in advance that they would happen. The evidence suggests that Jay and Grenville were on the same page regarding this issue. Mr. Pinckney, during his transit through France to Spain, referred to the resumption of the seizures as something that was expected to occur.
1 Gen. Thomas Pinckney, U.S. Minister to England.— Editor.
The French government had by some means received information from London to the same purpose, with the addition, that the recommencement of the seizures would cause no misunderstanding between the British and American governments. Grenville, in defending himself against the opposition in Parliament, on account of the scarcity of corn, said (see his speech at the opening of the Parliament that met October 29, 1795) that the supplies for the Quiberon expedition were furnished out of the American ships, and all the accounts received at that time from England stated that those seizures were made under the treaty. After the supplies for the Quiberon expedition had been procured, and the expected success had failed, the seizures were countermanded; and had the French seized provision vessels going to England, it is probable that the Quiberon expedition could not have been attempted.
The French government had somehow gotten information from London with the added note that resuming the seizures wouldn’t cause any misunderstandings between the British and American governments. Grenville, defending himself against criticism in Parliament due to the grain shortage, mentioned (see his speech at the opening of Parliament on October 29, 1795) that the supplies for the Quiberon expedition came from American ships, and all reports from England at that time claimed those seizures were made under the treaty. After the supplies for the Quiberon expedition were secured and the anticipated success didn’t happen, the seizures were canceled; had the French seized supply ships heading to England, it’s likely that the Quiberon expedition wouldn’t have been attempted.
In one point of view, the treaty with England operates as a loan to the English government. It gives permission to that government to take American property at sea, to any amount, and pay for it when it suits her; and besides this, the treaty is in every point of view a surrender of the rights of American commerce and navigation, and a refusal to France of the rights of neutrality. The American flag is not now a neutral flag to France; Jay's treaty of surrender gives a monopoly of it to England.
In one perspective, the treaty with England acts like a loan to the English government. It allows that government to seize American property at sea in any quantity and pay for it whenever it’s convenient for them; additionally, the treaty effectively surrenders the rights of American commerce and navigation and denies France the rights of neutrality. The American flag is no longer a neutral flag to France; Jay's treaty of surrender gives England a monopoly on it.
On the contrary, the treaty of commerce between America and France was formed on the most liberal principles, and calculated to give the greatest encouragement to the infant commerce of America. France was neither a carrier nor an exporter of naval stores or of provisions. Those articles belonged wholly to America, and they had all the protection in that treaty which a treaty could give. But so much has that treaty been perverted, that the liberality of it on the part of France, has served to encourage Jay to form a counter-treaty with England; for he must have supposed the hands of France tied up by her treaty with America, when he was making such large concessions in favour of England. The injury which Mr. Washington's administration has done to the character as well as to the commerce of America, is too great to be repaired by him. Foreign nations will be shy of making treaties with a government that has given the faithless example of perverting the liberality of a former treaty to the injury of the party with whom it was made.(1)
On the other hand, the trade treaty between America and France was established on very generous principles and was designed to provide significant support to America’s emerging trade. France was neither a carrier nor a supplier of naval supplies or food. Those goods were entirely in America’s hands, and they received all the protection in that treaty that a treaty could offer. However, this treaty has been so misused that its generosity from France encouraged Jay to negotiate a counter-treaty with England; he must have thought that France’s hands were tied by its agreement with America when he was making such substantial concessions to England. The damage that Mr. Washington's administration has done to both America's reputation and trade is far too severe to be fixed by him. Foreign countries will be hesitant to form treaties with a government that has set the untrustworthy example of misusing the generosity of a previous treaty to the detriment of the party with whom it was made.(1)
1 For an analysis of the British Treaty, see Wharton's "Digest of the International Law of the United States," vol. it, ' 150 a. Paine's analysis is completely accurate. — Editor..
In what a fraudulent light must Mr. Washington's character appear in the world, when his declarations and his conduct are compared together! Here follows the letter he wrote to the Committee of Public Safety, while Jay was negotiating in profound secrecy this treacherous treaty:
In what a deceitful way must Mr. Washington's character look to the world when you compare his statements and his actions! Here’s the letter he sent to the Committee of Public Safety, while Jay was secretly negotiating this treacherous treaty:
"George Washington, President of the United States of America, to the Representatives of the French people, members of the Committee of Public Safety of the French Republic, the great and good friend and ally of the United States.
"George Washington, President of the United States of America, to the Representatives of the French people, members of the Committee of Public Safety of the French Republic, the great and good friend and ally of the United States."
"On the intimation of the wish of the French republic that ` new Minister should be sent from the United States, I resolved to manifest my sense of the readiness with which my request was fulfilled, [that of recalling Genet,] by immediately fulfilling the request of your government, [that of recalling Morris].
"Upon learning that the French republic wanted a new minister to be sent from the United States, I decided to show my appreciation for how quickly my request was handled, [to recall Genet], by promptly fulfilling your government's request, [to recall Morris]."
"It was some time before a character could be obtained, worthy of the high office of expressing the attachment of the United States to the happiness of our allies, and drawing closer the bonds of our friendship. I have now made choice of James Monroe, one of our distinguished citizens, to reside near the French republic, in quality of Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America. He is instructed to bear to you our sincere solicitude for your welfare, and to cultivate with teal the cordiality so happily subsisting between us. From a knowledge of his fidelity, probity, and good conduct, I have entire confidence that he will render himself acceptable to you, and give effect to your desire of preserving and advancing, on all occasions, the interest and connection of the two nations. I beseech you, therefore, to give full credence to whatever he shall say to you on the part of the United States, and most of all, when he shall assure you that your prosperity is an object of our affection.
"It took some time to find a person suitable for the important role of showing how much the United States values the happiness of our allies, and strengthening the bonds of our friendship. I have now chosen James Monroe, one of our notable citizens, to live near the French republic as the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America. He is tasked with conveying our genuine concern for your well-being, and to actively nurture the warm relationship we have. Based on my knowledge of his loyalty, integrity, and good character, I am fully confident that he will be well-received by you and fulfill your desire to maintain and
"And I pray God to have the French Republic in his holy keeping.
"And I pray that God keeps the French Republic in His holy care."
"G. Washington."
"George Washington."
Was it by entering into a treaty with England to surrender French property on board American ships to be seized by the English, while English property on board American ships was declared by the French treaty not to be seizable, that the bonds of friendship between America and France were to be drawn the closer? Was it by declaring naval stores contraband when coming to France, whilst by the French treaty they were not contraband when going to England, that the connection between France and America was to be advanced? Was it by opening the American ports to the British navy in the present war, from which ports the same navy had been expelled by the aid solicited from France in the American war (and that aid gratuitously given) (2) that the gratitude of America was to be shewn, and the solicitude spoken of in the letter demonstrated?
Was it by making a deal with England to hand over French goods on American ships that the English could seize, while the French treaty protected English goods from being seized on American ships, that the friendship between America and France was supposed to grow stronger? Was it by classifying naval supplies as contraband when headed to France, while the French treaty stated they weren't contraband when going to England, that the connection between France and America was meant to improve? Was it by opening American ports to the British navy during this war, after that same navy had been driven out with help from France during the American war (and that help given for free) (2) that America was supposed to show its gratitude and demonstrate the concern mentioned in the letter?
1 The italics are Paine's. Paine's casual use of this document indicates that he had the trust of the French Directory.—Editor. 2 It's worth mentioning that Paine sticks to his previous argument in his dispute with Deane. See vol. i., ch. aa of this work; and vol. i., ch. 9 of my "Life of Paine."—Editor..
As the letter was addressed to the Committee of Public Safety, Mr. Washington did not expect it would get abroad in the world, or be seen by any other eye than that of Robespierre, or be heard by any other ear than that of the Committee; that it would pass as a whisper across the Atlantic, from one dark chamber to the other, and there terminate. It was calculated to remove from the mind of the Committee all suspicion upon Jay's mission to England, and, in this point of view, it was suited to the circumstances of the movement then passing; but as the event of that mission has proved the letter to be hypocritical, it serves no other purpose of the present moment than to shew that the writer is not to be credited. Two circumstances serve to make the reading of the letter necessary in the Convention. The one was, that they who succeeded on the fall of Robespierre, found it most proper to act with publicity; the other, to extinguish the suspicions which the strange conduct of Morris had occasioned in France.
As the letter was addressed to the Committee of Public Safety, Mr. Washington didn’t expect it would spread or be seen by anyone other than Robespierre or heard by anyone other than the Committee; that it would pass like a whisper across the Atlantic, from one dark room to another, and there come to an end. It was meant to clear the Committee’s mind of any doubts about Jay’s mission to England, and from that perspective, it fit the circumstances of the situation at that time; but since the outcome of that mission has shown the letter to be insincere, it serves no other purpose right now than to demonstrate that the writer isn’t trustworthy. Two reasons make it necessary to read the letter in the Convention. One was that those who took over after Robespierre’s fall found it best to operate openly; the other was to dispel the suspicions that Morris's strange behavior had caused in France.
When the British treaty, and the ratification of it by Mr. Washington, was known in France, all further declarations from him of his good disposition as an ally and friend, passed for so many cyphers; but still it appeared necessary to him to keep up the farce of declarations. It is stipulated in the British treaty, that commissioners are to report at the end of two years, on the case of neutral ships making neutral property. In the mean time, neutral ships do not make neutral property, according to the British treaty, and they do according to the French treaty. The preservation, therefore, of the French treaty became of great importance to England, as by that means she can employ American ships as carriers, whilst the same advantage is denied to France. Whether the French treaty could exist as a matter of right after this clandestine perversion of it, could not but give some apprehensions to the partizans of the British treaty, and it became necessary to them to make up, by fine words, what was wanting in good actions.
When the British treaty and Mr. Washington's approval of it became known in France, all his further statements about being a good ally and friend were seen as meaningless. Nevertheless, he felt it was necessary to maintain the pretense of making such statements. The British treaty stipulates that commissioners are to report after two years on the issue of neutral ships making neutral property. In the meantime, neutral ships do not make neutral property under the British treaty, but they do under the French treaty. Therefore, preserving the French treaty became very important for England, as it allows them to use American ships for transport, while this advantage is denied to France. The question of whether the French treaty could stand as a matter of right after this covert distortion of it raised concerns among supporters of the British treaty, which made it necessary for them to compensate with flattering words for what was lacking in true actions.
An opportunity offered to that purpose. The Convention, on the public reception of Mr. Monroe, ordered the American flag and the French flags to be displayed unitedly in the hall of the Convention. Mr. Monroe made a present of an American flag for the purpose. The Convention returned this compliment by sending a French flag to America, to be presented by their Minister, Mr. Adet, to the American government. This resolution passed long before Jay's treaty was known or suspected: it passed in the days of confidence; but the flag was not presented by Mr. Adet till several months after the treaty had been ratified. Mr. Washington made this the occasion of saying some fine things to the French Minister; and the better to get himself into tune to do this, he began by saying the finest things of himself.
An opportunity arose for this purpose. During the public reception of Mr. Monroe, the Convention ordered the American and French flags to be displayed together in the hall. Mr. Monroe contributed an American flag for this occasion. In return, the Convention decided to send a French flag to America, which their Minister, Mr. Adet, would present to the American government. This decision was made long before anyone knew or suspected anything about Jay's treaty; it was made during a time of trust. However, the flag wasn't presented by Mr. Adet until several months after the treaty had been ratified. Mr. Washington used this moment to say some nice things to the French Minister, and to get himself in the right frame of mind for it, he started by saying some complimentary things about himself.
"Born, sir (said he) in a land of liberty; having early learned its value; having engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it; having, in a word, devoted the best years of my life to secure its permanent establishment in my own country; my anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited, whenever, in any country, I see an oppressed people unfurl the banner of freedom."
"Born, sir (he said) in a land of freedom; having learned its value early on; having fought bravely to defend it; having, in short, devoted the best years of my life to ensure its lasting presence in my own country; my anxious memories, my compassionate feelings, and my best wishes are stirred up whenever I see oppressed people in any country raise the flag of freedom."
Mr. Washington, having expended so many fine phrases upon himself, was obliged to invent a new one for the French, and he calls them "wonderful people!" The coalesced powers acknowledged as much.
Mr. Washington, having used so many flattering words about himself, had to come up with a new one for the French, and he calls them "wonderful people!" The united powers recognized that too.
It is laughable to hear Mr. Washington talk of his sympathetic feelings, who has always been remarked, even among his friends, for not having any. He has, however, given no proofs of any to me. As to the pompous encomiums he so liberally pays to himself, on the score of the American revolution, the reality of them may be questioned; and since he has forced them so much into notice, it is fair to examine his pretensions.
It's ridiculous to hear Mr. Washington talk about his sympathetic feelings, considering he’s always been known, even by his friends, for lacking any. However, he hasn't shown me any proof of them. As for the grand praises he so freely gives himself regarding the American Revolution, the truth of those claims can be questioned; and since he’s brought them up so often, it’s only fair to look into his claims.
A stranger might be led to suppose, from the egotism with which Mr. Washington speaks, that himself, and himself only, had generated, conducted, compleated, and established the revolution: In fine, that it was all his own doing.
A stranger might think, based on Mr. Washington's self-importance, that he alone started, managed, completed, and established the revolution: In short, that it was all his doing.
In the first place, as to the political part, he had no share in it; and, therefore, the whole of that is out of the question with respect to him. There remains, then, only the military part; and it would have been prudent in Mr. Washington not to have awakened enquiry upon that subject. Fame then was cheap; he enjoyed it cheaply; and nobody was disposed to take away the laurels that, whether they were acquired or not, had been given.
First of all, regarding the political aspect, he had no involvement in it; therefore, that entire issue is irrelevant to him. What’s left is the military aspect, and it would have been wise for Mr. Washington not to stir up questions about that. Fame back then was easy to come by; he enjoyed it effortlessly, and no one was inclined to take away the honors that, whether earned or not, had been granted.
Mr. Washington's merit consisted in constancy. But constancy was the common virtue of the revolution. Who was there that was inconstant? I know but of one military defection, that of Arnold; and I know of no political defection, among those who made themselves eminent when the revolution was formed by the declaration of independence. Even Silas Deane, though he attempted to defraud, did not betray.(1)
Mr. Washington's strength lay in his unwavering commitment. But dedication was a shared quality of the revolution. Who was disloyal? I only know of one military betrayal, that of Arnold; and I’m not aware of any political betrayal among those who stood out when the revolution started with the declaration of independence. Even Silas Deane, despite his attempts to cheat, didn’t betray. (1)
1 This kind judgment from Deane's former opponent has come into question with recent investigations.—Editor..
But when we speak of military character, something more is to be understood than constancy; and something more ought to be understood than the Fabian system of doing nothing. The nothing part can be done by any body. Old Mrs. Thompson, the housekeeper of head quarters, (who threatened to make the sun and the wind shine through Rivington of New York,) 'could have done it as well as Mr. Washington. Deborah would have been as good as Barak.
But when we talk about military character, we need to understand more than just persistence; we should also understand more than the Fabian approach of doing nothing. Anyone can do the nothing part. Old Mrs. Thompson, the housekeeper at headquarters, (who said she could make the sun and the wind shine through Rivington of New York) could have done it just as well as Mr. Washington. Deborah would have been just as capable as Barak.
Mr. Washington had the nominal rank of Commander in Chief, but he was not so in fact. He had, in reality, only a separate command. He had no controul over, or direction of, the army to the northward under Gates, that captured Burgoyne; nor of that to the south under [Nathaniel] Greene, that recovered the southern States.(2) The nominal rank, however, of Commander in Chief, served to throw upon him the lustre of those actions, and to make him appear as the soul and centre of all military operations in America.
Mr. Washington held the title of Commander in Chief, but he wasn't one in reality. He only had a specific command. He didn't have control over or direct the army in the north under Gates, which captured Burgoyne, nor the one in the south under [Nathaniel] Greene, which took back the southern States. However, his title as Commander in Chief gave him credit for those actions and made him seem like the heart and soul of all military operations in America.
1 The Tory publisher from New York City, whose press was destroyed in 1775 by a group of soldiers from Connecticut.— Editor. 2 Check out Mr. Winterbotham's valuable History of America, which was recently published.—Author. [The "History of the Establishment of Independence" is in the first of Mr. Winterbotham's four volumes (London, 1795).—Editor..]
He commenced his command June, 1775, during the time the Massachusetts army lay before Boston, and after the affair of Bunker-hill. The commencement of his command was the commencement of inactivity. Nothing was afterwards done, or attempted to be done, during the nine months he remained before Boston. If we may judge from the resistance made at Concord, and afterwards at Bunker-hill, there was a spirit of enterprise at that time, which the presence of Mr. Washington chilled into cold defence. By the advantage of a good exterior he attracts respect, which his habitual silence tends to preserve; but he has not the talent of inspiring ardour in an army. The enemy removed from Boston in March 1776, to wait for reinforcements from Europe, and to take a more advantageous position at New York.
He took command in June 1775, while the Massachusetts army was camped outside Boston, following the battle of Bunker Hill. The start of his command marked the beginning of inactivity. Nothing was done, or even attempted, in the nine months he remained before Boston. If we look at the resistance shown at Concord and later at Bunker Hill, it’s clear there was a spirit of initiative at that time, which Mr. Washington’s presence turned into defensive caution. With a strong appearance, he earns respect, which his usual silence helps maintain; however, he doesn't have the ability to inspire passion in his army. The enemy left Boston in March 1776 to wait for reinforcements from Europe and to secure a better position in New York.
The inactivity of the campaign of 1775, on the part of General Washington, when the enemy had a less force than in any other future period of the war, and the injudicious choice of positions taken by him in the campaign of 1776, when the enemy had its greatest force, necessarily produced the losses and misfortunes that marked that gloomy campaign. The positions taken were either islands or necks of land. In the former, the enemy, by the aid of their ships, could bring their whole force against apart of General Washington's, as in the affair of Long Island; and in the latter, he might be shut up as in the bottom of a bag. This had nearly been the case at New York, and it was so in part; it was actually the case at Fort Washington; and it would have been the case at Fort Lee, if General Greene had not moved precipitately off, leaving every thing behind, and by gaining Hackinsack bridge, got out of the bag of Bergen Neck. How far Mr. Washington, as General, is blameable for these matters, I am not undertaking to determine; but they are evidently defects in military geography. The successful skirmishes at the close of that campaign, (matters that would scarcely be noticed in a better state of things,) make the brilliant exploits of General Washington's seven campaigns. No wonder we see so much pusillanimity in the President, when we see so little enterprise in the General!
The inactivity of General Washington in the 1775 campaign, especially when the enemy was weaker than at any later point in the war, along with his poor choice of positions in the 1776 campaign when the enemy was at its strongest, led to the losses and troubles that defined that dark campaign. The positions he chose were either islands or narrow strips of land. On islands, the enemy could use their ships to focus their entire force against a part of Washington's troops, like at Long Island; on narrow strips, he risked getting trapped like in the bottom of a bag. This almost happened in New York, and it partially did; it actually occurred at Fort Washington; and it would have happened at Fort Lee if General Greene hadn’t hurriedly evacuated, leaving everything behind, and managed to escape through Hackinsack Bridge, getting out of the Bergen Neck trap. How much responsibility General Washington bears for these issues is not something I’m going to determine; however, these are clearly shortcomings in military positioning. The successful skirmishes at the end of that campaign, which would hardly stand out in better circumstances, contribute to the impressive achievements of General Washington's seven campaigns. It's no surprise we see such timidity in the President when there was so little initiative in the General!
The campaign of 1777 became famous, not by anything on the part of General Washington, but by the capture of General Burgoyne, and the army under his command, by the Northern army at Saratoga, under General Gates. So totally distinct and unconnected were the two armies of Washington and Gates, and so independent was the latter of the authority of the nominal Commander in Chief, that the two Generals did not so much as correspond, and it was only by a letter of General (since Governor) Clinton, that General Washington was informed of that event. The British took possession of Philadelphia this year, which they evacuated the next, just time enough to save their heavy baggage and fleet of transports from capture by the French Admiral d'Estaing, who arrived at the mouth of the Delaware soon after.
The campaign of 1777 became well-known, not because of General Washington, but due to the capture of General Burgoyne and his army by the Northern army at Saratoga, led by General Gates. The two armies of Washington and Gates were completely separate and unrelated, with Gates operating independently from the authority of the nominal Commander in Chief. The two Generals didn't even communicate with each other, and it was only through a letter from General (later Governor) Clinton that General Washington learned about the event. The British occupied Philadelphia this year, but they left the following year, just in time to save their heavy baggage and transport fleet from being captured by the French Admiral d'Estaing, who arrived at the mouth of the Delaware shortly after.
The capture of Burgoyne gave an eclat in Europe to the American arms, and facilitated the alliance with France. The eclat, however, was not kept up by any thing on the part of General Washington. The same unfortunate languor that marked his entrance into the field, continued always. Discontent began to prevail strongly against him, and a party was formed in Congress, whilst sitting at York-town, in Pennsylvania, for removing him from the command of the army. The hope, however, of better times, the news of the alliance with France, and the unwillingness of shewing discontent, dissipated the matter.
The capture of Burgoyne boosted the reputation of the American forces in Europe and helped secure the alliance with France. However, this momentum wasn't maintained by anything from General Washington. The same unfortunate hesitance that marked his entry into the conflict persisted throughout. Discontent began to grow significantly against him, and a faction formed in Congress while they were meeting in Yorktown, Pennsylvania, to remove him from command of the army. Nevertheless, the hope for better days, the news of the alliance with France, and the reluctance to express discontent ultimately put the issue to rest.
Nothing was done in the campaigns of 1778, 1779, 1780, in the part where General Washington commanded, except the taking of Stony Point by General Wayne. The Southern States in the mean time were over-run by the enemy. They were afterwards recovered by General Greene, who had in a very great measure created the army that accomplished that recovery. In all this General Washington had no share. The Fabian system of war, followed by him, began now to unfold itself with all its evils; but what is Fabian war without Fabian means to support it? The finances of Congress depending wholly on emissions of paper money, were exhausted. Its credit was gone. The continental treasury was not able to pay the expense of a brigade of waggons to transport the necessary stores to the army, and yet the sole object, the establishment of the revolution, was a thing of remote distance. The time I am now speaking of is in the latter end of the year 1780.
Nothing happened in the campaigns of 1778, 1779, and 1780 in the area where General Washington was in charge, except for General Wayne capturing Stony Point. In the meantime, the Southern States were overrun by the enemy. They were later reclaimed by General Greene, who largely built the army that achieved that recovery. Throughout this, General Washington played no part. The Fabian strategy of warfare he employed was now revealing all its drawbacks; but what is Fabian warfare without the means to support it? Congress’s finances, relying entirely on issuing paper money, were depleted. Its credit had vanished. The continental treasury couldn't even cover the cost of a brigade of wagons to transport essential supplies to the army, and yet the main goal—establishing the revolution—felt very distant. The time I’m referring to is the end of the year 1780.
In this situation of things it was found not only expedient, but absolutely necessary, for Congress to state the whole case to its ally. I knew more of this matter, (before it came into Congress or was known to General Washington) of its progress, and its issue, than I chuse to state in this letter. Colonel John Laurens was sent to France as an Envoy Extraordinary on this occasion, and by a private agreement between him and me I accompanied him. We sailed from Boston in the Alliance frigate, February 11th, 1781. France had already done much in accepting and paying bills drawn by Congress. She was now called upon to do more. The event of Colonel Laurens's mission, with the aid of the venerable Minister, Franklin, was, that France gave in money, as a present, six millions of livres, and ten millions more as a loan, and agreed to send a fleet of not less than thirty sail of the line, at her own expense, as an aid to America. Colonel Laurens and myself returned from Brest the 1st of June following, taking with us two millions and a half of livres (upwards of one hundred thousand pounds sterling) of the money given, and convoying two ships with stores.
In this situation, it was not only practical but absolutely necessary for Congress to explain everything to its ally. I knew more about this matter (before it reached Congress or was known to General Washington) regarding its progress and outcomes than I want to share in this letter. Colonel John Laurens was sent to France as an Extraordinary Envoy for this occasion, and by a private agreement between him and me, I accompanied him. We set sail from Boston on the Alliance frigate on February 11, 1781. France had already done a lot by accepting and paying bills drawn by Congress. Now, she was called upon to do more. The outcome of Colonel Laurens's mission, with the assistance of the respected Minister Franklin, was that France provided six million livres as a gift and an additional ten million as a loan, and agreed to send a fleet of no less than thirty ships of the line at her own expense to support America. Colonel Laurens and I returned from Brest on June 1st, carrying with us two and a half million livres (over one hundred thousand pounds sterling) of the money given, and escorting two ships loaded with supplies.
We arrived at Boston the 25th of August following. De Grasse arrived with the French fleet in the Chesapeak at the same time, and was afterwards joined by that of Barras, making 31 sail of the line. The money was transported in waggons from Boston to the Bank at Philadelphia, of which Mr. Thomas Willing, who has since put himself at the head of the list of petitioners in favour of the British treaty, was then President. And it was by the aid of this money, and this fleet, and of Rochambeau's army, that Cornwallis was taken; the laurels of which have been unjustly given to Mr. Washington. His merit in that affair was no more than that of any other American officer.
We arrived in Boston on August 25th. De Grasse showed up with the French fleet in the Chesapeake at the same time and was later joined by Barras's fleet, totaling 31 warships. The money was transported by wagon from Boston to the Bank in Philadelphia, where Mr. Thomas Willing, who later became a leader among those advocating for the British treaty, was the president at the time. It was with the support of this money, this fleet, and Rochambeau's army that Cornwallis was captured; however, unjustly, the credit for this victory has been given to Mr. Washington. His contribution to that effort was no more significant than that of any other American officer.
I have had, and still have, as much pride in the American revolution as any man, or as Mr. Washington has a right to have; but that pride has never made me forgetful whence the great aid came that compleated the business. Foreign aid (that of France) was calculated upon at the commencement of the revolution. It is one of the subjects treated of in the pamphlet Common Sense, but as a matter that could not be hoped for, unless independence was declared.1 The aid, however, was greater than could have been expected.
I have always been just as proud of the American Revolution as anyone else, including Mr. Washington; but that pride has never made me forget where the significant support came from that completed the effort. We relied on foreign aid (specifically from France) right from the start of the revolution. This is one of the topics discussed in the pamphlet Common Sense, but it's something we couldn’t hope for unless we declared our independence. However, the support we received was greater than we could have anticipated.
It is as well the ingratitude as the pusillanimity of Mr. Washington, and the Washington faction, that has brought upon America the loss of character she now suffers in the world, and the numerous evils her commerce has undergone, and to which it is yet exposed. The British Ministry soon found out what sort of men they had to deal with, and they dealt with them accordingly; and if further explanation was wanting, it has been fully given since, in the snivelling address of the New York Chamber of Commerce to the President, and in that of sundry merchants of Philadelphia, which was not much better.
It's both the ingratitude and the cowardice of Mr. Washington and his supporters that have caused America to lose the respect she once had in the world, and the many problems her trade has faced and still faces. The British government quickly realized what kind of people they were dealing with, and they acted accordingly; if more explanation was needed, it has been made clear in the whiny letter from the New York Chamber of Commerce to the President, and in the similar address from several merchants in Philadelphia, which wasn't much better.
1 See vol. i. of this work, p. ixx. Paine was criticized on this point by "Cato." Ib.% pp. 145-147.— Editor..
When the revolution of America was finally established by the termination of the war, the world gave her credit for great character; and she had nothing to do but to stand firm upon that ground. The British ministry had their hands too full of trouble to have provoked a rupture with her, had she shown a proper resolution to defend her rights. But encouraged as they were by the submissive character of the American administration, they proceeded from insult to insult, till none more were left to be offered. The proposals made by Sweden and Denmark to the American administration were disregarded. I know not if so much as an answer has been returned to them. The minister penitentiary, (as some of the British prints called him,) Mr. Jay, was sent on a pilgrimage to London, to make up all by penance and petition. In the mean time the lengthy and drowsy writer of the pieces signed Camillas held himself in reserve to vindicate every thing; and to sound in America the tocsin of terror upon the inexhaustible resources of England. Her resources, says he, are greater than those of all the other powers. This man is so intoxicated with fear and finance, that he knows not the difference between plus and minus—between a hundred pounds in hand, and a hundred pounds worse than nothing.
When the American revolution was finally solidified at the end of the war, the world recognized her strength of character; all she needed to do was stand her ground. The British government had too many issues to provoke a conflict with her, had she shown a strong determination to defend her rights. But encouraged by the submissive nature of the American administration, they escalated their insults until there were none left to offer. The proposals from Sweden and Denmark to the American administration were ignored. I don't even know if they received a single response. The minister penitentiary, as some British papers referred to him, Mr. Jay, was sent to London on a mission to reconcile through penance and petition. Meanwhile, the lengthy and dull writer of the pieces signed Camillas held back, ready to defend everything, and to alarm America about the endless resources of England. He claims that her resources are greater than those of all other nations combined. This man is so consumed with fear and finance that he can't tell the difference between plus and minus—between having a hundred pounds in hand and being a hundred pounds in debt.
The commerce of America, so far as it had been established by all the treaties that had been formed prior to that by Jay, was free, and the principles upon which it was established were good. That ground ought never to have been departed from. It was the justifiable ground of right, and no temporary difficulties ought to have induced an abandonment of it. The case is now otherwise. The ground, the scene, the pretensions, the everything, are changed. The commerce of America is, by Jay's treaty, put under foreign dominion. The sea is not free for her. Her right to navigate it is reduced to the right of escaping; that is, until some ship of England or France stops her vessels, and carries them into port. Every article of American produce, whether from the sea or the sand, fish, flesh, vegetable, or manufacture, is, by Jay's treaty, made either contraband or seizable. Nothing is exempt. In all other treaties of commerce, the article which enumerates the contraband articles, such as fire arms, gunpowder, &c, is followed by another article which enumerates the articles not contraband: but it is not so in Jay's treaty. There is no exempting article. Its place is supplied by the article for seizing and carrying into port; and the sweeping phrase of "provisions and other articles " includes every thing. There never was such a base and servile treaty of surrender since treaties began to exist.
The trade of America, as it had been established by all the treaties created before Jay's, was free, and the principles on which it was based were sound. That foundation should never have been abandoned. It was a rightful ground, and no temporary issues should have led to its rejection. The situation is now different. The foundation, the landscape, the claims, everything has changed. The trade of America is, due to Jay's treaty, placed under foreign control. The sea is not open for her. Her right to navigate it has been reduced to merely escaping; that is, until some English or French ship stops her vessels and takes them to port. Every item of American produce, whether it comes from the sea or land—fish, meat, vegetables, or manufactured goods—is, under Jay's treaty, deemed either contraband or subject to seizure. Nothing is exempt. In all other trade treaties, after the article listing contraband items, like firearms and gunpowder, there is another article that lists non-contraband items; but this is not the case in Jay's treaty. There is no article for exemptions. Its place is taken by the article allowing for seizure and carrying to port, and the broad term "provisions and other articles" encompasses everything. There has never been such a shameful and servile treaty of surrender since the beginning of treaties.
This is the ground upon which America now stands. All her rights of commerce and navigation are to begin anew, and that with loss of character to begin with. If there is sense enough left in the heart to call a blush into the cheek, the Washington administration must be ashamed to appear.—And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.
This is the foundation on which America now stands. All her rights to commerce and navigation are starting over, and that comes with a loss of reputation right from the start. If there’s enough sense left in you to feel embarrassed, the Washington administration should be ashamed to show its face. And as for you, Sir, betrayer in private friendship (which you have been to me, especially in times of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be left confused about whether you are a traitor or a fraud; whether you’ve abandoned good principles or if you ever had any to begin with.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
XXIII. OBSERVATIONS.(1)
1 State Archives, Paris, United States, vol. 43, fol. 100. Undated, but clearly written early in 1795, when Jay's Treaty was still unknown. Paine was then staying at the house of the American Minister, Monroe.—' Editor,
The United States of America are negociating with Spain respecting the free Navigation of the Mississippi, and the territorial limits of this large river, in conformity with the Treaty of Peace with England dated 30th November, 1782. As the brilliant successes of the French Republic have forced England to grant us, what was in all justice our due, so the continuation of the prosperity of the Republic, will force Spain to make a Treaty with us on the points in controversy.
The United States is negotiating with Spain regarding the free navigation of the Mississippi River and the territorial limits of this major river, in line with the Treaty of Peace with England dated November 30, 1782. Just as the impressive victories of the French Republic have compelled England to give us what we rightfully deserved, the ongoing prosperity of our Republic will push Spain to reach a treaty with us on the disputed issues.
Since it is certain that all that we shall obtain from Spain will be due to the victories of France, and as the inhabitants of the western part of the United States (which part contains or covers more than half the United States), have decided to claim their rights to the free navigation of the Mississippi, would it not be a wiser policy for the Republican Government (who have only to command to obtain) to arrogate all the merit, by making our demands to Spain, one of the conditions, of France, to consent to restore peace to the Castilians. They have only to declare, they will not make Peace, or that they will support with all their might, the just reclamations of their allies against these Powers,—against England for the surrender of the frontier posts, and for the indemnities due through their depredations on our Trade, and against Spain for our territorial limits, and the free navigation of the Mississippi. This declaration would certainly not prolong the War a single day more, nor cost the Republic an obole, whilst it would assure all the merit of success to France, and besides produce all the good effects mentioned above.
Since it's clear that everything we get from Spain will be thanks to France's victories, and since the people in the western part of the United States (which makes up more than half of the country) have decided to assert their right to freely navigate the Mississippi River, wouldn’t it be smarter for the Republican Government (which just needs to give the order to achieve this) to claim all the credit by making our demands to Spain one of the conditions for France to agree to restore peace with the Spanish? They just need to announce that they won’t make peace or that they will wholeheartedly support their allies in their rightful claims against these powers—against England for returning the frontier posts and for the damages owed for their attacks on our trade, and against Spain for our territorial boundaries and the free navigation of the Mississippi. This announcement would certainly not extend the war by even a day, nor would it cost the Republic anything, while ensuring that all credit for success goes to France and achieving all the positive effects mentioned above.
It may perhaps be observed that the Negociation is already finished with England, and perhaps in a manner which will not be approved of by France. That may be, (though the terms of this arrangement may not be known); but as to Spain, the negociation is still pending, and it is evident that if France makes the above Declaration as to this Power (which declaration would be a demonstrative proof of what she would have done in the other case if circumstances had required it), she would receive the same credit as if the Declaration had been made relatively to the two Powers. In fact the Decree or resolution (and perhaps this last would be preferable) can be worded in terms which would declare that in case the arrangement with England were not satisfactory, France will nevertheless, maintain the just demands of America against that Power. A like Declaration, in case Mr. Jay should do anything reprehensible, and which might even be approved of in America, would certainly raise the reputation of the French Republic to the most eminent degree of splendour, and lower in proportion that of her enemies.
It might be noted that the negotiations with England are already concluded, possibly in a way that France will not approve. That could be the case (even though the details of this arrangement may not be known); however, as for Spain, the negotiations are still ongoing, and it's clear that if France makes the aforementioned Declaration regarding this nation (which would clearly show what she would have done in the other scenario if the circumstances had called for it), she would gain the same credibility as if the Declaration had been made concerning both nations. In fact, the decree or resolution (and this latter option might be more suitable) can be phrased in a way that states if the arrangement with England is not satisfactory, France will still support America's rightful demands against that nation. A similar Declaration, in case Mr. Jay does something questionable, which might even be seen as acceptable in America, would certainly elevate the reputation of the French Republic to a highest level of prestige and reduce that of her adversaries correspondingly.
It is very certain that France cannot better favour the views of the British party in America, and wound in a most sensible manner the Republican Government of this country, than by adopting a strict and oppressive policy with regard to us. Every one knows that the injustices committed by the privateers and other ships belonging to the French Republic against our navigation, were causes of exultation and joy to this party, even when their own properties were subjected to these depredations, whilst the friends of France and the Revolution were vexed and most confused about it. It follows then, that a generous policy would produce quite opposite effects—it would acquire for France the merit that is her due; it would discourage the hopes of her adversaries, and furnish the friends of humanity and liberty with the means of acting against the intrigues of England, and cement the Union, and contribute towards the true interests of the two republics.
It's clear that France can't better support the goals of the British faction in America and harm the Republican Government here than by implementing a strict and oppressive policy against us. Everyone knows that the wrongs done by privateers and other ships from the French Republic against our shipping were causes for celebration and joy for this faction, even when their own properties were affected by these attacks. Meanwhile, those who support France and the Revolution were frustrated and confused by it. Therefore, a generous approach would have the opposite effect—it would earn France the credit it deserves, dampen the hopes of its opponents, and provide supporters of humanity and freedom with the means to counter English schemes, strengthen the Union, and further the true interests of both republics.
So sublime and generous a manner of acting, which would not cost anything to France, would cement in a stronger way the ties between the two republics. The effect of such an event, would confound and annihilate in an irrevocable manner all the partisans for the British in America. There are nineteen twentieths of our nation attached through inclination and gratitude to France, and the small number who seek uselessly all sorts of pretexts to magnify the small occasions of complaint which might have subsisted previously will find itself reduced to silence, or have to join their expressions of gratitude to ours.—The results of this event cannot be doubted, though not reckoned on: all the American hearts will be French, and England will be afflicted.
Such a noble and generous way of acting, which wouldn't cost France anything, would strengthen the bond between the two republics. The impact of this event would completely silence and eliminate all the supporters of Britain in America. Nineteen out of twenty of our citizens are naturally inclined to feel grateful toward France, and the few who are desperately looking for excuses to blow small complaints out of proportion will either have to stay quiet or join us in expressing our gratitude. The outcomes of this event are certain, even if not anticipated: all American hearts will align with France, and England will suffer.
An American.
An American citizen.
XXIV. DISSERTATION ON FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT. (1)
1 Printed from the first edition, which has the title mentioned above, with the addition: "By Thomas Paine, Author of Common Sense; Rights of Man; Age of Reason. Paris, Printed at the English Press, me de Vaugerard, No. 970. Third year of the French Republic." The pamphlet seems to have come out early in July (possibly the Fourth), 1795, and aimed to sway the National Convention regarding the Constitution that was being debated. This Constitution, adopted on September 23rd, was later abolished by Napoleon and had some aspects that Paine found reactionary. The parts he objected to the most are cited in his speech at the Convention, which is included in the same pamphlet and follows this "Dissertation" in the current volume. In the adopted Constitution, Paine's preference for a plural Executive was established, and although the bicameral structure (the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Ancients) wasn't what he wanted, his main concern was based on his belief in manhood suffrage. For more on this, see Paine's "Dissertations on Government," written nine years earlier (vol. ii., ch. vi. of this work), especially p. 138 seq. of that volume, where he outlines how to limit the tyranny of the majority. —Editor.,
There is no subject more interesting to every man than the subject of government. His security, be he rich or poor, and in a great measure his prosperity, are connected therewith; it is therefore his interest as well as his duty to make himself acquainted with its principles, and what the practice ought to be.
There’s no topic more interesting to everyone than government. Our safety, whether we’re wealthy or not, and largely our success, are tied to it; so it’s both our responsibility and in our best interest to understand its principles and how it should work.
Every art and science, however imperfectly known at first, has been studied, improved, and brought to what we call perfection by the progressive labours of succeeding generations; but the science of government has stood still. No improvement has been made in the principle and scarcely any in the practice till the American revolution began. In all the countries of Europe (except in France) the same forms and systems that were erected in the remote ages of ignorance still continue, and their antiquity is put in the place of principle; it is forbidden to investigate their origin, or by what right they exist. If it be asked how has this happened, the answer is easy: they are established on a principle that is false, and they employ their power to prevent detection.
Every art and science, no matter how poorly understood at first, has been studied, improved, and refined into what we call perfection through the ongoing efforts of successive generations; however, the science of government has stagnated. There has been little to no improvement in its principles and hardly any in its practices until the American Revolution started. In all European countries (except France), the same structures and systems established in the distant past of ignorance still persist, and their age is mistaken for validity; it's taboo to question their origins or the rights under which they exist. If you wonder how this has happened, the answer is straightforward: they are based on a false principle and use their power to prevent anyone from uncovering the truth.
Notwithstanding the mystery with which the science of government has been enveloped, for the purpose of enslaving, plundering, and imposing upon mankind, it is of all things the least mysterious and the most easy to be understood. The meanest capacity cannot be at a loss, if it begins its enquiries at the right point. Every art and science has some point, or alphabet, at which the study of that art or science begins, and by the assistance of which the progress is facilitated. The same method ought to be observed with respect to the science of government.
Despite the mystery surrounding the science of government, often used for enslaving, plundering, and deceiving people, it is actually one of the least mysterious and easiest to understand subjects. Even those with the simplest understanding can grasp it if they start their exploration at the right place. Every discipline has a starting point, or foundational concept, that makes learning that discipline easier. The same approach should be taken with the study of government.
Instead then of embarrassing the subject in the outset with the numerous subdivisions under which different forms of government have been classed, such as aristocracy, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, &c. the better method will be to begin with what may be called primary divisions, or those under which all the several subdivisions will be comprehended.
Instead of confusing the reader right away with the many categories under which different forms of government are classified, like aristocracy, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, etc., it’s better to start with what can be called primary divisions, or those that encompass all the various subdivisions.
The primary divisions are but two:
The main divisions are just two:
First, government by election and representation.
First, governance through elections and representation.
Secondly, government by hereditary succession.
Secondly, hereditary succession government.
All the several forms and systems of government, however numerous or diversified, class themselves under one or other of those primary divisions; for either they are on the system of representation, or on that of hereditary succession. As to that equivocal thing called mixed government, such as the late government of Holland, and the present government of England, it does not make an exception to the general rule, because the parts separately considered are either representative or hereditary.
All the various forms and systems of government, no matter how many or different, fall into one of two main categories: either they use a system of representation or a system of hereditary succession. As for the ambiguous concept known as mixed government, like the former government of Holland and the current government of England, it doesn't create an exception to the general rule, since the components, when looked at individually, are either representative or hereditary.
Beginning then our enquiries at this point, we have first to examine into the nature of those two primary divisions.
Beginning our inquiries at this point, we first need to look into the nature of those two main divisions.
If they are equally right in principle, it is mere matter of opinion which we prefer. If the one be demonstratively better than the other, that difference directs our choice; but if one of them should be so absolutely false as not to have a right to existence, the matter settles itself at once; because a negative proved on one thing, where two only are offered, and one must be accepted, amounts to an affirmative on the other.
If they are equally valid in principle, it's just a matter of personal preference which one we choose. If one is clearly better than the other, that difference guides our decision; however, if one of them is completely false and has no right to exist, the issue resolves itself immediately. This is because proving a negative about one option, when only two are presented and one must be chosen, essentially confirms the other.
The revolutions that are now spreading themselves in the world have their origin in this state of the case, and the present war is a conflict between the representative system founded on the rights of the people, and the hereditary system founded in usurpation. As to what are called Monarchy, Royalty, and Aristocracy, they do not, either as things or as terms, sufficiently describe the hereditary system; they are but secondary things or signs of the hereditary system, and which fall of themselves if that system has not a right to exist. Were there no such terms as Monarchy, Royalty, and Aristocracy, or were other terms substituted in their place, the hereditary system, if it continued, would not be altered thereby. It would be the same system under any other titulary name as it is now.
The revolutions currently spreading across the world stem from this situation, and the ongoing war is a battle between the representative system based on the rights of the people and the hereditary system built on usurpation. As for what we call Monarchy, Royalty, and Aristocracy, they don't fully capture the hereditary system either as concepts or as institutions; they are merely secondary aspects or indicators of the hereditary system, which would collapse on its own if that system lacks the legitimacy to exist. Even if we eliminated the terms Monarchy, Royalty, and Aristocracy, or replaced them with others, the hereditary system would remain unchanged if it continued. It would still be the same system under any other title as it is now.
The character therefore of the revolutions of the present day distinguishes itself most definitively by grounding itself on the system of representative government, in opposition to the hereditary. No other distinction reaches the whole of the principle.
The nature of today’s revolutions stands out clearly because they are based on the system of representative government, as opposed to hereditary rule. No other distinction encompasses the entire principle.
Having thus opened the case generally, I proceed, in the first place, to examine the hereditary system, because it has the priority in point of time. The representative system is the invention of the modern world; and, that no doubt may arise as to my own opinion, I declare it before hand, which is, that there is not a problem in Euclid more mathematically true, than that hereditary government has not a right to exist. When therefore we take from any man the exercise of hereditary power, we take away that which he never had the right to possess, and which no law or custom could, or ever can, give him a title to.
Having opened the case broadly, I will start by discussing the hereditary system, since it comes first historically. The representative system is a modern invention; to clarify my stance, I state upfront that I believe there is not a single proposition in Euclid that is more mathematically accurate than the assertion that hereditary government has no rightful claim to exist. Therefore, when we strip any individual of hereditary power, we are removing something they never had the right to hold, something that no law or custom could ever grant them a legitimate claim to.
The arguments that have hitherto been employed against the hereditary system have been chiefly founded upon the absurdity of it, and its incompetency to the purpose of good government. Nothing can present to our judgment, or to our imagination, a figure of greater absurdity, than that of seeing the government of a nation fall, as it frequently does, into the hands of a lad necessarily destitute of experience, and often little better than a fool. It is an insult to every man of years, of character, and of talents, in a country. The moment we begin to reason upon the hereditary system, it falls into derision; let but a single idea begin, and a thousand will soon follow. Insignificance, imbecility, childhood, dotage, want of moral character; in fine, every defect serious or laughable unite to hold up the hereditary system as a figure of ridicule. Leaving, however, the ridiculousness of the thing to the reflections of the reader, I proceed to the more important part of the question, namely, whether such a system has a right to exist.
The arguments against the hereditary system have mainly been based on how ridiculous it is and its failure to serve the purpose of good governance. Nothing seems more absurd than allowing the government of a nation to fall, as it often does, into the hands of a young person who lacks experience and is often not much better than a fool. It disrespects every experienced, respectable, and talented person in a country. The moment we start thinking about the hereditary system, it becomes a joke; just one idea can spark a flood of others. Insignificance, incompetence, youth, old age, lack of moral character; in short, every serious or laughable flaw comes together to make the hereditary system a source of mockery. However, setting aside the ridiculousness of the situation for the reader’s consideration, I turn to the more crucial part of the question: whether such a system has the right to exist.
To be satisfied of the right of a thing to exist, we must be satisfied that it had a right to begin. If it had not a right to begin, it has not a right to continue. By what right then did the hereditary system begin? Let a man but ask himself this question, and he will find that he cannot satisfy himself with an answer.
To be certain that something has the right to exist, we need to be sure it had a right to start. If it didn't have a right to start, it doesn't have a right to continue. So, what right did the hereditary system have to begin? If a person asks themselves this question, they'll realize they can't find a satisfactory answer.
The right which any man or any family had to set itself up at first to govern a nation, and to establish itself hereditarily, was no other than the right which Robespierre had to do the same thing in France. If he had none, they had none. If they had any, he had as much; for it is impossible to discover superiority of right in any family, by virtue of which hereditary government could begin. The Capets, the Guelphs, the Robespierres, the Marats, are all on the same standing as to the question of right. It belongs exclusively to none.
The claim that any individual or family had the right to initially govern a nation and establish hereditary rule is the same claim Robespierre had to do so in France. If he had no right, then neither did they. If they had any rights, he had the same amount because it's impossible to determine a superiority of right within any family that would justify the start of hereditary governance. The Capets, the Guelphs, the Robespierres, and the Marats all hold the same position regarding the issue of rights. No one holds it exclusively.
It is one step towards liberty, to perceive that hereditary government could not begin as an exclusive right in any family. The next point will be, whether, having once begun, it could grow into a right by the influence of time.
It's a step towards freedom to realize that inherited rule can't start as a right exclusive to any family. The next question is whether, once it starts, it can develop into a right due to the passage of time.
This would be supposing an absurdity; for either it is putting time in the place of principle, or making it superior to principle; whereas time has no more connection with, or influence upon principle, than principle has upon time. The wrong which began a thousand years ago, is as much a wrong as if it began to-day; and the right which originates to-day, is as much a right as if it had the sanction of a thousand years. Time with respect to principles is an eternal now: it has no operation upon them: it changes nothing of their nature and qualities. But what have we to do with a thousand years? Our life-time is but a short portion of that period, and if we find the wrong in existence as soon as we begin to live, that is the point of time at which it begins to us; and our right to resist it is the same as if it never existed before.
This would be ridiculous; either it substitutes time for principle or elevates it above principle. Time has no more connection to or influence over principle than principle has over time. A wrong that started a thousand years ago is just as wrong as if it started today, and a right that emerges today is just as right as if it had been around for a thousand years. In relation to principles, time is an eternal present: it does not affect them and changes nothing about their nature or qualities. But what do we care about a thousand years? Our lifetime is just a small part of that period, and if we see the wrong as soon as we come into the world, that is when it starts for us; our right to oppose it is the same as if it had never existed before.
As hereditary government could not begin as a natural right in any family, nor derive after its commencement any right from time, we have only to examine whether there exist in a nation a right to set it up, and establish it by what is called law, as has been done in England. I answer NO; and that any law or any constitution made for that purpose is an act of treason against the right of every minor in the nation, at the time it is made, and against the rights of all succeeding generations. I shall speak upon each of those cases. First, of the minor at the time such law is made. Secondly, of the generations that are to follow.
As hereditary government can’t start as a natural right in any family, nor can it gain any right over time after it begins, we only need to see if there's a right in a nation to establish it and to create it through something called law, like what’s been done in England. My answer is NO; any law or constitution created for that purpose is an act of treason against the rights of every minor in the nation when it’s made, and against the rights of all future generations. I will discuss both of these situations. First, regarding the minors at the time such a law is made. Second, concerning the generations that will follow.
A nation, in a collective sense, comprehends all the individuals of whatever age, from just born to just dying. Of these, one part will be minors, and the other aged. The average of life is not exactly the same in every climate and country, but in general, the minority in years are the majority in numbers; that is, the number of persons under twenty-one years, is greater than the number of persons above that age. This difference in number is not necessary to the establishment of the principle I mean to lay down, but it serves to shew the justice of it more strongly. The principle would be equally as good, if the majority in years were also the majority in numbers.
A nation, in a collective sense, includes all individuals of any age, from newborns to the elderly. Among these, there will be minors and the aged. Life expectancy isn’t the same in every climate and country, but generally, people under twenty-one outnumber those over that age. This difference in numbers isn’t essential to the principle I want to establish, but it helps illustrate its fairness more clearly. The principle would still hold true even if the older age group outnumbered the younger.
The rights of minors are as sacred as the rights of the aged. The difference is altogether in the different age of the two parties, and nothing in the nature of the rights; the rights are the same rights; and are to be preserved inviolate for the inheritance of the minors when they shall come of age. During the minority of minors their rights are under the sacred guardianship of the aged. The minor cannot surrender them; the guardian cannot dispossess him; consequently, the aged part of a nation, who are the law-makers for the time being, and who, in the march of life are but a few years ahead of those who are yet minors, and to whom they must shortly give place, have not and cannot have the right to make a law to set up and establish hereditary government, or, to speak more distinctly, an hereditary succession of governors; because it is an attempt to deprive every minor in the nation, at the time such a law is made, of his inheritance of rights when he shall come of age, and to subjugate him to a system of government to which, during his minority, he could neither consent nor object.
The rights of minors are just as important as the rights of the elderly. The only difference lies in their ages, not in the nature of the rights themselves; the rights are the same and should be protected for minors until they reach adulthood. While minors are still young, their rights are held under the careful protection of the elderly. A minor cannot give up these rights; a guardian cannot take them away. Therefore, the older generation of a nation, who are currently the lawmakers and are just a few years ahead of the minors, and who will soon need to make way for them, do not have the right to create a law that establishes hereditary government, or more clearly, an hereditary succession of governors; because this would deprive every minor in the nation, at the time the law is enacted, of their rightful inheritance of rights once they reach adulthood, and would subject them to a government system they could neither agree to nor oppose during their youth.
If a person who is a minor at the time such a law is proposed, had happened to have been born a few years sooner, so as to be of the age of twenty-one years at the time of proposing it, his right to have objected against it, to have exposed the injustice and tyrannical principles of it, and to have voted against it, will be admitted on all sides. If, therefore, the law operates to prevent his exercising the same rights after he comes of age as he would have had a right to exercise had he been of age at the time, it is undeniably a law to take away and annul the rights of every person in the nation who shall be a minor at the time of making such a law, and consequently the right to make it cannot exist.
If a person who is underage when a law is proposed had been born just a few years earlier and was 21 at that time, everyone would agree that he would have the right to object to it, point out its injustice and oppressive principles, and vote against it. Therefore, if the law prevents him from exercising the same rights after he reaches adulthood as he would have had if he had been an adult when the law was proposed, it clearly acts to strip away and invalidate the rights of every person in the country who is a minor at the time the law is created. As a result, the right to create such a law cannot exist.
I come now to speak of government by hereditary succession, as it applies to succeeding generations; and to shew that in this case, as in the case of minors, there does not exist in a nation a right to set it up.
I now discuss government through hereditary succession, as it relates to future generations; and to show that, in this situation, just like with minors, there is no right for a nation to establish it.
A nation, though continually existing, is continually in a state of renewal and succession. It is never stationary.
A nation, while constantly existing, is always in a state of renewal and change. It never stays the same.
Every day produces new births, carries minors forward to maturity, and old persons from the stage. In this ever running flood of generations there is no part superior in authority to another. Could we conceive an idea of superiority in any, at what point of time, or in what century of the world, are we to fix it? To what cause are we to ascribe it? By what evidence are we to prove it? By what criterion are we to know it? A single reflection will teach us that our ancestors, like ourselves, were but tenants for life in the great freehold of rights. The fee-absolute was not in them, it is not in us, it belongs to the whole family of man, thro* all ages. If we think otherwise than this, we think either as slaves or as tyrants. As slaves, if we think that any former generation had a right to bind us; as tyrants, if we think that we have authority to bind the generations that are to follow.
Every day brings new births, moves young people towards adulthood, and takes the elderly off the stage. In this continuous flow of generations, no one part holds more power or authority over another. If we were to imagine any form of superiority, at what moment in time or in which era should we place it? What reason would we give for it? How could we prove it? What standard would we use to recognize it? A moment's thought will show us that our ancestors, like us, were merely temporary holders of rights. They didn't own the rights outright, nor do we; they belong to the entire human family throughout all ages. If we think otherwise, we are either thinking like slaves or like tyrants. We think like slaves if we believe any previous generation had the right to impose bindings on us; we think like tyrants if we believe we have the authority to bind future generations.
It may not be inapplicable to the subject, to endeavour to define what is to be understood by a generation, in the sense the word is here used.
It might be relevant to the topic to try to define what is meant by a generation, in the sense the word is used here.
As a natural term its meaning is sufficiently clear. The father, the son, the grandson, are so many distinct generations. But when we speak of a generation as describing the persons in whom legal authority resides, as distinct from another generation of the same description who are to succeed them, it comprehends all those who are above the age of twenty-one years, at the time that we count from; and a generation of this kind will continue in authority between fourteen and twenty-one years, that is, until the number of minors, who shall have arrived at age, shall be greater than the number of persons remaining of the former stock.
As a natural term, its meaning is pretty clear. The father, the son, and the grandson represent different generations. However, when we refer to a generation as the group of people who hold legal authority, distinct from the next group of the same type who will take over, it includes everyone over the age of twenty-one at the starting point. This type of generation will maintain authority for a period between fourteen and twenty-one years, meaning until the number of minors who reach adulthood exceeds the number of people from the previous generation still in authority.
For example: if France, at this or any other moment, contains twenty-four millions of souls, twelve millions will be males, and twelve females. Of the twelve millions of males, six millions will be of the age of twenty-one years, and six will be under, and the authority to govern will reside in the first six. But every day will make some alteration, and in twenty-one years every one of those minors who survives will have arrived at age, and the greater part of the former stock will be gone: the majority of persons then living, in whom the legal authority resides, will be composed of those who, twenty-one years before, had no legal existence. Those will be fathers and grandfathers in their turn, and, in the next twenty-one years, (or less) another race of minors, arrived at age, will succeed them, and so on.
For example, if France has twenty-four million people right now, that means there are twelve million males and twelve million females. Out of the twelve million males, six million will be twenty-one years old, and six million will be younger. The power to govern will be in the hands of the first group of six. However, every day will bring changes, and in twenty-one years, all of those younger individuals who are still alive will reach adulthood, while many from the current population will be gone. The majority of those living at that time, who will hold legal authority, will be people who didn't even exist twenty-one years earlier. These will be fathers and grandfathers themselves, and after another twenty-one years (or less), another group of young people will reach adulthood and take their place, and the cycle will continue.
As this is ever the case, and as every generation is equal in rights to another, it consequently follows, that there cannot be a right in any to establish government by hereditary succession, because it would be supposing itself possessed of a right superior to the rest, namely, that of commanding by its own authority how the world shall be hereafter governed and who shall govern it. Every age and generation is, and must be, (as a matter of right,) as free to act for itself in all cases, as the age and generation that preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man, neither has one generation a property in the generations that are to follow.
As this is always the case, and since every generation has the same rights as another, it follows that no one has the right to establish a government through hereditary succession. Doing so would imply that they have a right superior to others, specifically the authority to decide how the world should be governed in the future and who should govern it. Each age and generation is, and must be, (as a matter of right) as free to make its own choices in all situations as the age and generation that came before it. The arrogance and overconfidence of trying to govern beyond the grave is the most absurd and contemptible form of tyranny. No one has ownership over another person, just as one generation doesn’t own the generations that will come after it.
In the first part of the Rights of Man I have spoken of government by hereditary succession; and I will here close the subject with an extract from that work, which states it under the two following heads. (1)
In the first part of the Rights of Man, I discussed government by hereditary succession; and I will now conclude the topic with an excerpt from that work, which outlines it under the following two points. (1)
1 The quote, which is not included here, can be found in vol. ii. of this work, starting on p. 364 and continuing, with a few omissions, to the 15th line of p. 366. This "Dissertation" was originally written for distribution in Holland, where Paine's "Rights of Man" wasn't very well known.—Editor.
The history of the English parliament furnishes an example of this kind; and which merits to be recorded, as being the greatest instance of legislative ignorance and want of principle that is to be found in any country. The case is as follows:
The history of the English parliament provides an example of this kind; and it deserves to be noted, as it represents the greatest instance of legislative ignorance and lack of principle found in any country. The case goes as follows:
The English parliament of 1688, imported a man and his wife from Holland, William and Mary, and made them king and queen of England. (2) Having done this, the said parliament made a law to convey the government of the country to the heirs of William and Mary, in the following words: "We, the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, do, in the name of the people of England, most humbly and faithfully submit ourselves, our heirs, and posterities, to William and Mary, their heirs and posterities, for ever." And in a subsequent law, as quoted by Edmund Burke, the said parliament, in the name of the people of England then living, binds the said people, their heirs and posterities, to William and Mary, their heirs and posterities, to the end of time.
The English Parliament of 1688 brought over a man and his wife from Holland, William and Mary, and made them the king and queen of England. (2) After doing this, the Parliament passed a law transferring the government of the country to the heirs of William and Mary, stating: "We, the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, do, in the name of the people of England, most humbly and faithfully submit ourselves, our heirs, and posterities, to William and Mary, their heirs and posterities, forever." In another law, as quoted by Edmund Burke, the Parliament, in the name of the living people of England at that time, binds the said people, their heirs and posterities, to William and Mary, their heirs and posterities, to the end of time.
2 "The Bill of Rights (during William III's time) shows that the Lords and Commons came together not in Parliament but in a convention, where they opposed James II and supported William III. The latter was recognized as the sovereign, and once he became king, Acts of Parliament were passed to ratify what had been done."—Joseph Fisher in Notes and Queries (London), May 2, 1874. This doesn't change Paine's argument, as a Convention couldn't have any more authority to bind the future than a Parliament could.—Editor..
It is not sufficient that we laugh at the ignorance of such law-makers; it is necessary that we reprobate their want of principle. The constituent assembly of France, 1789, fell into the same vice as the parliament of England had done, and assumed to establish an hereditary succession in the family of the Capets, as an act of the constitution of that year. That every nation, for the time being, has a right to govern itself as it pleases, must always be admitted; but government by hereditary succession is government for another race of people, and not for itself; and as those on whom it is to operate are not yet in existence, or are minors, so neither is the right in existence to set it up for them, and to assume such a right is treason against the right of posterity.
It's not enough for us to laugh at the ignorance of such lawmakers; we need to condemn their lack of principle. The constituent assembly of France in 1789 fell into the same trap as the parliament of England, assuming it could establish an hereditary succession in the Capet family as part of that year's constitution. Every nation, for the time being, has the right to govern itself as it chooses, and that should always be recognized. However, government by hereditary succession is a system meant for another group of people, not for itself; and since those who will be affected are not yet born or are still minors, the right to impose this on them doesn’t exist. To assume such a right is a betrayal of the rights of future generations.
I here close the arguments on the first head, that of government by hereditary succession; and proceed to the second, that of government by election and representation; or, as it may be concisely expressed, representative government, in contra-distinction to hereditary government.
I will now wrap up the discussion on hereditary succession in government and move on to the next topic, which is government by election and representation; or, as we can simply put it, representative government, in contrast to hereditary government.
Reasoning by exclusion, if hereditary government has not a right to exist, and that it has not is proveable, representative government is admitted of course.
Reasoning through elimination, if hereditary government has no right to exist, which can be proven, then representative government is automatically accepted.
In contemplating government by election and representation, we amuse not ourselves in enquiring when or how, or by what right, it began. Its origin is ever in view. Man is himself the origin and the evidence of the right. It appertains to him in right of his existence, and his person is the title deed.(1)
In thinking about government through elections and representation, we don't waste time asking when or how it started, or what gives it the right to exist. Its origin is always visible. Humanity itself is both the source and proof of that right. It belongs to us simply because we exist, and our very being is the proof of ownership.
The true and only true basis of representative government is equality of Rights. Every man has a right to one vote, and no more, in the choice of representatives. The rich have no more right to exclude the poor from the right of voting, or of electing and being elected, than the poor have to exclude the rich; and wherever it is attempted, or proposed, on either side, it is a question of force and not of right. Who is he that would exclude another? That other has a right to exclude him.
The only real foundation of representative government is equal rights. Everyone has the right to one vote, nothing more, in the selection of representatives. The wealthy have no more right to deny the poor the right to vote, or to run for office, than the poor have to deny the wealthy; and whenever this is attempted or suggested by either side, it becomes an issue of power, not of right. Who is the person that wants to exclude someone else? That person has the right to exclude them too.
That which is now called aristocracy implies an inequality of rights; but who are the persons that have a right to establish this inequality? Will the rich exclude themselves? No. Will the poor exclude themselves? No. By what right then can any be excluded? It would be a question, if any man or class of men have a right to exclude themselves; but, be this as it may, they cannot have the right to exclude another. The poor will not delegate such a right to the rich, nor the rich to the poor, and to assume it is not only to assume arbitrary power, but to assume a right to commit robbery. Personal rights, of which the right of voting for representatives is one, are a species of property of the most sacred kind: and he that would employ his pecuniary property, or presume upon the influence it gives him, to dispossess or rob another of his property of rights, uses that pecuniary property as he would use fire-arms, and merits to have it taken from him.
What we now call aristocracy suggests an imbalance of rights; but who has the authority to create this imbalance? Will the wealthy exclude themselves? No. Will the less fortunate exclude themselves? No. So by what right can anyone be excluded? It raises the question of whether any individual or group has the right to exclude themselves; however, regardless of this, they cannot rightfully exclude others. The less fortunate won’t grant such a right to the wealthy, nor will the wealthy grant it to the less fortunate, and to assume it is not just to take arbitrary power but to lay claim to the right to steal. Personal rights, including the right to vote for representatives, are a form of property that is highly sacred: and anyone who would use their financial assets, or the influence that comes with them, to dispossess or rob another of their rights is wielding those financial assets like weapons and deserves to have them taken away.
1 "The fundamental rights of humanity aren't hidden away in old documents or dusty records. They are clearly written into the very fabric of human nature by the hand of God, and they can never be erased or overshadowed by human power."—Alexander Hamilton, 1775. (Cf. Rights of Man, Vol. ii., p. 304): "Parts of history may validate everything but prove nothing. It's one authority versus another until we reach the divine source of human rights at creation."—Editor..
Inequality of rights is created by a combination in one part of the community to exclude another part from its rights. Whenever it be made an article of a constitution, or a law, that the right of voting, or of electing and being elected, shall appertain exclusively to persons possessing a certain quantity of property, be it little or much, it is a combination of the persons possessing that quantity to exclude those who do not possess the same quantity. It is investing themselves with powers as a self-created part of society, to the exclusion of the rest.
Inequality of rights happens when one part of the community works to keep another part from enjoying their rights. Whenever a constitution or law states that the right to vote or to run for office is reserved only for people who own a certain amount of property, whether it's a little or a lot, it becomes a way for those who have that property to exclude those who don't. This gives them power as a self-appointed group in society, leaving everyone else out.
It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves; and in this view of the case, pardoning the vanity of the thing, aristocracy is a subject of laughter. This self-soothing vanity is encouraged by another idea not less selfish, which is, that the opposers conceive they are playing a safe game, in which there is a chance to gain and none to lose; that at any rate the doctrine of equality includes them, and that if they cannot get more rights than those whom they oppose and would exclude, they shall not have less. This opinion has already been fatal to thousands, who, not contented with equal rights, have sought more till they lost all, and experienced in themselves the degrading inequality they endeavoured to fix upon others.
It's often taken for granted that those who oppose equal rights never believe they should be excluded themselves. In this sense, despite its vanity, aristocracy is a subject of mockery. This self-soothing vanity is fueled by another selfish idea: the opponents think they’re playing it safe, with a chance to gain and nothing to lose; that, at the very least, the principle of equality includes them, and if they can't have more rights than those they oppose and want to exclude, they won’t have fewer. This mindset has already proven disastrous for thousands, who, not satisfied with equal rights, have sought more until they lost everything, and experienced firsthand the degrading inequality they tried to impose on others.
In any view of the case it is dangerous and impolitic, sometimes ridiculous, and always unjust, to make property the criterion of the right of voting. If the sum or value of the property upon which the right is to take place be considerable, it will exclude a majority of the people, and unite them in a common interest against the government and against those who support it; and as the power is always with the majority, they can overturn such a government and its supporters whenever they please.
In any perspective on the issue, it’s risky and unwise, sometimes even absurd, and always unfair to use property as the basis for voting rights. If the amount or value of the property required to vote is significant, it will exclude most people and create a collective interest against the government and those who back it; since power lies with the majority, they can dismantle that government and its supporters whenever they choose.
If, in order to avoid this danger, a small quantity of property be fixed, as the criterion of the right, it exhibits liberty in disgrace, by putting it in competition with accident and insignificance. When a brood-mare shall fortunately produce a foal or a mule that, by being worth the sum in question, shall convey to its owner the right of voting, or by its death take it from him, in whom does the origin of such a right exist? Is it in the man, or in the mule? When we consider how many ways property may be acquired without merit, and lost without a crime, we ought to spurn the idea of making it a criterion of rights.
If, to avoid this danger, a small amount of property is set as the standard for rights, it shows liberty in a poor light by making it compete with chance and triviality. When a mare happens to give birth to a foal or mule that happens to be worth the required amount, granting its owner the right to vote, or if the animal dies and takes that right away, where does that right actually come from? Is it from the person, or from the mule? Considering how many ways property can be gained without any merit and lost without wrongdoing, we should reject the idea of using it as a standard for rights.
But the offensive part of the case is, that this exclusion from the right of voting implies a stigma on the moral char* acter of the persons excluded; and this is what no part of the community has a right to pronounce upon another part. No external circumstance can justify it: wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want of it. On the contrary, wealth is often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence. If therefore property, whether little or much, be made a criterion, the means by which that property has been acquired ought to be made a criterion also.
But the offensive part of the situation is that being excluded from the right to vote implies a stigma on the moral character of those excluded, and no part of the community has the right to judge another part like that. No external factor can justify it: wealth is not proof of moral character, nor is poverty evidence of a lack of it. In fact, wealth is often seen as indicative of dishonesty, while poverty can be a sign of innocence. So, if property, whether large or small, is used as a standard, then the methods of acquiring that property should be considered as a standard as well.
The only ground upon which exclusion from the right of voting is consistent with justice, would be to inflict it as a punishment for a certain time upon those who should propose to take away that right from others. The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case. The proposal therefore to disfranchise any class of men is as criminal as the proposal to take away property. When we speak of right, we ought always to unite with it the idea of duties: rights become duties by reciprocity. The right which I enjoy becomes my duty to guarantee it to another, and he to me; and those who violate the duty justly incur a forfeiture of the right.
The only reason it would be fair to exclude someone from the right to vote would be to punish those who would try to take that right away from others for a certain period. The right to vote for representatives is the main right that protects all other rights. Taking away this right reduces a person to slavery, since slavery means being subject to someone else's will, and someone without a vote in choosing representatives is in that position. Therefore, proposing to disenfranchise any group of people is just as wrong as proposing to take away their property. When we talk about rights, we should always consider them alongside duties: rights become duties through reciprocity. The right I have becomes my duty to ensure that right for someone else, and vice versa; those who break this duty rightfully lose their rights.
In a political view of the case, the strength and permanent security of government is in proportion to the number of people interested in supporting it. The true policy therefore is to interest the whole by an equality of rights, for the danger arises from exclusions. It is possible to exclude men from the right of voting, but it is impossible to exclude them from the right of rebelling against that exclusion; and when all other rights are taken away, the right of rebellion is made perfect.
In a political view of the case, the strength and lasting security of government depend on how many people are invested in supporting it. The right approach, then, is to engage everyone by ensuring equal rights, since the risk comes from excluding people. It's possible to deny some people the right to vote, but you can't stop them from rebelling against that exclusion; and when all other rights are stripped away, the right to revolt becomes absolute.
While men could be persuaded they had no rights, or that rights appertained only to a certain class of men, or that government was a thing existing in right of itself, it was not difficult to govern them authoritatively. The ignorance in which they were held, and the superstition in which they were instructed, furnished the means of doing it. But when the ignorance is gone, and the superstition with it; when they perceive the imposition that has been acted upon them; when they reflect that the cultivator and the manufacturer are the primary means of all the wealth that exists in the world, beyond what nature spontaneously produces; when they begin to feel their consequence by their usefulness, and their right as members of society, it is then no longer possible to govern them as before. The fraud once detected cannot be re-acted. To attempt it is to provoke derision, or invite destruction.
While men could be convinced they had no rights, or that rights only belonged to a certain class of men, or that government existed on its own accord, it was easy to rule them with authority. The ignorance they were kept in and the superstition they were taught provided the tools to do so. But once that ignorance is eliminated, along with the superstition; when they realize the deception that has been imposed on them; when they understand that those who farm and create are the true sources of all wealth beyond what nature freely provides; when they start to recognize their value through their contributions, and their rights as members of society, it becomes impossible to control them as before. Once the deceit is uncovered, it can't be ignored again. To try is to invite mockery or bring about chaos.
That property will ever be unequal is certain. Industry, superiority of talents, dexterity of management, extreme frugality, fortunate opportunities, or the opposite, or the means of those things, will ever produce that effect, without having recourse to the harsh, ill sounding names of avarice and oppression; and besides this, there are some men who, though they do not despise wealth, will not stoop to the drudgery or the means of acquiring it, nor will be troubled with it beyond their wants or their independence; whilst in others there is an avidity to obtain it by every means not punishable; it makes the sole business of their lives, and they follow it as a religion. All that is required with respect to property is to obtain it honestly, and not employ it criminally; but it is always criminally employed when it is made a criterion for exclusive rights.
Property will always be unequal, that's a given. Hard work, natural talent, smart management, extreme thriftiness, lucky breaks, or the lack of these things will always create that imbalance, without resorting to harsh and unpleasant terms like greed and oppression. Moreover, there are people who, while they don’t look down on wealth, won’t lower themselves to the grind or the means of getting it, nor will they feel burdened by it beyond what they need for their comfort or independence. On the other hand, there are those who are eager to acquire wealth by any means that won’t land them in trouble; it becomes the main focus of their lives, and they pursue it like a religion. All that matters regarding property is to acquire it honestly and to not use it for wrongdoing; however, it is always misused when it becomes a standard for exclusive rights.
In institutions that are purely pecuniary, such as that of a bank or a commercial company, the rights of the members composing that company are wholly created by the property they invest therein; and no other rights are represented in the government of that company, than what arise out of that property; neither has that government cognizance of any thing but property.
In organizations that are purely for profit, like a bank or a business, the rights of the members in that organization come entirely from the money they invest. There are no other rights involved in how that organization is run except those related to that investment; the management only deals with property.
But the case is totally different with respect to the institution of civil government, organized on the system of representation. Such a government has cognizance of every thing, and of every man as a member of the national society, whether he has property or not; and, therefore, the principle requires that every man, and every kind of right, be represented, of which the right to acquire and to hold property is but one, and that not of the most essential kind. The protection of a man's person is more sacred than the protection of property; and besides this, the faculty of performing any kind of work or services by which he acquires a livelihood, or maintaining his family, is of the nature of property. It is property to him; he has acquired it; and it is as much the object of his protection as exterior property, possessed without that faculty, can be the object of protection in another person.
But the situation is completely different when it comes to civil government, which is organized based on the system of representation. Such a government is aware of everything and of every man as a member of the national society, regardless of whether he has property or not; therefore, the principle necessitates that every man and every kind of right be represented, with the right to acquire and hold property being just one of those rights, and not even the most essential one. The protection of a person's well-being is more important than the protection of property; furthermore, the ability to perform any kind of work or service to earn a living or support his family is also a form of property. It is property to him; he has earned it; and it deserves just as much protection as external property, which can also be protected in someone else.
I have always believed that the best security for property, be it much or little, is to remove from every part of the community, as far as can possibly be done, every cause of complaint, and every motive to violence; and this can only be done by an equality of rights. When rights are secure, property is secure in consequence. But when property is made a pretence for unequal or exclusive rights, it weakens the right to hold the property, and provokes indignation and tumult; for it is unnatural to believe that property can be secure under the guarantee of a society injured in its rights by the influence of that property.
I've always thought that the best way to protect property, whether it's a lot or a little, is to eliminate as many sources of complaint and motives for violence from every part of the community as possible; and this can only be achieved through equality of rights. When rights are secure, property is secure as a result. However, when property is used as a cover for unequal or exclusive rights, it undermines the right to own that property and incites anger and unrest; it’s unrealistic to think that property can be secure when it's backed by a society whose rights are harmed by that property.
Next to the injustice and ill-policy of making property a pretence for exclusive rights, is the unaccountable absurdity of giving to mere sound the idea of property, and annexing to it certain rights; for what else is a title but sound? Nature is often giving to the world some extraordinary men who arrive at fame by merit and universal consent, such as Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, &c. They were truly great or noble.
Next to the injustice and poor policy of using property as a cover for exclusive rights is the ridiculous absurdity of associating mere sound with the idea of property and attaching certain rights to it; because what else is a title but sound? Nature often brings forth extraordinary individuals who achieve fame through their merit and the consensus of others, like Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, etc. They were truly great or noble.
But when government sets up a manufactory of nobles, it is as absurd as if she undertook to manufacture wise men. Her nobles are all counterfeits.
But when the government creates a factory for nobility, it's just as ridiculous as if it tried to produce wise individuals. Its nobles are all fakes.
This wax-work order has assumed the name of aristocracy; and the disgrace of it would be lessened if it could be considered only as childish imbecility. We pardon foppery because of its insignificance; and on the same ground we might pardon the foppery of Titles. But the origin of aristocracy was worse than foppery. It was robbery. The first aristocrats in all countries were brigands. Those of later times, sycophants.
This wax-work order has taken on the name of aristocracy, and the shame of it would feel less severe if we could view it as just childish foolishness. We forgive vanity because it’s trivial; and for the same reason, we might overlook the absurdity of Titles. But the source of aristocracy was worse than vanity. It was theft. The first aristocrats in every country were bandits. Those who came later were merely sycophants.
It is very well known that in England, (and the same will be found in other countries) the great landed estates now held in descent were plundered from the quiet inhabitants at the conquest. The possibility did not exist of acquiring such estates honestly. If it be asked how they could have been acquired, no answer but that of robbery can be given. That they were not acquired by trade, by commerce, by manufactures, by agriculture, or by any reputable employment, is certain. How then were they acquired? Blush, aristocracy, to hear your origin, for your progenitors were Thieves. They were the Robespierres and the Jacobins of that day. When they had committed the robbery, they endeavoured to lose the disgrace of it by sinking their real names under fictitious ones, which they called Titles. It is ever the practice of Felons to act in this manner. They never pass by their real names.(1)
It’s well known that in England, and similarly in other countries, the large landed estates that have been passed down were taken from the peaceful residents during the conquest. There was no way to acquire these estates honestly. If someone asks how they were obtained, the only answer is through theft. It’s clear that they weren’t acquired through trade, commerce, manufacturing, agriculture, or any respectable profession. So how were they obtained? Shame on you, aristocracy, for your origins, because your ancestors were thieves. They were the Robespierres and Jacobins of their time. After committing the theft, they tried to hide their shame by replacing their real names with false ones, which they called titles. This is a common tactic of criminals—they never use their real names.
1 This and the previous paragraph have been removed from some editions.—Editor.
As property, honestly obtained, is best secured by an equality of Rights, so ill-gotten property depends for protection on a monopoly of rights. He who has robbed another of his property, will next endeavour to disarm him of his rights, to secure that property; for when the robber becomes the legislator he believes himself secure. That part of the government of England that is called the house of lords, was originally composed of persons who had committed the robberies of which I have been speaking. It was an association for the protection of the property they had stolen.
As property that is honestly acquired is best protected by equal rights, ill-gotten gains rely on a monopoly of rights for their defense. A person who has stolen another's property will next try to strip that person of their rights to ensure they keep what they've taken; when the thief becomes the lawmaker, they think they are safe. The part of the English government known as the House of Lords was originally made up of individuals who had committed the very thefts I've been discussing. It was a group formed to protect the property they had stolen.
But besides the criminality of the origin of aristocracy, it has an injurious effect on the moral and physical character of man. Like slavery it debilitates the human faculties; for as the mind bowed down by slavery loses in silence its elastic powers, so, in the contrary extreme, when it is buoyed up by folly, it becomes incapable of exerting them, and dwindles into imbecility. It is impossible that a mind employed upon ribbands and titles can ever be great. The childishness of the objects consumes the man.
But apart from the criminal origins of aristocracy, it has a damaging effect on the moral and physical character of people. Like slavery, it weakens human abilities; just as a mind oppressed by slavery loses its resilience in silence, when it is uplifted by foolishness, it becomes unable to use its faculties and shrinks into weakness. A mind focused on ribbons and titles can never be truly great. The triviality of such pursuits diminishes a person.
It is at all times necessary, and more particularly so during the progress of a revolution, and until right ideas confirm themselves by habit, that we frequently refresh our patriotism by reference to first principles. It is by tracing things to their origin that we learn to understand them: and it is by keeping that line and that origin always in view that we never forget them.
It’s always important, especially during a revolution, and until we internalize the right ideas through habit, to regularly renew our patriotism by going back to the basics. We learn to understand things by tracing them back to their origins, and by always keeping that line and origin in sight, we ensure we never forget them.
An enquiry into the origin of Rights will demonstrate to us that rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another; for who is he who could be the first giver, or by what principle, or on what authority, could he possess the right of giving? A declaration of rights is not a creation of them, nor a donation of them. It is a manifest of the principle by which they exist, followed by a detail of what the rights are; for every civil right has a natural right for its foundation, and it includes the principle of a reciprocal guarantee of those rights from man to man. As, therefore, it is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man, it consequently follows, that rights appertain to man in right of his existence only, and must therefore be equal to every man. The principle of an equality of rights is clear and simple. Every man can understand it, and it is by understanding his rights that he learns his duties; for where the rights of men are equal, every man must finally see the necessity of protecting the rights of others as the most effectual security for his own. But if, in the formation of a constitution, we depart from the principle of equal rights, or attempt any modification of it, we plunge into a labyrinth of difficulties from which there is no way out but by retreating. Where are we to stop? Or by what principle are we to find out the point to stop at, that shall discriminate between men of the same country, part of whom shall be free, and the rest not? If property is to be made the criterion, it is a total departure from every moral principle of liberty, because it is attaching rights to mere matter, and making man the agent of that matter. It is, moreover, holding up property as an apple of discord, and not only exciting but justifying war against it; for I maintain the principle, that when property is used as an instrument to take away the rights of those who may happen not to possess property, it is used to an unlawful purpose, as fire-arms would be in a similar case.
An inquiry into the origin of rights shows us that rights are not gifts from one person to another, nor from one group of people to another; for who could be the first giver, or by what principle or authority could they have the right to give? A declaration of rights doesn't create them or grant them. It simply shows the principle by which they exist, followed by a list of what those rights are; every civil right is built on a natural right and includes the idea of a mutual guarantee of those rights from person to person. Therefore, since it is impossible to find any origin of rights other than in the origin of humanity, it follows that rights belong to individuals by virtue of their existence alone and must therefore be equal for everyone. The principle of equality of rights is clear and straightforward. Everyone can understand it, and by understanding their rights, people learn their responsibilities; for when everyone's rights are equal, each person will see the need to protect the rights of others as the best way to secure their own. But if, in creating a constitution, we stray from the principle of equal rights or try to modify it, we get lost in a maze of problems with no way out but to backtrack. Where do we stop? Or by what principle do we determine where to stop that differentiates between people in the same country, allowing some to be free and others not? If property is made the standard, it completely contradicts the moral principles of liberty, because it ties rights to physical possessions and turns people into agents of those possessions. Additionally, it turns property into a source of conflict, inciting and justifying wars over it; for I argue that when property is used as a tool to undermine the rights of those who don't own property, it is being used for an unlawful purpose, just like firearms would be in a similar situation.
In a state of nature all men are equal in rights, but they are not equal in power; the weak cannot protect themselves against the strong. This being the case, the institution of civil society is for the purpose of making an equalization of powers that shall be parallel to, and a guarantee of, the equality of rights. The laws of a country, when properly constructed, apply to this purpose. Every man takes the arm of the law for his protection as more effectual than his own; and therefore every man has an equal right in the formation of the government, and of the laws by which he is to be governed and judged. In extensive countries and societies, such as America and France, this right in the individual can only be exercised by delegation, that is, by election and representation; and hence it is that the institution of representative government arises.
In a natural state, everyone has equal rights, but they don’t have equal power; the weak can’t defend themselves against the strong. Because of this, civil society is created to balance power and ensure that everyone’s rights are equal. The laws of a country, when designed properly, support this goal. Everyone relies on the law for protection, which is more effective than their own means; therefore, each person has an equal right to shape the government and the laws they will be governed by. In large countries and societies, like America and France, individuals can only exercise this right through delegation, meaning by voting and having representatives; this is why representative government is established.
Hitherto, I have confined myself to matters of principle only. First, that hereditary government has not a right to exist; that it cannot be established on any principle of right; and that it is a violation of all principle. Secondly, that government by election and representation has its origin in the natural and eternal rights of man; for whether a man be his own lawgiver, as he would be in a state of nature; or whether he exercises his portion of legislative sovereignty in his own person, as might be the case in small democracies where all could assemble for the formation of the laws by which they were to be governed; or whether he exercises it in the choice of persons to represent him in a national assembly of representatives, the origin of the right is the same in all cases. The first, as is before observed, is defective in power; the second, is practicable only in democracies of small extent; the third, is the greatest scale upon which human government can be instituted.
Until now, I have focused solely on matters of principle. First, that hereditary government has no right to exist; it cannot be based on any principle of justice; and it violates all principles. Secondly, that government by election and representation comes from the natural and eternal rights of man; whether a person is their own lawmaker, as they would be in a state of nature; or whether they exercise their share of legislative power themselves, as might happen in small democracies where everyone can gather to create the laws they are to follow; or whether they do this by choosing people to represent them in a national assembly, the origin of the right is the same in all cases. The first, as mentioned before, lacks power; the second is only feasible in small democracies; the third is the largest scale on which human government can be established.
Next to matters of principle are matters of opinion, and it is necessary to distinguish between the two. Whether the rights of men shall be equal is not a matter of opinion but of right, and consequently of principle; for men do not hold their rights as grants from each other, but each one in right of himself. Society is the guardian but not the giver. And as in extensive societies, such as America and France, the right of the individual in matters of government cannot be exercised but by election and representation, it consequently follows that the only system of government consistent with principle, where simple democracy is impracticable, is the representative system. But as to the organical part, or the manner in which the several parts of government shall be arranged and composed, it is altogether matter of opinion, It is necessary that all the parts be conformable with the principle of equal rights; and so long as this principle be religiously adhered to, no very material error can take place, neither can any error continue long in that part which falls within the province of opinion.
Next to issues of principle are issues of opinion, and it's important to make a distinction between the two. Whether everyone's rights should be equal is not a question of opinion but of right, and therefore of principle; because people don’t derive their rights from one another, but each person holds them by right of being themselves. Society is the protector, not the provider. And in large societies like America and France, the individual’s right in governmental matters can only be exercised through elections and representation. Thus, the only system of government that aligns with principle, where simple democracy isn’t feasible, is the representative system. But when it comes to how the various parts of government should be organized and structured, that's entirely a matter of opinion. It’s essential that all parts align with the principle of equal rights; as long as this principle is strictly maintained, no serious error is likely to occur, nor can any error persist for long in areas that depend on opinion.
In all matters of opinion, the social compact, or the principle by which society is held together, requires that the majority of opinions becomes the rule for the whole, and that the minority yields practical obedience thereto. This is perfectly conformable to the principle of equal rights: for, in the first place, every man has a right to give an opinion but no man has a right that his opinion should govern the rest. In the second place, it is not supposed to be known beforehand on which side of any question, whether for or against, any man's opinion will fall. He may happen to be in a majority upon some questions, and in a minority upon others; and by the same rule that he expects obedience in the one case, he must yield it in the other. All the disorders that have arisen in France, during the progress of the revolution, have had their origin, not in the principle of equal rights, but in the violation of that principle. The principle of equal rights has been repeatedly violated, and that not by the majority but by the minority, and that minority has been composed of men possessing property as well as of men without property; property, therefore, even upon the experience already had, is no more a criterion of character than it is of rights. It will sometimes happen that the minority are right, and the majority are wrong, but as soon as experience proves this to be the case, the minority will increase to a majority, and the error will reform itself by the tranquil operation of freedom of opinion and equality of rights. Nothing, therefore, can justify an insurrection, neither can it ever be necessary where rights are equal and opinions free.
In all matters of opinion, the social agreement, or the principle that holds society together, requires that the majority opinion becomes the rule for everyone, and that the minority agrees to follow it. This aligns perfectly with the principle of equal rights: first, everyone has a right to express an opinion, but no one has the right for their opinion to dictate what others do. Second, it’s impossible to know in advance on which side of any issue, for or against, someone's opinion will fall. A person may find themselves in the majority on some issues and in the minority on others; by the same logic that they expect others to follow the majority in one instance, they must also follow it in another. All the chaos that emerged in France during the revolution stemmed not from the principle of equal rights, but from breaking that principle. The principle of equal rights has been repeatedly disrespected, not by the majority, but by the minority, and that minority consists of both property owners and non-property owners; thus, property is not a reliable measure of character or rights. Sometimes the minority will be right, and the majority will be wrong, but as soon as experience shows this to be true, the minority will grow into a majority, and mistakes will correct themselves through the calm process of free opinion and equal rights. Therefore, nothing can justify a rebellion, nor is it ever necessary where rights are equal and opinions are free.
Taking then the principle of equal rights as the foundation of the revolution, and consequently of the constitution, the organical part, or the manner in which the several parts of the government shall be arranged in the constitution, will, as is already said, fall within the province of opinion.
Taking the principle of equal rights as the foundation of the revolution and, therefore, of the constitution, the organizational aspect, or how the different parts of the government will be structured in the constitution, will, as mentioned earlier, be determined by opinion.
Various methods will present themselves upon a question of this kind, and tho' experience is yet wanting to determine which is the best, it has, I think, sufficiently decided which is the worst. That is the worst, which in its deliberations and decisions is subject to the precipitancy and passion of an individual; and when the whole legislature is crowded into one body it is an individual in mass. In all cases of deliberation it is necessary to have a corps of reserve, and it would be better to divide the representation by lot into two parts, and let them revise and correct each other, than that the whole should sit together, and debate at once.
Different methods will come up when dealing with a question like this, and while there isn’t enough experience yet to figure out which is the best, I believe we can agree on which is the worst. The worst approach is one where decisions are influenced by the rush and emotion of a single person; when the entire legislature is packed into one group, it becomes that one person multiplied. In any deliberation, it’s important to have a backup group, and it would be better to randomly divide the representatives into two groups so they can review and correct each other, rather than have everyone sit together and debate all at once.
Representative government is not necessarily confined to any one particular form. The principle is the same in all the forms under which it can be arranged. The equal rights of the people is the root from which the whole springs, and the branches may be arranged as present opinion or future experience shall best direct. As to that hospital of incurables (as Chesterfield calls it), the British house of peers, it is an excrescence growing out of corruption; and there is no more affinity or resemblance between any of the branches of a legislative body originating from the right of the people, and the aforesaid house of peers, than between a regular member of the human body and an ulcerated wen.
Representative government isn't limited to just one specific form. The underlying principle is the same across all the different structures it can take. The equal rights of the people are the foundation from which everything grows, and the branches can be organized as current beliefs or future experiences suggest is best. As for that *hospital of incurables* (as Chesterfield refers to it), the British House of Lords, it's a growth stemming from corruption; there's no real similarity or connection between any branches of a legislative body that arise from the people's rights and that House of Lords, just like there's no real link between a healthy part of the human body and an infected growth.
As to that part of government that is called the executive, it is necessary in the first place to fix a precise meaning to the word.
As for the part of government known as the executive, it’s important first to establish a clear definition of the term.
There are but two divisions into which power can be arranged. First, that of willing or decreeing the laws; secondly, that of executing or putting them in practice. The former corresponds to the intellectual faculties of the human mind, which reasons and determines what shall be done; the second, to the mechanical powers of the human body, that puts that determination into practice.(1) If the former decides, and the latter does not perform, it is a state of imbecility; and if the latter acts without the predetermination of the former, it is a state of lunacy. The executive department therefore is official, and is subordinate to the legislative, as the body is to the mind, in a state of health; for it is impossible to conceive the idea of two sovereignties, a sovereignty to will, and a sovereignty to act. The executive is not invested with the power of deliberating whether it shall act or not; it has no discretionary authority in the case; for it can act no other thing than what the laws decree, and it is obliged to act conformably thereto; and in this view of the case, the executive is made up of all the official departments that execute the laws, of which that which is called the judiciary is the chief.
Power can be divided into two categories. First, there's the creation and establishment of laws; second, there's the execution and implementation of those laws. The first category relates to our intellectual capabilities, which reason and decide what actions should take place. The second relates to the physical abilities of our bodies, which carry out those decisions. If the first category decides but the second does not act, it leads to a state of incapacity; if the second acts without the guidance of the first, it leads to a state of madness. Therefore, the executive branch is formal and subordinate to the legislative branch, just as the body is to the mind when functioning well. It's impossible to imagine two separate powers: one to decide and one to act. The executive isn’t allowed to debate whether to act; it has no choice in the matter. It can only act according to what the laws establish, and it is required to do so. In this context, the executive includes all official departments that enforce the laws, with the judiciary being the most prominent.
1 Paine might have been thinking about the five senses, referring to the suggested five members of the Directory.—Editor..
But mankind have conceived an idea that some kind of authority is necessary to superintend the execution of the laws and to see that they are faithfully performed; and it is by confounding this superintending authority with the official execution that we get embarrassed about the term executive power. All the parts in the governments of the United States of America that are called THE EXECUTIVE, are no other than authorities to superintend the execution of the laws; and they are so far independent of the legislative, that they know the legislative only thro' the laws, and cannot be controuled or directed by it through any other medium.
But people have come to believe that some kind of authority is necessary to oversee the execution of the laws and ensure they are carried out faithfully; and it is by confusing this overseeing authority with the official execution that we get confused about the term executive power. All the parts of the government in the United States that are referred to as THE EXECUTIVE are simply authorities to oversee the execution of the laws; and they are so independent of the legislative branch that they only know the legislative through the laws, and cannot be controlled or directed by it through any other means.
In what manner this superintending authority shall be appointed, or composed, is a matter that falls within the province of opinion. Some may prefer one method and some another; and in all cases, where opinion only and not principle is concerned, the majority of opinions forms the rule for all. There are however some things deducible from reason, and evidenced by experience, that serve to guide our decision upon the case. The one is, never to invest any individual with extraordinary power; for besides his being tempted to misuse it, it will excite contention and commotion in the nation for the office. Secondly, never to invest power long in the hands of any number of individuals. The inconveniences that may be supposed to accompany frequent changes are less to be feared than the danger that arises from long continuance.
How this overseeing authority should be appointed or who should be included is a topic open to debate. Some people might prefer one way, while others might prefer a different method; ultimately, the majority opinion sets the standard for everyone. However, there are certain things we can reason out and learn from experience that can help guide our decisions on this matter. First, we should never give any individual excessive power, as this could lead to misuse and will cause disputes and unrest in the nation over the position. Secondly, we should avoid keeping power in the hands of any group of individuals for too long. The issues that might arise from regular changes are less concerning than the risks that come from power remaining unchecked for an extended period.
I shall conclude this discourse with offering some observations on the means of preserving liberty; for it is not only necessary that we establish it, but that we preserve it.
I will end this discussion by sharing some thoughts on the ways to preserve liberty; because it's not enough just to establish it, we also need to maintain it.
It is, in the first place, necessary that we distinguish between the means made use of to overthrow despotism, in order to prepare the way for the establishment of liberty, and the means to be used after the despotism is overthrown.
It’s important to first differentiate between the methods used to topple despotism in order to pave the way for liberty, and the methods to be employed once despotism has been defeated.
The means made use of in the first case are justified by necessity. Those means are, in general, insurrections; for whilst the established government of despotism continues in any country it is scarcely possible that any other means can be used. It is also certain that in the commencement of a revolution, the revolutionary party permit to themselves a discretionary exercise of power regulated more by circumstances than by principle, which, were the practice to continue, liberty would never be established, or if established would soon be overthrown. It is never to be expected in a revolution that every man is to change his opinion at the same moment. There never yet was any truth or any principle so irresistibly obvious, that all men believed it at once. Time and reason must co-operate with each other to the final establishment of any principle; and therefore those who may happen to be first convinced have not a right to persecute others, on whom conviction operates more slowly. The moral principle of revolutions is to instruct, not to destroy.
The methods used in the first case are justified by necessity. Generally, these methods are revolts; as long as a despotic government is in place in any country, it’s hardly possible to use any other means. It’s also clear that at the start of a revolution, the revolutionary group allows themselves a discretionary exercise of power that is influenced more by the situation than by principles. If this practice were to continue, freedom would never be established or would quickly be lost. We can’t expect everyone in a revolution to change their minds all at once. There has never been a truth or principle so undeniably clear that everyone accepted it immediately. Time and reason must work together to establish any principle definitively; therefore, those who are first convinced don’t have the right to persecute others who take longer to come around. The moral aim of revolutions is to educate, not to destroy.
Had a constitution been established two years ago, (as ought to have been done,) the violences that have since desolated France and injured the character of the revolution, would, in my opinion, have been prevented.(1) The nation would then have had a bond of union, and every individual would have known the line of conduct he was to follow. But, instead of this, a revolutionary government, a thing without either principle or authority, was substituted in its place; virtue and crime depended upon accident; and that which was patriotism one day, became treason the next. All these things have followed from the want of a constitution; for it is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle.
If a constitution had been established two years ago, which should have been done, the violence that has since ravaged France and tarnished the reputation of the revolution would, in my opinion, have been avoided. The nation would have had a unifying agreement, and every individual would have known how to act. Instead, a revolutionary government, which has neither principles nor authority, took its place; what was seen as virtue one day became crime the next. All of this chaos arose from the lack of a constitution; a constitution's nature and purpose is to prevent governing by party, by setting a common principle that limits and controls the power and impulses of parties, clearly stating to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. In the absence of a constitution, people focus entirely on party, and instead of principles governing parties, parties dictate the principles.
1 The Constitution adopted on August 10, 1793, was suspended during the war against France due to the insistence of "The Mountain." This meant that the revolutionary government became a constant state of crisis—Editor.
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine.
A desire to punish can be harmful to freedom. It causes people to twist, misinterpret, and misuse even the best laws. To protect one’s own freedom, you have to defend even your enemies against oppression; if you fail to do this, you set a precedent that can come back to haunt you. Thomas Paine.
Paris, July, 1795.
Paris, July 1795.
XXV. THE CONSTITUTION OF 1795.
SPEECH IN THE FRENCH NATIONAL CONVENTION, JULY 7, 1795.
SPEECH IN THE FRENCH NATIONAL CONVENTION, JULY 7, 1795.
On the motion of Lanthenas, "That permission be granted to Thomas Paine, to deliver his sentiments on the declaration of rights and the constitution," Thomas Paine ascended the Tribune; and no opposition being made to the motion, one of the Secretaries, who stood by Mr. Paine, read his speech, of which the following is a literal translation:
On the motion of Lanthenas, "That permission be granted to Thomas Paine to share his views on the declaration of rights and the constitution," Thomas Paine went up to the podium; and since there was no opposition to the motion, one of the Secretaries, who stood next to Mr. Paine, read his speech, of which the following is a literal translation:
Citizens:
Citizens:
The effects of a malignant fever, with which I was afflicted during a rigorous confinement in the Luxembourg, have thus long prevented me from attending at my post in the bosom of the Convention, and the magnitude of the subject under discussion, and no other consideration on earth, could induce me now to repair to my station.
The impact of a severe fever, which I suffered from during a tough stay in the Luxembourg, has kept me from fulfilling my duties in the heart of the Convention for a long time. Only the importance of the topic being discussed, and nothing else on this planet, could persuade me to return to my position now.
A recurrence to the vicissitudes I have experienced, and the critical situations in which I have been placed in consequence of the French Revolution, will throw upon what I now propose to submit to the Convention the most unequivocal proofs of my integrity, and the rectitude of those principles which have uniformly influenced my conduct.
A look back at the ups and downs I've faced and the difficult situations I've found myself in because of the French Revolution will provide the clearest evidence of my honesty and the strong principles that have consistently guided my actions.
In England I was proscribed for having vindicated the French Revolution, and I have suffered a rigorous imprisonment in France for having pursued a similar mode of conduct. During the reign of terrorism, I was a close prisoner for eight long months, and remained so above three months after the era of the 10th Thermidor.(1) I ought, however, to state, that I was not persecuted by the people either of England or France. The proceedings in both countries were the effects of the despotism existing in their respective governments. But, even if my persecution had originated in the people at large, my principles and conduct would still have remained the same. Principles which are influenced and subject to the controul of tyranny, have not their foundation in the heart.
In England, I was banned for defending the French Revolution, and I endured harsh imprisonment in France for acting similarly. During the reign of terror, I was a prisoner for eight long months and was held for over three months after the events of the 10th Thermidor.(1) However, I should mention that I was not persecuted by the people of either England or France. The actions in both countries were the result of the tyranny in their respective governments. Even if my persecution had come from the general public, my principles and actions would have remained unchanged. Principles that are swayed and controlled by oppression are not rooted in the heart.
1 According to the French republican calendar, this was about the right time. Paine was imprisoned from December 28, 1793, to November 4, 1794. He was unanimously voted back to the Convention on December 7, 1794, but he made his first appearance there on July 7, 1795.—Editor.,
A few days ago, I transmitted to you by the ordinary mode of distribution, a short Treatise, entitled "Dissertation on the First Principles of Government." This little work I did intend to have dedicated to the people of Holland, who, about the time I began to write it, were determined to accomplish a Revolution in their Government, rather than to the people of France, who had long before effected that glorious object. But there are, in the Constitution which is about to be ratified by the Convention certain articles, and in the report which preceded it certain points, so repugnant to reason, and incompatible with the true principles of liberty, as to render this Treatise, drawn up for another purpose, applicable to the present occasion, and under this impression I presumed to submit it to your consideration.
A few days ago, I sent you a short paper called "Dissertation on the First Principles of Government" through the usual channels. I originally planned to dedicate this work to the people of Holland, who, around the time I started writing it, were set on bringing about a revolution in their government, rather than to the people of France, who had achieved that significant goal long before. However, there are certain articles in the Constitution that is about to be ratified by the Convention, and certain points in the report that came before it, which are so illogical and incompatible with true principles of liberty that they make this Treatise, created for a different purpose, relevant to the current situation. With that in mind, I thought it appropriate to present it for your consideration.
If there be faults in the Constitution, it were better to expunge them now, than to abide the event of their mischievous tendency; for certain it is, that the plan of the Constitution which has been presented to you is not consistent with the grand object of the Revolution, nor congenial to the sentiments of the individuals who accomplished it.
If there are flaws in the Constitution, it’s better to fix them now than to wait for their harmful consequences. It’s clear that the proposed Constitution doesn’t align with the main goals of the Revolution, nor does it reflect the beliefs of the people who made it happen.
To deprive half the people in a nation of their rights as citizens, is an easy matter in theory or on paper: but it is a most dangerous experiment, and rarely practicable in the execution.
To take away the rights of half the people in a nation as citizens sounds straightforward in theory or on paper, but it’s a very risky experiment and hardly doable in practice.
I shall now proceed to the observations I have to offer on this important subject; and I pledge myself that they shall be neither numerous nor diffusive.
I will now share my thoughts on this important topic, and I promise that they will be neither many nor scattered.
In my apprehension, a constitution embraces two distinct parts or objects, the Principle and the Practice; and it is not only an essential but an indispensable provision that the practice should emanate from, and accord with, the principle. Now I maintain, that the reverse of this proposition is the case in the plan of the Constitution under discussion. The first article, for instance, of the political state of citizens, (v. Title ii. of the Constitution,) says:
In my view, a constitution has two separate components: the Principle and the Practice; and it's not just important but absolutely necessary that the practice comes from and aligns with the principle. However, I argue that the opposite is true in the proposal of the Constitution we're discussing. For example, the first article about the political state of citizens (see Title ii. of the Constitution) states:
"Every man born and resident in France, who, being twenty-one years of age, has inscribed his name on the Civic Register of his Canton, and who has lived afterwards one year on the territory of the Republic, and who pays any direct contribution whatever, real or personal, is a French citizen." (1)
"Every man born and living in France, who is at least twenty-one years old, has registered his name in the Civic Register of his Canton, has lived there for at least one year, and pays any kind of direct tax, whether on property or income, is a French citizen." (1)
1 The article as finally approved replaced "man" with "person," and instead of "has inscribed his name" (a minor educational requirement), it added "whose name is inscribed."— Editor.
I might here ask, if those only who come under the above description are to be considered as citizens, what designation do you mean to give the rest of the people? I allude to that portion of the people on whom the principal part of the labour falls, and on whom the weight of indirect taxation will in the event chiefly press. In the structure of the social fabric, this class of people are infinitely superior to that privileged order whose only qualification is their wealth or territorial possessions. For what is trade without merchants? What is land without cultivation? And what is the produce of the land without manufactures? But to return to the subject.
I might ask, if only those who fit the description above are considered citizens, what label will you give to the rest of the population? I’m referring to that segment of the people who do most of the work and who will bear the burden of indirect taxation. In the structure of society, this group is far more important than the privileged class whose only claim to status is their wealth or land. What is trade without merchants? What is land without farming? And what is the land’s produce without manufacturing? But back to the main topic.
In the first place, this article is incompatible with the three first articles of the Declaration of Rights, which precede the Constitutional Act.
In the first place, this article doesn’t align with the first three articles of the Declaration of Rights, which come before the Constitutional Act.
The first article of the Declaration of Rights says:
The first article of the Declaration of Rights states:
"The end of society is the public good; and the institution of government is to secure to every individual the enjoyment of his rights."
"The purpose of society is the common good; and the role of government is to ensure that everyone can enjoy their rights."
But the article of the Constitution to which I have just adverted proposes as the object of society, not the public good, or in other words, the good of all, but a partial good; or the good only of a few; and the Constitution provides solely for the rights of this few, to the exclusion of the many.
But the part of the Constitution that I just mentioned aims for the goal of society, not the public good, or in other words, the good of everyone, but a selective good; or the good of only a few; and the Constitution only safeguards the rights of this few, leaving out the many.
The second article of the Declaration of Rights says:
The second article of the Declaration of Rights states:
"The Rights of Man in society are Liberty, Equality, Security of his person and property."
"The rights of individuals in society are freedom, equality, and the safety of their person and property."
But the article alluded to in the Constitution has a direct tendency to establish the reverse of this position, inasmuch as the persons excluded by this inequality can neither be said to possess liberty, nor security against oppression. They are consigned totally to the caprice and tyranny of the rest.
But the article mentioned in the Constitution actually goes against this idea, since the people excluded by this inequality can't be considered to have freedom or protection from oppression. They are completely at the mercy and control of everyone else.
The third article of the Declaration of Rights says:
The third article of the Declaration of Rights states:
"Liberty consists in such acts of volition as are not injurious to others."
"Freedom is about making choices that don't harm others."
But the article of the Constitution, on which I have observed, breaks down this barrier. It enables the liberty of one part of society to destroy the freedom of the other.
But the article of the Constitution that I've mentioned breaks down this barrier. It allows the freedom of one part of society to undermine the freedom of the other.
Having thus pointed out the inconsistency of this article to the Declaration of Rights, I shall proceed to comment on that of the same article which makes a direct contribution a necessary qualification to the right of citizenship.
Having pointed out the inconsistency of this article with the Declaration of Rights, I will now comment on the part of the same article that makes a direct contribution a necessary requirement for the right of citizenship.
A modern refinement on the object of public revenue has divided the taxes, or contributions, into two classes, the direct and the indirect, without being able to define precisely the distinction or difference between them, because the effect of both is the same.
A modern improvement on public revenue has categorized taxes, or contributions, into two types: direct and indirect, without being able to clearly define the distinction between them, since the effect of both is the same.
Those are designated indirect taxes which fall upon the consumers of certain articles, on which the tax is imposed, because, the tax being included in the price, the consumer pays it without taking notice of it.
Those are called indirect taxes that are applied to the consumers of specific goods, where the tax is included in the price, so the consumer pays it without realizing it.
The same observation is applicable to the territorial tax. The land proprietors, in order to reimburse themselves, will rack-rent their tenants: the farmer, of course, will transfer the obligation to the miller, by enhancing the price of grain; the miller to the baker, by increasing the price of flour; and the baker to the consumer, by raising the price of bread. The territorial tax, therefore, though called direct, is, in its consequences, indirect.
The same observation applies to the territorial tax. Landowners, to recoup their costs, will charge their tenants higher rent. The farmer will pass this obligation to the miller by raising the price of grain; the miller will do the same to the baker by increasing the price of flour; and the baker will then raise the price of bread for the consumer. Therefore, even though the territorial tax is labeled as direct, its effects are indirect.
To this tax the land proprietor contributes only in proportion to the quantity of bread and other provisions that are consumed in his own family. The deficit is furnished by the great mass of the community, which comprehends every individual of the nation.
To this tax, the landowner only contributes based on the amount of bread and other food that their family consumes. The shortfall is covered by the large majority of the community, which includes every individual in the nation.
From the logical distinction between the direct and in-direct taxation, some emolument may result, I allow, to auditors of public accounts, &c., but to the people at large I deny that such a distinction (which by the by is without a difference) can be productive of any practical benefit. It ought not, therefore, to be admitted as a principle in the constitution.
From the logical difference between direct and indirect taxation, I admit that auditors of public accounts, etc., may benefit in some way, but I argue that for the general public, such a distinction (which, by the way, doesn't really matter) can't lead to any practical advantage. Therefore, it shouldn't be accepted as a principle in the constitution.
Besides this objection, the provision in question does not affect to define, secure, or establish the right of citizenship. It consigns to the caprice or discretion of the legislature the power of pronouncing who shall, or shall not, exercise the functions of a citizen; and this may be done effectually, either by the imposition of a direct or indirect tax, according to the selfish views of the legislators, or by the mode of collecting the taxes so imposed.
Besides this objection, the provision in question doesn’t actually define, secure, or establish the right of citizenship. It leaves it up to the whims or preferences of the legislature to decide who can or cannot exercise the rights of a citizen; and this can be effectively done either by imposing a direct or indirect tax based on the self-serving interests of the lawmakers, or by the method of collecting those imposed taxes.
Neither a tenant who occupies an extensive farm, nor a merchant or manufacturer who may have embarked a large capital in their respective pursuits, can ever, according to this system, attain the preemption of a citizen. On the other hand, any upstart, who has, by succession or management, got possession of a few acres of land or a miserable tenement, may exultingly exercise the functions of a citizen, although perhaps neither possesses a hundredth part of the worth or property of a simple mechanic, nor contributes in any proportion to the exigencies of the State.
Neither a tenant running a large farm nor a merchant or manufacturer who may have invested a significant amount of money in their businesses can ever, under this system, achieve the rights of a citizen. Conversely, any newcomer who has, through inheritance or luck, acquired a small piece of land or a run-down property can proudly take on the rights of a citizen, even though they might not own even a fraction of the value or assets of a basic worker, nor contribute in any way to the needs of the State.
The contempt in which the old government held mercantile pursuits, and the obloquy that attached on merchants and manufacturers, contributed not a little to its embarrassments, and its eventual subversion; and, strange to tell, though the mischiefs arising from this mode of conduct are so obvious, yet an article is proposed for your adoption which has a manifest tendency to restore a defect inherent in the monarchy.
The disdain the old government had for trade and the negative reputation that merchants and manufacturers faced added significantly to its challenges and ultimate downfall. Oddly enough, even though the problems caused by this behavior are so clear, a proposal is being put forward for your approval that clearly aims to bring back a flaw that is built into the monarchy.
I shall now proceed to the second article of the same Title, with which I shall conclude my remarks.
I will now move on to the second article of the same Title, with which I will wrap up my comments.
The second article says, "Every French soldier, who shall have served one or more campaigns in the cause of liberty, is deemed a citizen of the republic, without any respect or reference to other qualifications."(1)
The second article states, "Every French soldier who has served in one or more campaigns for the cause of liberty is considered a citizen of the republic, regardless of any other qualifications."(1)
It would seem, that in this Article the Committee were desirous of extricating themselves from a dilemma into which they had been plunged by the preceding article. When men depart from an established principle they are compelled to resort to trick and subterfuge, always shifting their means to preserve the unity of their objects; and as it rarely happens that the first expedient makes amends for the prostitution of principle, they must call in aid a second, of a more flagrant nature, to supply the deficiency of the former. In this manner legislators go on accumulating error upon error, and artifice upon artifice, until the mass becomes so bulky and incongruous, and their embarrassment so desperate, that they are compelled, as their last expedient, to resort to the very principle they had violated. The Committee were precisely in this predicament when they framed this article; and to me, I confess, their conduct appears specious rather than efficacious.(2)
It seems that in this article, the Committee wanted to find a way out of the dilemma created by the previous article. When people stray from an established principle, they have to rely on tricks and evasions, constantly changing their approach to maintain the consistency of their goals. Since it's rare for the first tactic to make up for abandoning the principle, they often need to bring in a second, even more dubious tactic to cover the shortcomings of the first. In this way, lawmakers keep piling error upon error and deception upon deception, until the situation becomes so complicated and desperate that they have no choice but to revert to the very principle they had violated. The Committee was in this exact situation when they created this article; honestly, to me, their actions seem more misleading than effective.
1 This article ultimately stated: "All French citizens who have participated in one or more campaigns to establish the Republic are citizens, regardless of tax obligations."— Editor. 2 The head of the Committee (eleven) was Abbi Sieves, whose political betrayal was already known to Paine before it became public due to his support of Napoleon in bringing down the Republic.—Editor.
It was not for himself alone, but for his family, that the French citizen, at the dawn of the revolution, (for then indeed every man was considered a citizen) marched soldier-like to the frontiers, and repelled a foreign invasion. He had it not in his contemplation, that he should enjoy liberty for the residue of his earthly career, and by his own act preclude his offspring from that inestimable blessing. No! He wished to leave it as an inheritance to his children, and that they might hand it down to their latest posterity. If a Frenchman, who united in his person the character of a Soldier and a Citizen, was now to return from the army to his peaceful habitation, he must address his small family in this manner: "Sorry I am, that I cannot leave to you a small portion of what I have acquired by exposing my person to the ferocity of our enemies and defeating their machinations. I have established the republic, and, painful the reflection, all the laurels which I have won in the field are blasted, and all the privileges to which my exertions have entitled me extend not beyond the period of my own existence!" Thus the measure that has been adopted by way of subterfuge falls short of what the framers of it speculated upon; for in conciliating the affections of the Soldier, they have subjected the Father to the most pungent sensations, by obliging him to adopt a generation of Slaves.
It wasn’t just for himself, but for his family, that the French citizen, at the start of the revolution (when every man was indeed considered a citizen), marched bravely to defend the borders and push back a foreign invasion. He never thought that he would enjoy freedom for the rest of his life while denying his children that priceless blessing through his own actions. No! He wanted to leave it as a legacy for his children, so they could pass it down to future generations. If a Frenchman, who embodied both a Soldier and a Citizen, were to return from the army to his quiet home, he would have to speak to his small family like this: "I regret that I cannot give you even a fraction of what I gained by risking my life against our enemies and overcoming their plots. I have built the republic, and though it pains me to say it, all the honors I've earned on the battlefield are in vain, and the rights that my efforts earned me do not extend beyond my own lifetime!" Thus, the measures taken as a workaround fall short of the hopes of their creators; for while trying to win the Soldier's loyalty, they have subjected the Father to deep sorrow by forcing him to accept a legacy of Slavery for the next generation.
Citizens, a great deal has been urged respecting insurrections. I am confident that no man has a greater abhorrence of them than myself, and I am sorry that any insinuations should have been thrown out upon me as a promoter of violence of any kind. The whole tenor of my life and conversation gives the lie to those calumnies, and proves me to be a friend to order, truth and justice.
Citizens, there's been a lot said about uprisings. I believe that no one dislikes them more than I do, and I'm upset that anyone would suggest I'm in favor of violence of any kind. The way I live my life and what I say clearly contradict those accusations and show that I am a supporter of order, truth, and justice.
I hope you will attribute this effusion of my sentiments to my anxiety for the honor and success of the revolution. I have no interest distinct from that which has a tendency to meliorate the situation of mankind. The revolution, as far as it respects myself, has been productive of more loss and persecution than it is possible for me to describe, or for you to indemnify. But with respect to the subject under consideration, I could not refrain from declaring my sentiments.
I hope you can see that my outpouring of feelings comes from my concern for the honor and success of the revolution. I have no personal interests aside from those that aim to improve the lives of people. The revolution, for me, has caused more loss and persecution than I can express or that you can compensate for. However, regarding the matter at hand, I couldn’t help but share my thoughts.
In my opinion, if you subvert the basis of the revolution, if you dispense with principles, and substitute expedients, you will extinguish that enthusiasm and energy which have hitherto been the life and soul of the revolution; and you will substitute in its place nothing but a cold indifference and self-interest, which will again degenerate into intrigue, cunning, and effeminacy.
In my view, if you undermine the foundation of the revolution, if you ignore principles and replace them with quick fixes, you'll kill the passion and drive that have been the heart and soul of the revolution; all you'll create instead is a cold indifference and self-interest, which will eventually lead to manipulation, deceit, and weakness.
But to discard all considerations of a personal and subordinate nature, it is essential to the well-being of the republic that the practical or organic part of the constitution should correspond with its principles; and as this does not appear to be the case in the plan that has been presented to you, it is absolutely necessary that it should be submitted to the revision of a committee, who should be instructed to compare it with the Declaration of Rights, in order to ascertain the difference between the two, and to make such alterations as shall render them perfectly consistent and compatible with each other.
But to set aside all personal and minor considerations, it's crucial for the well-being of the republic that the practical or structural aspects of the constitution align with its principles. Since this doesn't seem to be the case in the plan that has been presented to you, it’s essential that it be reviewed by a committee. This committee should be tasked with comparing it to the Declaration of Rights to identify any discrepancies and make necessary changes to ensure they are fully coherent and compatible with one another.
XXVI. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF FINANCE.(1)
"On the brink, or even at the edge, of bankruptcy." 1 This pamphlet, as Paine anticipates at its end (likely for good reason), was translated into all the languages of Europe and probably sped up the suspension of gold payments by the Bank of England (1797), which it had foretold. The British Government assigned its response to Ralph Broome and George Chalmers, who wrote pamphlets in reply. There is an order in the French Archives for 1000 copies, dated April 27, 1796, just nineteen days after Paine's pamphlet was published. "Mr. Cobbett has used this little pamphlet as a reference point for most of his detailed writings on our finances.... According to a recent Register of Mr. Cobbett's, I learned that the profits from the sale of this pamphlet were given [by Paine] to help prisoners held in Newgate for debt."—"Life of Paine," by Richard Carlile, 1819.—Editor..
Debates in Parliament.
Parliament discussions.
Nothing, they say, is more certain than death, and nothing more uncertain than the time of dying; yet we can always fix a period beyond which man cannot live, and within some moment of which he will die. We are enabled to do this, not by any spirit of prophecy, or foresight into the event, but by observation of what has happened in all cases of human or animal existence. If then any other subject, such, for instance, as a system of finance, exhibits in its progress a series of symptoms indicating decay, its final dissolution is certain, and the period of it can be calculated from the symptoms it exhibits.
People say that nothing is more certain than death, and nothing more uncertain than when it will happen. However, we can always determine a point beyond which a person cannot live, and at some moment within that time, they will die. We can do this not through prophecy or foresight, but by observing what has happened in all instances of human or animal life. So, if another subject, like a financial system, shows signs of decline over time, its eventual collapse is inevitable, and we can estimate when it will happen based on those symptoms.
Those who have hitherto written on the English system of finance, (the funding system,) have been uniformly impressed with the idea that its downfall would happen some time or other. They took, however, no data for their opinion, but expressed it predictively,—or merely as opinion, from a conviction that the perpetual duration of such a system was a natural impossibility. It is in this manner that Dr. Price has spoken of it; and Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, has spoken in the same manner; that is, merely as opinion without data. "The progress," says Smith, "of the enormous debts, which at present oppress, and will in the long run most probably ruin, all the great nations of Europe [he should have said governments] has been pretty uniform." But this general manner of speaking, though it might make some impression, carried with it no conviction.
Those who have written about the English financial system (the funding system) up until now have consistently believed that it would eventually collapse sooner or later. However, they didn’t base their views on any solid evidence; they shared them as predictions—simply as opinions, convinced that the lasting existence of such a system was impossible. Dr. Price has spoken this way about it, and Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, expressed similar sentiments, again just as an opinion without evidence. "The progress," Smith says, "of the massive debts that currently burden and will in the long run most likely ruin all the major nations of Europe [he should have said governments] has been fairly consistent." Yet, this general way of speaking, while it might have made some impact, didn’t carry much conviction.
It is not my intention to predict any thing; but I will show from data already known, from symptoms and facts which the English funding system has already exhibited publicly, that it will not continue to the end of Mr. Pitt's life, supposing him to live the usual age of a man. How much sooner it may fall, I leave to others to predict.
It’s not my goal to make any predictions, but I will demonstrate, based on already known data, symptoms, and facts that the English funding system has publicly displayed, that it won’t last until the end of Mr. Pitt's life, assuming he lives to an average age. How much sooner it might collapse, I’ll leave to others to guess.
Let financiers diversify systems of credit as they will, it is nevertheless true, that every system of credit is a system of paper money. Two experiments have already been had upon paper money; the one in America, the other in France. In both those cases the whole capital was emitted, and that whole capital, which in America was called continental money, and in France assignats, appeared in circulation; the consequence of which was, that the quantity became so enormous, and so disproportioned to the quantity of population, and to the quantity' of objects upon which it could be employed, that the market, if I may so express it, was glutted with it, and the value of it fell. Between five and six years determined the fate of those experiments. The same fate would have happened to gold and silver, could gold and silver have been issued in the same abundant manner that paper had been, and confined within the country as paper money always is, by having no circulation out of it; or, to speak on a larger scale, the same thing would happen in the world, could the world be glutted with gold and silver, as America and France have been with paper.
Let financiers diversify credit systems as they want, it is still true that every credit system is a form of paper money. There have already been two experiments with paper money: one in America and the other in France. In both cases, the entire capital was released, and this entire capital—known as continental money in America and assignats in France—flooded the market. The result was that the amount became so huge and so out of proportion to the population and the things it could be used for that the market, if I may put it that way, became saturated with it, and its value dropped. The fate of those experiments was determined in about five to six years. The same thing would have happened to gold and silver if they had been issued as abundantly as paper has been, and kept within the country like paper money usually is, without any circulation outside of it; or, to put it more broadly, the same issue would occur globally if the world were flooded with gold and silver as America and France have been with paper.
The English system differs from that of America and France in this one particular, that its capital is kept out of sight; that is, it does not appear in circulation. Were the whole capital of the national debt, which at the time I write this is almost one hundred million pounds sterling, to be emitted in assignats or bills, and that whole quantity put into circulation, as was done in America and in France, those English assignats, or bills, would soon sink in value as those of America and France have done; and that in a greater degree, because the quantity of them would be more disproportioned to the quantity of population in England, than was the case in either of the other two countries. A nominal pound sterling in such bills would not be worth one penny.
The English system is different from that of America and France in one key way: its capital is kept hidden, meaning it doesn’t circulate. If all the capital of the national debt, which is nearly one hundred million pounds sterling at the time I’m writing this, were to be issued as assignats or bills and put into circulation like they did in America and France, those English assignats or bills would quickly lose value, just like those in America and France did. It would happen even more drastically because the amount of them would be more disproportionate to England's population than in the other two countries. A nominal pound sterling in such bills wouldn’t be worth even a penny.
But though the English system, by thus keeping the capital out of sight, is preserved from hasty destruction, as in the case of America and France, it nevertheless approaches the same fate, and will arrive at it with the same certainty, though by a slower progress. The difference is altogether in the degree of speed by which the two systems approach their fate, which, to speak in round numbers, is as twenty is to one; that is, the English system, that of funding the capital instead of issuing it, contained within itself a capacity of enduring twenty times longer than the systems adopted by America and France; and at the end of that time it would arrive at the same common grave, the Potter's Field of paper money.
But while the English system keeps capital hidden out of sight, preventing a quick collapse like what happened in America and France, it still faces a similar fate and will eventually get there with the same certainty, just at a slower pace. The only difference is in how fast the two systems move toward their downfall, which, to put it simply, is as twenty to one; that is, the English system, which funds capital instead of releasing it, has the capacity to last twenty times longer than the systems used by America and France; and at the end of that time, it will arrive at the same common grave, the Potter's Field of paper money.
The datum, I take for this proportion of twenty to one, is the difference between a capital and the interest at five per cent. Twenty times the interest is equal to the capital. The accumulation of paper money in England is in proportion to the accumulation of the interest upon every new loan; and therefore the progress to the dissolution is twenty times slower than if the capital were to be emitted and put into circulation immediately. Every twenty years in the English system is equal to one year in the French and American systems.
The information I use for this ratio of twenty to one is the difference between capital and interest at five percent. Twenty times the interest equals the capital. The buildup of paper money in England is related to the buildup of interest on each new loan; therefore, the slide toward dissolution is twenty times slower than if the capital were released and circulated right away. Every twenty years in the English system is like one year in the French and American systems.
Having thus stated the duration of the two systems, that of funding upon interest, and that of emitting the whole capital without funding, to be as twenty to one, I come to examine the symptoms of decay, approaching to dissolution, that the English system has already exhibited, and to compare them with similar systems in the French and American systems.
Having clarified that the duration of the two systems—funding on interest and issuing the entire capital without funding—is at a ratio of twenty to one, I will now look into the signs of decline and near collapse that the English system has already shown, and compare them with similar systems in France and America.
The English funding system began one hundred years ago; in which time there have been six wars, including the war that ended in 1697.
The English funding system started a hundred years ago, during which there have been six wars, including the war that ended in 1697.
1. The war that ended, as I have just said, in 1697.
1. The war that ended, as I just mentioned, in 1697.
2. The war that began in 1702.
2. The war that started in 1702.
3. The war that began in 1739.
3. The war that started in 1739.
4. The war that began in 1756.
4. The war that started in 1756.
5. The American war, that began in 1775.
5. The American War that started in 1775.
6. The present war, that began in 1793.
6. The current war that started in 1793.
The national debt, at the conclusion of the war which ended in 1697, was twenty-one millions and an half. (See Smith's Wealth of Nations, chapter on Public Debts.) We now see it approaching fast to four hundred millions. If between these two extremes of twenty-one millions and four hundred millions, embracing the several expenses of all the including wars, there exist some common ratio that will ascertain arithmetically the amount of the debts at the end of each war, as certainly as the fact is known to be, that ratio will in like manner determine what the amount of the debt will be in all future wars, and will ascertain the period within which the funding system will expire in a bankruptcy of the government; for the ratio I allude to, is the ratio which the nature of the thing has established for itself.
The national debt, at the end of the war that concluded in 1697, was twenty-one and a half million. (See Smith's Wealth of Nations, chapter on Public Debts.) Now, it’s rapidly approaching four hundred million. If there’s a common ratio between these two amounts, twenty-one million and four hundred million, that reflects all the expenses of the various wars, that ratio will mathematically determine the debt amount at the end of each war, just as we know it now. Similarly, this ratio will also predict the debt amount for all future wars and will indicate when the funding system will lead to the government going bankrupt; the ratio I’m referring to is the one that has been established by the nature of the situation itself.
Hitherto no idea has been entertained that any such ratio existed, or could exist, that would determine a problem of this kind; that is, that would ascertain, without having any knowledge of the fact, what the expense of any former war had been, or what the expense of any future war would be; but it is nevertheless true that such a ratio does exist, as I shall show, and also the mode of applying it.
Up to now, no one has considered that any ratio like this existed, or could exist, that would solve a problem of this nature; that is, one that could determine, without knowing the actual figures, what the costs of any past war were or what the costs of any future war would be. However, it is indeed true that such a ratio does exist, as I will demonstrate, along with the method for using it.
The ratio I allude to is not in arithmetical progression like the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; nor yet in geometrical progression, like the numbers 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256; but it is in the series of one half upon each preceding number; like the numbers 8, 12, 18, 27, 40, 60, 90, 135.
The ratio I'm referring to isn't in arithmetical progression like the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; nor is it in geometrical progression like the numbers 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256; instead, it follows a series where each number is half of the one before it, like the numbers 8, 12, 18, 27, 40, 60, 90, 135.
Any person can perceive that the second number, 12, is produced by the preceding number, 8, and half 8; and that the third number, 18, is in like manner produced by the preceding number, 12, and half 12; and so on for the rest. They can also see how rapidly the sums increase as the ratio proceeds. The difference between the two first numbers is but four; but the difference between the two last is forty-five; and from thence they may see with what immense rapidity the national debt has increased, and will continue to increase, till it exceeds the ordinary powers of calculation, and loses itself in ciphers.
Anyone can see that the second number, 12, comes from the number before it, 8, plus half of 8; and that the third number, 18, is similarly derived from the previous number, 12, plus half of 12; and this pattern continues for the rest. They can also observe how quickly the sums grow as the sequence progresses. The difference between the first two numbers is just four, but the difference between the last two is forty-five; and from this, they can understand how rapidly the national debt has increased, and will keep increasing, until it surpasses ordinary calculations and becomes lost in zeros.
I come now to apply the ratio as a rule to determine in all cases.
I’m now going to use this ratio as a guideline to make decisions in every situation.
I began with the war that ended in 1697, which was the war in which the funding system began. The expense of that war was twenty-one millions and an half. In order to ascertain the expense of the next war, I add to twenty-one millions and an half, the half thereof (ten millions and three quarters) which makes thirty-two millions and a quarter for the expense of that war. This thirty-two millions and a quarter, added to the former debt of twenty-one millions and an half, carries the national debt to fifty-three millions and three quarters. Smith, in his chapter on Public Debts, says, that the national debt was at this time fifty-three millions.
I started with the war that ended in 1697, which was when the funding system began. The cost of that war was twenty-one and a half million. To figure out the cost of the next war, I add to twenty-one and a half million the half of that amount (ten and three-quarters million), which totals thirty-two and a quarter million for the cost of that war. This thirty-two and a quarter million, added to the previous debt of twenty-one and a half million, brings the national debt to fifty-three and three-quarters million. Smith, in his chapter on Public Debts, states that the national debt at this time was fifty-three million.
I proceed to ascertain the expense of the next war, that of 1739, by adding, as in the former case, one half to the expense of the preceding war. The expense of the preceding war was thirty-two millions and a quarter; for the sake of even numbers, say, thirty-two millions; the half of which (16) makes forty-eight millions for the expense of that war.
I’m going to figure out the cost of the next war, that of 1739, by adding half of the previous war's expense to it, like I did before. The previous war cost about thirty-two million and a quarter; for simplicity, let’s say thirty-two million. Half of that (16 million) brings the total to forty-eight million for the cost of this war.
I proceed to ascertain the expense of the war of 1756, by adding, according to the ratio, one half to the expense of the preceding war. The expense of the preceding was taken at 48 millions, the half of which (24) makes 72 millions for the expense of that war. Smith, (chapter on Public Debts,) says, the expense of the war of 1756, was 72 millions and a quarter.
I go on to determine the cost of the war in 1756 by adding, based on the ratio, half of the cost of the previous war. The cost of the previous war was set at 48 million, so half of that (24 million) brings the total to 72 million for the cost of that war. Smith (chapter on Public Debts) states that the cost of the war in 1756 was 72.25 million.
I proceed to ascertain the expense of the American war, of 1775, by adding, as in the former cases, one half to the expense of the preceding war. The expense of the preceding war was 72 millions, the half of which (36) makes 108 millions for the expense of that war. In the last edition of Smith, (chapter on Public Debts,) he says, the expense of the American war was more than an hundred millions.
I go ahead and calculate the cost of the American war of 1775 by adding, like before, half of the cost of the previous war. The cost of the earlier war was 72 million, so half of that (36 million) brings the total to 108 million for this war's expenses. In the latest edition of Smith (chapter on Public Debts), he states that the cost of the American war was more than a hundred million.
I come now to ascertain the expense of the present war, supposing it to continue as long as former wars have done, and the funding system not to break up before that period. The expense of the preceding war was 108 millions, the half of which (54) makes 162 millions for the expense of the present war. It gives symptoms of going beyond this sum, supposing the funding system not to break up; for the loans of the last year and of the present year are twenty-two millions each, which exceeds the ratio compared with the loans of the preceding war. It will not be from the inability of procuring loans that the system will break up. On the contrary, it is the facility with which loans can be procured that hastens that event. The loans are altogether paper transactions; and it is the excess of them that brings on, with accelerating speed, that progressive depreciation of funded paper money that will dissolve the funding system.
I'm now looking to figure out the cost of the current war, assuming it lasts as long as previous wars and that the funding system doesn't collapse before then. The cost of the last war was 108 million, half of which (54 million) suggests that the current war could cost 162 million. It seems likely to exceed this amount, assuming the funding system holds up; last year's and this year's loans are both twenty-two million each, which is more than the loans from the last war. The system won't fall apart due to an inability to secure loans. In fact, it's the ease of obtaining loans that speeds up the downfall. These loans are all essentially paper transactions, and the excess of them is driving the rapid decline of funded paper money, which will ultimately break the funding system.
I proceed to ascertain the expense of future wars, and I do this merely to show the impossibility of the continuance of the funding system, and the certainty of its dissolution.
I set out to determine the cost of future wars, and I do this solely to demonstrate the impossibility of maintaining the funding system and the certainty of its collapse.
The expense of the next war after the present war, according to the ratio that has ascertained the preceding cases, will be 243 millions.
The cost of the next war after this one, based on the ratio determined from previous cases, will be 243 million.
Expense of the second war 364
Expense of the second war 364
———————— third war 546
third war 546
———————— fourth war 819
fourth war 819
———— fifth war 1228
fifth war 1228
3.2 billion
which, at only four per cent. will require taxes to the nominal amount of one hundred and twenty-eight millions to pay the annual interest, besides the interest of the present debt, and the expenses of government, which are not included in this account. Is there a man so mad, so stupid, as to sup-pose this system can continue?
which, at only four percent, will need taxes amounting to one hundred and twenty-eight million dollars to cover the annual interest, in addition to the interest on the current debt and the government expenses, which aren't included in this calculation. Is there anyone so crazy, so foolish, to think this system can keep going?
When I first conceived the idea of seeking for some common ratio that should apply as a rule of measurement to all the cases of the funding system, so far as to ascertain the several stages of its approach to dissolution, I had no expectation that any ratio could be found that would apply with so much exactness as this does. I was led to the idea merely by observing that the funding system was a thing in continual progression, and that whatever was in a state of progression might be supposed to admit of, at least, some general ratio of measurement, that would apply without any very great variation. But who could have supposed that falling systems, or falling opinions, admitted of a ratio apparently as true as the descent of falling bodies? I have not made the ratio any more than Newton made the ratio of gravitation. I have only discovered it, and explained the mode of applying it.
When I first came up with the idea of finding a common ratio that could serve as a measurement for all aspects of the funding system to identify its stages on the path to collapse, I didn’t expect to find a ratio that would be as precise as this one is. I was prompted by my observation that the funding system was constantly evolving, and anything in a state of change could likely have some general measurement ratio that would apply with minimal variation. But who would have thought that deteriorating systems or declining beliefs could have a ratio that seems as accurate as the fall of objects? I didn’t create the ratio any more than Newton created the concept of gravitation. I just discovered it and clarified how to use it.
To shew at one view the rapid progression of the funding system to destruction, and to expose the folly of those who blindly believe in its continuance, and who artfully endeavour to impose that belief upon others, I exhibit in the annexed table, the expense of each of the six wars since the funding system began, as ascertained by ratio, and the expense of the six wars yet to come, ascertained by the same ratio.
To show at a glance how quickly the funding system is heading toward collapse and to highlight the foolishness of those who blindly believe it will continue, as well as those who cleverly try to convince others of that belief, I present in the attached table the costs of each of the six wars since the funding system started, calculated by ratio, and the costs of the six future wars, determined by the same ratio.

* The actual cost of the war in 1739 didn’t match the amount calculated based on the ratio. However, just like how a flowing stream of water will push through obstacles to regain its course, the expenses of this war combined with those of the next war in 1756 brought the ratio back to where it should be, as if there had been no interruption at all. This actually highlights the accuracy of the ratio even more than if there had been no disruption. The war of 1739 was *** weak; the efforts were less valuable than money at that time; the ratio measures the depreciation of money due to the funding system, or, in other words, it reflects the increase in paper currency. Every additional issuance, whether through banknotes or other means, reduces the real value, even if the nominal value remains the same.—Author
Those who are acquainted with the power with which even a small ratio, acting in progression, multiplies in a long series, will see nothing to wonder at in this table. Those who are not acquainted with that subject, and not knowing what else to say, may be inclined to deny it. But it is not their opinion one way, nor mine the other, that can influence the event. The table exhibits the natural march of the funding system to its irredeemable dissolution. Supposing the present government of England to continue, and to go on as it has gone on since the funding system began, I would not give twenty shillings for one hundred pounds in the funds to be paid twenty years hence. I do not speak this predictively; I produce the data upon which that belief is founded; and which data it is every body's interest to know, who have any thing to do with the funds, or who are going to bequeath property to their descendants to be paid at a future day.
Those who understand how even a small ratio, when applied repeatedly, can multiply over a long series will find nothing surprising in this table. Those who are unfamiliar with that concept, and unsure what else to say, might be tempted to dismiss it. But it’s not their opinion or mine that will sway the outcome. The table clearly shows the inevitable decline of the funding system. If the current government of England continues as it has since the funding system began, I wouldn’t trade twenty shillings for one hundred pounds in the funds to be paid in twenty years. I'm not making a prediction; I’m presenting the facts that support this belief, and it’s in everyone’s interest to know them, especially those involved with the funds or planning to leave property for their descendants to receive in the future.
Perhaps it may be asked, that as governments or ministers proceeded by no ratio in making loans or incurring debts, and nobody intended any ratio, or thought of any, how does it happen that there is one? I answer, that the ratio is founded in necessity; and I now go to explain what that necessity is.
Perhaps it can be asked, that since governments or officials didn't follow any specific measure in making loans or incurring debts, and nobody intended any measure or thought of one, how is it that there is one? I respond that the measure is based on necessity, and I will now explain what that necessity is.
It will always happen, that the price of labour, or of the produce of labour, be that produce what it may, will be in proportion to the quantity of money in a country, admitting things to take their natural course. Before the invention of the funding system, there was no other money than gold and silver; and as nature gives out those metals with a sparing hand, and in regular annual quantities from the mines, the several prices of things were proportioned to the quantity of money at that time, and so nearly stationary as to vary but little in any fifty or sixty years of that period.
The price of labor, or the products of labor, no matter what those products are, will always be in proportion to the amount of money in a country, assuming things progress naturally. Before the funding system was invented, gold and silver were the only forms of money; and since these metals are distributed by nature in limited amounts and in consistent annual quantities from the mines, the prices of various goods were aligned with the amount of money available at that time, remaining relatively stable with only minor variations over any fifty or sixty years during that period.
When the funding system began, a substitute for gold and silver began also. That substitute was paper; and the quantity increased as the quantity of interest increased upon accumulated loans. This appearance of a new and additional species of money in the nation soon began to break the relative value which money and the things it will purchase bore to each other before. Every thing rose in price; but the rise at first was little and slow, like the difference in units between two first numbers, 8 and 12, compared with the two last numbers 90 and 135, in the table. It was however sufficient to make itself considerably felt in a large transaction. When therefore government, by engaging in a new war, required a new loan, it was obliged to make a higher loan than the former loan, to balance the increased price to which things had risen; and as that new loan increased the quantity of paper in proportion to the new quantity of interest, it carried the price of things still higher than before. The next loan was again higher, to balance that further increased price; and all this in the same manner, though not in the same degree, that every new emission of continental money in America, or of assignats in France, was greater than the preceding emission, to make head against the advance of prices, till the combat could be maintained no longer. Herein is founded the necessity of which I have just spoken. That necessity proceeds with accelerating velocity, and the ratio I have laid down is the measure of that acceleration; or, to speak the technical language of the subject, it is the measure of the increasing depreciation of funded paper money, which it is impossible to prevent while the quantity of that money and of bank notes continues to multiply. What else but this can account for the difference between one war costing 21 millions, and another war costing 160 millions?
When the funding system started, paper began to replace gold and silver as currency. The amount of paper money increased as the interest on accumulated loans grew. This introduction of a new type of money started to disrupt the balance of value between money and the goods it could buy. Prices for everything started to rise, but initially, the increase was small and slow, similar to the difference between the first two numbers, 8 and 12, compared to the last two numbers, 90 and 135, in the table. However, this gradual rise was enough to be noticeably felt in large transactions. So, when the government decided to engage in a new war, it needed to borrow more money than previously to keep up with the increased prices of goods. As this new loan added more paper money in relation to the increased interest, it pushed prices even higher. The following loan was again larger to meet the further increased prices, and this pattern continued, though not to the same extent, just like every new release of continental money in America or assignats in France was greater than the last to counter the rising prices until it could no longer be sustained. This illustrates the necessity I mentioned earlier. That necessity grows at an accelerating pace, and the ratio I've described measures that acceleration; or to put it in technical terms, it measures the increasing depreciation of paper money, which cannot be stopped as long as the amount of that money and banknotes continues to multiply. What else could explain the difference between one war costing 21 million and another costing 160 million?
The difference cannot be accounted for on the score of extraordinary efforts or extraordinary achievements. The war that cost twenty-one millions was the war of the con-federates, historically called the grand alliance, consisting of England, Austria, and Holland in the time of William III. against Louis XIV. and in which the confederates were victorious. The present is a war of a much greater confederacy—a confederacy of England, Austria, Prussia, the German Empire, Spain, Holland, Naples, and Sardinia, eight powers, against the French Republic singly, and the Republic has beaten the whole confederacy.—But to return to my subject.
The difference can't be explained by extraordinary efforts or achievements. The war that cost twenty-one million was the one fought by the Confederates, historically known as the grand alliance, which included England, Austria, and Holland during the time of William III, against Louis XIV, and in which the Confederates came out victorious. Today, we have a much larger coalition—a coalition of England, Austria, Prussia, the German Empire, Spain, Holland, Naples, and Sardinia, eight powers, fighting against the French Republic alone, and the Republic has defeated the entire coalition.—But back to my topic.
It is said in England, that the value of paper keeps equal with the value of gold and silver. But the case is not rightly stated; for the fact is, that the paper has pulled down the value of gold and silver to a level with itself. Gold and silver will not purchase so much of any purchasable article at this day as if no paper had appeared, nor so much as it will in any country in Europe where there is no paper. How long this hanging together of money and paper will continue, makes a new case; because it daily exposes the system to sudden death, independent of the natural death it would otherwise suffer.
In England, people say that the value of paper is equal to the value of gold and silver. But that's not quite right; the truth is that paper has brought down the value of gold and silver to match its own level. Gold and silver can't buy as much of anything today as they could if paper hadn't come into play, and they can't buy as much as they can in any European country without paper. How long this connection between money and paper will last is a different issue; it puts the system at risk of sudden collapse every day, aside from the natural decline it would face anyway.
I consider the funding system as being now advanced into the last twenty years of its existence. The single circumstance, were there no other, that a war should now cost nominally one hundred and sixty millions, which when the system began cost but twenty-one millions, or that the loan for one year only (including the loan to the Emperor) should now be nominally greater than the whole expense of that war, shows the state of depreciation to which the funding system has arrived. Its depreciation is in the proportion of eight for one, compared with the value of its money when the system began; which is the state the French assignats stood a year ago (March 1795) compared with gold and silver. It is therefore that I say, that the English funding system has entered on the last twenty years of its existence, comparing each twenty years of the English system with every single year of the American and French systems, as before stated.
I see the funding system as being in the final stage of its existence, with about twenty years left. Just the fact that a war now costs around one hundred and sixty million, compared to just twenty-one million when the system started, or that the one-year loan (including the loan to the Emperor) is now worth more than the total cost of that war, highlights how much the funding system has depreciated. Its value has dropped to about one-eighth of what it was when the system began, which is similar to the situation of the French assignats a year ago (March 1795) compared to gold and silver. Because of this, I argue that the English funding system is in its last twenty years, comparing each twenty-year period of the English system with every single year of the American and French systems, as I mentioned earlier.
Again, supposing the present war to close as former wars have done, and without producing either revolution or reform in England, another war at least must be looked for in the space of the twenty years I allude to; for it has never yet happened that twenty years have passed off without a war, and that more especially since the English government has dabbled in German politics, and shown a disposition to insult the world, and the world of commerce, with her navy. The next war will carry the national debt to very nearly seven hundred millions, the interest of which, at four per cent, will be twenty-eight millions besides the taxes for the (then) expenses of government, which will increase in the same proportion, and which will carry the taxes to at least forty millions; and if another war only begins, it will quickly carry them to above fifty; for it is in the last twenty years of the funding system, as in the last year of the American and French systems without funding, that all the great shocks begin to operate.
If this war ends like past wars, without causing any revolution or reform in England, we can expect at least one more war within twenty years. It’s never happened that twenty years have gone by without a war, especially since the English government has gotten involved in German politics and shown a tendency to provoke the world and the global trade with its navy. The next war will bring the national debt to nearly seven hundred million, with interest at four percent totaling twenty-eight million, plus the taxes for government expenses, which will rise accordingly and push the taxes to at least forty million. If another war starts, taxes could quickly exceed fifty million. In the last twenty years of the funding system, as seen in the final year of the American and French systems without funding, all the major shocks begin to have an impact.
I have just mentioned that, paper in England has pulled down the value of gold and silver to a level with itself; and that this pulling dawn of gold and silver money has created the appearance of paper money keeping up. The same thing, and the same mistake, took place in America and in France, and continued for a considerable time after the commencement of their system of paper; and the actual depreciation of money was hidden under that mistake.
I just mentioned that paper money in England has brought down the value of gold and silver to the same level; and that this decrease in the value of gold and silver has created the illusion that paper money is holding its value. The same thing, and the same error, happened in America and in France, and it lasted for quite a while after they started using paper money; and the real decline in the value of money was concealed by that mistake.
It was said in America, at that time, that everything was becoming dear; but gold and silver could then buy those dear articles no cheaper than paper could; and therefore it was not called depreciation. The idea of dearness established itself for the idea of depreciation. The same was the case in France. Though every thing rose in price soon after assignats appeared, yet those dear articles could be purchased no cheaper with gold and silver, than with paper, and it was only said that things were dear. The same is still the language in England. They call it deariness. But they will soon find that it is an actual depreciation, and that this depreciation is the effect of the funding system; which, by crowding such a continually increasing mass of paper into circulation, carries down the value of gold and silver with it. But gold and silver, will, in the long run, revolt against depreciation, and separate from the value of paper; for the progress of all such systems appears to be, that the paper will take the command in the beginning, and gold and silver in the end.
It was said in America at that time that everything was getting expensive; however, gold and silver could buy those expensive items no cheaper than paper could, so it wasn't seen as depreciation. The notion of high prices replaced the idea of depreciation. The same was true in France. Although everything became more expensive soon after assignats were introduced, those pricey items could still be purchased for the same amount with gold and silver as with paper, and it was merely noted that things were expensive. This is still the language in England. They refer to it as "expensiveness." However, they will soon realize that it is a real depreciation, and that this depreciation is the result of the funding system, which, by flooding the market with an ever-increasing amount of paper, reduces the value of gold and silver. But in the long run, gold and silver will resist depreciation and detach from the value of paper; for the trend of all such systems seems to be that paper takes control at first, while gold and silver regain their value in the end.
But this succession in the command of gold and silver over paper, makes a crisis far more eventful to the funding system than to any other system upon which paper can be issued; for, strictly speaking, it is not a crisis of danger but a symptom of death. It is a death-stroke to the funding system. It is a revolution in the whole of its affairs.
But this shift in the dominance of gold and silver over paper creates a much more significant crisis for the funding system than for any other system that issues paper; because, to be precise, it’s not a crisis of danger but a sign of its demise. It’s a fatal blow to the funding system. It’s a total upheaval in all its operations.
If paper be issued without being funded upon interest, emissions of it can be continued after the value of it separates from gold and silver, as we have seen in the two cases of America and France. But the funding system rests altogether upon the value of paper being equal to gold and silver; which will be as long as the paper can continue carrying down the value of gold and silver to the same level to which itself descends, and no longer. But even in this state, that of descending equally together, the minister, whoever he may be, will find himself beset with accumulating difficulties; because the loans and taxes voted for the service of each ensuing year will wither in his hands before the year expires, or before they can be applied. This will force him to have recourse to emissions of what are called exchequer and navy bills, which, by still increasing the mass of paper in circulation, will drive on the depreciation still more rapidly.
If paper is issued without being backed by interest, it can continue to be printed even after its value deviates from gold and silver, as we've seen in the cases of America and France. However, the funding system relies entirely on the paper's value being equal to that of gold and silver; this will hold as long as the paper can keep lowering the value of gold and silver to match its own decline, and not beyond that. But even in this situation, where both are decreasing together, the minister, whoever that may be, will face mounting challenges; loans and taxes approved for each upcoming year will lose their value before the year ends or before they can be used. This will compel him to resort to issuing what are known as exchequer and navy bills, which will further increase the amount of paper in circulation and accelerate the depreciation even more.
It ought to be known that taxes in England are not paid in gold and silver, but in paper (bank notes). Every person who pays any considerable quantity of taxes, such as maltsters, brewers, distillers, (I appeal for the truth of it, to any of the collectors of excise in England, or to Mr. White-bread,)(1) knows this to be the case. There is not gold and silver enough in the nation to pay the taxes in coin, as I shall show; and consequently there is not money enough in the bank to pay the notes. The interest of the national funded debt is paid at the bank in the same kind of paper in which the taxes are collected. When people find, as they will find, a reservedness among each other in giving gold and silver for bank notes, or the least preference for the former over the latter, they will go for payment to the bank, where they have a right to go. They will do this as a measure of prudence, each one for himself, and the truth or delusion of the funding system will then be proved.
It should be noted that taxes in England aren't paid in gold and silver, but in paper (bank notes). Anyone who pays a significant amount of taxes, like maltsters, brewers, or distillers (I can confirm this with any of the excise collectors in England, or Mr. White-bread), knows this to be true. There isn’t enough gold and silver in the country to pay taxes in coin, as I will demonstrate; and therefore, there isn't enough money in the bank to cover the notes. The interest on the national funded debt is also paid at the bank in the same type of paper used to collect taxes. When people notice, as they will, that there's hesitation among each other in exchanging gold and silver for bank notes, or any slight preference for the former over the latter, they'll go to the bank for payment, where they have the right to go. They'll do this as a matter of caution, each for themselves, and the reality or illusion of the funding system will then be revealed.
1 A prominent Member of Parliament.—Editor..
I have said in the foregoing paragraph that there is not gold and silver enough in the nation to pay the taxes in coin, and consequently that there cannot be enough in the bank to pay the notes. As I do not choose to rest anything upon assertion, I appeal for the truth of this to the publications of Mr. Eden (now called Lord Auckland) and George Chalmers, Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantation, of which Jenkinson (now Lord Hawkesbury) is president.(1) (These sort of folks change their names so often that it is as difficult to know them as it is to know a thief.) Chalmers gives the quantity of gold and silver coin from the returns of coinage at the Mint; and after deducting for the light gold recoined, says that the amount of gold and silver coined is about twenty millions. He had better not have proved this, especially if he had reflected that public credit is suspicion asleep. The quantity is much too little.
I've mentioned earlier that there isn't enough gold and silver in the country to pay taxes in cash, and therefore, there can't be enough in the bank to cover the notes. Since I don't want to rely solely on claims, I refer you to the works of Mr. Eden (now known as Lord Auckland) and George Chalmers, who is the Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantation, led by Jenkinson (now Lord Hawkesbury). (These kinds of people change their names so frequently that it becomes as hard to recognize them as it is to identify a thief.) Chalmers provides the tally of gold and silver coins based on the Mint's coinage reports; after accounting for the lighter gold that was recoined, he estimates that the total amount of gold and silver coined is around twenty million. He would have been better off not proving this, especially if he had considered that public credit is suspicion asleep. The amount is far too low.
1 For information about Chalmers and Hawkesbury, see vol. ii., p. 533. Also, refer to the preface of my "Life of Paine", xvi., and other sections. — Editor.
Of this twenty millions (which is not a fourth part of the quantity of gold and silver there is in France, as is shown in Mr. Neckar's Treatise on the Administration of the Finances) three millions at least must be supposed to be in Ireland, some in Scotland, and in the West Indies, Newfoundland, &c. The quantity therefore in England cannot be more than sixteen millions, which is four millions less than the amount of the taxes. But admitting that there are sixteen millions, not more than a fourth part thereof (four millions) can be in London, when it is considered that every city, town, village, and farm-house in the nation must have a part of it, and that all the great manufactories, which most require cash, are out of London. Of this four millions in London, every banker, merchant, tradesman, in short every individual, must have some. He must be a poor shopkeeper indeed, who has not a few guineas in his till. The quantity of cash therefore in the bank can never, on the evidence of circumstances, be so much as two millions; most probably not more than one million; and on this slender twig, always liable to be broken, hangs the whole funding system of four hundred millions, besides many millions in bank notes. The sum in the bank is not sufficient to pay one-fourth of only one year's interest of the national debt, were the creditors to demand payment in cash, or demand cash for the bank notes in which the interest is paid, a circumstance always liable to happen.
Of the twenty million (which isn’t even a quarter of the total amount of gold and silver in France, as shown in Mr. Neckar's Treatise on the Administration of the Finances), at least three million must be considered to be in Ireland, some in Scotland, and in the West Indies, Newfoundland, etc. Therefore, the amount in England can’t be more than sixteen million, which is four million less than the total taxes. Even if we assume there are sixteen million, no more than a quarter of that (four million) can be in London, considering that every city, town, village, and farmhouse in the country must have a share, and all the major factories, which need cash the most, are outside London. Of this four million in London, every banker, merchant, and tradesperson, in fact, every individual, must have some. A shopkeeper would hardly be poor without a few guineas in his cash register. Therefore, the amount of cash in the bank can never be more than two million based on the evidence, and it’s likely not more than one million. On this fragile balance, always at risk of breaking, hangs the entire funding system worth four hundred million, in addition to many millions in banknotes. The money in the bank isn’t enough to cover even one-fourth of just one year’s interest on the national debt if the creditors were to demand cash or cash for the banknotes used for interest payments, which is always a possibility.
One of the amusements that has kept up the farce of the funding system is, that the interest is regularly paid. But as the interest is always paid in bank notes, and as bank notes can always be coined for the purpose, this mode of payment proves nothing. The point of proof is, can the bank give cash for the bank notes with which the interest is paid? If it cannot, and it is evident it cannot, some millions of bank notes must go without payment, and those holders of bank notes who apply last will be worst off. When the present quantity of cash in the bank is paid away, it is next to impossible to see how any new quantity is to arrive. None will arrive from taxes, for the taxes will all be paid in bank notes; and should the government refuse bank notes in payment of taxes, the credit of bank notes will be gone at once. No cash will arise from the business of discounting merchants' bills; for every merchant will pay off those bills in bank notes, and not in cash. There is therefore no means left for the bank to obtain a new supply of cash, after the present quantity is paid away. But besides the impossibility of paying the interest of the funded debt in cash, there are many thousand persons, in London and in the country, who are holders of bank notes that came into their hands in the fair way of trade, and who are not stockholders in the funds; and as such persons have had no hand in increasing the demand upon the bank, as those have had who for their own private interest, like Boyd and others, are contracting or pretending to contract for new loans, they will conceive they have a just right that their bank notes should be paid first. Boyd has been very sly in France, in changing his paper into cash. He will be just as sly in doing the same thing in London, for he has learned to calculate; and then it is probable he will set off for America.
One of the jokes that has kept the farce of the funding system going is that the interest is regularly paid. But since the interest is always paid in banknotes, and banknotes can always be converted for that purpose, this method of payment proves nothing. The real question is, can the bank give cash for the banknotes with which the interest is paid? If it can’t, and it’s clear that it can’t, then millions of banknotes will go unpaid, and those who cash in their banknotes last will be the worst off. Once the current amount of cash in the bank is paid out, it’s nearly impossible to see how any new cash will come in. None will come from taxes, since all taxes will be paid in banknotes; and if the government rejects banknotes for tax payments, the credibility of banknotes will vanish immediately. No cash will come from discounting merchants' bills either, because every merchant will pay those bills with banknotes, not cash. Therefore, there’s no way for the bank to get a new supply of cash after the current amount is paid out. Besides the impossibility of paying the interest on the funded debt in cash, there are thousands of people, both in London and in the countryside, who hold banknotes acquired through legitimate trade, and who aren’t stockholders in the funds. These people haven’t contributed to increasing the demand on the bank, unlike those who, for their own interest, like Boyd and others, are either taking out or pretending to take out new loans. They will feel they have a right to have their banknotes paid first. Boyd has been very clever in France, converting his paper into cash. He will be just as clever in doing the same in London, as he knows how to strategize; after that, it’s likely he’ll head to America.
A stoppage of payment at the bank is not a new thing. Smith in his Wealth of Nations, book ii. chap. 2, says, that in the year 1696, exchequer bills fell forty, fifty, and sixty per cent; bank notes twenty per cent; and the bank stopped payment. That which happened in 1696 may happen again in 1796. The period in which it happened was the last year of the war of King William. It necessarily put a stop to the further emissions of exchequer and navy bills, and to the raising of new loans; and the peace which took place the next year was probably hurried on by this circumstance, and saved the bank from bankruptcy. Smith in speaking from the circumstances of the bank, upon another occasion, says (book ii. chap. 2.) "This great company had been reduced to the necessity of paying in sixpences." When a bank adopts the expedient of paying in sixpences, it is a confession of insolvency.
A payment halt at the bank isn't something new. Smith in his Wealth of Nations, book ii. chap. 2, notes that in 1696, exchequer bills dropped by forty, fifty, and sixty percent; bank notes decreased by twenty percent; and the bank ceased payments. What happened in 1696 could happen again in 1796. The event occurred in the last year of King William's war, which forced a stop to further issuance of exchequer and navy bills, as well as the raising of new loans. The peace that followed the next year was likely expedited by this situation, which saved the bank from going bankrupt. Smith, when discussing the bank's conditions on another occasion, says (book ii. chap. 2.) "This great company had been reduced to the necessity of paying in sixpences." When a bank resorts to paying in sixpences, it's an acknowledgment of insolvency.
It is worthy of observation, that every case of failure in finances, since the system of paper began, has produced a revolution in governments, either total or partial. A failure in the finances of France produced the French revolution. A failure in the finance of the assignats broke up the revolutionary government, and produced the present French Constitution. A failure in the finances of the Old Congress of America, and the embarrassments it brought upon commerce, broke up the system of the old confederation, and produced the federal Constitution. If, then, we admit of reasoning by comparison of causes and events, the failure of the English finances will produce some change in the government of that country.
It's worth noting that every instance of financial failure since the introduction of paper money has led to a revolution in governments, either completely or partially. A financial failure in France led to the French Revolution. A collapse in the finances of the assignats dismantled the revolutionary government and resulted in the current French Constitution. A financial breakdown in the Old Congress of America, along with the issues it created for commerce, caused the collapse of the old confederation system and led to the federal Constitution. So, if we reason by comparing causes and outcomes, the failure of English finances will trigger some change in the government of that country.
As to Mr. Pitt's project of paying off the national debt by applying a million a-year for that purpose, while he continues adding more than twenty millions a-year to it, it is like setting a man with a wooden leg to run after a hare. The longer he runs the farther he is off.
As for Mr. Pitt's plan to pay off the national debt by putting aside a million a year for that purpose, while he keeps adding over twenty million a year to it, it's like having a man with a wooden leg chase a hare. The more he runs, the farther away he gets.
When I said that the funding system had entered the last twenty years of its existence, I certainly did not mean that it would continue twenty years, and then expire as a lease would do. I meant to describe that age of decrepitude in which death is every day to be expected, and life cannot continue long. But the death of credit, or that state that is called bankruptcy, is not always marked by those progressive stages of visible decline that marked the decline of natural life. In the progression of natural life age cannot counterfeit youth, nor conceal the departure of juvenile abilities. But it is otherwise with respect to the death of credit; for though all the approaches to bankruptcy may actually exist in circumstances, they admit of being concealed by appearances. Nothing is more common than to see the bankrupt of to-day a man in credit but the day before; yet no sooner is the real state of his affairs known, than every body can see he had been insolvent long before. In London, the greatest theatre of bankruptcy in Europe, this part of the subject will be well and feelingly understood.
When I mentioned that the funding system had entered the last twenty years of its existence, I definitely didn’t mean it would last for twenty more years and then end like a lease. I was trying to capture that stage of decline where death is expected any day, and life can’t go on much longer. However, the end of credit, or what we call bankruptcy, doesn’t always show the same visible signs of decline you’d see in natural life. In the natural aging process, age can’t pretend to be youth, nor hide the loss of youthful abilities. But it’s different when it comes to the end of credit; even when all the signs of bankruptcy are present, they can be masked by appearances. It’s not uncommon to see someone facing bankruptcy today who was considered creditworthy just yesterday; but once the true state of their finances is revealed, everyone can see they were insolvent long before. In London, the biggest center for bankruptcy in Europe, this aspect will be well understood and felt deeply.
Mr. Pitt continually talks of credit, and the national resources. These are two of the feigned appearances by which the approaches to bankruptcy are concealed. That which he calls credit may exist, as I have just shown, in a state of insolvency, and is always what I have before described it to be, suspicion asleep.
Mr. Pitt keeps talking about credit and national resources. These are two fake fronts that hide the real nearness to bankruptcy. What he calls credit can exist, as I've just shown, while being broke, and it's always what I've described it as before, suspicion asleep.
As to national resources, Mr. Pitt, like all English financiers that preceded him since the funding system began, has uniformly mistaken the nature of a resource; that is, they have mistaken it consistently with the delusion of the funding system; but time is explaining the delusion. That which he calls, and which they call, a resource, is not a resource, but is the anticipation of a resource. They have anticipated what would have been a resource in another generation, had not the use of it been so anticipated. The funding system is a system of anticipation. Those who established it an hundred years ago anticipated the resources of those who were to live an hundred years after; for the people of the present day have to pay the interest of the debts contracted at that time, and all debts contracted since. But it is the last feather that breaks the horse's back. Had the system begun an hundred years before, the amount of taxes at this time to pay the annual interest at four per cent. (could we suppose such a system of insanity could have continued) would be two hundred and twenty millions annually: for the capital of the debt would be 5486 millions, according to the ratio that ascertains the expense of the wars for the hundred years that are past. But long before it could have reached this period, the value of bank notes, from the immense quantity of them, (for it is in paper only that such a nominal revenue could be collected,) would have been as low or lower than continental paper has been in America, or assignats in France; and as to the idea of exchanging them for gold and silver, it is too absurd to be contradicted.
Regarding national resources, Mr. Pitt, like all English financiers before him since the funding system started, has consistently misunderstood what a resource really is; specifically, they have been misled by the illusion of the funding system. Time is revealing this illusion. What he refers to, and what they refer to, as a resource is not actually a resource, but rather the anticipation of a resource. They have projected what would have been a resource in another generation, had it not been so prematurely anticipated. The funding system relies on anticipation. Those who set it up a hundred years ago expected the resources of those who would live a century later; as a result, today's people are responsible for paying the interest on the debts that were incurred back then, along with all the debts made since. But it's the last straw that breaks the camel's back. If the system had started a hundred years earlier, the amount of taxes needed now to cover the annual interest at four percent (assuming such a ludicrous system could have lasted) would be two hundred and twenty million annually; the debt's capital would stand at 5,486 million, according to the ratio that reflects the costs of wars over the past hundred years. However, long before it could reach this point, the value of banknotes, due to their overwhelming quantity (because it is only through paper that such nominal revenue could be generated), would have plummeted to be as low, or lower, than the continental paper in America or the assignats in France; and the notion of exchanging them for gold and silver is far too ridiculous to warrant discussion.
Do we not see that nature, in all her operations, disowns the visionary basis upon which the funding system is built? She acts always by renewed successions, and never by accumulating additions perpetually progressing. Animals and vegetables, men and trees, have existed since the world began: but that existence has been carried on by succession of generations, and not by continuing the same men and the same trees in existence that existed first; and to make room for the new she removes the old. Every natural idiot can see this; it is the stock-jobbing idiot only that mistakes. He has conceived that art can do what nature cannot. He is teaching her a new system—that there is no occasion for man to die—that the scheme of creation can be carried on upon the plan of the funding system—that it can proceed by continual additions of new beings, like new loans, and all live together in eternal youth. Go, count the graves, thou idiot, and learn the folly of thy arithmetic!
Do we not see that nature, in all her processes, rejects the unrealistic foundation on which the funding system is built? She always operates through cycles of renewal, never through endless accumulation. Animals and plants, people and trees, have existed since the beginning of time: but that existence has continued through the succession of generations, not by keeping the same individuals alive indefinitely; to make space for the new, she removes the old. Any fool can see this; it's only the stock market fool who gets it wrong. He believes that human ingenuity can achieve what nature cannot. He is teaching her a new method—that there's no need for humans to die—that creation can proceed on the model of the funding system—that it can continue through constant additions of new beings, like new loans, and that they can all coexist in eternal youth. Go, count the graves, you fool, and realize the absurdity of your calculations!
But besides these things, there is something visibly farcical in the whole operation of loaning. It is scarcely more than four years ago that such a rot of bankruptcy spread itself over London, that the whole commercial fabric tottered; trade and credit were at a stand; and such was the state of things that, to prevent or suspend a general bankruptcy, the government lent the merchants six millions in government paper, and now the merchants lend the government twenty-two millions in their paper; and two parties, Boyd and Morgan, men but little known, contend who shall be the lenders. What a farce is this! It reduces the operation of loaning to accommodation paper, in which the competitors contend, not who shall lend, but who shall sign, because there is something to be got for signing.
But aside from all this, there’s something obviously ridiculous about the whole process of lending. It’s only been about four years since a wave of bankruptcies hit London, shaking the entire commercial system; trade and credit ground to a halt. The situation was such that, to prevent a complete financial collapse, the government lent the merchants six million in government bonds, and now the merchants are lending the government twenty-two million in their own bonds; and two little-known parties, Boyd and Morgan, are competing to see who will be the lenders. What a joke this is! It trivializes the act of lending to just a paperwork shuffle, where the competitors are not arguing over who should lend, but rather who gets to sign on the dotted line, since there’s something to gain from signing.
Every English stock-jobber and minister boasts of the credit of England. Its credit, say they, is greater than that of any country in Europe. There is a good reason for this: for there is not another country in Europe that could be made the dupe of such a delusion. The English funding system will remain a monument of wonder, not so much on account of the extent to which it has been carried, as of the folly of believing in it.
Every English stock trader and minister takes pride in England's credit. They claim it's stronger than that of any other country in Europe. There's a valid reason for this: no other country in Europe could be fooled by such a delusion. The English funding system will stand as a remarkable example, not just because of how extensive it is, but because of the foolishness in believing in it.
Those who had formerly predicted that the funding system would break up when the debt should amount to one hundred or one hundred and fifty millions, erred only in not distinguishing between insolvency and actual bankruptcy; for the insolvency commenced as soon as the government became unable to pay the interest in cash, or to give cash for the bank notes in which the interest was paid, whether that inability was known or not, or whether it was suspected or not. Insolvency always takes place before bankruptcy; for bankruptcy is nothing more than the publication of that insolvency. In the affairs of an individual, it often happens that insolvency exists several years before bankruptcy, and that the insolvency is concealed and carried on till the individual is not able to pay one shilling in the pound. A government can ward off bankruptcy longer than an individual: but insolvency will inevitably produce bankruptcy, whether in an individual or in a government. If then the quantity of bank notes payable on demand, which the bank has issued, are greater than the bank can pay off, the bank is insolvent: and when that insolvency is declared, it is bankruptcy.(*)
Those who previously predicted that the funding system would collapse when the debt reached one hundred or one hundred and fifty million were mistaken only in not differentiating between insolvency and actual bankruptcy. Insolvency begins as soon as the government can't pay the interest in cash or provide cash for the banknotes in which the interest is paid, regardless of whether that inability is known or suspected. Insolvency always occurs before bankruptcy, as bankruptcy is merely the announcement of that insolvency. In individual cases, it's not uncommon for insolvency to exist for several years before bankruptcy, often remaining hidden until the person can no longer pay a single penny on the pound. A government can delay bankruptcy longer than an individual can, but insolvency will ultimately lead to bankruptcy for both individuals and governments. Therefore, if the amount of banknotes payable on demand that the bank has issued exceeds what the bank can pay, the bank is insolvent. When that insolvency is acknowledged, it becomes bankruptcy.(*)
* Among the misconceptions that have been spread by government officials to misrepresent the state of the nation, particularly by Mr. Pitt, is a confusing, mixed-up concept known as the balance of trade. This balance of trade, as it's referred to, is derived from the records in the customs office, which list all the cargoes exported and imported each year. When the value of exports, based on the price set by the exporter or the customs office, is greater than the value of imports, estimated in the same way, they claim that the balance of trade is significantly in their favor. The customs records reliably show how many cargoes have been exported and imported, but that’s all they prove, or were meant to prove. They have nothing to do with the actual balance of profit or loss, and it’s a misunderstanding to reference them for that reason: the reality is that the greater the loss in any given year, the better the balance of trade appears according to the customs records. For instance, with most of the Mediterranean convoy being captured by the French this year, those cargoes won’t show up as imports in the customs records, making the balance of trade—referring to profits—look higher by the amount of the loss. Conversely, if those losses hadn’t occurred, the profits would appear lower. Every loss at sea from returning cargoes due to accidents, weather, or capture makes the balance seem more favorable for exports; if everything were lost at sea, it would show all profit on the customs records. Additionally, every lost cargo that leads to another being sent out similarly inflates the export side and appears as profit. This year, the balance of trade will look high because losses from captures and storms have been significant. The ignorance of the British Parliament in accepting this tired narrative from ministers regarding the balance of trade is remarkable. It highlights their lack of understanding of national issues—and Mr. Grey might as well be speaking Greek to them when he raises concerns about the state of the nation. They only grasp concepts like fox-hunting and the game laws,—Author.
I come now to show the several ways by which bank notes get into circulation: I shall afterwards offer an estimate on the total quantity or amount of bank notes existing at this moment.
I’m now going to explain the different ways banknotes enter circulation. After that, I’ll provide an estimate of the total number of banknotes in existence right now.
The bank acts in three capacities. As a bank of discount; as a bank of deposit; and as a banker for the government.
The bank operates in three roles: as a discount bank, as a deposit bank, and as a banker for the government.
First, as a bank of discount. The bank discounts merchants' bills of exchange for two months. When a merchant has a bill that will become due at the end of two months, and wants payment before that time, the bank advances that payment to him, deducting therefrom at the rate of five per cent, per annum. The bill of exchange remains at the bank as a pledge or pawn, and at the end of two months it must be redeemed. This transaction is done altogether in paper; for the profits of the bank, as a bank of discount, arise entirely from its making use of paper as money. The bank gives bank notes to the merchant in discounting the bill of exchange, and the redeemer of the bill pays bank notes to the bank in redeeming it. It very seldom happens that any real money passes between them.
First, as a discount bank. The bank discounts merchants' bills of exchange for two months. When a merchant has a bill that will be due at the end of two months and wants payment earlier, the bank gives him that payment upfront, deducting five percent per annum from it. The bill of exchange stays at the bank as a pledge or collateral, and it must be redeemed at the end of the two months. This transaction is entirely paper-based; the bank's profits, as a discount bank, come solely from using paper as money. The bank provides banknotes to the merchant when discounting the bill of exchange, and the person redeeming the bill pays banknotes to the bank to get it back. It's very rare for any physical cash to actually change hands between them.
If the profits of a bank be, for example, two hundred thousand pounds a year (a great sum to be made merely by exchanging one sort of paper for another, and which shows also that the merchants of that place are pressed for money for payments, instead of having money to spare to lend to government,) it proves that the bank discounts to the amount of four millions annually, or 666,666L. every two months; and as there never remain in the bank more than two months' pledges, of the value of 666,666L., at any one time, the amount of bank notes in circulation at any one time should not be more than to that amount. This is sufficient to show that the present immense quantity of bank notes, which are distributed through every city, town, village, and farm-house in England, cannot be accounted for on the score of discounting.
If a bank makes about two hundred thousand pounds a year (which is a significant amount just from exchanging one type of paper for another, and it also indicates that the local merchants are in need of cash for payments instead of having excess funds to lend to the government), it shows that the bank provides discounts totaling four million pounds every year, or 666,666 pounds every two months. Since there are never more than two months' worth of collateral, valued at 666,666 pounds, at any given time in the bank, the amount of banknotes in circulation should not exceed that figure. This clearly indicates that the current massive amount of banknotes distributed across every city, town, village, and farmhouse in England can't be explained by just the discounting.
Secondly, as a bank of deposit. To deposit money at the bank means to lodge it there for the sake of convenience, and to be drawn out at any moment the depositor pleases, or to be paid away to his order. When the business of discounting is great, that of depositing is necessarily small. No man deposits and applies for discounts at the same time; for it would be like paying interest for lending money, instead of for borrowing it. The deposits that are now made at the bank are almost entirely in bank notes, and consequently they add nothing to the ability of the bank to pay off the bank notes that may be presented for payment; and besides this, the deposits are no more the property of the bank than the cash or bank notes in a merchant's counting-house are the property of his book-keeper. No great increase therefore of bank notes, beyond what the discounting business admits, can be accounted for on the score of deposits.
Secondly, as a place to deposit money. Putting money in the bank means to keep it there for convenience, so it can be withdrawn whenever the depositor wants, or paid out as instructed. When the demand for loans is high, the amount deposited is usually low. No one deposits money and asks for a loan at the same time; that would be like paying interest for lending money instead of borrowing it. The deposits made at the bank are mostly in banknotes, which means they don’t really increase the bank’s ability to pay out those banknotes when requested. Additionally, the deposits are not the bank’s property any more than the cash or banknotes in a merchant's office belong to the bookkeeper. So, any significant increase in banknotes, beyond what the lending operation allows, can't be justified by the deposits.
Thirdly, the bank acts as banker for the government. This is the connection that threatens to ruin every public bank. It is through this connection that the credit of a bank is forced far beyond what it ought to be, and still further beyond its ability to pay. It is through this connection, that such an immense redundant quantity of bank notes, have gotten into circulation; and which, instead of being issued because there was property in the bank, have been issued because there was none.
Thirdly, the bank serves as the government's banker. This relationship poses a risk to every public bank. It's because of this connection that a bank’s credit is pushed far beyond what it should be, and even further than it can actually handle. This link is also why an excessive amount of bank notes has entered circulation; these notes were issued not because there were assets in the bank, but because there weren’t any.
When the treasury is empty, which happens in almost every year of every war, its coffers at the bank are empty also. It is in this condition of emptiness that the minister has recourse to emissions of what are called exchequer and navy bills, which continually generates a new increase of bank notes, and which are sported upon the public, without there being property in the bank to pay them. These exchequer and navy bills (being, as I have said, emitted because the treasury and its coffers at the bank are empty, and cannot pay the demands that come in) are no other than an acknowledgment that the bearer is entitled to receive so much money. They may be compared to the settlement of an account, in which the debtor acknowledges the balance he owes, and for which he gives a note of hand; or to a note of hand given to raise money upon it.
When the treasury is empty, which happens almost every year during wars, the bank's coffers are also empty. In this situation of emptiness, the minister resorts to issuing what are called exchequer and navy bills, which continually create a new influx of banknotes that are circulated among the public, even though there isn’t enough property in the bank to back them up. These exchequer and navy bills (issued because the treasury and its bank accounts are empty and cannot meet incoming demands) are simply a recognition that the holder is entitled to receive a certain amount of money. They can be compared to settling a debt, where the borrower acknowledges the amount owed and gives a promissory note; or like a promissory note given to secure a loan.
Sometimes the bank discounts those bills as it would discount merchants' bills of exchange; sometimes it purchases them of the holders at the current price; and sometimes it agrees with the ministers to pay an interest upon them to the holders, and keep them in circulation. In every one of these cases an additional quantity of bank notes gets into circulation, and are sported, as I have said, upon the public, without there being property in the bank, as banker for the government, to pay them; and besides this, the bank has now no money of its own; for the money that was originally subscribed to begin the credit of the bank with, at its first establishment, has been lent to government and wasted long ago.
Sometimes the bank discounts those bills like it would discount merchants' bills of exchange; other times it buys them from the holders at the current price; and sometimes it agrees with the ministers to pay interest on them to the holders while keeping them in circulation. In each of these situations, more banknotes are released into circulation and are circulated, as I mentioned, among the public, without the bank, acting as the government's banker, having the property to back them up. Additionally, the bank no longer has any of its own money; the money originally invested to establish the bank's credit a long time ago has been lent to the government and wasted.
"The bank" (says Smith, book ii. chap. 2.) "acts not only as an ordinary bank, but as a great engine of State; it receives and pays a greater part of the annuities which are due to the creditors of the public." (It is worth observing, that the public, or the nation, is always put for the government, in speaking of debts.) "It circulates" (says Smith) "exchequer bills, and it advances to government the annual amount of the land and malt taxes, which are frequently not paid till several years afterwards." (This advancement is also done in bank notes, for which there is not property in the bank.) "In those different operations" (says Smith) "its duty to the public may sometimes have obliged it, without any fault of its directors, to overstock the circulation with paper money."—bank notes. How its duty to the public can induce it to overstock that public with promissory bank notes which it cannot pay, and thereby expose the individuals of that public to ruin, is too paradoxical to be explained; for it is on the credit which individuals give to the bank, by receiving and circulating its notes, and not upon its own credit or its own property, for it has none, that the bank sports. If, however, it be the duty of the bank to expose the public to this hazard, it is at least equally the duty of the individuals of that public to get their money and take care of themselves; and leave it to placemen, pensioners, government contractors, Reeves' association, and the members of both houses of Parliament, who have voted away the money at the nod of the minister, to continue the credit if they can, and for which their estates individually and collectively ought to answer, as far as they will go.
"The bank" (says Smith, book ii. chap. 2.) "not only functions as an ordinary bank, but also as a major tool of the State; it handles and pays a large portion of the annuities owed to the creditors of the public." (It's important to note that the public, or the nation, typically refers to the government when discussing debts.) "It circulates" (says Smith) "exchequer bills and provides the government with the annual amount of land and malt taxes, which often aren't paid until several years later." (This funding is also given in bank notes, for which there’s no actual property in the bank.) "In these various operations" (says Smith) "its duty to the public may sometimes force it, without any fault of its directors, to overwhelm the circulation with paper money."—bank notes. How its duty to the public can lead it to flood that public with promissory bank notes that it cannot pay, thus putting the individuals of that public at risk, is too contradictory to explain; for it relies on the credit that individuals give to the bank by accepting and circulating its notes, rather than on its own credit or own assets, which it lacks. However, if it's the bank's duty to put the public at this risk, then it is equally the responsibility of those individuals to manage their money and protect themselves; and leave it to officeholders, pensioners, government contractors, Reeves' associations, and the members of both houses of Parliament, who have spent the money at the minister's command, to sustain the credit if they can, for which their properties individually and collectively should be held accountable, as far as they can be.
There has always existed, and still exists, a mysterious, suspicious connection, between the minister and the directors of the bank, and which explains itself no otherways than by a continual increase in bank notes. Without, therefore, entering into any further details of the various contrivances by which bank notes are issued, and thrown upon the public, I proceed, as I before mentioned, to offer an estimate on the total quantity of bank notes in circulation.
There has always been, and still is, a mysterious and questionable connection between the minister and the bank directors, which can only be explained by a constant increase in banknotes. Without going into more details about the different methods used to issue and circulate banknotes, I will provide, as I mentioned before, an estimate of the total amount of banknotes in circulation.
However disposed governments may be to wring money by taxes from the people, there is a limit to the practice established by the nature of things. That limit is the proportion between the quantity of money in a nation, be that quantity what it may, and the greatest quantity of taxes that can be raised upon it. People have other uses for money besides paying taxes; and it is only a proportional part of the money they can spare for taxes, as it is only a proportional part they can spare for house-rent, for clothing, or for any other particular use. These proportions find out and establish themselves; and that with such exactness, that if any one part exceeds its proportion, all the other parts feel it.
No matter how eager governments are to extract taxes from people, there’s a limit to how much they can do this, determined by the nature of things. That limit is based on the relationship between the total amount of money in a nation, regardless of what that amount is, and the maximum amount of taxes that can be collected from it. People have other uses for their money aside from paying taxes, and they can only allocate a certain portion of their money for taxes, just like they designate a portion for rent, clothing, or any other specific needs. These proportions emerge and establish themselves so precisely that if one area goes beyond its fair share, all other areas are affected.
Before the invention of paper money (bank notes,) there was no other money in the nation than gold and silver, and the greatest quantity of money that was ever raised in taxes during that period never exceeded a fourth part of the quantity of money in the nation. It was high taxing when it came to this point. The taxes in the time of William III. never reached to four millions before the invention of paper, and the quantity of money in the nation at that time was estimated to be about sixteen millions. The same proportions established themselves in France. There was no paper money in France before the present revolution, and the taxes were collected in gold and silver money. The highest quantity of taxes never exceeded twenty-two millions sterling; and the quantity of gold and silver money in the nation at the same time, as stated by M. Neckar, from returns of coinage at the Mint, in his Treatise on the Administration of the Finances, was about ninety millions sterling. To go beyond this limit of a fourth part, in England, they were obliged to introduce paper money; and the attempt to go beyond it in France, where paper could not be introduced, broke up the government. This proportion, therefore, of a fourth part, is the limit which the thing establishes for itself, be the quantity of money in a nation more or less.
Before paper money (bank notes) was invented, the only money in the nation was gold and silver. The highest amount of money raised in taxes during that time never exceeded a quarter of the total money in the nation. It was considered high taxation at that point. The taxes during the time of William III never reached four million before paper was introduced, while the total amount of money in the nation was around sixteen million. The same patterns appeared in France. There was no paper money in France before the current revolution, and taxes were collected in gold and silver. The maximum amount of taxes never went beyond twenty-two million sterling, while the total amount of gold and silver money in the nation at that time, according to M. Neckar from Mint coinage reports in his Treatise on the Administration of the Finances, was about ninety million sterling. To exceed this limit of a quarter in England, they had to introduce paper money; trying to exceed it in France, where paper couldn't be introduced, led to the government's collapse. Therefore, this limit of a quarter is the standard that establishes itself, regardless of whether the total amount of money in a nation is more or less.
The amount of taxes in England at this time is full twenty millions; and therefore the quantity of gold and silver, and of bank notes, taken together, amounts to eighty millions. The quantity of gold and silver, as stated by Lord Hawkes-bury's Secretary, George Chalmers, as I have before shown, is twenty millions; and, therefore, the total amount of bank notes in circulation, all made payable on demand, is sixty millions. This enormous sum will astonish the most stupid stock-jobber, and overpower the credulity of the most thoughtless Englishman: but were it only a third part of that sum, the bank cannot pay half a crown in the pound.
At this time, the total taxes in England are twenty million, which means that the combined amount of gold, silver, and bank notes is eighty million. According to George Chalmers, the Secretary to Lord Hawkesbury, as I’ve previously pointed out, the amount of gold and silver is twenty million. Therefore, the total value of bank notes in circulation, all of which are payable on demand, is sixty million. This huge sum would shock even the most clueless stock trader and challenge the beliefs of the most naive Englishman. However, even if it were only a third of that amount, the bank wouldn’t be able to pay half a crown for every pound.
There is something curious in the movements of this modern complicated machine, the funding system; and it is only now that it is beginning to unfold the full extent of its movements. In the first part of its movements it gives great powers into the hands of government, and in the last part it takes them completely away.
There’s something interesting about how this complex modern system works, the funding system; and it’s only now that it’s starting to reveal the full scope of its operations. In the initial phase, it gives significant power to the government, but in the final phase, it takes that power away completely.
The funding system set out with raising revenues under the name of loans, by means of which government became both prodigal and powerful. The loaners assumed the name of creditors, and though it was soon discovered that loaning was government-jobbing, those pretended loaners, or the persons who purchased into the funds afterwards, conceived themselves not only to be creditors, but to be the only creditors.
The funding system started with generating revenue through loans, which made the government both extravagant and strong. The lenders called themselves creditors, and even though it quickly became clear that lending was essentially a government job, those so-called lenders, or the people who bought into the funds later, believed they were not just creditors but the only creditors.
But such has been the operation of this complicated machine, the funding system, that it has produced, unperceived, a second generation of creditors, more numerous and far more formidable and withal more real than the first generation; for every holder of a bank note is a creditor, and a real creditor, and the debt due to him is made payable on demand. The debt therefore which the government owes to individuals is composed of two parts; the one about four hundred millions bearing interest, the other about sixty millions payable on demand. The one is called the funded debt, the other is the debt due in bank notes.
But this complicated funding system has secretly created a second generation of creditors, who are more numerous, much more powerful, and ultimately more significant than the first generation. Every banknote holder is a creditor—a real creditor—and the debt owed to them is payable upon request. Therefore, the government’s debt to individuals consists of two parts: around four hundred million dollars that accrues interest and approximately sixty million dollars that is payable on demand. The former is referred to as the funded debt, while the latter is the debt represented by banknotes.
The second debt (that contained in the bank notes) has, in a great measure, been incurred to pay the interest of the first debt; so that in fact little or no real interest has been paid by government. The whole has been delusion and fraud. Government first contracted a debt, in the form of loans, with one class of people, and then run clandestinely into debt with another class, by means of bank notes, to pay the interest. Government acted of itself in contracting the first debt, and made a machine of the bank to contract the second. It is this second debt that changes the seat of power and the order of things; for it puts it in the power of even a small part of the holders of bank notes (had they no other motives than disgust at Pitt and Grenville's sedition bills,) to control any measure of government they found to be injurious to their interest; and that not by popular meetings, or popular societies, but by the simple and easy opera-tion of withholding their credit from that government; that is, by individually demanding payment at the bank for every bank note that comes into their hands. Why should Pitt and Grenville expect that the very men whom they insult and injure, should, at the same time, continue to support the measures of Pitt and Grenville, by giving credit to their promissory notes of payment? No new emissions of bank notes could go on while payment was demanding on the old, and the cash in the bank wasting daily away; nor any new advances be made to government, or to the emperor, to carry on the war; nor any new emission be made on exchequer bills.
The second debt (the one in the bank notes) has mostly been taken on to pay the interest of the first debt; so, in reality, little to no genuine interest has been paid by the government. It’s all been a deception and fraud. The government initially took on a debt through loans with one group of people and then secretly incurred debt with another group by using bank notes to pay the interest. The government independently took on the first debt and created a system with the bank to take on the second. It’s this second debt that shifts the balance of power and changes everything; it allows even a small portion of bank note holders (if their only reason was their frustration with Pitt and Grenville's sedition bills) to influence any government actions they believe hurt their interests; and they can do this not through public gatherings or societies, but just by withholding their support from that government—meaning they can simply demand payment at the bank for every bank note they receive. Why should Pitt and Grenville think that the very people they insult and harm would continue to back their strategies by providing support for their promissory notes? No new bank notes could be issued while payments were being demanded on the old ones, with cash in the bank dwindling away each day; nor could any new loans be extended to the government or the emperor to sustain the war; nor could any new exchequer bills be issued.
"The bank" says Smith, (book ii. chap. 2) "is a great engine of state." And in the same paragraph he says, "The stability of the bank is equal to that of the British government;" which is the same as to say that the stability of the government is equal to that of the bank, and no more. If then the bank cannot pay, the arch-treasurer of the holy Roman empire (S. R. I. A.*) is a bankrupt. When Folly invented titles, she did not attend to their application; forever since the government of England has been in the hands of arch-treasurers, it has been running into bankruptcy; and as to the arch-treasurer apparent, he has been a bankrupt long ago. What a miserable prospect has England before its eyes!
"The bank," says Smith, (book ii. chap. 2) "is a powerful tool of the state." And in the same paragraph he states, "The stability of the bank is equal to that of the British government;" which means that the stability of the government is just as strong as that of the bank, and nothing more. If the bank cannot pay, then the arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire (S. R. I. A.*) is bankrupt. When Folly created titles, she didn't consider how they would be used; ever since the government of England has been managed by arch-treasurers, it has continually faced bankruptcy; and as for the arch-treasurer apparent, he has been a bankrupt long ago. What a grim outlook England has ahead!
* Put of the inscription on an English guinea.—Author.
Before the war of 1755 there were no bank notes lower than twenty pounds. During that war, bank notes of fifteen pounds and of ten pounds were coined; and now, since the commencement of the present war, they are coined as low as five pounds. These five-pound notes will circulate chiefly among little shop-keepers, butchers, bakers, market-people, renters of small houses, lodgers, &c. All the high departments of commerce and the affluent stations of life were already overstocked, as Smith expresses it, with the bank notes. No place remained open wherein to crowd an additional quantity of bank notes but among the class of people I have just mentioned, and the means of doing this could be best effected by coining five-pound notes. This conduct has the appearance of that of an unprincipled insolvent, who, when on the verge of bankruptcy to the amount of many thousands, will borrow as low as five pounds of the servants in his house, and break the next day.
Before the war of 1755, there were no banknotes lower than twenty pounds. During that war, banknotes of fifteen pounds and ten pounds were introduced, and now, since the beginning of the current war, they are issued as low as five pounds. These five-pound notes will mainly be used by small shopkeepers, butchers, bakers, market vendors, renters of small houses, lodgers, etc. All the major sectors of business and wealthy positions were already overstocked with banknotes, as Smith puts it. There was no place left to put more banknotes except among the group of people I just mentioned, and the best way to achieve this was by issuing five-pound notes. This behavior resembles that of a dishonest bankrupt who, when about to go broke for thousands, will borrow as little as five pounds from the staff in his home, only to declare bankruptcy the very next day.
But whatever momentary relief or aid the minister and his bank might expect from this low contrivance of five-pound notes, it will increase the inability of the bank to pay the higher notes, and hasten the destruction of all; for even the small taxes that used to be paid in money will now be paid in those notes, and the bank will soon find itself with scarcely any other money than what the hair-powder guinea-tax brings in.
But whatever temporary relief or help the minister and his bank might hope for from this clever trick of five-pound notes, it will only make the bank less able to pay the larger notes and speed up the downfall of everything; because even the small taxes that used to be paid in cash will now be paid with those notes, and the bank will soon discover that it has hardly any money left aside from what the hair-powder guinea tax brings in.
The bank notes make the most serious part of the business of finance: what is called the national funded debt is but a trifle when put in comparison with it; yet the case of the bank notes has never been touched upon. But it certainly ought to be known upon what authority, whether that of the minister or of the directors, and upon what foundation, such immense quantities are issued. I have stated the amount of them at sixty millions; I have produced data for that estimation; and besides this, the apparent quantity of them, far beyond that of gold and silver in the nation, corroborates the statement. But were there but a third part of sixty millions, the bank cannot pay half a crown in the pound; for no new supply of money, as before said, can arrive at the bank, as all the taxes will be paid in paper.
The banknotes are the most important aspect of finance: the national debt is just a small matter in comparison; yet the situation with the banknotes has never been addressed. It should definitely be understood on what authority, whether from the minister or the directors, and on what basis such large amounts are issued. I've noted the total at sixty million; I've provided evidence for that estimate, and in addition, the visible quantity of these notes, which far exceeds the amount of gold and silver in the country, supports the claim. But even if there were just a third of sixty million, the bank wouldn't be able to pay even half a crown for every pound; as previously mentioned, no new money can come into the bank since all taxes will be paid in paper currency.
When the funding system began, it was not doubted that the loans that had been borrowed would be repaid. Government not only propagated that belief, but it began paying them off. In time this profession came to be abandoned: and it is not difficult to see that bank notes will march the same way; for the amount of them is only another debt under another name; and the probability is that Mr. Pitt will at last propose funding them. In that case bank notes will not be so valuable as French assignats. The assignats have a solid property in reserve, in the national domains; bank notes have none; and, besides this, the English revenue must then sink down to what the amount of it was before the funding system began—between three and four millions; one of which the arch-treasurer would require for himself, and the arch-treasurer apparent would require three-quarters of a million more to pay his debts. "In France," says Sterne, "they order these things better."
When the funding system started, everyone believed that the loans borrowed would be paid back. The government not only encouraged that belief but also began paying them off. Eventually, this commitment was dropped: and it's easy to see that banknotes will follow the same path; the total of them is just another debt with a different label; and it's likely that Mr. Pitt will eventually suggest funding them. In that case, banknotes won’t be as valuable as French assignats. The assignats have tangible assets backing them, in national lands; banknotes have none; and on top of that, the English revenue would likely drop back to what it was before the funding system started—between three and four million; one million of which the arch-treasurer would need for himself, and the arch-treasurer apparent would need another three-quarters of a million to settle his debts. "In France,” says Sterne, "they order these things better."
I have now exposed the English system of finance to the eyes of all nations; for this work will be published in all languages. In doing this, I have done an act of justice to those numerous citizens of neutral nations who have been imposed upon by that fraudulent system, and who have property at stake upon the event.
I have now revealed the English financial system to all nations since this work will be published in every language. By doing this, I have served justice to the many citizens of neutral countries who have been deceived by that dishonest system and who have their property at risk depending on the outcome.
As an individual citizen of America, and as far as an individual can go, I have revenged (if I may use the expression without any immoral meaning) the piratical depredations committed on the American commerce by the English government. I have retaliated for France on the subject of finance: and I conclude with retorting on Mr. Pitt the expression he used against France, and say, that the English system of finance "is on the verge, nay even in the
As a citizen of America, and as far as one person can go, I have taken my revenge (if I can use that term without any immoral implication) for the piracy inflicted on American trade by the English government. I have responded for France regarding financial matters: and I conclude by throwing back at Mr. Pitt the remark he made about France, saying that the English financial system "is on the verge, nay even in the
GULPH OF BANKRUPTCY."
BANKRUPTCY GAP.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
PARIS, 19th Germinal. 4th year of the Republic, April 8, 1796.
PARIS, 19th Germinal. 4th year of the Republic, April 8, 1796.
XXVII. FORGETFULNESS.(1)
1 This untitled piece, which is quite interesting from a biographical perspective, was shown to Henry Redhead Yorke by Paine during his visit to Paris in 1802, where he was allowed to copy the only parts that are still preserved today. In the last of Yorke's *Letters from France* (London, 1814), thirty-three pages are dedicated to Paine. Writing under the title "Little Corner of the World," Lady Smyth sent uplifting letters to Paine while he was in prison, and he responded to his then-unknown correspondent using the name "The Castle in the Air." After his release, he found out that his correspondent was a woman who had reached out to him for help, likely on behalf of her husband. Paine developed a close friendship with Sir Robert (an English banker in Paris) and Lady Smyth that lasted throughout his life. Sir Robert was born in 1744 and married Miss Blake from Hanover Square, London, in 1776. He passed away in 1802 due to health issues caused by his imprisonment under Napoleon. Several of Paine's poems were written for Lady Smyth.—Editor.
FROM "THE CASTLE IN THE AIR," TO THE "LITTLE CORNER OF THE WORLD."
FROM "THE CASTLE IN THE AIR" TO "A SMALL CORNER OF THE WORLD."
Memory, like a beauty that is always present to hear her-self flattered, is flattered by every one. But the absent and silent goddess, Forgetfulness, has no votaries, and is never thought of: yet we owe her much. She is the goddess of ease, though not of pleasure.
Memory, like a beauty who always enjoys hearing compliments, is praised by everyone. But the absent and silent goddess, Forgetfulness, has no followers and is never considered: yet we owe her a lot. She is the goddess of comfort, though not of enjoyment.
When the mind is like a room hung with black, and every corner of it crowded with the most horrid images imagination can create, this kind speechless goddess of a maid, Forgetfulness, is following us night and day with her opium wand, and gently touching first one, and then another, benumbs them into rest, and at last glides them away with the silence of a departing shadow. It is thus the tortured mind is restored to the calm condition of ease, and fitted for happiness.
When the mind feels like a dark room filled with the most terrible images our imagination can conjure, the quiet goddess of Forgetfulness is with us day and night, using her opium wand to gently touch one thought after another, soothing them into calmness, and eventually taking them away like a fading shadow. This is how a tormented mind finds its way back to a peaceful state, ready for happiness.
How dismal must the picture of life appear to the mind in that dreadful moment when it resolves on darkness, and to die! One can scarcely believe such a choice was possible. Yet how many of the young and beautiful, timid in every thing else, and formed for delight, have shut their eyes upon the world, and made the waters their sepulchral bed! Ah, would they in that crisis, when life and death are before them, and each within their reach, would they but think, or try to think, that Forgetfulness will come to their relief, and lull them into ease, they could stay their hand, and lay hold of life. But there is a necromancy in wretchedness that entombs the mind, and increases the misery, by shutting out every ray of light and hope. It makes the wretched falsely believe they will be wretched ever. It is the most fatal of all dangerous delusions; and it is only when this necromantic night-mare of the mind begins to vanish, by being resisted, that it is discovered to be but a tyrannic spectre. All grief, like all things else, will yield to the obliterating power of time. While despair is preying on the mind, time and its effects are preying on despair; and certain it is, the dismal vision will fade away, and Forgetfulness, with her sister Ease, will change the scene. Then let not the wretched be rash, but wait, painful as the struggle may be, the arrival of Forgetfulness; for it will certainly arrive.
How bleak must life seem to someone in that terrible moment when they choose darkness and death! It’s hard to believe anyone would make such a choice. Yet how many young and beautiful people, hesitant about everything else and meant for joy, have closed their eyes to the world and made the water their grave! If only, at that moment when life and death are right in front of them, they would think or even try to think that Forgetfulness could come to their aid and bring them comfort, they might pause and choose life instead. However, there’s a dark magic in suffering that locks away the mind and deepens the pain by blocking out any light or hope. It leads the suffering to wrongly believe they will always be in misery. This is the deadliest of all deceptive beliefs; it’s only when this nightmare of the mind starts to fade—by being resisted—that it becomes clear it’s just a cruel illusion. All sorrow, like everything else, will eventually yield to the erasing power of time. While despair eats away at the mind, time and its effects are slowly chipping away at despair; and it’s certain that the bleak vision will fade, and Forgetfulness, alongside her companion Ease, will change the scene. So let those in pain not be hasty, but wait, no matter how hard the struggle may be, for the arrival of Forgetfulness; it will surely come.
I have twice been present at the scene of attempted suicide. The one a love-distracted girl in England, the other of a patriotic friend in France; and as the circumstances of each are strongly pictured in my memory, I will relate them to you. They will in some measure corroborate what I have said of Forgetfulness.
I have been present at two attempted suicides. One involved a love-sick girl in England, and the other was my patriotic friend in France. The details of each situation are vividly etched in my memory, so I will share them with you. They will somewhat support what I've said about Forgetfulness.
About the year 1766, I was in Lincolnshire, in England, and on a visit at the house of a widow lady, Mrs. E____, at a small village in the fens of that county. It was in summer; and one evening after supper, Mrs. E____ and myself went to take a turn in the garden. It was about eleven o'clock, and to avoid the night air of the fens, we were walking in a bower, shaded over with hazel bushes. On a sudden, she screamed out, and cried "Lord, look, look!" I cast my eyes through the openings of the hazel bushes in the direction she was looking, and saw a white shapeless figure, without head or arms, moving along one of the walks at some distance from us. I quitted Mrs. E______, and went after it. When I got into the walk where the figure was, and was following it, it took up another walk. There was a holly bush in the corner of the two walks, which, it being night, I did not observe; and as I continued to step forward, the holly bush came in a straight line between me and the figure, and I lost sight of it; and as I passed along one walk, and the figure the other, the holly bush still continued to intercept the view, so as to give the appearance that the figure had vanished. When I came to the corner of the two walks, I caught sight of it again, and coming up with it, I reached out my hand to touch it; and in the act of doing this, the idea struck me, will my hand pass through the air, or shall I feel any thing? Less than a moment would decide this, and my hand rested on the shoulder of a human figure. I spoke, but do not recollect what I said. It answered in a low voice, "Pray let me alone." I then knew who it was. It was a young lady who was on a visit to Mrs. E———, and who, when we sat down to supper, said she found herself extremely ill, and would go to bed. I called to Mrs. E———, who came, and I said to her, "It is Miss N———." Mrs. E——— said, "My God, I hope you are not going to do yourself any hurt;" for Mrs. E——— suspected something. She replied with pathetic melancholy, "Life has not one pleasure for me." We got her into the house, and Mrs. E——— took her to sleep with her.
Around 1766, I was in Lincolnshire, England, visiting a widow named Mrs. E____ in a small village in the fenlands. It was summer, and one evening after dinner, Mrs. E____ and I went for a walk in the garden. It was about eleven o'clock, and to avoid the cool night air from the fens, we walked under a bower shaded by hazel bushes. Suddenly, she screamed and shouted, "Lord, look, look!" I glanced through the openings in the hazel bushes in the direction she was pointing and saw a white, formless figure, without a head or arms, moving along one of the paths at a distance. I left Mrs. E_____ and followed it. As I entered the path where the figure was and attempted to follow it, it moved onto another path. There was a holly bush at the corner of the two paths, which I didn’t notice in the dark, and as I stepped forward, the holly bush came directly between me and the figure, causing me to lose sight of it. As I moved down one path and the figure down the other, the holly bush continued to block my view, making it seem like the figure had vanished. When I reached the corner of the two paths, I caught sight of it again, and getting closer, I reached out to touch it. Just as I was about to do this, I wondered whether my hand would pass through the air or if I would feel something. Less than a moment later, my hand rested on the shoulder of a human figure. I spoke, but I can’t remember what I said. It replied in a low voice, "Please let me be." In that moment, I recognized her. It was a young lady visiting Mrs. E———, who had said during dinner that she felt very ill and would go to bed. I called for Mrs. E———, who came over, and I told her, "It’s Miss N———." Mrs. E——— replied, "My God, I hope you’re not going to hurt yourself,” as she suspected something was wrong. Miss N——— responded with a deep sadness, “Life has no pleasure for me.” We got her inside, and Mrs. E——— took her to sleep with her.
The case was, the man to whom she expected to be married had forsaken her, and when she heard he was to be married to another the shock appeared to her to be too great to be borne. She had retired, as I have said, to her room, and when she supposed all the family were gone to bed, (which would have been the case if Mrs. E——— and I had not walked into the garden,) she undressed herself, and tied her apron over her head; which, descending below her waist, gave her the shapeless figure I have spoken of. With this and a white under petticoat and slippers, for she had taken out her buckles and put them at the servant maid's door, I suppose as a keepsake, and aided by the obscurity of almost midnight, she came down stairs, and was going to drown her-self in a pond at the bottom of the garden, towards which she was going when Mrs. E———screamed out. We found afterwards that she had heard the scream, and that was the cause of her changing her walk.
The situation was that the man she expected to marry had abandoned her, and when she found out he was going to marry someone else, the shock was almost too much for her to handle. As I mentioned, she had gone to her room, and when she thought the whole family was asleep (which would have been true if Mrs. E——— and I hadn’t walked into the garden), she took off her clothes and put her apron over her head; it hung down below her waist, giving her the shapeless figure I described. Dressed like this, in a white underskirt and slippers—since she had removed her buckles and placed them at the servant girl’s door as a keepsake—and with the darkness of nearly midnight helping her, she went downstairs, intending to drown herself in a pond at the end of the garden, which was where she was headed when Mrs. E——— screamed out. We later learned that she heard the scream, and that changed her course.
By gentle usage, and leading her into subjects that might, without doing violence to her feelings, and without letting her see the direct intention of it, steal her as it were from the horror she was in, (and I felt a compassionate, earnest disposition to do it, for she was a good girl,) she recovered her former cheerfulness, and was afterwards a happy wife, and the mother of a family.
By gently engaging her in topics that could, without hurting her feelings and without revealing the true intention, distract her from the distress she was experiencing, I felt a genuine, compassionate urge to help her, since she was a good person. She regained her previous happiness and eventually became a joyful wife and mother.
The other case, and the conclusion in my next: In Paris, in 1793, had lodgings in the Rue Fauxbourg, St. Denis, No. 63.(1) They were the most agreeable, for situation, of any I ever had in Paris, except that they were too remote from the Convention, of which I was then a member. But this was recompensed by their being also remote from the alarms and confusion into which the interior of Paris was then often thrown. The news of those things used to arrive to us, as if we were in a state of tranquility in the country. The house, which was enclosed by a wall and gateway from the street, was a good deal like an old mansion farm house, and the court yard was like a farm-yard, stocked with fowls, ducks, turkies, and geese; which, for amusement, we used to feed out of the parlour window on the ground floor. There were some hutches for rabbits, and a sty with two pigs. Beyond, was a garden of more than an acre of ground, well laid out, and stocked with excellent fruit trees. The orange, apricot, and green-gage plum, were the best I ever tasted; and it is the only place where I saw the wild cucumber. The place had formerly been occupied by some curious person.(2)
The other case, and the conclusion in my next: In Paris, in 1793, I had an apartment in Rue Fauxbourg, St. Denis, No. 63.(1) It was the most pleasant place I ever stayed in Paris, except that it was too far from the Convention, of which I was a member at the time. However, this was balanced out by its distance from the chaos and disturbances that often filled central Paris back then. We received news of those events as if we were in a peaceful countryside. The house, surrounded by a wall and a gateway, resembled an old mansion farmstead, and the yard looked like a farmyard with chickens, ducks, turkeys, and geese that we fed for fun from the parlour window on the ground floor. There were rabbit hutches and a pig pen with two pigs. Beyond that was a well-designed garden of over an acre, filled with great fruit trees. The oranges, apricots, and green-gage plums were the best I’ve ever tasted, and it was the only place where I saw wild cucumbers. The place had once been home to a rather curious person.(2)
1 This old mansion is still standing (1895).—Editor. 2 Madame de Pompadour, among others.—Editor.;
My apartments consisted of three rooms; the first for wood, water, etc., with an old fashioned closet chest, high enough to hang up clothes in; the next was the bed room; and beyond it the sitting room, which looked into the garden through a glass door; and on the outside there was a small landing place railed in, and a flight of narrow stairs almost hidden by the vines that grew over it, by which I could descend into the garden, without going down stairs through the house. I am trying by description to make you see the place in your mind, because it will assist the story I have to tell; and which I think you can do, because you once called upon me there on account of Sir [Robert Smyth], who was then, as I was soon afterwards, in arrestation. But it was winter when you came, and it is a summer scene I am describing.
My apartment had three rooms: the first was for wood, water, and other supplies, with an old-fashioned closet tall enough to hang clothes; the second was the bedroom; and beyond that was the sitting room, which overlooked the garden through a glass door. Outside, there was a small railed landing and a narrow staircase, almost hidden by the vines that grew over it, which led down into the garden without having to go through the house. I'm trying to paint a picture of the place for you because it will help with the story I want to tell. I think you can visualize it since you once visited me there regarding Sir [Robert Smyth], who was then, like I soon would be, under arrest. But when you came, it was winter, and I’m describing a summer scene.
I went into my chambers to write and sign a certificate for them, which I intended to take to the guard house to obtain their release. Just as I had finished it a man came into my room dressed in the Parisian uniform of a captain, and spoke to me in good English, and with a good address. He told me that two young men, Englishmen, were arrested and detained in the guard house, and that the section, (meaning those who represented and acted for the section,) had sent him to ask me if I knew them, in which case they would be liberated. This matter being soon settled between us, he talked to me about the Revolution, and something about the "Rights of Man," which he had read in English; and at parting offered me in a polite and civil manner, his services. And who do you think the man was that offered me his services? It was no other than the public executioner Samson, who guillotined the king, and all who were guillotined in Paris; and who lived in the same section, and in the same street with me.
I went into my room to write and sign a certificate for them, which I planned to take to the guardhouse to secure their release. Just as I finished it, a man walked into my space wearing the Parisian uniform of a captain, and he spoke to me in fluent English, with a confident demeanor. He told me that two young men, who were English, had been arrested and were being held in the guardhouse, and that the local officials had sent him to ask if I knew them; if I did, they would be released. Once we cleared that up, he chatted with me about the Revolution and mentioned the "Rights of Man," which he had read about in English; then, as we parted, he courteously offered his assistance. And guess who the man was that offered me his help? It was none other than the public executioner Samson, who had beheaded the king and all those executed in Paris; he lived in the same district and on the same street as I did.
As to myself, I used to find some relief by walking alone in the garden after dark, and cursing with hearty good will the authors of that terrible system that had turned the character of the Revolution I had been proud to defend.
As for me, I used to find some relief by walking alone in the garden after dark and venting my frustration with strong dislike towards the creators of that awful system that had changed the nature of the Revolution I had been proud to defend.
I went but little to the Convention, and then only to make my appearance; because I found it impossible to join in their tremendous decrees, and useless and dangerous to oppose them. My having voted and spoken extensively, more so than any other member, against the execution of the king, had already fixed a mark upon me: neither dared any of my associates in the Convention to translate and speak in French for me anything I might have dared to have written.
I attended the Convention briefly, just to show my face; I realized it was impossible to support their extreme decisions, and it was useless and risky to go against them. Since I had already voted and spoken extensively, more than any other member, against the king's execution, I had already become a target. None of my fellow members in the Convention were willing to translate or speak in French for me anything I might have had the courage to write.
Pen and ink were then of no use to me: no good could be done by writing, and no printer dared to print; and whatever I might have written for my private amusement, as anecdotes of the times, would have been continually exposed to be examined, and tortured into any meaning that the rage of party might fix upon it; and as to softer subjects, my heart was in distress at the fate of my friends, and my harp hung upon the weeping willows.(1)
Pen and ink were useless to me at that point: writing wouldn't achieve anything, and no printer would take the risk of publishing anything; anything I might have written for my own enjoyment, like stories of the times, would constantly be scrutinized and twisted into whatever meaning the anger of the party wanted to impose; and when it came to more personal subjects, I was heartbroken over the fate of my friends, and my harp hung on the weeping willows.
As it was summer we spent most of our time in the garden, and passed it away in those childish amusements that serve to keep reflection from the mind, such as marbles, scotch-hops, battledores, etc., at which we were all pretty expert.
As it was summer, we spent most of our time in the garden, enjoying those childish games that distract us from thinking too much, like marbles, scotch-hops, battledores, and so on, at which we were all pretty skilled.
In this retired manner we remained about six or seven weeks, and our landlord went every evening into the city to bring us the news of the day and the evening journal.
In this quiet way, we stayed for about six or seven weeks, and our landlord went into the city every evening to bring us the news of the day and the evening paper.
I have now, my "Little Corner of the World," led you on, step by step, to the scene that makes the sequel to this narrative, and I will put that scene before your eyes. You shall see it in description as I saw it in fact.
I have now, in my "Little Corner of the World," guided you, step by step, to the scene that continues this story, and I will present that scene for you. You'll see it described just as I experienced it in reality.
1 This reference is to the Girondins.—Editor., 2 Yorke leaves out the phrase "for reasons of personal sensitivity." The situation involved young Johnson, a wealthy follower of Paine in London, who had moved to Paris and lived in the same house as him. Upon hearing that Marat planned to have Paine killed, Johnson wrote a will leaving his assets to Paine, then attempted suicide by stabbing himself, but he survived. Paine was questioned about this event during Marat's trial. (Moniteur, April 24, 1793.) See my "Life of Paine," vol. ii., p. 48 seq.—Editor..
He recovered, and being anxious to get out of France, a passage was obtained for him and Mr. Choppin: they received it late in the evening, and set off the next morning for Basle before four, from which place I had a letter from them, highly pleased with their escape from France, into which they had entered with an enthusiasm of patriotic devotion. Ah, France! thou hast ruined the character of a Revolution virtuously begun, and destroyed those who produced it. I might almost say like Job's servant, "and I only am escaped."
He recovered, and eager to leave France, a ticket was arranged for him and Mr. Choppin. They received it late in the evening and left the next morning for Basle before four. From there, I got a letter from them, expressing their relief at escaping France, where they had entered with a passionate sense of patriotism. Ah, France! You have tarnished the reputation of a Revolution that was begun with good intentions and ruined those who brought it about. I could almost say like Job's servant, "and I alone have escaped."
Two days after they were gone I heard a rapping at the gate, and looking out of the window of the bed room I saw the landlord going with the candle to the gate, which he opened, and a guard with musquets and fixed bayonets entered. I went to bed again, and made up my mind for prison, for I was then the only lodger. It was a guard to take up [Johnson and Choppin], but, I thank God, they were out of their reach.
Two days after they left, I heard a knocking at the gate. I looked out the bedroom window and saw the landlord walking with a candle to the gate. He opened it, and a guard with muskets and fixed bayonets came in. I went back to bed and braced myself for prison since I was the only lodger at that time. They were there to take up [Johnson and Choppin], but, thank God, they were beyond their grasp.
The guard came about a month after in the night, and took away the landlord Georgeit; and the scene in the house finished with the arrestation of myself. This was soon after you called on me, and sorry I was it was not in my power to render to [Sir Robert Smyth] the service that you asked.
The guard showed up about a month later at night and took away the landlord Georgeit, and the situation in the house ended with my arrest. This happened shortly after you visited me, and I was really sorry that I couldn’t help [Sir Robert Smyth] in the way you requested.
I have now fulfilled my engagement, and I hope your expectation, in relating the case of [Johnson], landed back on the shore of life, by the mistake of the pilot who was conducting him out; and preserved afterwards from prison, perhaps a worse fate, without knowing it himself.
I have now completed my commitment, and I hope I’ve met your expectations, by sharing the story of [Johnson], who returned to the shore of life due to the pilot's mistake while taking him out; and later saved from prison, perhaps an even worse fate, without even realizing it.
You say a story cannot be too melancholy for you. This is interesting and affecting, but not melancholy. It may raise in your mind a sympathetic sentiment in reading it; and though it may start a tear of pity, you will not have a tear of sorrow to drop on the page.
You say a story can't be too depressing for you. That's interesting and moving, but not actually depressing. It might evoke a feeling of sympathy while you're reading it; and even if it brings a tear of pity to your eye, you won’t shed a tear of sadness onto the page.
Here, my contemplative correspondent, let us stop and look back upon the scene. The matters here related being all facts, are strongly pictured in my mind, and in this sense Forgetfulness does not apply. But facts and feelings are distinct things, and it is against feelings that the opium wand of Forgetfulness draws us into ease. Look back on any scene or subject that once gave you distress, for all of us have felt some, and you will find, that though the remembrance of the fact is not extinct in your memory, the feeling is extinct in your mind. You can remember when you had felt distress, but you cannot feel that distress again, and perhaps will wonder you felt it then. It is like a shadow that loses itself by light.
Here, my thoughtful friend, let’s pause and reflect on the scene. The events I’m about to describe are all real and vivid in my mind, so in that way, Forgetfulness doesn’t apply. But facts and feelings are different, and it’s feelings that the opium wand of Forgetfulness lulls us into a state of ease. Think back on any situation or topic that once troubled you, because we’ve all experienced that, and you’ll see that while the memory of what happened remains, the feeling is gone from your mind. You can recall when you felt distress, but you can’t feel that distress again, and you might even wonder why you felt it in the first place. It’s like a shadow that disappears in the light.
It is often difficult to know what is a misfortune: that which we feel as a great one today, may be the means of turning aside our steps into some new path that leads to happiness yet unknown. In tracing the scenes of my own life, I can discover that the condition I now enjoy, which is sweet to me, and will be more so when I get to America, except by the loss of your society, has been produced, in the first instance, in my being disappointed in former projects. Under that impenetrable veil, futurity, we know not what is concealed, and the day to arrive is hidden from us. Turning then our thoughts to those cases of despair that lead to suicide, when, "the mind," as you say, "neither sees nor hears, and holds counsel only with itself; when the very idea of consolation would add to the torture, and self-destruction is its only aim," what, it may be asked, is the best advice, what the best relief? I answer, seek it not in reason, for the mind is at war with reason, and to reason against feelings is as vain as to reason against fire: it serves only to torture the torture, by adding reproach to horror. All reasoning with ourselves in such cases acts upon us like the reason of another person, which, however kindly done, serves but to insult the misery we suffer. If reason could remove the pain, reason would have prevented it. If she could not do the one, how is she to perform the other? In all such cases we must look upon Reason as dispossessed of her empire, by a revolt of the mind. She retires herself to a distance to weep, and the ebony sceptre of Despair rules alone. All that Reason can do is to suggest, to hint a thought, to signify a wish, to cast now and then a kind of bewailing look, to hold up, when she can catch the eye, the miniature-shaded portrait of Hope; and though dethroned, and can dictate no more, to wait upon us in the humble station of a handmaid.
It’s often hard to know what truly counts as misfortune: what feels like a huge setback today might just be the push we need to take a different route that could lead us to unknown happiness. Looking back at my own life, I see that my current situation, which brings me joy and will bring even more once I reach America—except for the loss of your company—was first shaped by disappointments in past plans. Behind that impenetrable curtain of the future, we have no clue what’s hiding, and tomorrow remains a mystery. So when we think about those moments of despair that push someone toward suicide, when "the mind," as you put it, "neither sees nor hears, and only talks to itself; when even the thought of comfort adds to the pain, and self-destruction becomes the only goal," we might wonder what the best advice or relief might be. I say, don’t look for it in reason, because the mind is at odds with reason, and trying to reason with feelings is as pointless as reasoning with fire: it just intensifies our suffering by adding shame to horror. All the reasoning we do in such situations feels as dismissive as the reasoning of others, which, no matter how kindly intended, only serves to belittle our misery. If reason could take away pain, it would have already prevented it. If it can’t do one, how can it do the other? In these moments, we must see Reason as having lost her power, overthrown by the mind's rebellion. She pulls away to weep, while the dark scepter of Despair rules alone. All Reason can do is suggest, hint at thoughts, express wishes, occasionally show a mournful glance, and when she can catch our eye, hold up a small, shaded picture of Hope; and even though she has been dethroned and cannot command anymore, she waits on us in the modest role of a servant.
XXVIII. AGRARIAN JUSTICE.
Editor's introduction:
This pamphlet appeared first in Paris, 1797, with the title: "Thomas Payne ` La Ligislature et au Directoire. Ou la Justice Agraire opposie ` la Loi Agraire, et aux privilhges agraires. Prix 15 sols. @ Paris, chez la citoyenne Ragouleau, prhs le Thibtre de la Ripublique, No. 229. Et chez les Marchands de Nouveautis." A prefatory note says (translated): "The sudden departure of Thomas Paine has pre-vented his supervising the translation of this work, to which he attached great value. He entrusted it to a friend. It is for the reader to decide whether the scheme here set forth is worthy of the publicity given it." (Paine had gone to Havre early in May with the Monroes, intending to accompany them to America, but, rightly suspecting plans for his capture by an English cruiser, returned to Paris.) In the same year the pamphlet was printed in English, by W. Adlard in Paris, and in London for "T. Williams, No. 8 Little Turnstile, Holborn." Paine's preface to the London edition contained some sentences which the publishers, as will be seen, suppressed under asterisks, and two sentences were omitted from the pamphlet which I have supplied from the French. The English title adds a brief resume of Paine's scheme to the caption—"Agrarian Justice opposed to Agrarian Law, and to Agrarian Monopoly." The work was written in the winter of 1795-6, when Paine was still an invalid in Monroe's house, though not published until 1797.
This pamphlet was first published in Paris in 1797, under the title: "Thomas Paine ` La Législature et au Directoire. Ou la Justice Agraire opposée ` à la Loi Agraire, et aux privilèges agraires. Price 15 sols. @ Paris, chez la citoyenne Ragouleau, près le Théâtre de la République, No. 229. And at the Merchants of Novelties." A note at the beginning states (translated): "The sudden departure of Thomas Paine prevented him from overseeing the translation of this work, which he valued highly. He entrusted it to a friend. It is up to the reader to decide if the scheme presented here deserves the attention it has received." (Paine had gone to Havre in early May with the Monroes, planning to accompany them to America, but, correctly suspecting plans for his capture by an English ship, he returned to Paris.) In the same year, the pamphlet was printed in English by W. Adlard in Paris, and in London for "T. Williams, No. 8 Little Turnstile, Holborn." Paine's preface to the London edition included some sentences that the publishers, as will be shown, omitted with asterisks, and two sentences were left out of the pamphlet that I have added from the French. The English title includes a brief summary of Paine's plan in the subtitle—"Agrarian Justice opposed to Agrarian Law, and to Agrarian Monopoly." The work was written in the winter of 1795-1796, while Paine was still recovering at Monroe's house, although it wasn't published until 1797.
The prefatory Letter to the Legislature and the Directory, now for the first time printed in English, is of much historical interest, and shows the title of the pamphlet related to the rise of Socialism in France. The leader of that move-ment, Frangois Noel Babeuf, a frantic and pathetic figure of the time, had just been executed. He had named himself "Gracchus," and called his journal "Tribune du Peuple," in homage to the Roman Tribune, Caius Gracchus, the original socialist and agrarian, whose fate (suicide of himself and his servant) Babeuf and his disciple Darthi invoked in prison, whence they were carried bleeding to the guillotine. This, however, was on account of the conspiracy they had formed, with the remains of the Robespierrian party and some disguised royalists, to overthrow the government. The socialistic propaganda of Babeuf, however, prevailed over all other elements of the conspiracy: the reactionary features of the Constitution, especially the property qualification of suffrage of whose effects Paine had warned the Convention in the speech printed in this volume, (chapter xxv.) and the poverty which survived a revolution that promised its abolition, had excited wide discontent. The "Babouvists" numbered as many as 17,000 in Paris. Babeuf and Lepelletier were appointed by the secret council of this fraternity (which took the name of "Equals") a "Directory of Public Safety." May 11, 1796, was fixed for seizing on the government, and Babeuf had prepared his Proclamation of the socialistic millennium. But the plot was discovered, May 10th, the leaders arrested, and, after a year's delay, two of them executed,—the best-hearted men in the movement, Babeuf and Darthi. Paine too had been moved by the cry for "Bread, and the Constitution of '93 "; and it is a notable coincidence that in that winter of 1795-6, while the socialists were secretly plotting to seize the kingdom of heaven by violence, Paine was devising his plan of relief by taxing inheritances of land, anticipating by a hundred years the English budget of Sir William Harcourt. Babeuf having failed in his socialist, and Pichegru in his royalist, plot, their blows were yet fatal: there still remained in the hearts of millions a Babeuf or a Pichegru awaiting the chieftain strong enough to combine them, as Napoleon presently did, making all the nation "Igaux" as parts of a mighty military engine, and satisfying the royalist triflers with the pomp and glory of war.
The introductory letter to the Legislature and the Directory, now published in English for the first time, is historically significant and highlights the pamphlet's connection to the rise of Socialism in France. The leader of that movement, François Noël Babeuf, an intense and tragic figure of the era, had just been executed. He referred to himself as "Gracchus" and named his journal "Tribune du Peuple," in tribute to the Roman Tribune, Caius Gracchus, the original socialist and agrarian, whose fate (suicide alongside his servant) Babeuf and his disciple Darthé referenced in prison, where they were taken, wounded, to the guillotine. This was due to the conspiracy they had formed with the remnants of the Robespierre faction and some undercover royalists to overthrow the government. However, Babeuf's socialist propaganda overshadowed all other elements of the conspiracy: the reactionary aspects of the Constitution, especially the property requirement for voting, which Paine had warned the Convention about in the speech included in this volume (chapter xxv.), and the poverty that persisted after a revolution promising to eliminate it had stirred widespread discontent. The "Babouvists" had as many as 17,000 members in Paris. Babeuf and Lepelletier were appointed by the secret council of this group (which called itself "Equals") as a "Directory of Public Safety." May 11, 1796, was set for the takeover of the government, and Babeuf had drafted his Proclamation of the socialist millennium. But the plan was uncovered on May 10th, the leaders were arrested, and after a year's delay, two of them were executed—the most compassionate figures in the movement, Babeuf and Darthé. Paine, too, had been inspired by the demand for "Bread and the Constitution of '93"; and it is a noteworthy coincidence that during the winter of 1795-96, while the socialists were secretly plotting to seize control violently, Paine was developing his plan for relief through taxing land inheritances, predicting a century ahead the English budget of Sir William Harcourt. Babeuf's attempt at socialism, as well as Pichegru's royalist plot, ultimately failed, but their influence lingered: countless people still held a Babeuf or a Pichegru in their hearts, waiting for a leader strong enough to unite them, just as Napoleon would later do, transforming the entire nation into "Igaux" as components of a powerful military force, and satisfying the royalist trivializers with the spectacle and glory of war.
AUTHOR'S INSCRIPTION.
Author's Note.
To the Legislature and the Executive Directory of the French Republic.
To the Legislature and the Executive Directory of the French Republic.
The plan contained in this work is not adapted for any particular country alone: the principle on which it is based is general. But as the rights of man are a new study in this world, and one needing protection from priestly imposture, and the insolence of oppressions too long established, I have thought it right to place this little work under your safeguard. When we reflect on the long and dense night in which France and all Europe have remained plunged by their governments and their priests, we must feel less surprise than grief at the bewilderment caused by the first burst of light that dispels the darkness. The eye accustomed to darkness can hardly bear at first the broad daylight. It is by usage the eye learns to see, and it is the same in passing from any situation to its opposite.
The plan outlined in this work isn't meant for just one specific country; its principles are universal. However, since the rights of man are a new topic in the world and require protection from religious deception and the arrogance of long-standing oppressions, I've decided to put this little work under your protection. When we think about the long and deep darkness that France and all of Europe have been trapped in because of their governments and their priests, we should feel more sadness than surprise at the confusion brought about by the first rays of light that break the darkness. An eye that's used to darkness can hardly handle the bright light at first. It’s through experience that the eye learns to see, and the same goes for moving from one extreme situation to its opposite.
As we have not at one instant renounced all our errors, we cannot at one stroke acquire knowledge of all our rights. France has had the honour of adding to the word Liberty that of Equality; and this word signifies essentially a principal that admits of no gradation in the things to which it applies. But equality is often misunderstood, often misapplied, and often violated.
As we haven't completely given up all our mistakes, we can't quickly gain knowledge of all our rights. France has had the honor of adding the word Liberty alongside Equality; and this word essentially represents a principle that doesn't allow for any hierarchy in the things it pertains to. However, equality is often misunderstood, frequently misapplied, and often violated.
Liberty and Property are words expressing all those of our possessions which are not of an intellectual nature. There are two kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe,—such as the earth, air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property,—the invention of men. In the latter equality is impossible; for to distribute it equally it would be necessary that all should have contributed in the same proportion, which can never be the case; and this being the case, every individual would hold on to his own property, as his right share. Equality of natural property is the subject of this little essay. Every individual in the world is born therein with legitimate claims on a certain kind of property, or its equivalent.
Liberty and Property are terms that refer to everything we own that is not intellectual. There are two types of property. First, there’s natural property, which comes from the Creator of the universe—like the earth, air, and water. Second, there’s artificial or acquired property, which is a human invention. With artificial property, true equality is impossible; to distribute it equally, everyone would need to have contributed in the same way, which can never happen. As a result, each person would cling to their own property as their rightful share. The equality of natural property is the focus of this brief essay. Every person in the world is born with legitimate claims to a certain type of property, or its equivalent.
The right of voting for persons charged with the execution of the laws that govern society is inherent in the word Liberty, and constitutes the equality of personal rights. But even if that right (of voting) were inherent in property, which I deny, the right of suffrage would still belong to all equally, because, as I have said, all individuals have legitimate birthrights in a certain species of property.
The right to vote for those responsible for enforcing the laws that society follows is a fundamental part of the concept of Liberty, embodying the equality of personal rights. However, even if that right (to vote) was tied to property, which I dispute, the right to vote would still be equally shared by everyone because, as I mentioned, all individuals have legitimate birthrights to a certain type of property.
I have always considered the present Constitution of the French Republic the best organized system the human mind has yet produced. But I hope my former colleagues will not be offended if I warn them of an error which has slipped into its principle. Equality of the right of suffrage is not maintained. This right is in it connected with a condition on which it ought not to depend; that is, with a proportion of a certain tax called "direct." The dignity of suffrage is thus lowered; and, in placing it in the scale with an inferior thing, the enthusiasm that right is capable of inspiring is diminished. It is impossible to find any equivalent counterpoise for the right of suffrage, because it is alone worthy to be its own basis, and cannot thrive as a graft, or an appendage.
I’ve always thought that the current Constitution of the French Republic is the best organized system that humanity has created so far. However, I hope my former colleagues won’t take offense when I point out a mistake in its foundation. The equality of the right to vote is not upheld. This right is tied to a condition it shouldn’t depend on; specifically, a certain tax known as "direct." This diminishes the dignity of voting and, by comparing it to something lesser, reduces the enthusiasm that this right can inspire. There’s no adequate substitute for the right to vote because it is the only thing that truly deserves to stand on its own and cannot thrive as merely an add-on or an attachment.
Since the Constitution was established we have seen two conspiracies stranded,—that of Babeuf, and that of some obscure personages who decorate themselves with the despicable name of "royalists." The defect in principle of the Constitution was the origin of Babeuf's conspiracy. He availed himself of the resentment caused by this flaw, and instead of seeking a remedy by legitimate and constitutional means, or proposing some measure useful to society, the conspirators did their best to renew disorder and confusion, and constituted themselves personally into a Directory, which is formally destructive of election and representation. They were, in fine, extravagant enough to suppose that society, occupied with its domestic affairs, would blindly yield to them a directorship usurped by violence.
Since the Constitution was created, we've witnessed two conspiracies fail—one by Babeuf and another by some obscure individuals who shamefully call themselves "royalists." The issue at the heart of the Constitution led to Babeuf's conspiracy. He took advantage of the anger sparked by this flaw and, instead of trying to fix it through legitimate and constitutional channels or suggesting any initiatives beneficial to society, the conspirators aimed to sow more chaos and disorder. They essentially appointed themselves as a Directory, which outright undermines elections and representation. In the end, they were foolish enough to think that society, focused on its own issues, would willingly accept a leadership taken by force.
The conspiracy of Babeuf was followed in a few months by that of the royalists, who foolishly flattered themselves with the notion of doing great things by feeble or foul means. They counted on all the discontented, from whatever cause, and tried to rouse, in their turn, the class of people who had been following the others. But these new chiefs acted as if they thought society had nothing more at heart than to maintain courtiers, pensioners, and all their train, under the contemptible title of royalty. My little essay will disabuse them, by showing that society is aiming at a very different end,—maintaining itself.
The conspiracy led by Babeuf was soon followed by a royalist plot, where those involved foolishly believed they could achieve great things through weak or unethical means. They relied on all the discontented, no matter the cause, and attempted to rally the followers of the previous group. However, these new leaders acted as if they thought society's main concern was to support courtiers, pensioners, and their entourage, under the ridiculous label of royalty. My short essay will set them straight by demonstrating that society is actually focused on a very different goal—its own survival.
We all know or should know, that the time during which a revolution is proceeding is not the time when its resulting advantages can be enjoyed. But had Babeuf and his accomplices taken into consideration the condition of France under this constitution, and compared it with what it was under the tragical revolutionary government, and during the execrable reign of Terror, the rapidity of the alteration must have appeared to them very striking and astonishing. Famine has been replaced by abundance, and by the well-founded hope of a near and increasing prosperity.
We all know, or should know, that the time when a revolution is happening isn’t when you can enjoy its benefits. But if Babeuf and his associates had taken a good look at France’s situation under this constitution and compared it to how it was during the chaotic revolutionary government and the terrible reign of Terror, they would have been struck and amazed by how quickly things changed. Famine has been swapped for plenty, along with a solid hope for increasing prosperity in the near future.
As for the defect in the Constitution, I am fully convinced that it will be rectified constitutionally, and that this step is indispensable; for so long as it continues it will inspire the hopes and furnish the means of conspirators; and for the rest, it is regrettable that a Constitution so wisely organized should err so much in its principle. This fault exposes it to other dangers which will make themselves felt. Intriguing candidates will go about among those who have not the means to pay the direct tax and pay it for them, on condition of receiving their votes. Let us maintain inviolably equality in the sacred right of suffrage: public security can never have a basis more solid. Salut et Fraterniti.
As for the flaw in the Constitution, I'm completely convinced it will be fixed through legal means, and that this step is essential; as long as it exists, it will fuel the hopes and provide the resources for conspirators. It’s unfortunate that a Constitution so well designed should fail so significantly in its principles. This mistake leaves it vulnerable to other threats that will become apparent. Cunning candidates will approach those who can’t afford to pay the direct tax and cover it for them, in exchange for their votes. Let’s uphold the principle of equality in the sacred right to vote: public safety can never have a stronger foundation. Cheers and Unity.
Your former colleague,
Your ex-colleague,
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
AUTHOR'S ENGLISH PREFACE.
AUTHOR'S ENGLISH PREFACE.
The following little Piece was written in the winter of 1795 and 96; and, as I had not determined whether to publish it during the present war, or to wait till the commencement of a peace, it has lain by me, without alteration or addition, from the time it was written.
The following short piece was written in the winter of 1795 and 96; and, since I hadn’t decided whether to publish it during the current war or wait until peace began, it has stayed with me unchanged since it was written.
What has determined me to publish it now is, a sermon preached by Watson, Bishop of Llandaff. Some of my Readers will recollect, that this Bishop wrote a Book entitled An Apology for the Bible in answer to my Second Part of the Age of Reason. I procured a copy of his Book, and he may depend upon hearing from me on that subject.
What made me decide to publish this now is a sermon preached by Watson, Bishop of Llandaff. Some of my readers will remember that this bishop wrote a book titled An Apology for the Bible in response to my Second Part of the Age of Reason. I got a copy of his book, and he can count on hearing from me about that.
At the end of the Bishop's Book is a List of the Works he has written. Among which is the sermon alluded to; it is entitled: "The Wisdom and Goodness of God, in having made both Rich and Poor; with an Appendix, containing Reflections on the Present State of England and France."
At the end of the Bishop's Book is a list of the works he has written. Among them is the sermon mentioned; it's titled: "The Wisdom and Goodness of God, in Having Made Both Rich and Poor; with an Appendix, Containing Reflections on the Current State of England and France."
The error contained in this sermon determined me to publish my Agrarian Justice. It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; he made only male and female; and he gave them the earth for their inheritance. '...
The mistake in this sermon inspired me to publish my Agrarian Justice. It's incorrect to say that God created rich and poor; he only made male and female; and he gave them the earth as their inheritance. '...
Instead of preaching to encourage one part of mankind in insolence... it would be better that Priests employed their time to render the general condition of man less miserable than it is. Practical religion consists in doing good: and the only way of serving God is, that of endeavouring to make his creation happy. All preaching that has not this for its object is nonsense and hypocracy.
Instead of preaching to boost one segment of humanity in their arrogance, it would be better for priests to spend their time improving the overall condition of people and making it less miserable than it currently is. Practical religion is all about doing good, and the true way to serve God is to try to make His creation happy. Any preaching that doesn’t focus on this goal is just nonsense and hypocrisy.
1 The omissions are noted in the English edition of 1797.— Editor..
To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy at the same time the evil which it has produced, ought to be considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation.
To maintain the advantages of what we call civilized life, and to address the problems it has created at the same time, should be seen as one of the top priorities of updated laws.
Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously, called civilization, has most promoted or most injured the general happiness of man, is a question that may be strongly contested. On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized.
Whether the state that is proudly, perhaps mistakenly, referred to as civilization has done more to promote or harm the general happiness of humanity is a question that can be hotly debated. On one side, the observer is dazzled by impressive appearances; on the other, they are confronted by extreme poverty; both of which it has created. The wealthiest and the most miserable people in the world are found in the so-called civilized countries.
To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe. Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science, and manufactures.
To understand what society should look like, we need to have some idea of the natural and basic state of humanity, like what we see today among the Native Americans of North America. In that state, there are none of the scenes of human suffering that poverty and need show us in the towns and streets of Europe. So, poverty is something created by what we call civilized life. It doesn't exist in a natural state. However, the natural state also lacks the benefits that come from farming, arts, science, and industry.
The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich. Civilization, therefore, or that which is so called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.
The life of an Indian is like an ongoing vacation compared to the poor in Europe; however, it looks miserable next to the rich. So, civilization, or what we call civilization, has worked in two ways: it has made one part of society richer and the other part more miserable than they would have been naturally.
It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is, that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated. When, therefore, a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, art, and science, there is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because without it there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state.
It's always possible to move from a natural state to a civilized one, but it's never possible to revert from a civilized state back to a natural one. The reason is that a person living in a natural state, relying on hunting, needs ten times the amount of land to gather food compared to what would be needed in a civilized state, where the land is farmed. So, when a country becomes more populated thanks to farming, arts, and sciences, it's essential to maintain that state; without it, there wouldn’t be enough resources for more than about a tenth of its inhabitants. Therefore, we need to address the problems and uphold the benefits that society has gained by transitioning from the natural to what we now call the civilized state.
In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period. But the fact is, that the condition of millions, in every country in Europe, is far worse than if they had been born before civilization began, or had been born among the Indians of North America at the present day. I will shew how this fact has happened.
In approaching this issue, the fundamental principle of civilization should have been, and still should be, that the situation of every person born into the world as civilization begins should not be worse than if they had been born before that time. However, the reality is that the circumstances for millions in every European country are much worse than if they had been born before civilization started or among the Native Americans in North America today. I will explain how this situation has come about.
It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.
It’s undeniable that the earth, in its natural, uncultivated state, was and always would have been the common property of humanity. In that state, every person would have been born with a share of that property. They would have been a co-owner, along with everyone else, of the land and all its natural resources, both plants and animals.
But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.
But the earth in its natural state, as mentioned before, can only support a small number of inhabitants compared to what it can do when it’s cultivated. And since it’s impossible to separate the improvements made through cultivation from the land itself, the idea of property ownership emerged from that inseparable connection. However, it's true that individual property pertains only to the value of the improvements, not the land itself. Therefore, every owner of cultivated land owes the community a ground-rent (since I can't think of a better term for this concept) for the land they occupy; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan will be generated.
It is deducible, as well from the nature of the thing as from all the histories transmitted to us, that the idea of landed property commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing as landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the history of the Bible may be credited in probable things, were owners of land. Their property consisted, as is always enumerated, in flocks and herds, and they travelled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time, about the use of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where those people lived, also shew that there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property.
It's clear, both from the nature of things and from all the histories passed down to us, that the concept of land ownership began with farming, and that there was no such thing as land ownership before that time. It couldn't exist in the earliest stage of humanity, which was that of hunters. It didn't exist in the second stage, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, according to what the Bible's history suggests, owned land. Their possessions, as consistently listed, were flocks and herds, and they moved with them from place to place. The frequent disputes at that time over access to a well in the arid region of Arabia, where those people lived, also demonstrate that there was no land ownership. It wasn't accepted that land could be claimed as property.
There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made. The value of the improvement so far exceeded the value of the natural earth, at that time, as to absorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became confounded into the cultivated right of the individual. But there are, nevertheless, distinct species of rights, and will continue to be so long as the earth endures.
Originally, there was no such thing as private land ownership. Humans didn’t create the earth, and while they had a natural right to live on it, they didn’t have the right to claim any part of it as their permanent property; nor did the creator of the earth set up a land office to issue the first title deeds. So, where did the idea of land ownership come from? I respond as I did before: when farming started, the concept of land ownership emerged alongside it, because you couldn’t separate the improvements made through cultivation from the land itself on which those improvements were made. The value of these improvements far surpassed the value of the natural land at that time, effectively absorbing it; ultimately, the common right of everyone was blended into the individual’s right to their cultivated land. However, there are still distinct types of rights, and they will remain as long as the earth exists.
It is only by tracing things to their origin that we can gain rightful ideas of them, and it is by gaining such ideas that we discover the boundary that divides right from wrong, and teaches every man to know his own. I have entitled this tract Agrarian Justice, to distinguish it from Agrarian Law. Nothing could be more unjust than Agrarian Law in a country improved by cultivation; for though every man, as an inhabitant of the earth, is a joint proprietor of it in its natural state, it does not follow that he is a joint proprietor of cultivated earth. The additional value made by cultivation, after the system was admitted, became the property of those who did it, or who inherited it from them, or who purchased it. It had originally no owner. Whilst, therefore, I advocate the right, and interest myself in the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his.
It’s only by tracing things back to their origins that we can form accurate ideas about them, and by gaining these ideas, we learn the line that separates right from wrong, helping everyone understand their own perspective. I’ve titled this document Agrarian Justice to set it apart from Agrarian Law. Nothing is more unfair than Agrarian Law in a country that has been improved by farming; because while every person, as a resident of the earth, is a co-owner of it in its natural state, it doesn’t mean that they are co-owners of cultivated land. The added value created by farming, once the system was established, belongs to those who did the farming, who inherited it, or who bought it. Originally, there was no owner. So, while I support the right and care about the struggles of those who have lost their natural inheritance due to the system of private land ownership, I also defend the rights of those who possess what is rightfully theirs.
Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.
Cultivation is one of the greatest advancements ever made by human ingenuity. It has increased the value of the land tenfold. However, the land monopoly that started with this has caused significant harm. It has stripped more than half the people in every nation of their rightful inheritance, without offering them the compensation they should have received, and as a result, has created a kind of poverty and suffering that didn't exist before.
In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honour to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.
In arguing for the people who have been wronged, I'm advocating for a right, not a charity. However, it's the kind of right that, when initially ignored, couldn't be addressed later until a change in government allowed it. So let's honor revolutions with justice and promote their principles with goodwill.
Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,
Having briefly outlined the merits of the case, I will now move on to the plan I want to propose, which is,
To create a National Fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:
To establish a National Fund, from which every individual will receive fifteen pounds sterling upon turning twenty-one, as partial compensation for the loss of their natural inheritance due to the introduction of landed property:
And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.
And also, a payment of ten pounds a year for life will be given to every person currently alive who is fifty years old, and to all others as they reach that age.
MEANS BY WHICH THE FUND IS TO BE CREATED.
MEANS BY WHICH THE FUND IS TO BE CREATED.
I have already established the principle, namely, that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race; that in that state, every person would have been born to property; and that the system of landed property, by its inseparable connection with cultivation, and with what is called civilized life, has absorbed the property of all those whom it dispossessed, without providing, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss.
I have already established the principle that the earth, in its natural and uncultivated state, was and always would have been the common property of humanity; that in that state, everyone would be born into property; and that the system of land ownership, due to its close ties with farming and what is referred to as civilized life, has taken the property of those it displaced without providing, as should have been the case, compensation for that loss.
The fault, however, is not in the present possessors. No complaint is intended, or ought to be alleged against them, unless they adopt the crime by opposing justice. The fault is in the system, and it has stolen imperceptibly upon the world, aided afterwards by the agrarian law of the sword. But the fault can be made to reform itself by successive generations; and without diminishing or deranging the property of any of the present possessors, the operation of the fund can yet commence, and be in full activity, the first year of its establishment, or soon after, as I shall shew.
The problem, however, isn't with the current owners. No complaints are meant to be directed at them, unless they take part in wrongdoing by resisting justice. The issue lies within the system, which has gradually taken hold of the world, later supported by the violent agrarian laws. However, this issue can be fixed over time by future generations; and without harming or disrupting the property of any current owners, the fund can still start operating and be fully active within the first year of its establishment, or shortly after, as I will demonstrate.
It is proposed that the payments, as already stated, be made to every person, rich or poor. It is best to make it so, to prevent invidious distinctions. It is also right it should be so, because it is in lieu of the natural inheritance, which, as a right, belongs to every man, over and above the property he may have created, or inherited from those who did. Such persons as do not choose to receive it can throw it into the common fund.
It is suggested that the payments, as mentioned earlier, be given to everyone, regardless of their wealth. It's better this way to avoid creating unfair distinctions. It's also just because it serves as a substitute for the natural inheritance, which is a right that belongs to everyone, in addition to any property they may have created or inherited from others. Those who do not wish to accept it can contribute it to the common fund.
Taking it then for granted that no person ought to be in a worse condition when born under what is called a state of civilization, than he would have been had he been born in a state of nature, and that civilization ought to have made, and ought still to make, provision for that purpose, it can only be done by subtracting from property a portion equal in value to the natural inheritance it has absorbed.
Assuming that no one should be in a worse situation when born into what we call civilization than they would have been if born in a natural state, and that civilization should have, and should still have, measures in place for this, it can only be achieved by reducing property by an amount equal in value to the natural inheritance it has taken.
Various methods may be proposed for this purpose, but that which appears to be the best (not only because it will operate without deranging any present possessors, or without interfering with the collection of taxes or emprunts necessary for the purposes of government and the revolution, but because it will be the least troublesome and the most effectual, and also because the subtraction will be made at a time that best admits it) is at the moment that.. property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of another. In this case, the bequeather gives nothing: the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is, that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his person. A generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished.
Different methods can be suggested for this purpose, but the one that seems to be the best (not only because it will work without upsetting current owners, or interfering with tax collection or loans needed for government and the revolution, but also because it will be the least disruptive and most effective, and especially because the deduction will be made at a time that is most suitable) is when property is transferred due to someone's death. In this case, the giver is not losing anything, and the receiver is not paying anything. The only important thing for the receiver is that the monopoly on natural inheritance, to which there was never a right, starts to fade for them. A generous person wouldn’t want it to last, and a just person would be happy to see it eliminated.
My state of health prevents my making sufficient inquiries with respect to the doctrine of probabilities, whereon to found calculations with such degrees of certainty as they are capable of. What, therefore, I offer on this head is more the result of observation and reflection than of received information; but I believe it will be found to agree sufficiently with fact.
My health doesn't allow me to gather enough information about the theory of probabilities to make calculations with the certainty they can provide. So, what I present here is more based on my observations and thoughts than on established knowledge; however, I believe it will align closely with reality.
In the first place, taking twenty-one years as the epoch of maturity, all the property of a nation, real and personal, is always in the possession of persons above that age. It is then necessary to know, as a datum of calculation, the average of years which persons above that age will live. I take this average to be about thirty years, for though many persons will live forty, fifty, or sixty years after the age of twenty-one years, others will die much sooner, and some in every year of that time.
First of all, if we set twenty-one years as the age of maturity, all the property of a nation, both real and personal, is typically owned by people older than that. Therefore, we need to determine the average lifespan of individuals above that age for our calculations. I estimate this average to be around thirty years, because while some people will live an additional forty, fifty, or even sixty years after turning twenty-one, others will pass away much sooner, and some will die each year during that period.
Taking, then, thirty years as the average of time, it will give, without any material variation one way or other, the average of time in which the whole property or capital of a nation, or a sum equal thereto, will have passed through one entire revolution in descent, that is, will have gone by deaths to new possessors; for though, in many instances, some parts of this capital will remain forty, fifty, or sixty years in the possession of one person, other parts will have revolved two or three times before those thirty years expire, which will bring it to that average; for were one half the capital of a nation to revolve twice in thirty years, it would produce the same fund as if the whole revolved once.
Taking thirty years as the average time, it will show, without any significant change either way, the average period in which all the property or capital of a nation, or an equivalent amount, will have gone through one complete cycle of inheritance, meaning it will have transferred through deaths to new owners. Although in many cases, some parts of this capital will stay with one person for forty, fifty, or sixty years, other parts will have changed hands two or three times before those thirty years are up, which brings it to that average. If half the capital of a nation were to change hands twice in thirty years, it would create the same overall amount as if the entire capital changed hands once.
Taking, then, thirty years as the average of time in which the whole capital of a nation, or a sum equal thereto, will revolve once, the thirtieth part thereof will be the sum that will revolve every year, that is, will go by deaths to new possessors; and this last sum being thus known, and the ratio per cent, to be subtracted from it determined, it will give the annual amount or income of the proposed fund, to be applied as already mentioned.
Taking thirty years as the average time for a nation's entire capital, or an equivalent amount, to turn over once, one-thirtieth of that amount will be the sum that transfers to new owners each year through deaths. Once this yearly sum is established, and the percentage to be deducted from it is determined, it will provide the annual total or income of the proposed fund, to be used as previously described.
In looking over the discourse of the English minister, Pitt, in his opening of what is called in England the budget, (the scheme of finance for the year 1796,) I find an estimate of the national capital of that country. As this estimate of a national capital is prepared ready to my hand, I take it as a datum to act upon. When a calculation is made upon the known capital of any nation, combined with its population, it will serve as a scale for any other nation, in proportion as its capital and population be more or less. I am the more disposed to take this estimate of Mr. Pitt, for the purpose of showing to that minister, upon his own calculation, how much better money may be employed than in wasting it, as he has done, on the wild project of setting up Bourbon kings. What, in the name of heaven, are Bourbon kings to the people of England? It is better that the people have bread.
While reviewing the speech of the English minister, Pitt, during the opening of what is known in England as the budget (the financial plan for the year 1796), I came across an estimate of the national capital of that country. Since this estimate is conveniently available, I will use it as a starting point. When calculating based on a nation's known capital alongside its population, it can serve as a comparison for another nation, relative to the differences in their capital and population. I'm particularly inclined to use Mr. Pitt's estimate to demonstrate to him, based on his own figures, how money could be better spent than on the misguided effort of reinstating Bourbon kings. What do Bourbon kings have to do with the people of England? It's more important that the people have bread.
Mr. Pitt states the national capital of England, real and personal, to be one thousand three hundred millions sterling, which is about one-fourth part of the national capital of France, including Belgia. The event of the last harvest in each country proves that the soil of France is more productive than that of England, and that it can better support twenty-four or twenty-five millions of inhabitants than that of England can seven or seven and a half millions.
Mr. Pitt claims that the national capital of England, both real and personal, is one thousand three hundred million pounds, which is about one-fourth of the national capital of France, including Belgium. The outcome of the last harvest in each country shows that the land in France is more productive than in England, and it can better sustain twenty-four or twenty-five million people than England can with seven or seven and a half million.
The thirtieth part of this capital of 1,300,000,000L. is 43,333,333L. which is the part that will revolve every year by deaths in that country to new possessors; and the sum that will annually revolve in France in the proportion of four to one, will be about one hundred and seventy-three millions sterling. From this sum of 43,333,333L. annually revolving, is to be subtracted the value of the natural inheritance absorbed in it, which, perhaps, in fair justice, cannot be taken at less, and ought not to be taken for more, than a tenth part.
The thirtieth part of this capital of 1,300,000,000L. is 43,333,333L., which represents the portion that will change hands each year due to deaths in that country. The amount that will yearly circulate in France, at a ratio of four to one, will be around one hundred and seventy-three million pounds sterling. From this annual amount of 43,333,333L., we need to subtract the value of the natural inheritance included in it, which, in fairness, should not be considered less than a tenth and ought not to exceed that amount.
It will always happen, that of the property thus revolving by deaths every year a part will descend in a direct line to sons and daughters, and the other part collaterally, and the proportion will be found to be about three to one; that is, about thirty millions of the above sum will descend to direct heirs, and the remaining sum of 13,333,333L. to more distant relations, and in part to strangers.
It will always happen that since property changes hands due to deaths each year, a portion will be passed directly to sons and daughters, while the other portion will go to collateral relatives. The ratio tends to be about three to one; that is, around thirty million of the total amount will go to direct heirs, while the remaining sum of £13,333,333 will go to more distant relatives and partly to non-relatives.
Considering, then, that man is always related to society, that relationship will become comparatively greater in proportion as the next of kin is more distant, it is therefore consistent with civilization to say that where there are no direct heirs society shall be heir to a part over and above the tenth part due to society. If this additional part be from five to ten or twelve per cent., in proportion as the next of kin be nearer or more remote, so as to average with the escheats that may fall, which ought always to go to society and not to the government (an addition of ten per cent, more), the produce from the annual sum of 43,333,333L. will be:
Considering that humans are always connected to society, that connection becomes stronger the more distant the next of kin is. So, it's reasonable to say that when there are no direct heirs, society should inherit a portion in addition to the tenth that is owed to it. If this extra portion is between five to twelve percent, depending on how close or distant the next of kin is, it should average out with the unclaimed property that should always go to society and not to the government (which is an additional ten percent). The total from the annual sum of 43,333,333L will be:

Having thus arrived at the annual amount of the proposed fund, I come, in the next place, to speak of the population proportioned to this fund, and to compare it with the uses to which the fund is to be applied.
Having reached the annual amount of the proposed fund, I will now discuss the population in relation to this fund and compare it with the purposes for which the fund will be used.
The population (I mean that of England) does not exceed seven millions and a half, and the number of persons above the age of fifty will in that case be about four hundred thousand. There would not, however, be more than that number that would accept the proposed ten pounds sterling per annum, though they would be entitled to it. I have no idea it would be accepted by many persons who had a yearly income of two or three hundred pounds sterling. But as we often see instances of rich people falling into sudden poverty, even at the age of sixty, they would always have the right of drawing all the arrears due to them. Four millions, therefore, of the above annual sum of 5,666,6667L. will be required for four hundred thousand aged persons, at ten pounds sterling each.
The population of England is about seven and a half million, and the number of people over the age of fifty is around four hundred thousand. However, not more than that many would accept the proposed ten pounds sterling per year, even though they would be eligible for it. I doubt that many people with an annual income of two or three hundred pounds sterling would take it. But since we often see wealthy individuals suddenly falling into poverty at around sixty, they would still have the right to claim any back payments owed to them. Therefore, to support four hundred thousand elderly people at ten pounds sterling each, four million of the total annual amount of £5,666,666.67 will be needed.
I come now to speak of the persons annually arriving at twenty-one years of age. If all the persons who died were above the age of twenty-one years, the number of persons annually arriving at that age, must be equal to the annual number of deaths, to keep the population stationary. But the greater part die under the age of twenty-one, and therefore the number of persons annually arriving at twenty-one will be less than half the number of deaths. The whole number of deaths upon a population of seven millions and an half will be about 220,000 annually. The number arriving at twenty-one years of age will be about 100,000. The whole number of these will not receive the proposed fifteen pounds, for the reasons already mentioned, though, as in the former case, they would be entitled to it. Admitting then that a tenth part declined receiving it, the amount would stand thus:
I'm now going to talk about the people who reach twenty-one years of age each year. If everyone who died was over twenty-one, then the number of people turning that age each year would have to equal the number of deaths to keep the population steady. However, most people die before turning twenty-one, so the number of people reaching twenty-one will be less than half the number of deaths. In a population of seven and a half million, the total number of deaths will be about 220,000 each year. The number of people turning twenty-one will be around 100,000. Not all of them will receive the proposed fifteen pounds for the reasons already mentioned, even though, like before, they would qualify for it. Assuming that one in ten decides not to accept it, the amount would look like this:

There are, in every country, a number of blind and lame persons, totally incapable of earning a livelihood. But as it will always happen that the greater number of blind persons will be among those who are above the age of fifty years, they will be provided for in that class. The remaining sum of 316,666L. will provide for the lame and blind under that age, at the same rate of 10L. annually for each person.
There are, in every country, a number of blind and disabled individuals who are completely unable to earn a living. However, since most blind individuals tend to be over the age of fifty, they will be supported in that category. The remaining amount of £316,666 will cover the costs for blind and disabled people under that age, at the same rate of £10 per year for each person.
Having now gone through all the necessary calculations, and stated the particulars of the plan, I shall conclude with some observations.
Having completed all the necessary calculations and outlined the details of the plan, I will finish with a few remarks.
It is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I am pleading for. The present state of civilization is as odious as it is unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be, and it is necessary that a revolution should be made in it.(1) The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches, as any man, I am a friend to riches because they are capable of good. I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, whilst so much misery is mingled in the scene. The sight of the misery, and the unpleasant sensations it suggests, which, though they may be suffocated cannot be extinguished, are a greater drawback upon the felicity of affluence than the proposed 10 per cent, upon property is worth. He that would not give the one to get rid of the other has no charity, even for himself.
I'm not asking for charity, but for a right; not for generosity, but for justice. The way our society is currently set up is as disgusting as it is unfair. It's completely the opposite of how it should be, and we need a revolution to change it. The stark contrast between wealth and poverty constantly clashes and offends our senses, like dead and living bodies bound together. I don't care much for wealth, just like anyone else, but I support it because it can do good. I don't mind how wealthy some people are, as long as no one suffers because of it. However, it's impossible to truly enjoy wealth the way it should be enjoyed when so much suffering surrounds us. The sight of misery and the unpleasant feelings it brings, which may be suppressed but never fully eliminated, are a bigger obstacle to the happiness that wealth can bring than any proposed tax on property. Anyone who wouldn't sacrifice some wealth to alleviate that misery has no compassion, even for themselves.
1 This and the previous sentence are omitted in all previous English and American editions.—Editor..
There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pullies, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.
In every country, there are some amazing charities set up by individuals. However, when you consider the vast scale of the suffering that needs to be addressed, there’s only so much one person can do. They may feel good about their efforts, but it won't truly satisfy them. They might donate everything they have, but that will only help a little. The only way to truly alleviate widespread suffering is by structuring society in a way that functions like a system of pulleys, allowing us to lift the entire burden of misery.
The plan here proposed will reach the whole. It will immediately relieve and take out of view three classes of wretchedness—the blind, the lame, and the aged poor; and it will furnish the rising generation with means to prevent their becoming poor; and it will do this without deranging or interfering with any national measures. To shew that this will be the case, it is sufficient to observe that the operation and effect of the plan will, in all cases, be the same as if every individual were voluntarily to make his will and dispose of his property in the manner here proposed.
The proposed plan will benefit everyone. It will quickly relieve and eliminate the suffering of three groups—the blind, the disabled, and the elderly poor; and it will provide the next generation with resources to avoid becoming impoverished themselves; all without disrupting or interfering with any national policies. To demonstrate that this is true, it’s enough to note that the operation and outcome of the plan will be the same as if each individual were voluntarily creating their will and distributing their assets in the proposed manner.
But it is justice, and not charity, that is the principle of the plan. In all great cases it is necessary to have a principle more universally active than charity; and, with respect to justice, it ought not to be left to the choice of detached individuals whether they will do justice or not. Considering then, the plan on the ground of justice, it ought to be the act of the whole, growing spontaneously out of the principles of the revolution, and the reputation of it ought to be national and not individual.
But it’s justice, not charity, that drives the plan. In all major situations, we need a principle that's more universally effective than charity; with justice, it shouldn't be up to individual choices about whether to pursue it or not. So, when we consider the plan in terms of justice, it should be an action taken collectively, emerging naturally from the principles of the revolution, and its reputation should belong to the nation as a whole, not just individuals.
A plan upon this principle would benefit the revolution by the energy that springs from the consciousness of justice. It would multiply also the national resources; for property, like vegetation, increases by offsets. When a young couple begin the world, the difference is exceedingly great whether they begin with nothing or with fifteen pounds apiece. With this aid they could buy a cow, and implements to cultivate a few acres of land; and instead of becoming burdens upon society, which is always the case where children are produced faster than they can be fed, would be put in the way of becoming useful and profitable citizens. The national domains also would sell the better if pecuniary aids were provided to cultivate them in small lots.
A plan based on this idea would benefit the revolution by unleashing the energy that comes from a sense of justice. It would also expand national resources, because property, like plants, grows through division. When a young couple starts out in life, there's a huge difference between starting with nothing or having fifteen pounds each. With that support, they could buy a cow and tools to farm a few acres; instead of becoming a burden on society— which always happens when children are born faster than they can be fed—they would be on the path to becoming productive and valuable citizens. The national lands would also sell better if financial assistance were given to cultivate them in smaller plots.
It is the practice of what has unjustly obtained the name of civilization (and the practice merits not to be called either charity or policy) to make some provision for persons becoming poor and wretched only at the time they become so. Would it not, even as a matter of economy, be far better to adopt means to prevent their becoming poor? This can best be done by making every person when arrived at the age of twenty-one years an inheritor of something to begin with. The rugged face of society, chequered with the extremes of affluence and want, proves that some extraordinary violence has been committed upon it, and calls on justice for redress. The great mass of the poor in all countries are become an hereditary race, and it is next to impossible for them to get cut of that state of themselves. It ought also to be observed that this mass increases in all countries that are called civilized. More persons fall annually into it than get out of it.
It’s common practice in what’s unfairly called civilization (and this practice shouldn’t be considered either charity or policy) to offer some help to people who become poor and miserable only after they reach that state. Wouldn’t it be much wiser, even from an economic standpoint, to take steps to stop them from becoming poor in the first place? The best way to do this is to ensure that every person inherits something when they turn twenty-one. The harsh reality of society, marked by drastic differences between wealth and poverty, shows that some serious injustices have been done and demands a call for justice. The large majority of poor people in all countries have become a hereditary class, and it’s nearly impossible for them to escape that situation. It’s also worth noting that this group is growing in all so-called civilized countries. More people fall into poverty each year than manage to escape it.
Though in a plan of which justice and humanity are the foundation-principles, interest ought not to be admitted into the calculation, yet it is always of advantage to the establishment of any plan to shew that it is beneficial as a matter of interest. The success of any proposed plan submitted to public consideration must finally depend on the numbers interested in supporting it, united with the justice of its principles.
Though a plan based on justice and humanity shouldn't factor in self-interest, it's always beneficial to show that it's also in people's best interest. The success of any proposed plan put forward for public discussion ultimately relies on the number of people who are interested in supporting it, along with the fairness of its principles.
The plan here proposed will benefit all, without injuring any. It will consolidate the interest of the Republic with that of the individual. To the numerous class dispossessed of their natural inheritance by the system of landed property it will be an act of national justice. To persons dying possessed of moderate fortunes it will operate as a tontine to their children, more beneficial than the sum of money paid into the fund: and it will give to the accumulation of riches a degree of security that none of the old governments of Europe, now tottering on their foundations, can give.
The plan proposed here will benefit everyone without harming anyone. It will align the interests of the Republic with those of individuals. For the many who have lost their natural inheritance due to the system of land ownership, this will be an act of national justice. For those who pass away with moderate wealth, it will serve as a tontine for their children, more advantageous than the money contributed to the fund. Additionally, it will provide a level of security for wealth accumulation that none of the old governments in Europe, which are now shaky, can offer.
I do not suppose that more than one family in ten, in any of the countries of Europe, has, when the head of the family dies, a clear property left of five hundred pounds sterling. To all such the plan is advantageous. That property would pay fifty pounds into the fund, and if there were only two children under age they would receive fifteen pounds each, (thirty pounds,) on coming of age, and be entitled to ten pounds a-year after fifty. It is from the overgrown acquisition of property that the fund will support itself; and I know that the possessors of such property in England, though they would eventually be benefited by the protection of nine-tenths of it, will exclaim against the plan. But without entering into any inquiry how they came by that property, let them recollect that they have been the advocates of this war, and that Mr. Pitt has already laid on more new taxes to be raised annually upon the people of England, and that for supporting the despotism of Austria and the Bourbons against the liberties of France, than would pay annually all the sums proposed in this plan.
I don’t think more than one out of ten families in any European country has, when the head of the family dies, clear property worth five hundred pounds sterling. For those families, this plan is beneficial. That property would contribute fifty pounds to the fund, and if there were only two underage children, they would receive fifteen pounds each (thirty pounds total) when they come of age, and be entitled to ten pounds a year after turning fifty. The fund will sustain itself through the excess accumulation of property; and I know that property owners in England, even though they would ultimately benefit from the protection of nine-tenths of it, will protest against the plan. But without examining how they acquired that property, let them remember that they have supported this war, and that Mr. Pitt has already imposed more new taxes on the people of England, intended to uphold the despotism of Austria and the Bourbons against the liberties of France, than would cover all the sums proposed in this plan.
I have made the calculations stated in this plan, upon what is called personal, as well as upon landed property. The reason for making it upon land is already explained; and the reason for taking personal property into the calculation is equally well founded though on a different principle. Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labour to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much bet-ter for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason, that because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it.
I have done the calculations mentioned in this plan, based on both personal and land assets. The reason for including land has already been explained, and the reason for considering personal property is equally justified, albeit on a different basis. Land, as stated before, is a free gift from the Creator, shared among all humans. Personal property stems from society, and it is just as impossible for someone to acquire personal property without society's help as it is for them to create land from scratch. If you separate a person from society and give them an island or continent to inhabit, they still can’t gain personal property. They cannot become wealthy. The means are so closely tied to the end that without the former, the latter cannot be achieved. Thus, any accumulation of personal property, beyond what a person's own efforts yield, comes from living in society, and by every principle of justice, gratitude, and civilization, they owe part of that accumulation back to society from which it all originated. This addresses the topic in broad terms, and perhaps it’s best to do it this way; for if we look closely, we will find that the accumulation of personal property often results from paying too little for the labor that created it. This leads to the laborer suffering in old age, while the employer thrives in wealth. It may be impossible to perfectly match labor costs to the profits it generates, and it may also be argued, as a justification for this unfairness, that even if a worker received a daily wage increase, they would not save it for old age, nor would it significantly benefit them in the meantime. So, let society act as the custodian to safeguard it in a communal fund; just because an individual might not manage it well doesn't mean someone else should take it all.
The state of civilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is as unjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the consciousness of this, and the apprehension that such a state cannot continue when once investigation begins in any country, that makes the possessors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the hazard and not the principle of revolutions that retards their progress. This being the case, it is necessary as well for the protection of property, as for the sake of justice and humanity, to form a system that, whilst it preserves one part of society from wretchedness, shall secure the other from depredation.
The state of civilization that has existed across Europe is as unfair in its principles as it is terrible in its consequences; it's this awareness and the fear that such a situation cannot last once any country starts to investigate that makes those who own property fear any thought of a revolution. It's the risks, not the principles, of revolutions that slow their progress. Given this, it's essential for both protecting property and promoting justice and humanity to create a system that, while keeping one part of society from suffering, also prevents the other from being exploited.
The superstitious awe, the enslaving reverence, that formerly surrounded affluence, is passing away in all countries, and leaving the possessor of property to the convulsion of accidents. When wealth and splendour, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions of disgust; when, instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as an insult upon wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it makes serves to call the right of it in question, the case of property becomes critical, and it is only in a system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security.
The superstitious awe and the enslaving reverence that used to surround wealth are fading away in all countries, leaving those who have property at the mercy of chance. When wealth and luxury no longer fascinate people but instead provoke feelings of disgust; when they are seen not as something to admire but as an insult to those who suffer; when the showy display of wealth raises questions about its legitimacy, the status of property becomes precarious, and true security can only be found in a fair system of justice.
To remove the danger, it is necessary to remove the antipathies, and this can only be done by making property productive of a national blessing, extending to every individual. When the riches of one man above another shall increase the national fund in the same proportion; when it shall be seen that the prosperity of that fund depends on the prosperity of individuals; when the more riches a man acquires, the better it shall be for the general mass; it is then that antipathies will cease, and property be placed on the permanent basis of national interest and protection.
To eliminate the danger, we need to get rid of the resentments, and this can only happen by making property contribute to a national good that benefits everyone. When one person's wealth increases along with the national wealth in equal measure; when it's clear that the success of that wealth relies on the success of individuals; when the more money a person has, the better it is for everyone else; that's when resentments will disappear, and property will be solidly based on the interests and protection of the nation.
I have no property in France to become subject to the plan I propose. What I have which is not much, is in the United States of America. But I will pay one hundred pounds sterling towards this fund in rance, the instant it shall be established; and I will pay the same sum in England whenever a similar establishment shall take place in that country.
I have no property in France that would make me subject to the plan I'm proposing. What I have, which isn't much, is in the United States. However, I will contribute one hundred pounds sterling to this fund in France as soon as it's established; and I will pay the same amount in England whenever a similar establishment occurs in that country.
A revolution in the state of civilization is the necessary companion of revolutions in the system of government. If a revolution in any country be from bad to good, or from good to bad, the state of what is called civilization in that country, must be made conformable thereto, to give that revolution effect. Despotic government supports itself by abject civilization, in which debasement of the human mind, and wretchedness in the mass of the people, are the chief enterions. Such governments consider man merely as an animal; that the exercise of intellectual faculty is not his privilege; that he has nothing to do with the laws but to obey them ; (*) and they politically depend more upon breaking the spirit of the people by poverty, than they fear enraging it by desperation.
A change in civilization is an essential part of changes in government systems. When a revolution occurs in a country, whether it’s improving from bad to good or declining from good to bad, the state of what we call civilization in that country must align with it to make that revolution effective. Despotic governments maintain their power through a degraded form of civilization, where the degradation of the human mind and the suffering of the masses are primary characteristics. These governments see people merely as animals, believing that exercising intellectual abilities isn’t a right for them; that their only role concerning laws is to obey them; (*) and they rely more on crushing the people's spirit through poverty than on fearing that they might provoke anger through desperation.
* Expression of Horsley, an English bishop, in the English parliament.—Author.
It is a revolution in the state of civilization that will give perfection to the revolution of France. Already the conviction that government by representation is the true system of government is spreading itself fast in the world. The reasonableness of it can be seen by all. The justness of it makes itself felt even by its opposers. But when a system of civilization, growing out of that system of government, shall be so organized that not a man or woman born in the Republic but shall inherit some means of beginning the world, and see before them the certainty of escaping the miseries that under other governments accompany old age, the revolution of France will have an advocate and an ally in the heart of all nations.
It's a revolution in civilization that will perfect the revolution in France. The belief that representative government is the best form of governance is quickly spreading around the world. Its reasonableness is clear to everyone, and even its opponents can feel its fairness. But when a system of civilization, emerging from this form of government, is organized so that every man and woman born in the Republic inherits the means to start life and sees the certainty of avoiding the hardships that come with old age under other governments, the revolution in France will gain supporters and allies in the hearts of all nations.
An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot; it will succeed where diplomatic management would fail: it is neither the Rhine, the Channel, nor the Ocean that can arrest its progress: it will march on the horizon of the world, and it will conquer.
A force of principles will go where an army of soldiers can't; it will succeed where diplomatic efforts would falter: it's not the Rhine, the Channel, or the Ocean that can stop its advance: it will move across the world, and it will prevail.
MEANS FOR CARRYING THE PROPOSED PLAN INTO EXECUTION, AND TO RENDER IT AT THE SAME TIME CONDUCIVE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
MEANS FOR CARRYING THE PROPOSED PLAN INTO EXECUTION, AND TO RENDER IT AT THE SAME TIME CONDUCIVE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
I. Each canton shall elect in its primary assemblies, three persons, as commissioners for that canton, who shall take cognizance, and keep a register of all matters happening in that canton, conformable to the charter that shall be established by law for carrying this plan into execution.
I. Each canton will elect three people in its primary assemblies to serve as commissioners for that canton. They will be responsible for overseeing and keeping a record of all events occurring in that canton, in accordance with the charter established by law to implement this plan.
II. The law shall fix the manner in which the property of deceased persons shall be ascertained.
II. The law will determine how the property of deceased individuals will be identified.
III. When the amount of the property of any deceased person shall be ascertained, the principal heir to that property, or the eldest of the co-heirs, if of lawful age, or if under age the person authorized by the will of the deceased to represent him or them, shall give bond to the commissioners of the canton to pay the said tenth part thereof in four equal quarterly payments, within the space of one year or sooner, at the choice of the payers. One half of the whole property shall remain as a security until the bond be paid off.
III. When the value of a deceased person's property is determined, the primary heir or the oldest of the co-heirs, if they are of legal age, or if they are underage, the person designated in the deceased's will to represent them, must provide a bond to the commissioners of the canton. This bond ensures that they will pay one-tenth of the property value in four equal quarterly payments within one year or sooner, depending on what the payers choose. Half of the entire property will be held as security until the bond is fully paid.
IV. The bond shall be registered in the office of the commissioners of the canton, and the original bonds shall be deposited in the national bank at Paris. The bank shall publish every quarter of a year the amount of the bonds in its possession, and also the bonds that shall have been paid off, or what parts thereof, since the last quarterly publication.
IV. The bond will be registered at the office of the canton commissioners, and the original bonds will be kept at the national bank in Paris. The bank will publish the total amount of bonds it holds every three months, as well as any bonds that have been paid off, or parts of them, since the last quarterly report.
V. The national bank shall issue bank notes upon the security of the bonds in its possession. The notes so issued, shall be applied to pay the pensions of aged persons, and the compensations to persons arriving at twenty-one years of age. It is both reasonable and generous to suppose, that persons not under immediate necessity, will suspend their right of drawing on the fund, until it acquire, as it will do, a greater degree of ability. In this case, it is proposed, that an honorary register be kept, in each canton, of the names of the persons thus suspending that right, at least during the present war.
V. The national bank will issue banknotes backed by the bonds it holds. These issued notes will be used to pay pensions for elderly individuals and compensations for those turning twenty-one. It's both reasonable and kind to assume that people who aren't in urgent need will hold off on accessing the fund until it has greater capacity, which it will. In this situation, it’s suggested that an honorary registry be maintained in each region to record the names of those who are postponing that right, at least during the current war.
VI. As the inheritors of property must always take up their bonds in four quarterly payments, or sooner if they choose, there will always be numiraire [cash] arriving at the bank after the expiration of the first quarter, to exchange for the bank notes that shall be brought in.
VI. Since the heirs of property have to make their payments in four quarterly installments, or sooner if they prefer, there will always be numiraire [cash] coming into the bank after the first quarter ends, to trade for the bank notes that are submitted.
VII. The bank notes being thus put in circulation, upon the best of all possible security, that of actual property, to more than four times the amount of the bonds upon which the notes are issued, and with numiraire continually arriving at the bank to exchange or pay them off whenever they shall be presented for that purpose, they will acquire a permanent value in all parts of the Republic. They can therefore be received in payment of taxes, or emprunts equal to numiraire, because the government can always receive numiraire for them at the bank.
VII. With the bank notes now being circulated backed by the best possible security—actual property worth more than four times the amount of the bonds they're based on—and with numiraire constantly arriving at the bank to exchange or pay off these notes whenever they're presented, they will hold a lasting value throughout the Republic. As a result, they can be accepted for tax payments or loans equivalent to numiraire, since the government can always exchange them for numiraire at the bank.
VIII. It will be necessary that the payments of the ten per cent, be made in numeraire for the first year from the establishment of the plan. But after the expiration of the first year, the inheritors of property may pay ten per cent either in bank notes issued upon the fund, or in numeraire, If the payments be in numeraire, it will lie as a deposit at the bank, to be exchanged for a quantity of notes equal to that amount; and if in notes issued upon the fund, it will cause a demand upon the fund, equal thereto; and thus the operation of the plan will create means to carry itself into execution.
VIII. For the first year after the plan is established, payments of ten percent must be made in cash. After the first year, property inheritors can pay the ten percent either with banknotes issued based on the fund or in cash. If they choose to pay in cash, it will be deposited at the bank and exchanged for notes of the same amount; if they opt for banknotes issued from the fund, it will create a demand on the fund for that amount. This way, the plan will generate the means to put itself into action.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
XXIX. THE EIGHTEENTH FRUCTIDOR.
To the People of France and the French Armies (1)
To the People of France and the French Armies (1)
1 This pamphlet was written between the defeat of Pichegru's attempt on September 4, 1794, and November 12 of the same year, the date of the Bien-informi in which the publication is mentioned. General Pichegru (Charles) (1761-1804), who joined a royalist conspiracy against the Republic, was exiled to Cayenne in 1797, from where he escaped to England. After returning to Paris in 1804, he was imprisoned in the Temple, where he was found strangled with a silk handkerchief, leaving it unclear whether it was his own doing or someone else's. —Editor.
When an extraordinary measure, not warranted by established constitutional rules, and justifiable only on the supreme law of absolute necessity, bursts suddenly upon us, we must, in order to form a true judgment thereon, carry our researches back to the times that preceded and occasioned it. Taking up then the subject with respect to the event of the Eighteenth of Fructidor on this ground, I go to examine the state of things prior to that period. I begin with the establishment of the constitution of the year 3 of the French Republic.
When an extraordinary action, not supported by established constitutional rules and only justifiable under the absolute necessity of the supreme law, suddenly appears, we need to look back at the events leading up to it in order to make a fair judgment. So, regarding the event of the Eighteenth of Fructidor, I will examine the situation before that time. I start with the establishment of the constitution from the year 3 of the French Republic.
A better organized constitution has never yet been devised by human wisdom. It is, in its organization, free from all the vices and defects to which other forms of government are more or less subject. I will speak first of the legislative body, because the Legislature is, in the natural order of things, the first power; the Executive is the first magistrate.
A better organized constitution has never been created by human intelligence. Its organization is free from all the flaws and shortcomings that other forms of government often face. I'll begin with the legislative body since the Legislature is, in the natural order of things, the primary power; the Executive is the leading official.
By arranging the legislative body into two divisions, as is done in the French Constitution, the one, (the Council of Five Hundred,) whose part it is to conceive and propose laws; the other, a Council of Ancients, to review, approve, or reject the laws proposed; all the security is given that can arise from coolness of reflection acting upon, or correcting the precipitancy or enthusiasm of conception and imagination. It is seldom that our first thought, even upon any subject, is sufficiently just.(1)
By splitting the legislative body into two parts, like in the French Constitution, one part (the Council of Five Hundred) is responsible for creating and suggesting laws, while the other, the Council of Ancients, reviews, approves, or rejects those laws. This setup ensures that there's enough room for careful thought to balance or correct the impulsive or passionate ideas that come up. It's rare that our initial thoughts, no matter the topic, are completely accurate.
1 For Paine's thoughts on properly dividing representatives into two chambers, which are fundamentally different from any bicameral system that has ever been used, see vol. ii., p. 444 of this work; also, in the current volume, Chapter XXXIV.— Editor..
The policy of renewing the Legislature by a third part each year, though not entirely new, either in theory or in practice, is nevertheless one of the modern improvements in the science of government. It prevents, on the one hand, that convulsion and precipitate change of measures into which a nation might be surprised by the going out of the whole Legislature at the same time, and the instantaneous election of a new one; on the other hand, it excludes that common interest from taking place that might tempt a whole Legislature, whose term of duration expired at once, to usurp the right of continuance. I go now to speak of the Executive.
The policy of renewing the Legislature by one-third each year, while not entirely new in theory or practice, is still a modern improvement in governance. It prevents the chaos and sudden shifts in policies that could occur if the entire Legislature left office at once and a new one was immediately elected. It also stops a situation where a whole Legislature nearing the end of its term might be tempted to cling to power. Now, I'll discuss the Executive.
It is a principle uncontrovertible by reason, that each of the parts by which government is composed, should be so constructed as to be in perpetual maturity. We should laugh at the idea of a Council of Five Hundred, or a Council of Ancients, or a Parliament, or any national assembly, who should be all children in leading strings and in the cradle, or be all sick, insane, deaf, dumb, lame or blind, at the same time, or be all upon crutches, tottering with age or infirmities. Any form of government that was so constructed as to admit the possibility of such cases happening to a whole Legislature would justly be the ridicule of the world; and on a parity of reasoning, it is equally as ridiculous that the same cases should happen in that part of government which is called the Executive; yet this is the contemptible condition to which an Executive is always subject, and which is often happening, when it is placed in an hereditary individual called a king. When that individual is in either of the cases before mentioned, the whole Executive is in the same case; for himself is the whole. He is then (as an Executive) the ridiculous picture of what a Legislature would be if all its members were in the same case. The one is a whole made up of parts, the other a whole without parts; and anything happening to the one, (as a part or sec-tion of the government,) is parallel to the same thing happening to the other.
It is an undeniable principle that each part of the government should be structured to ensure ongoing effectiveness. We would laugh at the idea of a Council of Five Hundred, a Council of Elders, a Parliament, or any national assembly being made up entirely of children or being composed entirely of sick, insane, deaf, mute, lame, or blind individuals at the same time, or all being on crutches and struggling with age or disabilities. Any government designed in a way that allows for such situations to affect the entire Legislature would justifiably be seen as absurd; similarly, it is just as ridiculous for the same situations to occur within the Executive branch. Yet, this is the unfortunate reality faced by an Executive, particularly when it is vested in a hereditary position, like a king. When that individual falls into any of the previously mentioned categories, the entire Executive suffers the same fate because he represents the whole. He then epitomizes what a Legislature would be like if all its members were in similar situations. One is a whole made up of parts; the other is a whole without parts, and any issue affecting one, as a section of the government, parallels the same issue affecting the other.
As, therefore, an hereditary executive called a king is a perfect absurdity in itself, any attachment to it is equally as absurd. It is neither instinct or reason; and if this attachment is what is called royalism in France, then is a royalist inferior in character to every species of the animal world; for what can that being be who acts neither by instinct nor by reason? Such a being merits rather our derision than our pity; and it is only when it assumes to act its folly that it becomes capable of provoking republican indignation. In every other case it is too contemptible to excite anger. For my own part, when I contemplate the self-evident absurdity of the thing, I can scarcely permit myself to believe that there exists in the high-minded nation of France such a mean and silly animal as a royalist.
A hereditary ruler known as a king is a complete absurdity, and any attachment to that idea is just as ridiculous. It's not based on instinct or reason; if this attachment is what we call royalism in France, then a royalist must be of lesser character than any animal. What kind of being acts without instinct or reason? Such a being deserves our ridicule more than our sympathy; it's only when it tries to act on its foolishness that it can provoke anger from republicans. In every other situation, it’s too pathetic to inspire any real anger. Personally, when I think about how obviously absurd this is, I can barely believe that in the principled nation of France, there exists such a lowly and foolish creature as a royalist.
As it requires but a single glance of thought to see (as is before said) that all the parts of which government is composed must be at all times in a state of full maturity, it was not possible that men acting under the influence of reason, could, in forming a Constitution, admit an hereditary Executive, any more than an hereditary Legislature. I go therefore to examine the other cases.
As it takes just a moment of thought to realize (as mentioned earlier) that all the components of government must always be fully developed, it was impossible for rational individuals to include an hereditary Executive when creating a Constitution, just as they wouldn’t accept an hereditary Legislature. So, I will now look into the other cases.
In the first place, (rejecting the hereditary system,) shall the Executive by election be an individual or a plurality.
In the first place, (rejecting the hereditary system,) will the Executive be elected as an individual or a group?
An individual by election is almost as bad as the hereditary system, except that there is always a better chance of not having an idiot. But he will never be any thing more than a chief of a party, and none but those of that party will have access to him. He will have no person to consult with of a standing equal with himself, and consequently be deprived of the advantages arising from equal discussion.
An elected individual is nearly as problematic as a hereditary system, though there's usually a better chance of not getting an idiot. However, he'll only ever be the leader of a specific party, and only members of that party will be able to reach him. He won't have anyone of equal standing to consult with, which means he'll miss out on the benefits that come from equal discussions.
Those whom he admits in consultation will be ministers of his own appointment, who, if they displease by their advice, must expect to be dismissed. The authority also is too great, and the business too complicated, to be intrusted to the ambition or the judgment of an individual; and besides these cases, the sudden change of measures that might follow by the going out of an individual Executive, and the election of a new one, would hold the affairs of a nation in a state of perpetual uncertainty. We come then to the case of a plural Executive.
Those he brings in for consultation will be ministers of his own choosing, who must be prepared to be let go if their advice is unsatisfactory. The power is also too significant, and the task too complex, to be left to the ambition or judgment of just one person; furthermore, the abrupt shifts in policy that could result from the departure of one Executive and the election of another would keep a nation’s affairs in a constant state of uncertainty. We then consider the option of a plural Executive.
It must be sufficiently plural, to give opportunity to discuss all the various subjects that in the course of national business may come before it; and yet not so numerous as to endanger the necessary secrecy that certain cases, such as those of war, require.
It needs to be diverse enough to allow for discussions on all the different topics that may arise in national affairs, but not so large that it risks compromising the essential confidentiality that some matters, like those related to war, require.
Establishing, then, plurality as a principle, the only question is, What shall be the number of that plurality?
Establishing plurality as a principle, the only question is, what will the number of that plurality be?
Three are too few either for the variety or the quantity of business. The Constitution has adopted five; and experience has shewn, from the commencement of the Constitution to the time of the election of the new legislative third, that this number of Directors, when well chosen, is sufficient for all national executive purposes; and therefore a greater number would be only an unnecessary expence. That the measures of the Directory during that period were well concerted is proved by their success; and their being well concerted shews they were well discussed; and, therefore, that five is a sufficient number with respect to discussion; and, on the other hand, the secret, whenever there was one, (as in the case of the expedition to Ireland,) was well kept, and therefore the number is not too great to endanger the necessary secrecy.
Three is too few for the variety and amount of work. The Constitution has established five; and experience has shown, from the beginning of the Constitution to the election of the new legislative third, that this number of Directors, when selected properly, is enough for all national executive needs; therefore, having more would only be an unnecessary expense. The effectiveness of the Directory's actions during that time is evident from their success; and their success indicates that their plans were well thought out, which means they were thoroughly discussed; thus, five is a sufficient number for discussions. Additionally, any secrets that needed to be kept, like in the case of the expedition to Ireland, were well-maintained, so the number is not too large to compromise necessary confidentiality.
The reason why the two Councils are numerous is not from the necessity of their being so, on account of business, but because that every part of the republic shall find and feel itself in the national representation.
The reason the two Councils are so numerous isn't due to the need for business, but because every part of the republic should find and feel represented in the national assembly.
Next to the general principle of government by representation, the excellence of the French Constitution consists in providing means to prevent that abuse of power that might arise by letting it remain too long in the same hands. This wise precaution pervades every part of the Constitution. Not only the legislature is renewable by a third every year, but the president of each of the Councils is renewable every month; and of the Directory, one member each year, and its president every three months. Those who formed the Constitution cannot be accused of having contrived for themselves. The Constitution, in this respect, is as impartially constructed as if those who framed it were to die as soon as they had finished their work.
Next to the basic idea of government by representation, the strength of the French Constitution lies in its ability to prevent the abuse of power that could happen if it stays in the same hands for too long. This smart precaution is evident throughout the Constitution. Not only is the legislature renewed by a third each year, but the president of each Council is renewed every month, and one member of the Directory is renewed each year, with its president changing every three months. Those who created the Constitution can't be blamed for designing it in their favor. The Constitution, in this regard, is constructed as fairly as if those who wrote it were to die right after finishing their work.
The only defect in the Constitution is that of having narrowed the right of suffrage; and it is in a great measure due to this narrowing the right, that the last elections have not generally been good. My former colleagues will, I presume, pardon my saying this to day, when they recollect my arguments against this defect, at the time the Constitution was discussed in the Convention.(1)
The only flaw in the Constitution is that it has limited the right to vote, and it is largely because of this limitation that the recent elections haven't been very good. I believe my former colleagues will forgive me for saying this today, especially when they remember my arguments against this flaw during the discussions in the Convention.(1)
1 See Chapters XXIV and XXV, as well as the letter before XXVIII in this volume.—Editor.,
I will close this part of the subject by remarking on one of the most vulgar and absurd sayings or dogmas that ever yet imposed itself upon the world, which is, "that a Republic is fit only for a small country, and a Monarchy for a large one." Ask those who say this their reasons why it is so, and they can give none.
I will finish this section by pointing out one of the most ridiculous and nonsensical beliefs that has ever taken hold in the world, which is, "that a Republic is suitable only for a small country, and a Monarchy for a large one." If you ask those who say this for their reasons, they won't have any.
Let us then examine the case. If the quantity of knowledge in a government ought to be proportioned to the extent of a country, and the magnitude and variety of its affairs, it follows, as an undeniable result, that this absurd dogma is false, and that the reverse of it is true. As to what is called Monarchy, if it be adaptable to any country it can only be so to a small one, whose concerns are few, little complicated, and all within the comprehension of an individual. But when we come to a country of large extent, vast population, and whose affairs are great, numerous, and various, it is the representative republican system only, that can collect into the government the quantity of knowledge necessary to govern to the best national advantage. Montesquieu, who was strongly inclined to republican government, sheltered himself under this absurd dogma; for he had always the Bastile before his eyes when he was speaking of Republics, and therefore pretended not to write for France. Condorcet governed himself by the same caution, but it was caution only, for no sooner had he the opportunity of speaking fully out than he did it. When I say this of Condorcet, I know it as a fact. In a paper published in Paris, July, 1791, entitled, "The Republican, or the Defender of Representative Government?" is a piece signed Thomas Paine.(1) That piece was concerted between Condorcet and myself. I wrote the original in English, and Condorcet translated it. The object of it was to expose the absurdity and falsehood of the above mentioned dogma.
Let’s take a closer look at the situation. If the amount of knowledge in a government should match the size of a country and the scale and complexity of its issues, it’s clear that this ridiculous idea is incorrect, and the opposite is true. Regarding what is known as Monarchy, if it can work in any country, it would only be suitable for a small one with simple concerns that are easy for one person to understand. But when we talk about a large country with a vast population and many complex issues, only a representative republican system can gather the knowledge needed to govern effectively for the nation’s best interests. Montesquieu, who favored republican government, relied on this flawed idea because he was always thinking about the Bastille when discussing Republics, and so he acted as if he wasn’t writing for France. Condorcet was also careful, but it was merely caution, as he quickly took the chance to express himself fully when he could. I can confirm this about Condorcet. In a paper published in Paris in July 1791, titled, "The Republican, or the Defender of Representative Government?" there is an article signed by Thomas Paine.(1) That article was a collaboration between Condorcet and me. I wrote the original in English, and Condorcet translated it. The aim was to highlight the absurdity and falsehood of the aforementioned idea.
1 Chapter II. of this volume. See also my "Life of Paine," vol. i., p. 311.—Editor.
Having thus concisely glanced at the excellencies of the Constitution, and the superiority of the representative system of government over every other system, (if any other can be called a system,) I come to speak of the circumstances that have intervened between the time the Constitution was established and the event that took place on the 18th of Fructidor of the present year.
Having briefly looked at the strengths of the Constitution and how the representative system of government is better than any other system (if any other can even be called a system), I want to discuss the events that have occurred from the time the Constitution was established to the event that happened on the 18th of Fructidor this year.
Almost as suddenly as the morning light dissipates darkness, did the establishment of the Constitution change the face of affairs in France. Security succeeded to terror, prosperity to distress, plenty to famine, and confidence increased as the days multiplied, until the coming of the new third. A series of victories unequalled in the world, followed each other, almost too rapidly to be counted, and too numerous to be remembered. The Coalition, every where defeated and confounded, crumbled away like a ball of dust in the hand of a giant. Every thing, during that period, was acted on such a mighty scale that reality appeared a dream, and truth outstript romance. It may figuratively be said, that the Rhine and the Rubicon (Germany and Italy) replied in triumphs to each other, and the echoing Alps prolonged the shout. I will not here dishonour a great description by noticing too much the English government. It is sufficient to say paradoxically, that in the magnitude of its littleness it cringed, it intrigued, and sought protection in corruption.
Almost as suddenly as morning light fades away darkness, the establishment of the Constitution transformed the situation in France. Security replaced terror, prosperity replaced hardship, abundance replaced famine, and confidence grew as the days went by, until the arrival of the new third. An unmatched series of victories followed one after another, almost too quickly to count and too numerous to remember. The Coalition, defeated and thrown into confusion everywhere, crumbled like a ball of dust in the hand of a giant. Everything during that time was done on such a grand scale that reality felt like a dream, and truth surpassed fiction. It could be said, in a figurative sense, that the Rhine and the Rubicon (Germany and Italy) celebrated each other's triumphs, and the echoing Alps carried the cheer. I won’t disgrace a great description by dwelling too much on the English government. It's enough to say, paradoxically, that in its smallness it cringed, schemed, and sought refuge in corruption.
Though the achievements of these days might give trophies to a nation and laurels to its heroes, they derive their full radiance of glory from the principle they inspired and the object they accomplished. Desolation, chains, and slavery had marked the progress of former wars, but to conquer for Liberty had never been thought of. To receive the degrading submission of a distressed and subjugated people, and insultingly permit them to live, made the chief triumph of former conquerors; but to receive them with fraternity, to break their chains, to tell them they are free, and teach them to be so, make a new volume in the history of man.
Although the achievements of today may bring trophies to a nation and recognition to its heroes, they gain their true brilliance from the principles that inspired them and the goals they achieved. Past wars were marked by destruction, oppression, and slavery, but the idea of fighting for Liberty had never been considered. Previous conquerors took pride in forcing a defeated people into submission and allowing them to survive in misery; but embracing them as equals, breaking their chains, telling them they are free, and teaching them how to live freely creates a new chapter in human history.
Amidst those national honours, and when only two enemies remained, both of whom had solicited peace, and one of them had signed preliminaries, the election of the new third commenced. Every thing was made easy to them. All difficulties had been conquered before they arrived at the government. They came in the olive days of the revolution, and all they had to do was not to do mischief.
Amid those national honors, and when only two enemies were left, both of whom had asked for peace, and one of them had signed preliminary agreements, the election of the new third began. Everything was made easy for them. All challenges had been overcome before they got to the government. They arrived during the peaceful days of the revolution, and all they needed to do was avoid causing trouble.
It was, however, not difficult to foresee, that the elections would not be generally good. The horrid days of Robespierre were still remembered, and the gratitude due to those who had put an end to them was forgotten.
It was, however, not hard to predict that the elections wouldn’t be very successful. The terrible days of Robespierre were still fresh in memory, and the gratitude owed to those who had ended that era was overlooked.
Thousands who, by passive approbation during that tremendous scene, had experienced no suffering, assumed the merit of being the loudest against it. Their cowardice in not opposing it, became courage when it was over. They exclaimed against Terrorism as if they had been the heroes that overthrew it, and rendered themselves ridiculous by fantastically overacting moderation. The most noisy of this class, that I have met with, are those who suffered nothing. They became all things, at all times, to all men; till at last they laughed at principle. It was the real republicans who suffered most during the time of Robespierre. The persecution began upon them on the 31st of May 1793, and ceased only by the exertions of the remnant that survived.
Thousands who, by simply going along with things during that intense time, felt no pain, claimed the credit of being the loudest critics afterward. Their fear of opposing it became a show of bravery once it was over. They shouted against Terrorism as if they were the heroes who defeated it, making themselves look foolish by dramatically pretending to be moderate. The loudest among them that I encountered were those who faced no real consequences. They tried to be everything to everyone, to the point that they lost sight of their principles. It was the true republicans who suffered the most during Robespierre's reign. The persecution of them began on May 31, 1793, and ended only thanks to the efforts of the survivors.
In such a confused state of things as preceded the late elections the public mind was put into a condition of being easily deceived; and it was almost natural that the hypocrite would stand the best chance of being elected into the new third. Had those who, since their election, have thrown the public affairs into confusion by counter-revolutionary measures, declared themselves beforehand, they would have been denounced instead of being chosen. Deception was necessary to their success. The Constitution obtained a full establishment; the revolution was considered as complete; and the war on the eve of termination. In such a situation, the mass of the people, fatigued by a long revolution, sought repose; and in their elections they looked out for quiet men. They unfortunately found hypocrites. Would any of the primary assemblies have voted for a civil war? Certainly they would not. But the electoral assemblies of some departments have chosen men whose measures, since their election, tended to no other end but to provoke it. Either those electors have deceived their constituents of the primary assemblies, or they have been themselves deceived in the choice they made of deputies.
In the chaotic situation leading up to the recent elections, people were in a frame of mind that made them easy to fool; it was almost expected that the hypocrites would have the best chance of being elected into the new group. If those who have since caused chaos in public affairs with their counter-revolutionary actions had revealed their intentions beforehand, they would have been denounced instead of elected. Deception was key to their success. The Constitution was fully established; the revolution was seen as complete, and the war was about to end. In this context, the weary public, tired from a long revolution, sought peace and looked for calm candidates in the elections. Unfortunately, they ended up choosing hypocrites. Would any of the primary assemblies have voted for a civil war? Definitely not. But the electoral assemblies in some regions chose representatives whose actions since their election have only served to provoke one. Either those voters misled their constituents in the primary assemblies, or they were themselves tricked in the choice of deputies they made.
That there were some direct but secret conspirators in the new third can scarcely admit of a doubt; but it is most reasonable to suppose that a great part were seduced by the vanity of thinking they could do better than those whom they succeeded. Instead of trusting to experience, they attempted experiments. This counter-disposition prepared them to fall in with any measures contrary to former measures, and that without seeing, and probably without suspecting, the end to which they led.
It's clear that there were some direct but secret conspirators in the new third; however, it's reasonable to think that many were lured by the arrogance of believing they could do better than those they replaced. Instead of relying on experience, they tried out new approaches. This opposing mindset made them likely to go along with any actions that contradicted previous ones, often without realizing or even suspecting the consequences they would lead to.
No sooner were the members of the new third arrived at the seat of government, than expectation was excited to see how they would act. Their motions were watched by all parties, and it was impossible for them to steal a march unobserved. They had it in their power to do great good, or great mischief. A firm and manly conduct on their part, uniting with that of the Directory and their colleagues, would have terminated the war. But the moment before them was not the moment of hesitation. He that hesitates in such situation is lost.
No sooner did the members of the new third arrive at the government than everyone was eager to see how they would act. All parties were watching their moves, and it was impossible for them to make any moves unnoticed. They had the power to do great good or great harm. If they acted decisively and stood firm, joining forces with the Directory and their colleagues, they could have ended the war. But this was not the time for hesitation. Those who hesitate in such situations are doomed.
The first public act of the Council of Five Hundred was the election of Pichegru to the presidency of that Council. He arrived at it by a very large majority, and the public voice was in his favour. I among the rest was one who rejoiced at it. But if the defection of Pichegru was at that time known to Condi, and consequently to Pitt, it unveils the cause that retarded all negotiations for peace.(1) They interpreted that election into a signal of a counter-revolution, and were waiting for it; and they mistook the respect shown to Pichegru, founded on the supposition of his integrity, as a symptom of national revolt. Judging of things by their own foolish ideas of government, they ascribed appearances to causes between which there was no connection. Every thing on their part has been a comedy of errors, and the actors have been chased from the stage.
The first public action of the Council of Five Hundred was electing Pichegru as its president. He won by a significant majority, and public support was clearly in his favor. I, among others, was pleased about it. However, if Pichegru's defection was known to Condi and, consequently, to Pitt at that time, it reveals the reason that stalled all peace negotiations. They interpreted that election as a signal for a counter-revolution and were waiting for it; they misjudged the respect given to Pichegru, based on the assumption of his integrity, as a sign of national rebellion. Relying on their own misguided ideas about government, they attributed consequences to causes that were not connected. Everything on their side has been a comedy of errors, and the performers have been driven off the stage.
1 Louis Joseph de Bourbon, Prince de Condé (1736-1818), brought together the French emigrants along the Rhine into an army that was merged with the Austrian forces but funded by England. He turned Pichegru into a covert supporter of the Bourbons. In the end, he came back to France with Louis XVIII., who appointed him as colonel of infantry and head of the royal household.—Editor.,
Two or three decades of the new sessions passed away without any thing very material taking place; but matters soon began to explain themselves. The first thing that struck the public mind was, that no more was heard of negotiations for peace, and that public business stood still. It was not the object of the conspirators that there should be peace; but as it was necessary to conceal their object, the Constitution was ransacked to find pretences for delays. In vain did the Directory explain to them the state of the finances and the wants of the army. The committee, charged with that business, trifled away its time by a series of unproductive reports, and continued to sit only to produce more. Every thing necessary to be done was neglected, and every thing improper was attempted. Pichegru occupied himself about forming a national guard for the Councils—the suspicious signal of war,—Camille Jordan about priests and bells, and the emigrants, with whom he had associated during the two years he was in England.1 Willot and Delarue attacked the Directory: their object was to displace some one of the directors, to get in another of their own. Their motives with respect to the age of Barras (who is as old as he wishes to be, and has been a little too old for them) were too obvious not to be seen through.(2)
Two or three decades of the new sessions went by without anything significant happening, but things soon began to unravel. The first thing that caught the public's attention was that there were no more talks about peace, and public business came to a standstill. The conspirators didn’t want peace; instead, they needed to hide their true intentions, so they scoured the Constitution for excuses to delay progress. The Directory tried to explain the financial situation and the army's needs to them in vain. The committee responsible for that matter wasted time with a series of pointless reports, continuing to meet just to create more of them. Everything that needed to be done was ignored, and improper actions were taken. Pichegru was focused on creating a national guard for the Councils—a clear sign of impending war—while Camille Jordan dealt with priests, bells, and the emigrants he had associated with during his two years in England. Willot and Delarue challenged the Directory: they aimed to oust one of the directors and replace them with someone from their ranks. Their intentions regarding Barras's age (who is as old as he chooses to be and has been a bit too old for them) were too clear to go unnoticed.
1 Paine's pamphlet, directed to Jordan, focuses primarily on religious issues and is set aside for our fourth volume.— Editor.. 2 Paul Frangois Jean Nicolas Barras (1755-1899) was the President of the Directory during this time, 1797.—Editor..
In this suspensive state of things, the public mind, filled with apprehensions, became agitated, and without knowing what it might be, looked for some extraordinary event. It saw, for it could not avoid seeing, that things could not remain long in the state they were in, but it dreaded a convulsion. That spirit of triflingness which it had indulged too freely when in a state of security, and which it is probable the new agents had interpreted into indifference about the success of the Republic, assumed a serious aspect that afforded to conspiracy no hope of aid; but still it went on. It plunged itself into new measures with the same ill success, and the further it went the further the public mind retired. The conspiracy saw nothing around it to give it encouragement.
In this tense situation, the public felt anxious and restless, searching for some unusual event without knowing what it might be. They realized, whether they wanted to or not, that things couldn't stay the same for long, but they feared a major upheaval. The carefree attitude they had indulged in during safer times, which the new leaders likely misunderstood as a lack of concern for the Republic’s success, took on a serious tone that offered no hope for conspirators. Yet, they continued their efforts. They pursued new plans with the same lack of success, and the more they pushed, the more the public withdrew. The conspiracy found nothing around it to boost its morale.
The obstinacy, however, with which it persevered in its repeated attacks upon the Directory, in framing laws in favour of emigrants and refractory priests, and in every thing inconsistent with the immediate safety of the Republic, and which served to encourage the enemy to prolong the war, admitted of no other direct interpretation than that something was rotten in the Council of Five Hundred. The evidence of circumstances became every day too visible not to be seen, and too strong to be explained away. Even as errors, (to say no worse of them,) they are not entitled to apology; for where knowledge is a duty, ignorance is a crime.
The stubbornness with which it continued its repeated attacks on the Directory, by creating laws in favor of emigrants and rebellious priests, and in everything that threatened the immediate safety of the Republic, only served to encourage the enemy to drag out the war. This left no other reasonable interpretation than that something was wrong in the Council of Five Hundred. The evidence of the situation became more and more obvious every day and too compelling to dismiss. Even if we consider them as mistakes (to put it mildly), they do not deserve an apology; because when knowledge is a duty, ignorance is a crime.
The more serious republicans, who had better opportunities than the generality had, of knowing the state of politics, began to take the alarm, and formed themselves into a Society, by the name of the Constitutional Club. It is the only Society of which I have been a member in France; and I went to this because it was become necessary that the friends of the Republic should rally round the standard of the constitution. I met there several of the original patriots of the revolution; I do not mean of the last order of Jacobins, but of the first of that name. The faction in the Council of Five Hundred, who, finding no counsel from the public, began to be frightened at appearances, fortified itself against the dread of this Society, by passing a law to dissolve it. The constitutionality of the law was at least doubtful: but the Society, that it might not give the example of exasperating matters already too much inflamed, suspended its meetings.
The more serious republicans, who had better access to political information than most, started to get worried and formed a group called the Constitutional Club. This is the only group I’ve been a part of in France, and I joined because it was essential for supporters of the Republic to unite around the constitution. There, I met several of the original patriots from the revolution; I'm not talking about the most recent group of Jacobins, but the original ones. The faction in the Council of Five Hundred, realizing they had no support from the public and starting to feel uneasy, protected themselves from the threat of this Society by passing a law to dissolve it. The legality of that law was at least questionable. However, to avoid escalating already tense situations, the Society decided to pause its meetings.
A matter, however, of much greater moment soon after presented itself. It was the march of four regiments, some of whom, in the line of their route, had to pass within about twelve leagues of Paris, which is the boundary the Constitution had fixed as the distance of any armed force from the legislative body. In another state of things, such a circumstance would not have been noticed. But conspiracy is quick of suspicion, and the fear which the faction in the Council of Five Hundred manifested upon this occasion could not have suggested itself to innocent men; neither would innocent men have expostulated with the Directory upon the case, in the manner these men did. The question they urged went to extort from the Directory, and to make known to the enemy, what the destination of the troops was. The leaders of the faction conceived that the troops were marching against them; and the conduct they adopted in consequence of it was sufficient to justify the measure, even if it had been so. From what other motive than the consciousness of their own designs could they have fear? The troops, in every instance, had been the gallant defenders of the Republic, and the openly declared friends of the Constitution; the Directory had been the same, and if the faction were not of a different description neither fear nor suspicion could have had place among them.
A much more significant issue soon arose. It involved the movement of four regiments, some of which had to pass within about twelve leagues of Paris, which is the distance the Constitution had set as the limit for any armed force from the legislative body. Under normal circumstances, this wouldn't have raised any alarms. But when there's a conspiracy, people are quick to suspect the worst, and the fear shown by the faction in the Council of Five Hundred in this situation was not something innocent people would feel; nor would innocent people have confronted the Directory about it as these individuals did. They pressed for the Directory to disclose the troops' destination, hoping to inform the enemy. The faction's leaders believed the troops were marching against them, and their response was enough to warrant concern, even if that were true. What other motive than their awareness of their own schemes could explain their fear? The troops had always been brave defenders of the Republic and openly supported the Constitution; the Directory had also supported it. If the faction were not different, they wouldn't have experienced fear or suspicion.
All those manouvres in the Council were acted under the most professional attachment to the Constitution; and this as necessarily served to enfeeble their projects. It is exceedingly difficult, and next to impossible, to conduct a conspiracy, and still more so to give it success, in a popular government. The disguised and feigned pretences which men in such cases are obliged to act in the face of the public, suppress the action of the faculties, and give even to natural courage the features of timidity. They are not half the men they would be where no disguise is necessary. It is impossible to be a hypocrite and to be brave at the same instant.
All those maneuvers in the Council were carried out with a strong commitment to the Constitution, which ultimately weakened their plans. It's extremely difficult, almost impossible, to carry out a conspiracy, especially to make it successful, in a democratic government. The hidden and false roles that people have to play in front of the public stifle their ability to act and even turn natural courage into something that looks like fear. They aren’t even half the people they could be where no disguise is needed. You can’t be a hypocrite and be brave at the same time.
The faction, by the imprudence of its measures, upon the march of the troops, and upon the declarations of the officers and soldiers to support the Republic and the Constitution against all open or concealed attempts to overturn them, had gotten itself involved with the army, and in effect declared itself a party against it. On the one hand, laws were proposed to admit emigrants and refractory priests as free citizens; and on the other hand to exclude the troops from Paris, and to punish the soldiers who had declared to support the Republic In the mean time all negociations for peace went backward; and the enemy, still recruiting its forces, rested to take advantage of circumstances. Excepting the absence of hostilities, it was a state worse than war.
The faction, through its reckless actions, got entangled with the army while the troops were on the move, and the officers and soldiers expressed their commitment to defend the Republic and the Constitution against any open or hidden attempts to undermine them. On one hand, there were proposals for laws to grant citizenship to emigrants and rebellious priests; on the other hand, there were attempts to ban the troops from Paris and to punish the soldiers who pledged their support for the Republic. Meanwhile, all peace negotiations stalled, and the enemy continued to build its forces, waiting to exploit the situation. Aside from the lack of fighting, things were in a state worse than war.
If all this was not a conspiracy, it had at least the features of one, and was pregnant with the same mischiefs. The eyes of the faction could not avoid being open to the dangers to which it obstinately exposed the Republic; yet still it persisted. During this scene, the journals devoted to the faction were repeatedly announcing the near approach of peace with Austria and with England, and often asserting that it was concluded. This falsehood could be intended for no other purpose than to keep the eyes of the people shut against the dangers to which they were exposed.
If all this wasn’t a conspiracy, it at least had the characteristics of one and was filled with the same problems. The faction’s leaders couldn’t ignore the risks they were stubbornly putting the Republic in; yet they kept going. During this time, the newspapers aligned with the faction were constantly claiming that peace with Austria and England was imminent, often stating that it was already achieved. This lie could only be meant to keep the public blind to the dangers they faced.
Taking all circumstances together, it was impossible that such a state of things could continue long; and at length it was resolved to bring it to an issue. There is good reason to believe that the affair of the 18th Fructidor (September 4) was intended to have taken place two days before; but on recollecting that it was the 2d of September, a day mournful in the annals of the revolution, it was postponed. When the issue arrived, the faction found to its cost it had no party among the public. It had sought its own disasters, and was left to suffer the consequences. Foreign enemies, as well as those of the interior, if any such there be, ought to see in the event of this day that all expectation of aid from any part of the public in support of a counter revolution is delusion. In a state of security the thoughtless, who trembled at terror, may laugh at principles of Liberty (for they have laughed) but it is one thing to indulge a foolish laugh, quite another thing to surrender Liberty.
Considering all the circumstances, it was clear that this situation couldn’t last much longer; eventually, a resolution was reached. There’s good reason to believe that the events of the 18th Fructidor (September 4) were supposed to happen two days earlier, but they were postponed upon realizing it was September 2, a day marked by sadness in the history of the revolution. When the moment finally came, the faction realized too late that it had no support from the public. It had brought about its own downfall and was left to face the repercussions. Both foreign adversaries and any internal enemies should recognize from this day’s outcome that any hope for public support in favor of a counter-revolution is an illusion. In a time of stability, those who once feared might laugh at the principles of Liberty (and they have laughed), but it’s one thing to indulge in a foolish laugh and quite another to give up Liberty.
Considering the event of the 18th Fructidor in a political light, it is one of those that are justifiable only on the supreme law of absolute necessity, and it is the necessity abstracted from the event that is to be deplored. The event itself is matter of joy. Whether the manouvres in the Council of Five Hundred were the conspiracy of a few, aided l>y the perverseness of many, or whether it had a deeper root, the dangers were the same. It was impossible to go on. Every thing was at stake, and all national business at a stand. The case reduced itself to a simple alternative—shall the Republic be destroyed by the darksome manouvres -of a faction, or shall it be preserved by an exceptional act?
Considering the event of the 18th Fructidor from a political perspective, it can only be justified by the absolute necessity of the situation, and it is this necessity, independent of the event itself, that is regrettable. The event, however, brings joy. Whether the actions in the Council of Five Hundred were the result of a conspiracy by a few, supported by the wrongdoing of many, or if there was a deeper cause, the dangers remained the same. Continuing as things were was impossible. Everything was at stake, and all national matters were at a standstill. The situation boiled down to a simple choice—should the Republic be destroyed by the dark schemes of a faction, or should it be saved by a special action?
During the American Revolution, and that after the State constitutions were established, particular cases arose that rendered it necessary to act in a manner that would have been treasonable in a state of peace. At one time Congress invested General Washington with dictatorial power. At another time the Government of Pennsylvania suspended itself and declared martial law. It was the necessity of the times only that made the apology of those extraordinary measures. But who was it that produced the necessity of an extraordinary measure in France? A faction, and that in the face of prosperity and success. Its conduct is without apology; and it is on the faction only that the exceptional measure has fallen. The public has suffered no inconvenience. If there are some men more disposed than others not to act severely, I have a right to place myself in that class; the whole of my political life invariably proves it; yet I cannot see, taking all parts of the case together, what else, or what better, could have been done, than has been done. It was a great stroke, applied in a great crisis, that crushed in an instant, and without the loss of a life, all the hopes of the enemy, and restored tranquillity to the interior.
During the American Revolution, after the state constitutions were set up, specific situations came up that required actions that would have been considered treasonous in peacetime. At one point, Congress gave General Washington dictatorial powers. At another time, the government of Pennsylvania suspended itself and declared martial law. The urgent circumstances of the time were the only justification for those extraordinary measures. But who created the situation that required an extraordinary measure in France? A faction, and this was during a time of prosperity and success. Their actions lack justification; it is only on this faction that the exceptional measure has fallen. The public has not faced any inconvenience. If there are some individuals who are less inclined to act harshly, I consider myself part of that group; the entirety of my political life proves it. However, I can't see, considering all aspects of the situation together, what else or what better could have been done than what has been done. It was a decisive action taken during a significant crisis that instantly crushed, without any loss of life, all the enemy's hopes and restored peace within the nation.
The event was ushered in by the discharge of two cannon at four in the morning, and was the only noise that was heard throughout the day. It naturally excited a movement among the Parisians to enquire the cause. They soon learned it, and the countenance they carried was easy to be interpreted. It was that of a people who, for some time past, had been oppressed with apprehensions of some direful event, and who felt themselves suddenly relieved, by finding what it was. Every one went about his business, or followed his curiosity in quietude. It resembled the cheerful tranquillity of the day when Louis XVI. absconded in 1791, and like that day it served to open the eyes of the nation.
The event started with two cannon shots at four in the morning, which was the only sound heard throughout the day. This naturally prompted the Parisians to inquire about the reason. They quickly discovered it, and their expressions clearly reflected their feelings. They looked like a people who had been anxious about some terrible event for a while but felt a sudden relief upon learning what it was. Everyone went about their business or indulged their curiosity in a calm manner. It was reminiscent of the cheerful calm on the day Louis XVI fled in 1791, and like that day, it helped to awaken the nation.
If we take a review of the various events, as well conspiracies as commotions, that have succeeded each other in this revolution, we shall see how the former have wasted consumptively away, and the consequences of the latter have softened. The 31st May and its consequences were terrible. That of the 9th and 10th Thermidor, though glorious for the republic, as it overthrew one of the most horrid and cruel despotisms that ever raged, was nevertheless marked with many circumstances of severe and continued retaliation. The commotions of Germinal and Prairial of the year 3, and of Vendemaire of the year 4, were many degrees below those that preceded them, and affected but a small part of the public. This of Pichegru and his associates has been crushed in an instant, without the stain of blood, and without involving the public in the least inconvenience.
If we look back at the various events, both conspiracies and upheavals, that have taken place during this revolution, we can see how the former have slowly faded away, and the impact of the latter has diminished. The events of May 31st and their aftermath were horrific. Meanwhile, what happened on the 9th and 10th of Thermidor, although triumphant for the republic since it ended one of the most brutal and cruel tyrannies in history, was still marked by numerous instances of harsh and ongoing retaliation. The upheavals of Germinal and Prairial in Year 3, and Vendemiaire in Year 4, were significantly less intense than those that came before and affected only a small portion of the public. The incident involving Pichegru and his associates was quickly put down, without any bloodshed and without causing any trouble for the public.
These events taken in a series, mark the progress of the Republic from disorder to stability. The contrary of this is the case in all parts of the British dominions. There, commotions are on an ascending scale; every one is higher than the former. That of the sailors had nearly been the overthrow of the government. But the most potent of all is the invisible commotion in the Bank. It works with the silence of time, and the certainty of death. Every thing happening in France is curable; but this is beyond the reach of nature or invention.
These events, taken together, show the Republic's journey from chaos to stability. In contrast, the situation across all parts of the British Empire is different. There, unrest is escalating; each incident is more intense than the last. The sailors' uprising almost led to the government's collapse. But the most powerful factor is the unseen turmoil in the Bank. It operates quietly, like the passage of time, with the inevitability of death. Everything happening in France can be fixed; however, this issue is beyond what nature or ingenuity can solve.
Leaving the event of the 18th Fructidor to justify itself by the necessity that occasioned it, and glorify itself by the happiness of its consequences, I come to cast a coup-d'oil on the present state of affairs.
Leaving the event of the 18th Fructidor to explain itself through the necessity that led to it and to celebrate itself through the happiness of its outcomes, I will now take a look at the current situation.
We have seen by the lingering condition of the negociations for peace, that nothing was to be expected from them, in the situation that things stood prior to the 18th Fructidor. The armies had done wonders, but those wonders were rendered unproductive by the wretched manouvres of a faction. New exertions are now necessary to repair the mischiefs which that faction has done. The electoral bodies, in some Departments, who by an injudicious choice, or a corrupt influence, have sent improper deputies to the Legislature, have some atonement to make to their country. The evil originated with them, and the least they can do is to be among the foremost to repair it.
We can see from the ongoing state of the peace negotiations that we shouldn’t expect much from them, considering how things were before the 18th of Fructidor. The armies achieved incredible things, but those achievements were wasted due to the terrible actions of a particular faction. New efforts are now required to fix the damage that faction has caused. The electoral bodies in some regions, who, through poor choices or corrupt influence, sent unsuitable representatives to the Legislature, owe their country some accountability. The problem started with them, and the least they can do is to be among the first to help fix it.
It is, however, in vain to lament an evil that is past. There is neither manhood nor policy in grief; and it often happens that an error in politics, like an error in war, admits of being turned to greater advantage than if it had not occurred. The enemy, encouraged by that error, presumes too much, and becomes doubly foiled by the re-action. England, unable to conquer, has stooped to corrupt; and defeated in the last, as in the first, she is in a worse condition than before. Continually increasing her crimes, she increases the measure of her atonement, and multiplies the sacrifices she must make to obtain peace. Nothing but the most obstinate stupidity could have induced her to let slip the opportunity when it was within her reach. In addition to the prospect of new expenses, she is now, to use Mr. Pitt's own figurative expression against France, not only on the brink, but in the gulph of bankruptcy. There is no longer any mystery in paper money. Call it assignats, mandats, exchequer bills, or bank notes, it is still the same. Time has solved the problem, and experience has fixed its fate.(1)
It’s pointless to mourn for a past wrong. There's no strength or wisdom in just feeling sad; sometimes, a mistake in politics, like a mistake in war, can lead to even greater benefits than if it had never happened. The enemy, feeling emboldened by that mistake, can get overconfident and end up being outsmarted in return. England, unable to win, has resorted to bribery; and after being defeated once again, she finds herself in a worse situation than before. By constantly increasing her wrongdoings, she only increases her debt and the sacrifices she must make to achieve peace. Only the most stubborn foolishness could have led her to miss the opportunity when it was within her grasp. On top of facing new costs, she is now, as Mr. Pitt famously said about France, not only on the brink but in the depths of bankruptcy. There’s no longer any secret about paper money. Whether it's called assignats, mandats, exchequer bills, or bank notes, it’s all the same. Time has made the situation clear, and experience has sealed its fate.(1)
1 See Chapter XXVI of this volume.—Editor..
The government of that unfortunate country discovers its faithlessness so much, that peace on any terms with her is scarcely worth obtaining. Of what use is peace with a government that will employ that peace for no other purpose than to repair, as far as it is possible, her shattered finances and broken credit, and then go to war again? Four times within the last ten years, from the time the American war closed, has the Anglo-germanic government of England been meditating fresh war. First with France on account of Holland, in 1787; afterwards with Russia; then with Spain, on account of Nootka Sound; and a second time against France, to overthrow her revolution. Sometimes that government employs Prussia against Austria; at another time Austria against Prussia; and always one or the other, or both against France. Peace with such a government is only a treacherous cessation of hostilities.
The government of that unfortunate country shows its untrustworthiness so much that peace on any terms with it is hardly worth pursuing. What good is peace with a government that will use that peace solely to fix, as much as possible, its damaged finances and shattered reputation, only to go to war again? Four times in the last ten years since the American war ended, the Anglo-Germanic government of England has been considering starting new conflicts. First with France over Holland in 1787; then with Russia; next with Spain over Nootka Sound; and again with France to overthrow its revolution. Sometimes that government uses Prussia against Austria; at other times, Austria against Prussia; and always one or the other, or both, against France. Peace with such a government is just a deceptive pause in fighting.
The frequency of wars on the part of England, within the last century, more than before, must have had some cause that did not exist prior to that epoch. It is not difficult to discover what that cause is. It is the mischievous compound of an Elector of the Germanic body and a King of England; and which necessarily must, at some day or other, become an object of attention to France. That one nation has not a right to interfere in the internal government of another nation, is admitted; and in this point of view, France has no right to dictate to England what its form of government shall be. If it choose to have a thing called a King, or whether that King shall be a man or an ass, is a matter with which France has no business. But whether an Elector of the Germanic body shall be King of England, is an external case, with which France and every other nation, who suffers inconvenience and injury in consequence of it, has a right to interfere.
The number of wars involving England over the past century, more than ever before, must have been caused by something that didn’t exist earlier. It’s not hard to figure out what that cause is. It’s the troublesome combination of a German Elector and a King of England, which will eventually draw France's attention. It’s accepted that one nation doesn’t have the right to meddle in the internal affairs of another. From this perspective, France has no right to tell England how to govern itself. Whether England wants to have a King, or if that King is a man or a fool, is none of France's business. However, whether a German Elector should be King of England is an external issue, with which France and any other nation affected by it, has the right to intervene.
It is from this mischievous compound of Elector and King, that originates a great part of the troubles that vex the continent of Europe; and with respect to England, it has been the cause of her immense national debt, the ruin of her finances, and the insolvency of her bank. All intrigues on the continent, in which England is a party, or becomes involved, are generated by, and act through, the medium of this Anglo-germanic compound. It will be necessary to dissolve it. Let the Elector retire to his Electorate, and the world will have peace.
It’s this troublesome mix of Elector and King that causes a lot of the issues plaguing Europe; for England, it has led to her massive national debt, financial ruin, and a bankrupt bank. All the intrigues on the continent that involve England are driven by this Anglo-Germanic mix. It needs to be broken apart. If the Elector goes back to his Electorate, the world will find peace.
England herself has given examples of interference in matters of this kind, and that in cases where injury was only apprehended. She engaged in a long and expensive war against France (called the succession war) to prevent a grandson of Louis the Fourteenth being king of Spain; because, said she, it will be injurious to me; and she has been fighting and intriguing against what was called the family-compact ever since. In 1787 she threatened France with war to prevent a connection between France and Hoi-land; and in all her propositions of peace to-day she is dictating separations. But if she look at the Anglo-germanic compact at home, called the Hanover succession, she cannot avoid seeing that France necessarily must, some day or other, take up that subject, and make the return of the Elector to his Electorate one of the conditions of peace. There will be no lasting peace between the two countries till this be done, and the sooner it be done the better will it be for both.
England herself has shown instances of interference in these kinds of matters, even when no harm had actually occurred. She fought a long and costly war against France, known as the succession war, to block a grandson of Louis XIV from becoming king of Spain; she argued that it would be harmful to her. Since then, she has been battling and plotting against what was referred to as the family compact. In 1787, she threatened France with war to stop a connection between France and Holland, and in all her current peace proposals, she is demanding separations. However, if she examines the Anglo-Germanic agreement at home, known as the Hanover succession, she can't help but realize that France will eventually need to address that issue and make the return of the Elector to his Electorate a condition of peace. There won't be lasting peace between the two nations until this is resolved, and the sooner it happens, the better it will be for both.
I have not been in any company where this matter aas been a topic, that did not see it in the light it is here stated. Even Barthilimy,(1) when he first came to the Directory (and Barthilimy was never famous for patriotism) acknowledged in my hearing, and in company with Derchi, Secretary to the Legation at Lille, the connection of an Elector of Germany and a King of England to be injurious to France. I do not, however, mention it from a wish to embarrass the negociation for peace. The Directory has fixed its ultimatum; but if that ultimatum be rejected, the obligation to adhere to it is discharged, and a new one may be assumed. So wretchedly has Pitt managed his opportunities; that every succeeding negociation has ended in terms more against him than the former. If the Directory had bribed him, he could not serve his interest better than he does. He serves it as Lord North served that of America, which finished in the discharge of his master.*
I haven't been in any company where this issue has come up that didn't see it the way I've described it here. Even Barthilimy,(1) when he first joined the Directory (and Barthilimy was never known for his patriotism), admitted in my presence, along with Derchi, the Secretary to the Legation in Lille, that the connection between a German Elector and an English King is harmful to France. However, I’m not mentioning this to disrupt the peace negotiations. The Directory has set its ultimatum; but if that ultimatum is rejected, the obligation to stick to it is gone, and a new one can be established. Pitt has handled his opportunities so poorly that every subsequent negotiation has ended with terms worse for him than the last. If the Directory had bribed him, he couldn't be serving his interests better than he currently does. He serves them just like Lord North served America, which resulted in his own downfall.*
1 Marquis de Barthilimy (Frangois) (1750-1830) joined the Directory in June 1796, thanks to royalist support. He faced exile alongside Pichegru and later became an agent for Louis XVIII.—Editor. * The father of Pitt, while serving in the House of Commons, once exclaimed during an earlier war about the massive and destructive costs of German alliances, stemming from the Hanover succession. Using a metaphor from the story of Prometheus, he shouted: "Thus, Hie Prometheus, Britain is tied to the barren rock of Hanover; while the imperial eagle feeds on her very core."— Author.
Thus far I had written when the negociation at Lille became suspended, in consequence of which I delayed the publication, that the ideas suggested in this letter might not intrude themselves during the interval. The ultimatum offered by the Directory, as the terms of peace, was more moderate than the government of England had a right to expect. That government, though the provoker of the war, and the first that committed hostilities by sending away the ambassador Chauvelin,(**) had formerly talked of demanding from France, indemnification for the past and security for the future. France, in her turn, might have retorted, and demanded the same from England; but she did not. As it was England that, in consequence of her bankruptcy, solicited peace, France offered it to her on the simple condition of her restoring the islands she had taken. The ultimatum has been rejected, and the negociation broken off. The spirited part of France will say, tant mieux, so much the better.
So far I had written when the negotiations in Lille were put on hold, which is why I postponed the publication, so that the ideas mentioned in this letter wouldn't interfere during that time. The ultimatum presented by the Directory as peace terms was more moderate than what the English government had a right to expect. That government, even though it started the war and was the first to take hostile action by sending away the ambassador Chauvelin, had previously talked about demanding from France, indemnification for the past and security for the future. France, in response, could have demanded the same from England, but she chose not to. Since it was England that, due to its bankruptcy, sought peace, France offered it to her on the simple condition of returning the islands she had taken. The ultimatum has been rejected, and the negotiations have fallen apart. The spirited part of France will say, so much the better.
** It was stated in the trade agreement between France and England, finalized in Paris, that sending away an ambassador by either side would be seen as an act of hostility by the other. The announcement of war (Feb. M *793) by the Convention, of which I was a member and am well aware of the circumstances, was made in strict accordance with this clause in the treaty; it was not a declaration of war against England, but a statement that the French Republic is at war with England, with the first act of hostility initiated by England. The declaration happened right after Chauvelin returned to France and as a direct result of that. Mr. Pitt should get better informed about these matters before he talks so much about them, or about the recall of Malmesbury, who was only there on a permission visit.—Author.
How the people of England feel on the breaking up of the negociation, which was entirely the act of their own Government, is best known to themselves; but from what I know of the two nations, France ought to hold herself perfectly indifferent about a peace with the Government of England. Every day adds new strength to France and new embarrassments to her enemy. The resources of the one increase, as those of the other become exhausted. England is now reduced to the same system of paper money from which France has emerged, and we all know the inevitable fate of that system. It is not a victory over a few ships, like that on the coast of Holland, that gives the least support or relief to a paper system. On the news of this victory arriving in England, the funds did not rise a farthing. The Government rejoiced, but its creditors were silent.
How the people of England feel about the breakdown of the negotiation, which was entirely their Government's doing, is something only they truly understand; but from what I know of both nations, France should remain completely unconcerned about making peace with the Government of England. Each day brings more strength to France and more challenges to her enemy. The resources of one side are growing while the other is running low. England has now resorted to the same paper money system that France has moved beyond, and we all know the inevitable outcome of that system. It's not a victory over a few ships, like the one off the coast of Holland, that provides any actual support or relief to a paper-based economy. When news of that victory reached England, the stock market didn't budge an inch. The Government celebrated, but its creditors were silent.
It is difficult to find a motive, except in folly and madness, for the conduct of the English government. Every calculation and prediction of Mr. Pitt has turned out directly the contrary; yet still he predicts. He predicted, with all the solemn assurance of a magician, that France would be bankrupt in a few months. He was right as to the thing, but wrong as to the place, for the bankruptcy happened in England whilst the words were yet warm upon his lips. To find out what will happen, it is only necessary to know what Mr. Pitt predicts. He is a true prophet if taken in the reverse.
It's hard to understand the motivation behind the actions of the English government, except through folly and madness. Every calculation and prediction made by Mr. Pitt has turned out to be completely wrong; yet he continues to make predictions. He confidently declared, like a magician, that France would go bankrupt in a few months. He was correct about the bankruptcy itself, but mistaken about the location, as it occurred in England while he was still speaking. To figure out what will happen, you just need to look at what Mr. Pitt predicts. He's a true prophet if you consider his predictions in reverse.
Such is the ruinous condition that England is now in, that great as the difficulties of war are to the people, the difficulties that would accompany peace are equally as great to the Government. Whilst the war continues, Mr. Pitt has a pretence for shutting up the bank. But as that pretence could last no longer than the war lasted, he dreads the peace that would expose the absolute bankruptcy of the government, and unveil to a deceived nation the ruinous effect of his measures. Peace would be a day of accounts to him, and he shuns it as an insolvent debtor shuns a meeting of his creditors. War furnishes him with many pretences; peace would furnish him with none, and he stands alarmed at its consequences. His conduct in the negociation at Lille can be easily interpreted. It is not for the sake of the nation that he asks to retain some of the taken islands; for what are islands to a nation that has already too many for her own good, or what are they in comparison to the expense of another campaign in the present depreciating state of the English funds? (And even then those islands must be restored.)
The current state of England is so disastrous that while the challenges of war are significant for the people, the challenges of peace would be just as overwhelming for the government. As long as the war goes on, Mr. Pitt can justify shutting down the bank. But since that justification can only last as long as the war does, he fears the peace that would reveal the government's total bankruptcy and expose the damaging effects of his policies to a misled nation. Peace would mean facing the music for him, and he avoids it like a broke debtor avoids a meeting with creditors. War provides him with plenty of excuses; peace wouldn’t give him any, and he’s clearly worried about what might happen. His actions during the negotiation at Lille can be easily understood. It's not for the nation's benefit that he wants to keep some of the captured islands; what do islands mean for a nation that already has too many for its own good, or what do they matter compared to the cost of another campaign given the current declining state of English finances? (And even then, those islands would have to be returned.)
No, it is not for the sake of the nation that he asks. It is for the sake of himself. It is as if he said to France, Give me some pretence, cover me from disgrace when my day of reckoning comes!
No, he's not asking for the nation's sake. He's doing it for himself. It's like he's saying to France, "Give me some excuse, protect me from shame when my time to face the music arrives!"
Any person acquainted with the English Government knows that every Minister has some dread of what is called in England the winding up of accounts at the end of a war; that is, the final settlement of all expenses incurred by the war; and no Minister had ever so great cause of dread as Mr. Pitt. A burnt child dreads the fire, and Pitt has had some experience upon this case. The winding up of accounts at the end of the American war was so great, that, though he was not the cause of it, and came into the Ministry with great popularity, he lost it all by undertaking, what was impossible for him to avoid, the voluminous business of the winding up. If such was the case in settling the accounts of his predecessor, how much more has he to apprehend when the accounts to be settled are his own? All men in bad circumstances hate the settlement of accounts, and Pitt, as a Minister, is of that description.
Anyone familiar with the English Government knows that every Minister has some fear of what’s referred to in England as the winding up of accounts at the end of a war; that is, the final settlement of all expenses from the war. No Minister had more reason to be fearful than Mr. Pitt. A burnt child fears the fire, and Pitt has had some experience with this issue. The winding up of accounts after the American war was so significant that, although he wasn’t the cause of it and came into the Ministry with a lot of popularity, he lost it all by tackling the overwhelming task of the winding up. If this was the case for settling the accounts of his predecessor, how much more should he be concerned when the accounts to be settled are his own? Everyone in difficult situations despises settling accounts, and Pitt, as a Minister, fits that description.
But let us take a view of things on a larger ground than the case of a Minister. It will then be found, that England, on a comparison of strength with France, when both nations are disposed to exert their utmost, has no possible chance of success. The efforts that England made within the last century were not generated on the ground of natural ability, but of artificial anticipations. She ran posterity into debt, and swallowed up in one generation the resources of several generations yet to come, till the project can be pursued no longer. It is otherwise in France. The vastness of her territory and her population render the burden easy that would make a bankrupt of a country like England.
But let's look at the situation from a broader perspective than just that of a Minister. When comparing the strength of England and France, especially when both countries are pushing their limits, England has no real chance of success. The efforts made by England in the last century were not based on natural ability, but rather on artificial expectations. She put future generations in debt and consumed the resources of multiple future generations in just one, to the point where this strategy can no longer continue. It's different in France. The vastness of her territory and population makes the burden much easier, one that would bankrupt a country like England.
It is not the weight of a thing, but the numbers who are to bear that weight, that makes it feel light or heavy to the shoulders of those who bear it. A land-tax of half as much in the pound as the land-tax is in England, will raise nearly four times as much revenue in France as is raised in England. This is a scale easily understood, by which all the other sections of productive revenue can be measured. Judge then of the difference of natural ability.
It’s not the weight of something that matters, but the number of people who have to carry it that makes it feel light or heavy to those carrying it. A land tax that is half the amount per pound as the land tax in England will generate almost four times the revenue in France compared to what is raised in England. This is a simple scale that can be used to measure all other types of productive revenue. Consider the difference in natural ability.
England is strong in a navy; but that navy costs about eight millions sterling a-year, and is one of the causes that has hastened her bankruptcy. The history of navy bills sufficiently proves this. But strong as England is in this case, the fate of navies must finally be decided by the natural ability of each country to carry its navy to the greatest extent; and France is able to support a navy twice as large as that of England, with less than half the expense per head on the people, which the present navy of England costs.
England has a powerful navy, but it costs around eight million pounds a year, which is one of the reasons pushing her toward bankruptcy. The history of naval expenditures clearly shows this. However strong England is in this regard, the outcome of navies ultimately depends on each country's natural ability to sustain their navy at scale; France can maintain a navy twice the size of England's while spending less than half per person compared to what England currently pays for its navy.
We all know that a navy cannot be raised as expeditiously as an army. But as the average duration of a navy, taking the decay of time, storms, and all circumstances and accidents together, is less than twenty years, every navy must be renewed within that time; and France at the end of a few years, can create and support a navy of double the extent of that of England; and the conduct of the English government will provoke her to it.
We all know that a navy can't be built as quickly as an army. However, since the average lifespan of a navy, considering wear and tear, storms, and all other factors, is less than twenty years, every navy needs to be refreshed within that timeframe. In just a few years, France can create and maintain a navy that's twice the size of England's, and the actions of the English government will push her to do just that.
But of what use are navies otherwise than to make or prevent invasions? Commercially considered, they are losses. They scarcely give any protection to the commerce of the countries which have them, compared with the expense of maintaining them, and they insult the commerce of the nations that are neutral.
But what are navies really for if not to start or stop invasions? From a commercial standpoint, they are just a drain on resources. They hardly provide any protection for the trade of the countries that possess them when you consider the cost of keeping them up, and they disrespect the trade of neutral nations.
During the American war, the plan of the armed neutrality was formed and put in execution: but it was inconvenient, expensive, and ineffectual. This being the case, the problem is, does not commerce contain within itself, the means of its own protection? It certainly does, if the neutral nations will employ that means properly.
During the American war, the idea of armed neutrality was developed and put into action, but it was inconvenient, costly, and ineffective. Given this situation, the question is, doesn't commerce have within it the means for its own protection? It clearly does, if neutral nations would use that means correctly.
Instead then of an armed neutrality, the plan should be directly the contrary. It should be an unarmed neutrality. In the first place, the rights of neutral nations are easily defined. They are such as are exercised by nations in their intercourse with each other in time of peace, and which ought not, and cannot of right, be interrupted in consequence of war breaking out between any two or more of them.
Instead of an armed neutrality, the plan should be exactly the opposite. It should be an unarmed neutrality. First of all, the rights of neutral nations are clear. They are the rights that countries have when they interact with each other in times of peace, and these rights should not, and cannot rightly, be interrupted simply because a war starts between any two or more of them.
Taking this as a principle, the next thing is to give it effect. The plan of the armed neutrality was to effect it by threatening war; but an unarmed neutrality can effect it by much easier and more powerful means.
Taking this as a principle, the next step is to make it happen. The idea of armed neutrality was to achieve this by threatening war; however, unarmed neutrality can accomplish it through much simpler and more effective methods.
Were the neutral nations to associate, under an honourable injunction of fidelity to each other, and publicly declare to the world, that if any belligerent power shall seize or molest any ship or vessel belonging to the citizens or subjects of any of the powers composing that Association, that the whole Association will shut its ports against the flag of the offending nation, and will not permit any goods, wares, or merchandise, produced or manufactured in the offending nation, or appertaining thereto, to be imported into any of the ports included in the Association, until reparation be made to the injured party,—the reparation to be three times the value of the vessel and cargo,—and moreover that all remittances on money, goods, and bills of exchange, do cease to be made to the offending nation, until the said reparation be made: were the neutral nations only to do this, which it is their direct interest to do, England, as a nation depending on the commerce of neutral nations in time of war, dare not molest them, and France would not. But whilst, from the want of a common system, they individually permit England to do it, because individually they cannot resist it, they put France under the necessity of doing the same thing. The supreme of all laws, in all cases, is that of self-preservation.
If the neutral countries were to band together, under a mutual commitment to support each other, and openly announce to the world that if any warring power were to seize or interfere with any ship belonging to the citizens of any of the countries in that alliance, then the entire alliance would close its ports to the flag of the offending nation, and would not allow any goods or merchandise produced or made in the offending country to be brought into any of the ports of the alliance until compensation is provided to the injured party—the compensation being three times the value of the vessel and cargo—and furthermore, that all payments for money, goods, and bills of exchange would be halted to the offending nation until that compensation is made: if the neutral nations were to simply do this, which is in their direct interest, England, being a nation reliant on the trade of neutral countries during wartime, wouldn't dare to interfere with them, and France wouldn’t either. However, because they lack a united strategy, they allow England to act as it does individually, since they can't resist it on their own, which forces France to do the same. The ultimate law in all situations is the law of self-preservation.
As the commerce of neutral nations would thus be protected by the means that commerce naturally contains within itself, all the naval operations of France and England would be confined within the circle of acting against each other: and in that case it needs no spirit of prophecy to discover that France must finally prevail. The sooner this be done, the better will it be for both nations, and for all the world.
As the trade of neutral countries would be safeguarded by the protections that commerce inherently provides, all naval activities of France and England would be limited to fighting each other. In that scenario, it’s easy to see that France would eventually win. The sooner this happens, the better it will be for both nations and for the entire world.
Thomas Paine.(1)
Thomas Paine.
1 Paine had already put together his "Maritime Compact" and created the Rainbow Flag, which was meant to protect trade. This is detailed in his Seventh Letter to the People of the United States, Chapter XXXIII of this volume. He sent the details of his proposed international Association to the Minister of Foreign Relations, Talleyrand, who replied with a friendly letter. The articles of the "Maritime Compact," translated into French by Nicolas Bouneville, were sent in 1800 to all the Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Europe and to the ambassadors in Paris.—Editor.,
XXX. THE RECALL OF MONROE. (1)
1 Monroe, like Edmund Randolph and Thomas Paine, was sacrificed to the new commercial alliance with Great Britain. Washington's Cabinet was completely against France, and they were supported in their efforts to replace Monroe by Gouverneur Morris, who was still in Europe. He wrote to President Washington false accusations against that Minister. In a letter dated December 19, 1795, Morris informed Washington that he had received information from a reliable source that Monroe had told several Frenchmen that "he had no doubt that, if they did what was right here, he and his friends would get rid of Washington." On July 2, 1796, Cabinet members Pickering, Wolcott, and Mo-Henry sent the President their shared opinion that the interests of the United States required Monroe's recall, and they falsely linked him to anonymous letters from France written by M. Montflorence. The recall, dated August 22, 1796, was delivered to Monroe early in November. It mentioned certain "circumstances" that led to his removal, and these "hidden causes" (in Paine's words) Monroe desperately sought on his return to America in early 1797. When the Directory was informed of Monroe's recall, they decided not to recognize his successor, and the only connection to an American Minister in Paris for the rest of the century was through Thomas Paine, who was consulted by Foreign Ministers De la Croix and Talleyrand, as well as Napoleon. When C. C. Pinckney was appointed to succeed Monroe, Paine worried that his dismissal could lead to war, and he urged the Minister (De la Croix) to consider Pinckney—nominated during a Senate recess—as in "suspension" until confirmed by the Senate. There might be unofficial "talks" with him. This letter (State Archives, Paris, Etats Unis, vol. 46, fol. 425) was deliberated for several days before Pinckney arrived in Paris (December 5, 1796), but the Directory decided it was not a "dignified" course, and Pinckney was ordered to leave French territory under the existing decree against foreigners without permits to remain.—Editor..
Paris, Sept. 27, 1797. Editors of the Bien-in formi.
Paris, September 27, 1797. Editors of the Bien-in formi.
Citizens: in your 19th number of the complementary 5th, you gave an analysis of the letters of James Monroe to Timothy Pickering. The newspapers of Paris and the departments have copied this correspondence between the ambassador of the United States and the Secretary of State. I notice, however, that a few of them have omitted some important facts, whilst indulging in comments of such an extraordinary nature that it is clear they know neither Monroe's integrity nor the intrigues of Pitt in this affair.
Citizens: in your 19th issue of the complementary 5th, you provided an analysis of the letters from James Monroe to Timothy Pickering. Newspapers in Paris and the regions have reprinted this correspondence between the ambassador of the United States and the Secretary of State. However, I've noticed that some of them have left out important details while making comments that are so outrageous it's obvious they have no understanding of either Monroe's integrity or Pitt's scheming in this matter.
The recall of Monroe is connected with circumstances so important to the interests of France and the United States, that we must be careful not to confound it with the recall of an ordinary individual. The Washington faction had affected to spread it abroad that James Monroe was the cause of rupture between the two Republics. This accusation is a perfidious and calumnious one; since the main point in this affair is not so much the recall of a worthy, enlightened and republican minister, as the ingratitude and clandestine manoeuvering of the government of Washington, who caused the misunderstanding by signing a treaty injurious to the French Republic.
The recall of Monroe is tied to issues that are crucial for both France and the United States, so we need to be careful not to confuse it with the recall of an ordinary person. The Washington group has tried to spread the idea that James Monroe was the reason for the fallout between the two Republics. This accusation is deceitful and slanderous; the main issue here isn’t just the recall of a respected, educated, and republican diplomat, but rather the ingratitude and secretive actions of the Washington government, which led to the misunderstanding by signing a treaty harmful to the French Republic.
James Monroe, in his letters, does not deny the right of government to withdraw its confidence from any one of its delegates, representatives, or agents. He has hinted, it is true, that caprice and temper are not in accordance with the spirit of paternal rule, and that whenever a representative government punishes or rewards, good faith, integrity and justice should replace the good pleasure of Kings.
James Monroe, in his letters, acknowledges that the government has the right to withdraw its confidence from any of its delegates, representatives, or agents. He has suggested, however, that whim and mood are not in line with the essence of paternal rule, and that whenever a representative government punishes or rewards, good faith, integrity, and justice should take the place of the good pleasure of Kings.
In the present case, they have done more than recall an agent. Had they confined themselves to depriving him of his appointment, James Monroe would have kept silence; but he has been accused of lighting the torch of discord in both Republics. The refutation of this absurd and infamous reproach is the chief object of his correspondence. If he did not immediately complain of these slanders in his letters of the 6th and 8th [July], it is because he wished to use at first a certain degree of caution, and, if it were possible, to stifle intestine troubles at their birth. He wished to reopen the way to peaceful negotiations to be conducted with good faith and justice.
In this case, they've done more than just recall an agent. If they had only taken away his position, James Monroe would have stayed quiet; however, he has been accused of igniting conflict in both Republics. The main purpose of his correspondence is to refute this ridiculous and outrageous accusation. The reason he didn't immediately address these slanders in his letters dated the 6th and 8th of July is that he wanted to be cautious at first and, if possible, to prevent internal issues from escalating. He aimed to reopen the path for peaceful negotiations to be carried out in good faith and with fairness.
The arguments of the Secretary of State on the rights of the supreme administration of the United States are peremptory; but the observations of Monroe on the hidden causes of his recall are touching; they come from the heart; they are characteristic of an excellent citizen. If he does more than complain of his unjust recall as a man of feeling would; if he proudly asks for proofs of a grave accusation, it is after he has tried in vain every honest and straightforward means. He will not suffer that a government, sold to the enemies of freedom, should discharge upon him its shame, its crimes, its ingratitude, and all the odium of its unjust dealings.
The Secretary of State’s arguments about the rights of the supreme administration of the United States are decisive; however, Monroe’s thoughts on the underlying reasons for his recall are heartfelt. They truly reflect the spirit of a good citizen. He doesn’t just complain about his unfair recall like a sensitive person might; instead, he boldly demands evidence for a serious accusation, but only after exhausting every honest and straightforward option. He refuses to let a government that has aligned with the enemies of freedom push its shame, crimes, ingratitude, and all the backlash from its unjust actions onto him.
Were Monroe to find himself an object of public hatred, the Republican party in the United States, that party which is the sincere ally of France, would be annihilated, and this is the aim of the English government.
If Monroe were to become an object of public hatred, the Republican Party in the United States, which is a true ally of France, would be destroyed, and this is the goal of the English government.
Imagine the triumph of Pitt, if Monroe and the other friends of freedom in America, should be unjustly attacked in France!
Imagine Pitt's triumph if Monroe and the other advocates for freedom in America were unjustly attacked in France!
Monroe does not lay his cause before the Senate since the Senate itself ratified the unconstitutional treaty; he appeals to the house of Representatives, and at the same time lays his cause before the upright tribunal of the American nation.
Monroe doesn’t present his case to the Senate since the Senate itself approved the unconstitutional treaty; he appeals to the House of Representatives, and at the same time, he brings his case before the just tribunal of the American people.
XXXI. PRIVATE LETTER TO PRESIDENT JEFFERSON.
Paris, October 1, 1800.
Paris, October 1, 1800.
Dear Sir,—I wrote to you from Havre by the ship Dublin Packet in the year 1797. It was then my intention to return to America; but there were so many British frigates cruising in sight of the port, and which after a few days knew that I was at Havre waiting to go to America, that I did not think it best to trust myself to their discretion, and the more so, as I had no confidence in the captain of the Dublin Packet (Clay).(1) I mentioned to you in that letter, which I believe you received thro' the hands of Colonel [Aaron] Burr, that I was glad since you were not President that you had accepted the nomination of Vice President.
Dear Sir,—I wrote to you from Havre on the ship Dublin Packet in 1797. At that time, I planned to return to America; however, there were so many British frigates cruising near the port, and after a few days, they knew I was at Havre waiting to go to America. I didn’t think it was wise to put myself in their hands, especially since I had no trust in the captain of the Dublin Packet (Clay).(1) In that letter, which I believe you received through Colonel [Aaron] Burr, I mentioned that I was glad you accepted the nomination for Vice President since you were not President.
The Commissioners Ellsworth & Co.(2) have been here about eight months, and three more useless mortals never came upon public business. Their presence appears to me to have been rather an injury than a benefit. They set themselves up for a faction as soon as they arrived. I was then in Belgia.(3) Upon my return to Paris I learnt they had made a point of not returning the visits of Mr. Skipwith and Barlow, because, they said, they had not the confidence of the executive. Every known republican was treated in the same manner. I learned from Mr. Miller of Philadelphia, who had occasion to see them upon business, that they did not intend to return my visit, if I made one. This, I supposed, it was intended I should know, that I might not make one. It had the contrary effect. I went to see Mr. Ellsworth. I told him, I did not come to see him as a commissioner, nor to congratulate him upon his mission; that I came to see him because I had formerly known him in Congress. "I mean not," said I, "to press you with any questions, or to engage you in any conversation upon the business you are come upon, but I will nevertheless candidly say that I know not what expectations the Government or the people of America may have of your mission, or what expectations you may have yourselves, but I believe you will find you can do but little. The treaty with England lies at the threshold of all your business. The American Government never did two more foolish things than when it signed that Treaty and recalled Mr. Monroe, who was the only man could do them any service." Mr. Ellsworth put on the dull gravity of a Judge, and was silent. I added, "You may perhaps make a treaty like that you have made with England, which is a surrender of the rights of the American flag; for the principle that neutral ships make neutral property must be general or not at all." I then changed the subject, for I had all the talk to myself upon this topic, and enquired after Samuel Adams, (I asked nothing about John,) Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Monroe, and others of my friends; and the melancholy case of the yellow fever,—of which he gave me as circumstantial an account as if he had been summing up a case to a Jury. Here my visit ended, and had Mr. Ellsworth been as cunning as a statesman, or as wise as a Judge, he would have returned my visit that he might appear insensible of the intention of mine.
The Commissioners Ellsworth & Co. have been here for about eight months, and there have never been three more useless people in public service. Their presence seems to have done more harm than good. They formed their own faction as soon as they arrived. I was then in Belgium. When I returned to Paris, I learned that they had deliberately not returned the visits of Mr. Skipwith and Barlow because they claimed they didn't have the executive's confidence. Every known Republican was treated the same way. I heard from Mr. Miller of Philadelphia, who had to meet with them for business, that they didn’t plan to return my visit if I made one. I figured this was meant for me to know so I wouldn’t visit. It had the opposite effect. I went to see Mr. Ellsworth. I told him I wasn’t there to see him as a commissioner or to congratulate him on his mission; I came to see him because I used to know him in Congress. "I don’t intend," I said, "to ask you any questions or engage you in conversation about your work here, but I will honestly say that I don’t know what expectations the Government or the American people may have of your mission, or what you might have yourself, but I believe you’ll find you can do very little. The treaty with England is at the heart of all your work. The American Government made two foolish decisions when it signed that treaty and recalled Mr. Monroe, who was the only person who could help them." Mr. Ellsworth put on a serious demeanor like a Judge and stayed silent. I added, "You might make a treaty like the one you made with England, which gives up the rights of the American flag; because the principle that neutral ships make neutral property has to be universal or it doesn’t count at all." I then changed the subject, as I had done all the talking about that topic, and asked about Samuel Adams (I didn’t ask about John), Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Monroe, and other friends; and the unfortunate situation with the yellow fever, which he described in detail as if he were summarizing a case for a jury. That’s where my visit ended, and if Mr. Ellsworth had been as clever as a politician or as wise as a Judge, he would have returned my visit to show he was oblivious to my intention.
1 The British cruiser did search for Paine's packet.—Editor. 2 President Adams sent Oliver Ellsworth (Chief Justice), W. V. Murray, and W. R. Davie to France to negotiate a treaty. They did not succeed, but a convention was signed on September 30, 1800, which ended the treaty of 1778, a cause of conflict, and set the stage for Livingston and Monroe's negotiations in 1803.— Editor. 3 Paine visited his roommate in Luxembourg prison, Vanhuele, who was now the Mayor of Bruges.—Editor..
I now come to the affairs of this country and of Europe. You will, I suppose, have heard before this arrives to you, of the battle of Marengo in Italy, where the Austrians were defeated—of the armistice in consequence thereof, and the surrender of Milan, Genoa etc. to the french—of the successes of the french Army in Germany—and the extension of the armistice in that quarter—of the preliminaries of Peace signed at Paris—of the refusal of the Emperor [of Austria] to ratify these preliminaries—of the breaking of the armistice by the french Government in consequence of that refusal—of the "gallant" expedition of the Emperor to put himself at the head of his Army—of his pompous arrival there—of his having made his will—of prayers being put in all his churches for the preservation of the life of this Hero—of General Moreau announcing to him, immediately on his arrival at the Army, that hostilities would commence the day after the next at sunrise unless he signed the treaty or gave security that he would sign within 45 days—of his surrendering up three of the principal keys of Germany (Ulm, Philipsbourg, and Ingolstadt) as security that he would sign them. This is the state things are now in, at the time of writing this letter; but it is proper to add that the refusal of the Emperor to sign the preliminaries was motived upon a note from the King of England to be admitted to the Congress for negociating Peace, which was consented to by the french upon the condition of an armistice at Sea, which England, before knowing of the surrender the Emperor had made, had refused. From all which it appears to me, judging from circumstances, that the Emperor is now so compleatly in the hands of the french, that he has no way of getting out but by a peace. The Congress for the peace is to be held at Luniville, a town in France. Since the affair of Rastadt the French commissioners will not trust themselves within the Emperor's territory.
I now turn to the situation in this country and in Europe. You’ve probably heard by now about the Battle of Marengo in Italy, where the Austrians were defeated—about the armistice that followed, leading to the surrender of Milan, Genoa, and others to the French—about the successes of the French Army in Germany—and the extension of the armistice there—about the preliminary peace agreements signed in Paris—about the Emperor of Austria’s refusal to ratify these agreements—about the French Government breaking the armistice because of that refusal—about the "gallant" expedition of the Emperor, who positioned himself at the head of his Army—his grand arrival there—his preparation of a will—prayers being said in all his churches for the safety of this Hero—General Moreau informing him, right after he got to the Army, that hostilities would begin the day after tomorrow at sunrise unless he signed the treaty or provided assurance that he would sign within 45 days—his surrendering three key cities of Germany (Ulm, Philipsbourg, and Ingolstadt) as collateral that he would sign them. This is the current state of affairs as I write this letter; however, it’s important to mention that the Emperor's refusal to sign the preliminary agreements was based on a note from the King of England requesting entry to the Congress for negotiating Peace, which the French agreed to on the condition of an armistice at Sea, a request that England had denied before learning of the Emperor's surrender. From all this, it seems to me, judging by the circumstances, that the Emperor is now completely in the hands of the French and has no way out except through a peace agreement. The Congress for peace is set to take place in Lunéville, a town in France. Since the Rastadt event, the French commissioners have refused to enter the Emperor's territory.
I now come to domestic Affairs. I know not what the Commissioners have done, but from a paper I enclose to you, which appears to have some authority, it is not much. The paper as you will perceive is considerably prior to this letter. I know that the Commissioners before this piece appeared intended setting off. It is therefore probable that what they have done is conformable to what this paper mentions, which certainly will not atone for the expence their mission has incurred, neither are they, by all the accounts I hear of them, men fitted for the business.
I now turn to domestic matters. I’m not sure what the Commissioners have done, but from a document I’m sending you, which seems to hold some weight, it’s not much. The document, as you’ll see, is dated quite a bit before this letter. I know that the Commissioners planned to leave before this document was released. So, it’s likely that what they’ve done aligns with what this document states, which certainly won’t justify the expenses their mission has racked up, and according to everything I’ve heard about them, they’re not the right people for the job.
But independently of these matters there appears to be a state of circumstances rising, which if it goes on, will render all partial treaties unnecessary. In the first place I doubt if any peace will be made with England; and in the second place, I should not wonder to see a coalition formed against her, to compel her to abandon her insolence on the seas. This brings me to speak of the manuscripts I send you.
But aside from these issues, it looks like a situation is developing that, if it continues, will make all partial agreements unnecessary. First, I have doubts that peace will be made with England; and second, I wouldn't be surprised to see a coalition formed against her to force her to give up her arrogance on the seas. This leads me to discuss the manuscripts I’m sending you.
The piece No. I, without any title, was written in consequence of a question put to me by Bonaparte. As he supposed I knew England and English Politics he sent a person to me to ask, that in case of negociating a Peace with Austria, whether it would be proper to include England. This was when Count St. Julian was in Paris, on the part of the Emperor negociating the preliminaries:—which as I have before said the Emperor refused to sign on the pretence of admitting England.
The untitled piece No. I was written in response to a question from Bonaparte. Since he thought I was familiar with England and its politics, he sent someone to ask me whether it would be appropriate to include England in any peace negotiations with Austria. This happened while Count St. Julian was in Paris, representing the Emperor and negotiating the preliminary terms, which, as I mentioned before, the Emperor refused to sign on the grounds of including England.
The piece No. 2, entitled On the Jacobinism of the English at sea, was written when the English made their insolent and impolitic expedition to Denmark, and is also an auxiliary to the politic of No. I. I shewed it to a friend [Bonneville] who had it translated into french, and printed in the form of a Pamphlet, and distributed gratis among the foreign Ministers, and persons in the Government. It was immediately copied into several of the french Journals, and into the official Paper, the Moniteur. It appeared in this paper one day before the last dispatch arrived from Egypt; which agreed perfectly with what I had said respecting Egypt. It hit the two cases of Denmark and Egypt in the exact proper moment.
The piece No. 2, titled On the Jacobinism of the English at sea, was written when the English launched their arrogant and reckless expedition to Denmark. It's also a supplement to the arguments made in No. I. I showed it to a friend [Bonneville], who had it translated into French, published as a pamphlet, and distributed for free among foreign ministers and government officials. It was quickly picked up by several French newspapers and appeared in the official paper, the Moniteur. It was published in that paper just one day before the last dispatch arrived from Egypt, which aligned perfectly with what I had said about Egypt. It addressed the situations in Denmark and Egypt at just the right moment.
The Piece No. 3, entitled Compact Maritime, is the sequel of No. 2, digested in form. It is translating at the time I write this letter, and I am to have a meeting with the Senator Garat upon the subject. The pieces 2 and 3 go off in manuscript to England, by a confidential person, where they will be published.(1)
The Piece No. 3, titled Compact Maritime, is a revised version of No. 2. It is being translated as I write this letter, and I will be meeting with Senator Garat about it. The manuscripts of pieces 2 and 3 are being sent to England by a trusted person, where they will be published.(1)
1 The essence of most of these "pieces" is captured in Paine's Seventh Letter to the People of the United States (see p. 420).—Editor.
By all the news we get from the North there appears to be something meditating against England. It is now given for certain that Paul has embargoed all the English vessels and English property in Russia till some principle be established for protecting the Rights of neutral Nations, and securing the liberty of the Seas. The preparations in Denmark continue, notwithstanding the convention that she has made with England, which leaves the question with respect to the right set up by England to stop and search Neutral vessels undecided. I send you the paragraphs upon the subject.
From all the news we’re getting from the North, it looks like something is brewing against England. It’s now confirmed that Paul has banned all English ships and property in Russia until a principle is established for protecting the rights of neutral nations and ensuring freedom of the seas. The preparations in Denmark are ongoing, despite the agreement she has made with England, which leaves the issue of England's right to stop and search neutral vessels unresolved. I’m sending you the paragraphs on the topic.
The tumults are great in all parts of England on account of the excessive price of corn and bread, which has risen since the harvest. I attribute it more to the abundant increase of paper, and the non-circulation of cash, than to any other cause. People in trade can push the paper off as fast as they receive it, as they did by continental money in America; but as farmers have not this opportunity, they endeavor to secure themselves by going considerably in advance.
The unrest is widespread across England due to the high prices of grain and bread, which have gone up since the harvest. I believe it's mainly because of the excessive amount of paper currency and the lack of hard cash, rather than any other reason. Businesspeople can quickly exchange the paper money they get, just like they did with paper currency in America; however, since farmers don’t have that option, they try to protect themselves by planning ahead significantly.
I have now given you all the great articles of intelligence, for I trouble not myself with little ones, and consequently not with the Commissioners, nor any thing they are about, nor with John Adams, otherwise than to wish him safe home, and a better and wiser man in his place.
I have now shared all the important news with you, as I don’t concern myself with minor details, and therefore not with the Commissioners or anything they’re doing, nor with John Adams, except to wish him a safe journey home and hope he returns as a better and wiser person.
In the present state of circumstances and the prospects arising from them, it may be proper for America to consider whether it is worth her while to enter into any treaty at this moment, or to wait the event of those circumstances which if they go on will render partial treaties useless by deranging them. But if, in the mean time, she enters into any treaty it ought to be with a condition to the following purpose: Reserving to herself the right of joining in an Association of Nations for the protection of the Rights of Neutral Commerce and the security of the liberty of the Seas.
Given the current situation and the potential outcomes it may bring, America should think about whether it's worthwhile to enter into any treaty right now or to hold off and see how things develop, which could make partial treaties pointless by disrupting them. However, if she decides to enter into a treaty in the meantime, it should include a condition that allows her to join a coalition of nations dedicated to protecting the rights of neutral commerce and ensuring the freedom of the seas.
The pieces 2, 3, may go to the press. They will make a small pamphlet and the printers are welcome to put my name to it. (It is best it should be put.) From thence they will get into the newspapers. I know that the faction of John Adams abuses me pretty heartily. They are welcome.
The pieces 2, 3, can go to print. They'll create a small pamphlet, and the printers can feel free to include my name on it. (It’s better if they do.) From there, it will make its way into the newspapers. I know that John Adams' supporters criticize me quite a bit. That’s fine by me.
It does not disturb me, and they lose their labour; and in return for it I am doing America more service, as a neutral Nation, than their expensive Commissioners can do, and she has that service from me for nothing. The piece No. 1 is only for your own amusement and that of your friends.
It doesn’t bother me, and they waste their efforts; in return, I’m providing America with more help as a neutral nation than their costly commissioners can, and I do this for free. The piece No. 1 is just for your own entertainment and that of your friends.
I come now to speak confidentially to you on a private subject. When Mr. Ellsworth and Davie return to America, Murray will return to Holland, and in that case there will be nobody in Paris but Mr. Skipwith that has been in the habit of transacting business with the french Government since the revolution began. He is on a good standing with them, and if the chance of the day should place you in the presidency you cannot do better than appoint him for any purpose you may have occasion for in France. He is an honest man and will do his country justice, and that with civility and good manners to the government he is commissioned to act with; a faculty which that Northern Bear Timothy Pickering wanted, and which the Bear of that Bear, John Adams, never possessed.
I'm coming to you to discuss something privately. When Mr. Ellsworth and Davie head back to America, Murray will go back to Holland. In that situation, Mr. Skipwith will be the only one in Paris who has been dealing with the French government since the revolution started. He has a good relationship with them, and if you happen to become president, you should definitely appoint him for any tasks you need to handle in France. He's an honest man who will represent our country fairly, treating the government he works with politely and with respect—something that Northern Bear Timothy Pickering lacked, and which the Bear of that Bear, John Adams, never had either.
I know not much of Mr. Murray, otherwise than of his unfriendliness to every American who is not of his faction, but I am sure that Joel Barlow is a much fitter man to be in Holland than Mr. Murray. It is upon the fitness of the man to the place that I speak, for I have not communicated a thought upon the subject to Barlow, neither does he know, at the time of my writing this (for he is at Havre), that I have intention to do it.
I don't know much about Mr. Murray, other than he's unfriendly to every American who isn't part of his group, but I'm sure Joel Barlow would be a much better fit to be in Holland than Mr. Murray. I'm talking about the right person for the job, as I haven't mentioned anything about this to Barlow, and he doesn't know, while I'm writing this (since he’s in Havre), that I intend to do so.
I will now, by way of relief, amuse you with some account of the progress of iron bridges.
I will now, for your enjoyment, share some information about the development of iron bridges.
[Here follows an account of the building of the iron bridge at Sunderland, England, and some correspondence with Mr. Milbanke, M. P., which will be given more fully and precisely in a chapter of vol. IV. (Appendix), on Iron Bridges, and is therefore omitted here.]
[Here follows an account of the construction of the iron bridge at Sunderland, England, along with some correspondence with Mr. Milbanke, M.P., which will be provided in more detail in a chapter of vol. IV. (Appendix) on Iron Bridges, and is therefore left out here.]
I have now made two other Models [of bridges]. One is pasteboard, five feet span and five inches of height from the cords. It is in the opinion of every person who has seen it one of the most beautiful objects the eye can behold. I then cast a model in metal following the construction of that in paste-board and of the same dimensions. The whole was executed in my own Chamber. It is far superior in strength, elegance, and readiness in execution to the model I made in America, and which you saw in Paris.(1) I shall bring those models with me when I come home, which will be as soon as I can pass the seas in safety from the piratical John Bulls. I suppose you have seen, or have heard of the Bishop of Landaff's answer to my second part of the Age of Reason. As soon as I got a copy of it I began a third part, which served also as an answer to the Bishop; but as soon as the clerical society for promoting Christian Knowledge knew of my intention to answer the Bishop, they prosecuted, as a Society, the printer of the first and second parts, to prevent that answer appearing. No other reason than this can be assigned for their prosecuting at the time they did, because the first part had been in circulation above three years and the second part more than one, and they prosecuted immediately on knowing that I was taking up their Champion. The Bishop's answer, like Mr. Burke's attack on the french revolution, served me as a back-ground to bring forward other subjects upon, with more advantage than if the background was not there. This is the motive that induced me to answer him, otherwise I should have gone on without taking any notice of him. I have made and am still making additions to the manuscript, and shall continue to do so till an opportunity arrive for publishing it.
I’ve created two more bridge models. One is made of cardboard, spans five feet, and stands five inches tall from the cords. Everyone who has seen it agrees it’s one of the most beautiful things out there. Then I made a metal model based on the cardboard one, keeping the same dimensions. I built it all in my room. It’s much stronger, more elegant, and easier to make than the model I created in America that you saw in Paris. I’ll bring those models home with me as soon as I can safely cross the seas away from the pirate John Bulls. I assume you’ve seen or heard about the Bishop of Landaff’s response to my second part of the Age of Reason. As soon as I got a copy, I started on a third part, which also served as a response to the Bishop. However, once the clerical society for promoting Christian Knowledge found out about my intention to answer him, they took legal action against the printer of the first and second parts to stop my response from being published. The only reason for their lawsuit at that time is that the first part had been out for over three years and the second part for more than one, and they acted immediately once they learned I was challenging their champion. The Bishop’s response, like Mr. Burke’s attack on the French Revolution, provided a backdrop for me to discuss other topics more effectively than I could have without it. That’s why I decided to reply; otherwise, I would have ignored him entirely. I’m still adding to the manuscript and will continue doing so until I find a chance to publish it.
1 "These models show an amazing level of skill and taste, made with great care entirely by his own hands. The largest is almost four feet long; all the ironwork, the chains, and everything else associated with it were forged and created by him. It's intended as a model for a bridge set to be built across the Delaware, spanning 480 feet, with just one arch. The other is meant for a smaller river, which I can't remember the name of, and is also a single arch, crafted by him, except for the chains, which are made of pasteboard instead of iron, created by the fair hand of his correspondent, the 'Little Corner of the World' (Lady Smyth), whose tireless determination is remarkable. He was offered $3000 for these models and turned it down."— Yorke's Letters from France, These models drew a lot of admiration in Washington and Philadelphia. They stayed in Peale's Museum in Philadelphia for a long time, but no trace of them remains now.—Editor.
If any American frigate should come to france, and the direction of it fall to you, I will be glad you would give me the opportunity of returning. The abscess under which I suffered almost two years is entirely healed of itself, and I enjoy exceeding good health. This is the first of October, and Mr. Skipwith has just called to tell me the Commissioners set off for Havre to-morrow. This will go by the frigate but not with the knowledge of the Commissioners. Remember me with much affection to my friends and accept the same to yourself.
If any American frigate happens to come to France, and you're in charge of it, I would really appreciate the chance to return. The issue I had for almost two years has completely healed on its own, and I'm enjoying really good health now. Today is October 1st, and Mr. Skipwith just stopped by to let me know that the Commissioners are leaving for Havre tomorrow. This will go with the frigate, but the Commissioners don't know about it. Please send my warm regards to my friends and accept the same for yourself.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
XXXII. PROPOSAL THAT LOUISIANA BE PURCHASED.(1)
(SENT TO THE PRESIDENT, CHRISTMAS DAY, 1802.)
(SENT TO THE PRESIDENT, CHRISTMAS DAY, 1802.)
1 Paine, while at Lovell's Hotel in Washington, proposed the purchase of Louisiana to Dr. Michael Leib, a representative from Pennsylvania. Leib liked the idea and suggested that Paine should write to Jefferson about it. The day after Leib's suggestion, the President informed Paine that "measures were already taken in that business."—Editor..
Spain has ceded Louisiana to France, and France has excluded Americans from New Orleans, and the navigation of the Mississippi. The people of the Western Territory have complained of it to their Government, and the Government is of consequence involved and interested in the affair. The question then is—What is the best step to be taken?
Spain has handed Louisiana over to France, and France has blocked Americans from accessing New Orleans and navigating the Mississippi. The residents of the Western Territory have voiced their concerns to their Government, which is therefore involved and invested in the situation. So, the question is—What’s the best course of action?
The one is to begin by memorial and remonstrance against an infraction of a right. The other is by accommodation,—still keeping the right in view, but not making it a groundwork.
The first approach is to start with a memorial and a protest against a violation of a right. The second is through accommodation—still acknowledging the right, but not using it as the foundation.
Suppose then the Government begin by making a proposal to France to re-purchase the cession made to her by Spain, of Louisiana, provided it be with the consent of the people of Louisiana, or a majority thereof.
Suppose the Government starts by proposing to France to buy back the territory that Spain ceded to her, as long as it has the consent of the people of Louisiana, or at least a majority of them.
By beginning on this ground any thing can be said without carrying the appearance of a threat. The growing power of the Western Territory can be stated as a matter of information, and also the impossibility of restraining them from seizing upon New Orleans, and the equal impossibility of France to prevent it.
By starting from this point, anything can be said without seeming like a threat. The increasing strength of the Western Territory can be mentioned as a fact, along with the reality that we can't stop them from taking New Orleans, and neither can France.
Suppose the proposal attended to, the sum to be given comes next on the carpet. This, on the part of America, will be estimated between the value of the commerce and the quantity of revenue that Louisiana will produce.
Suppose the proposal is considered, the next step will be discussing the amount to be given. For America, this will be assessed based on the value of the trade and the level of revenue that Louisiana will generate.
The French Treasury is not only empty, but the Government has consumed by anticipation a great part of the next year's revenue. A monied proposal will, I believe, be attended to; if it should, the claims upon France can be stipulated as part of the payment, and that sum can be paid here to the claimants.
The French Treasury is not only empty, but the government has already spent a significant portion of next year's revenue. I believe a financial proposal will be considered; if so, the claims against France can be included as part of the payment, and that amount can be paid here to the claimants.
——I congratulate you on The Birthday of the New Sun,
——I congratulate you on The Birthday of the New Sun,
now called Christmas Day; and I make you a present of a thought on Louisiana.
now called Christmas Day; and I’m giving you a thought on Louisiana.
XXXIII. THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
And particularly to the Leaders of the Federal Faction, LETTER I.(1)
And especially to the Leaders of the Federal Faction, LETTER I.(1)
1 The National Intelligencer, November 15th. The respected Mr. Gales, who had a long association with this paper, was in his youth a prosecuted supporter of Paine in Sheffield, England. The paper stood out for the warm welcome it extended to Paine upon his return to America. (See issues of Nov. 3 and 10, 1802.) Paine arrived in Baltimore on Oct. 30th.—Editor.,
After an absence of almost fifteen years, I am again returned to the country in whose dangers I bore my share, and to whose greatness I contributed my part.
After being away for almost fifteen years, I have returned to the country where I faced dangers and to which I contributed my share of greatness.
When I sailed for Europe, in the spring of 1787, it was my intention to return to America the next year, and enjoy in retirement the esteem of my friends, and the repose I was entitled to. I had stood out the storm of one revolution, and had no wish to embark in another. But other scenes and other circumstances than those of contemplated ease were allotted to me. The French revolution was beginning to germinate when I arrived in France. The principles of it were good, they were copied from America, and the men who conducted it were honest. But the fury of faction soon extinguished the one, and sent the other to the scaffold. Of those who began that revolution, I am almost the only survivor, and that through a thousand dangers. I owe this not to the prayers of priests, nor to the piety of hypocrites, but to the continued protection of Providence.
When I set sail for Europe in the spring of 1787, I planned to come back to America the following year to enjoy a peaceful retirement and the respect of my friends. I had weathered the storm of one revolution and had no desire to get involved in another. But different experiences and situations than the ones I had envisioned were in store for me. The French Revolution was just starting to take shape when I arrived in France. Its principles were good, taken from America, and the leaders were honest. However, the chaos of factionalism quickly destroyed the ideals and sent the leaders to the guillotine. Of those who initiated that revolution, I am nearly the only survivor, and that has come with countless dangers. I owe my survival not to the prayers of priests or the piety of hypocrites, but to the ongoing protection of Providence.
But while I beheld with pleasure the dawn of liberty rising in Europe, I saw with regret the lustre of it fading in America. In less than two years from the time of my departure some distant symptoms painfully suggested the idea that the principles of the revolution were expiring on the soil that produced them. I received at that time a letter from a female literary correspondent, and in my answer to her, I expressed my fears on that head.(1)
But while I watched with joy the rise of freedom in Europe, I saw with sadness its glow fading in America. In less than two years after I left, some troubling signs painfully hinted that the principles of the revolution were dying on the land that gave birth to them. At that time, I received a letter from a female literary correspondent, and in my reply to her, I shared my concerns about that.
I now know from the information I obtain upon the spot, that the impressions that then distressed me, for I was proud of America, were but too well founded. She was turning her back on her own glory, and making hasty strides in the retrograde path of oblivion. But a spark from the altar of Seventy-six, unextinguished and unextinguishable through the long night of error, is again lighting up, in every part of the Union, the genuine name of rational liberty.
I now understand from what I see around me that the feelings that troubled me back then, when I was proud of America, were unfortunately true. She was rejecting her own greatness and quickly moving backward into a state of forgetfulness. But a spark from the altar of Seventy-six, which has never been put out despite the long period of mistakes, is once again igniting, in every corner of the Union, the true spirit of rational freedom.
As the French revolution advanced, it fixed the attention of the world, and drew from the pensioned pen (2) of Edmund Burke a furious attack. This brought me once more on the public theatre of politics, and occasioned the pamphlet Rights of Man. It had the greatest run of any work ever published in the English language. The number of copies circulated in England, Scotland, and Ireland, besides translations into foreign languages, was between four and five hundred thousand. The principles of that work were the same as those in Common Sense, and the effects would have been the same in England as that had produced in America, could the vote of the nation been quietly taken, or had equal opportunities of consulting or acting existed. The only difference between the two works was, that the one was adapted to the local circumstances of England, and the other to those of America. As to myself, I acted in both cases alike; I relinquished to the people of England, as I had done to those of America, all profits from the work. My reward existed in the ambition to do good, and the independent happiness of my own mind.
As the French Revolution progressed, it captured the world's attention and prompted a furious response from the retired writer Edmund Burke. This led me back into the public political arena and resulted in the pamphlet Rights of Man. It became the most widely circulated work ever published in English. The number of copies distributed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, along with translations into other languages, ranged from four to five hundred thousand. The principles of that work were the same as those in Common Sense, and it would have had similar effects in England as that did in America, if the nation’s vote could have been taken peacefully, or if everyone had equal chances to consult or take action. The only difference between the two works was that one was tailored to the specific circumstances of England, while the other was for America. As for me, I acted the same way in both situations; I gave up all profits from the work to the people of England, just as I had done for those in America. My reward was the desire to do good and the independent happiness that came from my own mind.
1 Paine quotes a section from his letter to Mrs. Few, which has already appeared in the Memorial to Monroe (XXI.). The full letter to Mrs. Few will be included in the Appendix to Vol. IV. of this work.—Editor. 2 See the editorial note on page 95 in this volume.—Editor.
But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the Rights of Man was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
But a group, operating secretly, was rising in America; they had lost sight of the fundamental principles. They were starting to see government as a profitable monopoly and the people as inherited property. So, it's no surprise that the Rights of Man was criticized by that group, and its author was constantly attacked. But let them continue; give them enough rope and they'll end up highlighting their own irrelevance. There’s too much common sense and independence in America to be fooled for long by any group, whether from abroad or within.
But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal, (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic,) is a dishonour to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners. As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, We and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.
But in the middle of the freedom we enjoy, the reckless attitude of the papers called Federal (and I don't know why they're called that since their principles are anti-federal and oppressive) is a disgrace to the country and harms its reputation and significance abroad. They portray the entire American populace as lacking public principles and basic decency. Any harm they may cause to those they criticize at home or any help they provide to their employers can be dismissed as empty noise. The disgrace bounces back on them because it's clear to any thoughtful person that those who misuse freedom when they have it would misuse power if they got it; therefore, they might as well adopt as a general motto for all such papers, We and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.
There is in America, more than in any other country, a large body of people who attend quietly to their farms, or follow their several occupations; who pay no regard to the clamours of anonymous scribblers, who think for themselves, and judge of government, not by the fury of newspaper writers, but by the prudent frugality of its measures, and the encouragement it gives to the improvement and prosperity of the country; and who, acting on their own judgment, never come forward in an election but on some important occasion. When this body moves, all the little barkings of scribbling and witless curs pass for nothing. To say to this independent description of men, "You must turn out such and such persons at the next election, for they have taken off a great many taxes, and lessened the expenses of government, they have dismissed my son, or my brother, or myself, from a lucrative office, in which there was nothing to do"—is to show the cloven foot of faction, and preach the language of ill-disguised mortification. In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness.
In America, more than anywhere else, there is a sizable group of people who quietly manage their farms or pursue their various jobs. They pay little attention to the noise made by anonymous writers, think for themselves, and judge the government not by the outrage of newspaper columnists but by the sensible economy of its policies and the support it provides for the country's growth and prosperity. These individuals operate based on their own judgment and only get involved in elections during significant moments. When this group takes action, all the petty criticisms from writers and foolish critics mean nothing. To tell this independent group, "You need to vote out certain people in the next election because they have cut many taxes and reduced government spending, and they fired my son, brother, or me from a well-paid job with no real work"—is to reveal the true motives of a faction and to express a barely concealed frustration. Across the country, this faction is struggling to survive, and as its end draws near, it fights back fiercely. My arrival has hit it like a fear of water, like a rabid dog confronted with a stream.
As this letter is intended to announce my arrival to my friends, and to my enemies if I have any, for I ought to have none in America, and as introductory to others that will occasionally follow, I shall close it by detailing the line of conduct I shall pursue.
As this letter is meant to let my friends know I've arrived, and to my enemies if I have any—though I shouldn't have any in America—and to serve as an introduction to others that will follow from time to time, I will end it by outlining the approach I plan to take.
I have no occasion to ask, and do not intend to accept, any place or office in the government.(1) There is none it could give me that would be any ways equal to the profits I could make as an author, for I have an established fame in the literary world, could I reconcile it to my principles to make money by my politics or religion. I must be in every thing what I have ever been, a disinterested volunteer; my proper sphere of action is on the common floor of citizenship, and to honest men I give my hand and my heart freely.
I have no reason to ask for, and I don’t plan to accept, any position or role in the government.(1) There’s nothing it could offer me that would come close to the earnings I can make as an author, since I have a solid reputation in the literary world, provided I could justify making money through politics or religion. I must remain, in everything, what I’ve always been: a selfless volunteer; my true role is on the shared ground of citizenship, and I offer my hand and heart freely to honest people.
1 The President (Jefferson), being a close friend of Paine and suspected, despite his silence, of sharing Paine's religious views, was part of the criticisms directed at Paine ("The Two Toms" they were called), and Paine makes an effort here to ease the tension for Jefferson.—Editor..
I have some manuscript works to publish, of which I shall give proper notice, and some mechanical affairs to bring forward, that will employ all my leisure time. I shall continue these letters as I see occasion, and as to the low party prints that choose to abuse me, they are welcome; I shall not descend to answer them. I have been too much used to such common stuff to take any notice of it. The government of England honoured me with a thousand martyrdoms, by burning me in effigy in every town in that country, and their hirelings in America may do the same.
I have some manuscript works to publish, which I'll announce in due time, and some projects to tackle that will take up all my free time. I’ll continue these letters as I see fit, and as for the low-quality publications that want to attack me, they're welcome to it; I won’t stoop to respond. I’m too accustomed to such nonsense to care. The government of England has honored me with a thousand insults by burning my effigy in every town across the country, and their lackeys in America can do the same.
City of Washington.
Washington, D.C.
THOMAS PAINE. LETTER II(1)
THOMAS PAINE. LETTER II(1)
As the affairs of the country to which I am returned are of more importance to the world, and to me, than of that I have lately left, (for it is through the new world the old must be regenerated, if regenerated at all,) I shall not take up the time of the reader with an account of scenes that have passed in France, many of which are painful to remember and horrid to relate, but come at once to the circumstances in which I find America on my arrival.
As the matters concerning the country I’ve returned to are more significant to the world—and to me—than those of the one I recently left (since it’s through the new world that the old must be renewed, if it’s to be renewed at all), I won’t waste the reader's time with a recounting of events in France, many of which are hard to remember and awful to describe. Instead, I’ll dive straight into the situations I encounter in America upon my arrival.
Fourteen years, and something more, have produced a change, at least among a part of the people, and I ask my-self what it is? I meet or hear of thousands of my former connexions, who are men of the same principles and friendships as when I left them. But a non-descript race, and of equivocal generation, assuming the name of Federalist,—a name that describes no character of principle good or bad, and may equally be applied to either,—has since started up with the rapidity of a mushroom, and like a mushroom is withering on its rootless stalk. Are those men federalized to support the liberties of their country or to overturn them? To add to its fair fame or riot on its spoils? The name contains no defined idea. It is like John Adams's definition of a Republic, in his letter to Mr. Wythe of Virginia.(2) It is, says he, an empire of laws and not of men. But as laws may be bad as well as good, an empire of laws may be the best of all governments or the worst of all tyrannies. But John Adams is a man of paradoxical heresies, and consequently of a bewildered mind. He wrote a book entitled, "A Defence of the American Constitutions," and the principles of it are an attack upon them. But the book is descended to the tomb of forgetfulness, and the best fortune that can attend its author is quietly to follow its fate. John was not born for immortality. But, to return to Federalism.
Fourteen years, and a bit more, have brought change, at least for part of the population, and I wonder what it is. I come across or hear about thousands of my former acquaintances, who hold the same principles and friendships as when I left them. But a vague group, of ambiguous origins, calling themselves Federalists—a name that doesn't clearly define any good or bad principle, and could apply to either side—has emerged quickly, like a mushroom, and like a mushroom, is withering on its fragile stem. Are these individuals federalized to uphold the freedoms of their country or to destroy them? To enhance its reputation or to capitalize on its losses? The name lacks a clear meaning. It’s similar to John Adams's definition of a Republic in his letter to Mr. Wythe of Virginia.(2) It is, he says, an empire of laws and not of men. But since laws can be both good and bad, an empire of laws could either be the best form of government or the worst kind of tyranny. John Adams is a man of contradictory beliefs, which leads to a confused mindset. He wrote a book titled, "A Defence of the American Constitutions," but its principles attack those very constitutions. However, the book has faded into obscurity, and the best outcome for its author is to quietly share its fate. John was not meant for lasting fame. But, back to Federalism.
1 National Intelligencer, Nov. 23, 1802.—Editor. 2 Chancellor Wythe, 1728-1806.—Editor. vol m—+5
In the history of parties and the names they assume, it often happens that they finish by the direct contrary principles with which they profess to begin, and thus it has happened with Federalism.
In the history of political parties and the names they take on, it's common for them to end up being completely opposite to the principles they claim to start with, and that's what happened with Federalism.
During the time of the old Congress, and prior to the establishment of the federal government, the continental belt was too loosely buckled. The several states were united in name but not in fact, and that nominal union had neither centre nor circle. The laws of one state frequently interferred with, and sometimes opposed, those of another. Commerce between state and state was without protection, and confidence without a point to rest on. The condition the country was then in, was aptly described by Pelatiah Webster, when he said, "thirteen staves and ne'er a hoop will not make a barrel."(1)
During the time of the old Congress, before the federal government was established, the connection among the states was too weak. The different states were united in name but not in reality, and that nominal union had neither a center nor a structure. The laws of one state often interfered with and sometimes contradicted those of another. Commerce between states was unprotected, and trust had no solid foundation. The situation the country was in at that time was perfectly captured by Pelatiah Webster when he said, "thirteen staves and ne'er a hoop will not make a barrel."(1)
If, then, by Federalist is to be understood one who was for cementing the Union by a general government operating equally over all the States, in all matters that embraced the common interest, and to which the authority of the States severally was not adequate, for no one State can make laws to bind another; if, I say, by a Federalist is meant a person of this description, (and this is the origin of the name,) I ought to stand first on the list of Federalists, for the proposition for establishing a general government over the Union, came originally from me in 1783, in a written Memorial to Chancellor Livingston, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs to Congress, Robert Morris, Minister of Finance, and his associate, Gouverneur Morris, all of whom are now living; and we had a dinner and conference at Robert Morris's on the subject. The occasion was as follows:
If by Federalist you mean someone who supports strengthening the Union through a general government that operates fairly over all the States in matters that affect the common interest, and where the authority of individual States isn’t sufficient—since no single State can create laws that bind another—then I say, if that’s what a Federalist is defined as (and that’s where the name comes from), I should be at the top of the list of Federalists. The idea of establishing a general government for the Union was originally mine back in 1783, laid out in a written memorial to Chancellor Livingston, who was then the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to Congress, Robert Morris, the Minister of Finance, and his colleague, Gouverneur Morris, all of whom are still alive. We had dinner and a discussion at Robert Morris's place about this topic. The occasion was as follows:
Congress had proposed a duty of five per cent, on imported articles, the money to be applied as a fund towards paying the interest of loans to be borrowed in Holland. The resolve was sent to the several States to be enacted into a law. Rhode Island absolutely refused. I was at the trouble of a journey to Rhode Island to reason with them on the subject.(2) Some other of the States enacted it with alterations, each one as it pleased. Virginia adopted it, and afterwards repealed it, and the affair came to nothing.
Congress had suggested a 5% tax on imported goods, with the funds intended to help pay the interest on loans taken from Holland. This proposal was sent to the various States to be made into law. Rhode Island flatly refused. I went through the trouble of traveling to Rhode Island to discuss the matter with them. Some other States passed it with changes, each doing what they wanted. Virginia accepted it, then later repealed it, and the whole situation ended up going nowhere.
1 "Like a stare in a barrel tightly secured with hoops, it [the individual State] is more stable, not easily shaken, bent, or broken, compared to if it were standing alone."—Pelatiah Webster, 1788. See Paul L. Ford's Pamphlets on the Constitution, etc., p. 128.—Editor 2 See my "Life of Paine," vol i., p. 103.—Editor,
It was then visible, at least to me, that either Congress must frame the laws necessary for the Union, and send them to the several States to be enregistered without any alteration, which would in itself appear like usurpation on one part and passive obedience on the other, or some method must be devised to accomplish the same end by constitutional principles; and the proposition I made in the memorial was, to add a continental legislature to Congress, to be elected by the several States. The proposition met the full approbation of the gentlemen to whom it was addressed, and the conversation turned on the manner of bringing it forward. Gouverneur Morris, in walking with me after dinner, wished me to throw out the idea in the newspaper; I replied, that I did not like to be always the proposer of new things, that it would have too assuming an appearance; and besides, that I did not think the country was quite wrong enough to be put right. I remember giving the same reason to Dr. Rush, at Philadelphia, and to General Gates, at whose quarters I spent a day on my return from Rhode Island; and I suppose they will remember it, because the observation seemed to strike them.(1)
It was clear to me that either Congress needed to create the laws necessary for the Union and send them to the states to be registered without any changes, which would appear to be usurpation on one side and passive obedience on the other, or we had to come up with some way to achieve the same goal using constitutional principles. The idea I proposed in the memorial was to add a continental legislature to Congress, elected by the various states. The proposal was fully approved by the gentlemen it was presented to, and we started discussing how to bring it up. Gouverneur Morris, while walking with me after dinner, suggested I mention the idea in the newspaper. I replied that I didn’t want to be seen as the one always proposing new ideas, as it would come off as too presumptuous, and besides, I didn’t think the country was in such a bad place that it needed fixing. I remember giving the same reason to Dr. Rush in Philadelphia and to General Gates, at whose quarters I spent a day on my way back from Rhode Island; I’m sure they will recall it because my point seemed to resonate with them.(1)
1 The Letter Books of Robert Morris (16 folio volumes, which should be in our national Archives) include many entries related to Paine's involvement in public service. On August 21, 1783, around the time Paine mentions in this letter, Robert Morris refers to a conversation he had with him about public affairs. I'm grateful to General Meredith Read, the owner of these Morris papers, for allowing me to review them.—Editor..
But the embarrassments increasing, as they necessarily must from the want of a better cemented union, the State of Virginia proposed holding a commercial convention, and that convention, which was not sufficiently numerous, proposed that another convention, with more extensive and better defined powers, should be held at Philadelphia, May 10, 1787.
But the embarrassments kept growing, as they naturally would due to the lack of a stronger union, so the State of Virginia suggested holding a commercial convention. That convention, which didn’t have enough members, recommended that another convention, with broader and clearer powers, should take place in Philadelphia on May 10, 1787.
When the plan of the Federal Government, formed by this Convention, was proposed and submitted to the consideration of the several States, it was strongly objected to in each of them. But the objections were not on anti-federal grounds, but on constitutional points. Many were shocked at the idea of placing what is called Executive Power in the hands of a single individual. To them it had too much the form and appearance of a military government, or a despotic one. Others objected that the powers given to a president were too great, and that in the hands of an ambitious and designing man it might grow into tyranny, as it did in England under Oliver Cromwell, and as it has since done in France. A Republic must not only be so in its principles, but in its forms. The Executive part of the Federal government was made for a man, and those who consented, against their judgment, to place Executive Power in the hands of a single individual, reposed more on the supposed moderation of the person they had in view, than on the wisdom of the measure itself.
When the plan for the Federal Government, created by this Convention, was proposed and submitted for consideration to the various States, there were strong objections in each of them. However, these objections were not based on anti-federal sentiments but rather on constitutional issues. Many were alarmed by the idea of giving what is called Executive Power to a single person. To them, it seemed too much like a military or a despotic government. Others argued that the powers granted to a president were excessive, and in the hands of an ambitious and calculating person, it could lead to tyranny, as seen in England under Oliver Cromwell, and as has happened in France since then. A Republic must not only adhere to republican principles but also to republican forms. The Executive branch of the Federal government was designed for an individual, and those who agreed, against their better judgment, to assign Executive Power to a single person relied more on the assumed moderation of the person they had in mind than on the soundness of the idea itself.
Two considerations, however, overcame all objections. The one was, the absolute necessity of a Federal Government. The other, the rational reflection, that as government in America is founded on the representative system any error in the first essay could be reformed by the same quiet and rational process by which the Constitution was formed, and that either by the generation then living, or by those who were to succeed. If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves.
Two considerations, however, overcame all objections. One was the absolute necessity of a Federal Government. The other was the logical thought that since the government in America is based on a representative system, any mistakes in the initial attempt could be corrected through the same calm and rational process that created the Constitution, either by the current generation or by those that follow. If America ever loses sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the destroyer of the rights of the son, and his descendants will become a race of slaves.
As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostacy of those who first called themselves Federalists.
As many thousands who were minors have grown up to adulthood since the term Federalist started being used, it has become necessary, for their understanding, to go back and explain the origin of the name, which is now different from what it originally was; but it is even more important to do this to expose, openly, the betrayal of those who first identified as Federalists.
To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than Federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be overthrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father's foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control. Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-president John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters.
To them, it was a cover for betrayal, a disguise for oppression. As soon as they took power, they aimed to dismantle Federalism, and the representative government, which was America’s pride and protection of her freedoms, was to be toppled and eliminated. The next generation would not be free. The son would have to submit to the father and live, stripped of his rights, under inherited rule. Among the individuals of this type is the former president John Adams. His political journey started with deceit, continued with arrogance, and ended in disdain. May all such individuals meet the same fate.
I have had doubts of John Adams ever since the year 1776. In a conversation with me at that time, concerning the pamphlet Common Sense, he censured it because it attacked the English form of government. John was for independence because he expected to be made great by it; but it was not difficult to perceive, for the surliness of his temper makes him an awkward hypocrite, that his head was as full of kings, queens, and knaves, as a pack of cards. But John has lost deal.
I’ve had doubts about John Adams since 1776. During a conversation with me at that time about the pamphlet Common Sense, he criticized it because it went after the English government. John wanted independence because he thought it would elevate his status, but it wasn’t hard to see, given his grumpy nature that makes him seem like a clumsy hypocrite, that his mind was as full of kings, queens, and scoundrels as a deck of cards. But John has lost the game.
When a man has a concealed project in his brain that he wants to bring forward, and fears will not succeed, he begins with it as physicians do by suspected poison, try it first on an animal; if it agree with the stomach of the animal, he makes further experiments, and this was the way John took. His brain was teeming with projects to overturn the liberties of America, and the representative system of government, and he began by hinting it in little companies. The secretary of John Jay, an excellent painter and a poor politician, told me, in presence of another American, Daniel Parker, that in a company where himself was present, John Adams talked of making the government hereditary, and that as Mr. Washington had no children, it should be made hereditary in the family of Lund Washington.(1) John had not impudence enough to propose himself in the first instance, as the old French Normandy baron did, who offered to come over to be king of America, and if Congress did not accept his offer, that they would give him thirty thousand pounds for the generosity of it(2); but John, like a mole, was grubbing his way to it under ground. He knew that Lund Washington was unknown, for nobody had heard of him, and that as the president had no children to succeed him, the vice-president had, and if the treason had succeeded, and the hint with it, the goldsmith might be sent for to take measure of the head of John or of his son for a golden wig. In this case, the good people of Boston might have for a king the man they have rejected as a delegate. The representative system is fatal to ambition.
When a man has a secret plan in his mind that he wants to pursue but fears it won't work out, he approaches it like doctors deal with suspected poison—testing it first on an animal. If the animal reacts well, he experiments further, and that's how John proceeded. His mind was overflowing with ideas to undermine the freedoms of America and the representative government. He started by hinting at them in small groups. John Jay's secretary, an excellent painter but a poor politician, told me, in front of another American, Daniel Parker, that during a gathering John Adams proposed making the government hereditary, suggesting that since Mr. Washington had no children, it should go to the family of Lund Washington. John wasn’t bold enough to propose himself right away, unlike the old French Normandy baron who offered to come over and be the king of America, and if Congress turned him down, they would owe him thirty thousand pounds for his generosity; but John, like a mole, was quietly digging his way toward it. He knew that Lund Washington was unknown, as nobody had heard of him, and that since the president had no children to take over, the vice president did. If the betrayal had succeeded, they might have summoned a goldsmith to fit John or his son for a golden wig. In that scenario, the good people of Boston could have ended up with a king they had previously rejected as a delegate. The representative system is lethal to ambition.
1 See above footnote on p. 288.—Editor. 2 See vol. ii. p. 318 of this work.—Editor.
Knowing, as I do, the consummate vanity of John Adams, and the shallowness of his judgment, I can easily picture to myself that when he arrived at the Federal City he was strutting in the pomp of his imagination before the presidential house, or in the audience hall, and exulting in the language of Nebuchadnezzar, "Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the honour of my Majesty!" But in that unfortunate hour, or soon after, John, like Nebuchadnezzar, was driven from among men, and fled with the speed of a post-horse.
Knowing, as I do, how incredibly vain John Adams is and how shallow his judgment can be, I can easily imagine that when he arrived in the Federal City, he was strutting around in his own imagination in front of the presidential house or in the audience hall, reveling in the words of Nebuchadnezzar, "Isn’t this great Babylon that I have built for the glory of my Majesty!" But in that unfortunate moment, or shortly after, John, like Nebuchadnezzar, was cast out from among people and fled as fast as a racing horse.
Some of John Adams's loyal subjects, I see, have been to present him with an address on his birthday; but the language they use is too tame for the occasion. Birthday addresses, like birthday odes, should not creep along like mildrops down a cabbage leaf, but roll in a torrent of poetical metaphor. I will give them a specimen for the next year. Here it is—
Some of John Adams's loyal followers, I see, have come to give him a birthday address; but the language they use is too bland for the occasion. Birthday addresses, like birthday poems, shouldn't just crawl along like drops of rain down a cabbage leaf, but should flow in a rush of poetic imagery. I'll provide them with an example for next year. Here it is—
When an Ant, in travelling over the globe, lift up its foot, and put it again on the ground, it shakes the earth to its centre: but when YOU, the mighty Ant of the East, was born, &c. &c. &c, the centre jumped upon the surface.
When an ant travels around the world and lifts its foot, then puts it back down, it shakes the earth to its core. But when YOU, the mighty ant of the East, were born, etc., etc., etc., the center jumped to the surface.
This, gentlemen, is the proper style of addresses from well-bred ants to the monarch of the ant hills; and as I never take pay for preaching, praying, politics, or poetry, I make you a present of it. Some people talk of impeaching John Adams; but I am for softer measures. I would keep him to make fun of. He will then answer one of the ends for which he was born, and he ought to be thankful that I am arrived to take his part. I voted in earnest to save the life of one unfortunate king, and I now vote in jest to save another. It is my fate to be always plagued with fools. But to return to Federalism and apostacy.
This, guys, is the right way for well-mannered ants to address the king of the ant hills; and since I never charge for preaching, praying, politics, or poetry, I'm giving it to you for free. Some people are talking about impeaching John Adams, but I prefer a lighter approach. I’d rather keep him around for comic relief. That way, he’ll fulfill one of the purposes he was born for, and he should be grateful that I’m here to support him. I seriously voted to save the life of one unfortunate king, and now I’m jokingly voting to save another. I'm always stuck dealing with idiots. But let’s get back to Federalism and apostasy.
The plan of the leaders of the faction was to overthrow the liberties of the new world, and place government on the corrupt system of the old. They wanted to hold their power by a more lasting tenure than the choice of their constituents. It is impossible to account for their conduct and the measures they adopted on any other ground. But to accomplish that object, a standing army and a prodigal revenue must be raised; and to obtain these, pretences must be invented to deceive. Alarms of dangers that did not exist even in imagination, but in the direct spirit of lying, were spread abroad. Apostacy stalked through the land in the garb of patriotism, and the torch of treason blinded for a while the flame of liberty.
The leaders of the faction aimed to take away the freedoms of the new world and establish a government based on the corrupt practices of the old. They wanted to maintain their power more permanently than just relying on the choice of their constituents. It's hard to explain their actions and the strategies they used in any other way. However, to achieve this goal, they needed to raise a standing army and a huge budget; and to do that, they had to come up with false reasons to mislead people. They spread fears of threats that didn’t even exist in their imagination, only rooted in blatant deception. Betrayal walked through the land disguised as patriotism, and the flames of treason temporarily obscured the light of liberty.
For what purpose could an army of twenty-five thousand men be wanted? A single reflection might have taught the most credulous that while the war raged between France and England, neither could spare a man to invade America. For what purpose, then, could it be wanted? The case carries its own explanation. It was wanted for the purpose of destroying the representative system, for it could be employed for no other. Are these men Federalists? If they are, they are federalized to deceive and to destroy.
For what reason would an army of twenty-five thousand men be needed? A moment's thought should have shown even the most gullible that while the war was going on between France and England, neither could afford to send anyone to invade America. So, what was it for? The answer is clear. It was intended to dismantle the representative system, as it could serve no other purpose. Are these people Federalists? If they are, they’ve been federalized to mislead and to destroy.
The rage against Dr. Logan's patriotic and voluntary mission to France was excited by the shame they felt at the detection of the false alarms they had circulated. As to the opposition given by the remnant of the faction to the repeal of the taxes laid on during the former administration, it is easily accounted for. The repeal of those taxes was a sentence of condemnation on those who laid them on, and in the opposition they gave in that repeal, they are to be considered in the light of criminals standing on their defence, and the country has passed judgment upon them.
The anger towards Dr. Logan's patriotic and voluntary mission to France was fueled by the embarrassment they felt after their false alarms were exposed. As for the resistance from the remaining faction against the repeal of the taxes imposed during the previous administration, it can be easily understood. Repealing those taxes was a way of condemning those responsible for them, and their opposition to that repeal places them in the position of criminals defending themselves, while the country has already made its judgment on them.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
City of Washington, Lovett's Hotel, Nov. 19, 1802.
City of Washington, Lovett's Hotel, Nov. 19, 1802.
LETTER III.(1)
LETTER III.
1 The National Intelligencer, Dec. 29th, 1802.—Editor..
To ELECT, and to REJECT, is the prerogative of a free people.
To choose and to refuse is the right of a free people.
Since the establishment of Independence, no period has arrived that so decidedly proves the excellence of the representative system of government, and its superiority over every other, as the time we now live in. Had America been cursed with John Adams's hereditary Monarchy or Alexander Hamilton's Senate for life she must have sought, in the doubtful contest of civil war, what she now obtains by the expression of public will. An appeal to elections decides better than an appeal to the sword.
Since Independence was established, there's never been a time that clearly shows how great the representative system of government is and how much better it is than any other than now. If America had been stuck with John Adams's hereditary Monarchy or Alexander Hamilton's Senate for life, she would have had to fight a risky civil war to achieve what she now gets through the expression of public opinion. Choosing leaders through elections is a better solution than resorting to conflict.
The Reign of Terror that raged in America during the latter end of the Washington administration, and the whole of that of Adams, is enveloped in mystery to me. That there were men in the government hostile to the representative system, was once their boast, though it is now their overthrow, and therefore the fact is established against them. But that so large a mass of the people should become the dupes of those who were loading them with taxes in order to load them with chains, and deprive them of the right of election, can be ascribed only to that species of wildfire rage, lighted up by falsehood, that not only acts without reflection, but is too impetuous to make any.
The Reign of Terror that swept through America during the final years of Washington's presidency and throughout Adams' time is a mystery to me. It was once bragged that there were people in the government who opposed the representative system, but that has now led to their downfall, establishing the facts against them. However, it’s astonishing that such a large group of people could be fooled by those who were burdening them with taxes to enslave them and strip them of their right to vote. This can only be explained by a kind of wildfire anger, ignited by lies, that acts without thinking and is too intense to consider anything rationally.
There is a general and striking difference between the genuine effects of truth itself, and the effects of falsehood believed to be truth. Truth is naturally benign; but falsehood believed to be truth is always furious. The former delights in serenity, is mild and persuasive, and seeks not the auxiliary aid of invention. The latter sticks at nothing. It has naturally no morals. Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. It is the innate character of the thing to act in this manner, and the criterion by which it may be known, whether in politics or religion. When any thing is attempted to be supported by lying, it is presumptive evidence that the thing so supported is a lie also. The stock on which a lie can be grafted must be of the same species as the graft.
There’s a clear and striking difference between the real effects of truth and the effects of falsehood that’s mistaken for truth. Truth is naturally kind; falsehood disguised as truth is always aggressive. The former thrives in calmness, is gentle and convincing, and doesn’t rely on fabricated stories. The latter stops at nothing. It has no morals by nature. Every lie is welcome if it serves its purpose. It’s the basic nature of this concept to behave this way, and it can be recognized in both politics and religion. If something needs to be supported by lies, it’s a strong indication that what it’s supporting is also a lie. A lie can only be grafted onto a base that is of the same kind.
What is become of the mighty clamour of French invasion, and the cry that our country is in danger, and taxes and armies must be raised to defend it? The danger is fled with the faction that created it, and what is worst of all, the money is fled too. It is I only that have committed the hostility of invasion, and all the artillery of popguns are prepared for action. Poor fellows, how they foam! They set half their own partisans in laughter; for among ridiculous things nothing is more ridiculous than ridiculous rage. But I hope they will not leave off. I shall lose half my greatness when they cease to lie.
What happened to the loud fears of a French invasion and the warnings that our country was in danger, prompting the need for taxes and armies for protection? The threat has vanished along with the faction that caused it, and worst of all, the money has disappeared too. I am the only one who has caused the invasion hostility, and all the toy weapons are ready for action. Poor guys, they’re so worked up! They make half of their own supporters laugh; because when it comes to absurd things, nothing is more absurd than ridiculous anger. But I hope they keep it up. I’ll lose half my influence when they stop lying.
So far as respects myself, I have reason to believe, and a right to say, that the leaders of the Reign of Terror in America and the leaders of the Reign of Terror in France, during the time of Robespierre, were in character the same sort of men; or how is it to be accounted for, that I was persecuted by both at the same time? When I was voted out of the French Convention, the reason assigned for it was, that I was a foreigner. When Robespierre had me seized in the night, and imprisoned in the Luxembourg, (where I remained eleven months,) he assigned no reason for it. But when he proposed bringing me to the tribunal, which was like sending me at once to the scaffold, he then assigned a reason, and the reason was, for the interests of America as well as of France, "Pour les intirjts de l'Amirique autant que de la France" The words are in his own hand-writing, and reported to the Convention by the committee appointed to examine his papers, and are printed in their report, with this reflection added to them, "Why Thomas Paine more than another? Because he contributed to the liberty of both worlds."(1)
As far as I’m concerned, I have good reason to believe, and a right to say, that the leaders of the Reign of Terror in America and the leaders of the Reign of Terror in France during Robespierre's time were basically the same kind of people; otherwise, how else can we explain that I was persecuted by both at the same time? When I was expelled from the French Convention, the reason given was that I was a foreigner. When Robespierre had me arrested in the night and locked up in the Luxembourg, where I stayed for eleven months, he didn’t provide a reason for it. But when he suggested bringing me to trial, which was essentially like sending me straight to the guillotine, he finally offered a reason— and it was "for the interests of America as well as of France," "Pour les intérêts de l’Amérique autant que de la France." Those words are in his own handwriting and were reported to the Convention by the committee assigned to examine his documents, and they are printed in their report with the comment added, "Why Thomas Paine more than another? Because he contributed to the liberty of both worlds."(1)
1 See my "Life of Paine," vol. ii., pp. 79, 81. Also, the historical introduction to XXI., p. 330, of this volume. Robespierre never wrote anything frivolous. Paine understood this well, as did Mirabeau, who remarked about Robespierre: "That man will go far because he believes every word he says."—Editor.
There must have been a coalition in sentiment, if not in fact, between the Terrorists of America and the Terrorists of France, and Robespierre must have known it, or he could not have had the idea of putting America into the bill of accusation against me. Yet these men, these Terrorists of the new world, who were waiting in the devotion of their hearts for the joyful news of my destruction, are the same banditti who are now bellowing in all the hacknied language of hacknied hypocrisy, about humanity, and piety, and often about something they call infidelity, and they finish with the chorus of Crucify him, crucify him. I am become so famous among them, they cannot eat or drink without me. I serve them as a standing dish, and they cannot make up a bill of fare if I am not in it.
There must have been a shared feeling, if not an actual alliance, between the terrorists in America and those in France, and Robespierre had to have known this, or he wouldn’t have thought to include America in the accusations against me. Yet these individuals, these terrorists of the new world, who were eagerly anticipating the good news of my downfall, are the same bandits now shouting in all the clichéd language of tired hypocrisy about humanity, compassion, and often about something they call infidelity, and they finish with the chant of Crucify him, crucify him. I have become so well-known among them that they can’t eat or drink without me. I’m like a staple on their menu, and they can't create a meal plan if I’m not included.
But there is one dish, and that the choicest of all, that they have not presented on the table, and it is time they should. They have not yet accused Providence of Infidelity. Yet according to their outrageous piety, she(1) must be as bad as Thomas Paine; she has protected him in all his dangers, patronized him in all his undertakings, encouraged him in all his ways, and rewarded him at last by bringing him in safety and in health to the Promised Land. This is more than she did by the Jews, the chosen people, that they tell us she brought out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage; for they all died in the wilderness, and Moses too.
But there’s one dish, the best of all, that they haven’t served up yet, and it’s about time they did. They haven’t yet accused Providence of Infidelity. But according to their outrageous piety, she(1) must be just as bad as Thomas Paine; she has protected him through all his challenges, supported him in every endeavor, encouraged him in all his actions, and ultimately rewarded him by bringing him safely and healthily to the Promised Land. This is more than she did for the Jews, the chosen people, whom they say she led out of Egypt and out of slavery; because they all died in the wilderness, including Moses.
I was one of the nine members that composed the first Committee of Constitution. Six of them have been destroyed. Sihyes and myself have survived—he by bending with the times, and I by not bending. The other survivor joined Robespierre, he was seized and imprisoned in his turn, and sentenced to transportation. He has since apologized to me for having signed the warrant, by saying he felt himself in danger and was obliged to do it.(2)
I was one of the nine people who made up the first Constitution Committee. Six of them have been eliminated. Sihyes and I have survived—he by adapting to the times, and I by standing my ground. The other survivor joined Robespierre, was captured and imprisoned, and sentenced to exile. He has since apologized to me for signing the warrant, saying he felt threatened and had no choice but to do it.
1 Is this a "survival" of the goddess Fortuna?—Editor. 2 Barhre. His apology to Paine shows that a death warrant had been issued, because Barhre did not sign the order for Paine's arrest or imprisonment.—Editor.
Hirault Sechelles, an acquaintance of Mr. Jefferson, and a good patriot, was my suppliant as member of the Committee of Constitution, that is, he was to supply my place, if I had not accepted or had resigned, being next in number of votes to me. He was imprisoned in the Luxembourg with me, was taken to the tribunal and the guillotine, and I, his principal, was left.
Hirault Sechelles, a friend of Mr. Jefferson's and a solid patriot, was my suppliant as a member of the Committee of Constitution. This meant he was next in line to take my place if I hadn’t accepted or had resigned, since he received the next highest number of votes. He was imprisoned in the Luxembourg with me, taken to the tribunal and the guillotine, and I, who was his superior, was left behind.
There were two foreigners in the Convention, Anarcharsis Clootz and myself. We were both put out of the Convention by the same vote, arrested by the same order, and carried to prison together the same night. He was taken to the guillotine, and I was again left. Joel Barlow was with us when we went to prison.
There were two outsiders in the Convention, Anarcharsis Clootz and me. We were both dismissed from the Convention by the same vote, arrested under the same order, and taken to prison together that night. He was sent to the guillotine, while I was spared again. Joel Barlow was with us when we were taken to prison.
Joseph Lebon, one of the vilest characters that ever existed, and who made the streets of Arras run with blood, was my suppliant, as member of the Convention for the department of the Pas de Calais. When I was put out of the Convention he came and took my place. When I was liberated from prison and voted again into the Convention, he was sent to the same prison and took my place there, and he was sent to the guillotine instead of me. He supplied my place all the way through.
Joseph Lebon, one of the most despicable characters to ever exist, who made the streets of Arras run with blood, was my suppliant as a member of the Convention for the department of the Pas de Calais. When I was removed from the Convention, he came in and took my spot. When I was released from prison and voted back into the Convention, he was sent to the same prison and took my place there, and he ended up at the guillotine instead of me. He filled my position all along.
One hundred and sixty-eight persons were taken out of the Luxembourg in one night, and a hundred and sixty of them guillotined next day, of which I now know I was to have been one; and the manner I escaped that fate is curious, and has all the appearance of accident.
One hundred and sixty-eight people were taken out of the Luxembourg in one night, and the next day, a hundred and sixty of them were guillotined, of which I now know I was supposed to be one; and the way I escaped that fate is interesting and seems purely accidental.
The room in which I was lodged was on the ground floor, and one of a long range of rooms under a gallery, and the door of it opened outward and flat against the wall; so that when it was open the inside of the door appeared outward, and the contrary when it was shut. I had three comrades, fellow prisoners with me, Joseph Vanhuele, of Bruges, since President of the Municipality of that town, Michael Rubyns, and Charles Bastini of Louvain.
The room where I stayed was on the ground floor, part of a long row of rooms beneath a gallery. The door opened outward and lay flat against the wall, so when it was open, the inside of the door faced outward, and the opposite when it was closed. I had three companions, fellow prisoners with me: Joseph Vanhuele from Bruges, who later became the President of the Municipality of that town, Michael Rubyns, and Charles Bastini from Louvain.
When persons by scores and by hundreds were to be taken out of the prison for the guillotine it was always done in the night, and those who performed that office had a private mark or signal, by which they knew what rooms to go to, and what number to take. We, as I have stated, were four, and the door of our room was marked, unobserved by us, with that number in chalk; but it happened, if happening is a proper word, that the mark was put on when the door was open, and flat against the wall, and thereby came on the inside when we shut it at night, and the destroying angel passed by it.(1) A few days after this, Robespierre fell, and Mr. Monroe arrived and reclaimed me, and invited me to his house.
When people were taken out of prison by the hundreds for the guillotine, it always happened at night. Those in charge had a secret mark or signal that indicated which rooms to go to and which numbers to take. As I mentioned, there were four of us, and the door to our room was marked, unnoticed by us, with that number in chalk. However, the mark was made when the door was open and pressed against the wall, so it ended up on the inside when we closed it at night, and the executioner passed by us. A few days later, Robespierre fell, Mr. Monroe arrived, claimed me, and invited me to his house.
1 Paine's preface to the "Age of Reason" Part II, and his letter to Washington (p. 222) show that for some time after his release from prison, he believed his escape from the guillotine was due to a fever that made him unconscious when Robespierre demanded his accusation; however, it will be seen (XXXI) that he later visited his cellmate Vanhuele, who had become Mayor of Bruges, and he may have learned the details of their amazing escape from him. Carlyle was criticized by John G. Alger for believing this story of the chalk mark, leading to an in-depth discussion of the facts in the London Athenoum on July 7, 21, August 25, and September 1, 1894, where it was conclusively shown, I think, that there is no reason to doubt the truth of the incident. See also my article on Paine's escape in The Open Court (Chicago), July 26, 1894. The discussion in the Athenoum brought to light that a tradition had long existed in the family of Sampson Perry claiming he shared Paine's cell and was saved by the strange mistake. This is not the case. Perry, in his book on the French Revolution and in his "Argus," shared the story of Paine's escape due to his illness, as Paine first told it; he also mentions an anecdote that may be worth repeating: "Mr. Paine expresses gratitude for the kindness shown to him by his fellow-prisoners in the same cell during his severe illness, especially for the skilled and voluntary help provided by General O'Hara's surgeon. He shares an anecdote about himself that might be important. An arrest by the Committee of Public Welfare had instructed the administrators of the palace [Luxembourg] to enter all the prisons with extra guards and to take away every prisoner's knives, forks, and any other sharp instruments; they were also to take their money. This occurred shortly before Mr. Paine's illness, and since this event was presented to him as an atrocious act of plunder at the end of the municipality, he decided to mitigate its effects concerning himself. He had an English bank note of some value and gold coins in his pocket, and since he thought the visitors might search him and his trunks (though no one actually did), he removed the lock from his door and hid everything he had on him inside it. When he recovered his health, he found his money but missed about three hundred of his fellow prisoners who had been sent in groups to the deadly tribunal, while he had been unaware of their or his own danger." This was probably the money (£200) that Paine loaned to General O'Hara (who was at the Yorktown surrender) while in prison. —Editor.
During the whole of my imprisonment, prior to the fall of Robespierre, there was no time when I could think my life worth twenty-four hours, and my mind was made up to meet its fate. The Americans in Paris went in a body to the Convention to reclaim me, but without success. There was no party among them with respect to me. My only hope then rested on the government of America, that it would remember me. But the icy heart of ingratitude, in whatever man it be placed, has neither feeling nor sense of honour. The letter of Mr. Jefferson has served to wipe away the reproach, and done justice to the mass of the people of America.(1)
During my entire imprisonment, before Robespierre fell, I never felt that my life was worth living for another twenty-four hours, and I had resigned myself to whatever fate awaited me. The Americans in Paris banded together to go to the Convention to plead for my release, but it was all in vain. There was no consensus among them regarding my situation. My only hope at that point was that the government of America would remember me. However, the cold indifference of ingratitude, no matter where it comes from, shows no compassion or sense of honor. Mr. Jefferson's letter has helped erase that stigma and has done justice to the feelings of the American people.(1)
1 Printed in the seventh of this series of Letters.— Editor..
When a party was forming, in the latter end of 1777, and beginning of 1778, of which John Adams was one, to remove Mr. Washington from the command of the army on the complaint that he did nothing, I wrote the fifth number of the Crisis, and published it at Lancaster, (Congress then being at Yorktown, in Pennsylvania,) to ward off that meditated blow; for though I well knew that the black times of '76 were the natural consequence of his want of military judgment in the choice of positions into which the army was put about New York and New Jersey, I could see no possible advantage, and nothing but mischief, that could arise by distracting the army into parties, which would have been the case had the intended motion gone on.
When a faction was forming in late 1777 and early 1778, which included John Adams, to remove Mr. Washington from command of the army because they claimed he did nothing, I wrote the fifth number of the Crisis and published it in Lancaster (since Congress was then in Yorktown, Pennsylvania) to prevent that planned attack; because, even though I knew that the dark times of '76 were a direct result of his poor military judgment in choosing positions for the army around New York and New Jersey, I saw no potential benefit and only harm that could come from splitting the army into factions, which would have happened if the proposed motion had gone forward.
General [Charles] Lee, who with a sarcastic genius joined a great fund of military knowledge, was perfectly right when he said "We have no business on islands, and in the bottom of bogs, where the enemy, by the aid of its ships, can bring its whole force against apart of ours and shut it up." This had like to have been the case at New York, and it was the case at Fort Washington, and would have been the case at Fort Lee if General [Nathaniel] Greene had not moved instantly off on the first news of the enemy's approach. I was with Greene through the whole of that affair, and know it perfectly.
General [Charles] Lee, who cleverly combined a sharp wit with extensive military knowledge, was completely right when he said, "We have no business on islands and in the depths of swamps, where the enemy, with the help of their ships, can bring their entire force against a part of ours and trap it." This was almost the situation in New York, it definitely happened at Fort Washington, and it would have occurred at Fort Lee if General [Nathaniel] Greene hadn't quickly evacuated at the first news of the enemy's approach. I was with Greene throughout that entire situation and know it very well.
But though I came forward in defence of Mr. Washington when he was attacked, and made the best that could be made of a series of blunders that had nearly ruined the country, he left me to perish when I was in prison. But as I told him of it in his life-time, I should not now bring it up if the ignorant impertinence of some of the Federal papers, who are pushing Mr. Washington forward as their stalking horse, did not make it necessary.
But even though I stood up for Mr. Washington when he was criticized and tried to make the best of a series of mistakes that almost destroyed the country, he abandoned me when I was in prison. However, as I mentioned to him during his lifetime, I wouldn’t bring it up now if the ignorant arrogance of some of the Federal papers, who are exploiting Mr. Washington as their figurehead, didn't make it necessary.
That gentleman did not perform his part in the Revolution better, nor with more honour, than I did mine, and the one part was as necessary as the other. He accepted as a present, (though he was already rich,) a hundred thousand acres of land in America, and left me to occupy six foot of earth in France.(1) I wish, for his own reputation, he had acted with more justice. But it was always known of Mr. Washington, by those who best knew him, that he was of such an icy and death-like constitution, that he neither loved his friends nor hated his enemies. But, be this as it may, I see no reason that a difference between Mr. Washington and me should be made a theme of discord with other people. There are those who may see merit in both, without making themselves partisans of either, and with this reflection I close the subject.
That gentleman did not do his part in the Revolution any better or more honorably than I did mine, and both parts were equally necessary. He accepted as a gift, even though he was already wealthy, a hundred thousand acres of land in America, while I was left to occupy six feet of earth in France. I wish, for his own reputation, that he had acted with more fairness. But it has always been known about Mr. Washington, by those who knew him best, that he had such a cold and lifeless nature that he neither loved his friends nor hated his enemies. That being said, I don’t see why a difference between Mr. Washington and me should be turned into a cause for conflict among others. Some may recognize merit in both without becoming supporters of either, and with that thought, I’ll wrap up this topic.
1 Paine was wrong, like many others, about the gifts from Virginia (1785) to Washington. They consisted of 100 shares, valued at $100 each, in the James River Company, and 50 shares, valued at $100 each, in the Potomac Company. Washington accepted them on the condition that he could use them for public purposes, which he did in his Will.—Editor.
As to the hypocritical abuse thrown out by the Federalists on other subjects, I recommend to them the observance of a commandment that existed before either Christian or Jew existed:
As for the hypocritical garbage thrown around by the Federalists on other topics, I suggest they pay attention to a commandment that existed long before either Christians or Jews were around:
You shall make a promise with your senses: With your eyes that they see no evil, With your ears that they hear no evil, With your tongue that it speaks no evil, With your hands that they do no evil.
If the Federalists will follow this commandment, they will leave off lying.
If the Federalists follow this command, they will stop lying.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
Federal City, Lovett's Hotel, Nov. 26,1802.
Federal City, Lovett's Hotel, Nov. 26, 1802.
LETTER IV.(1)
LETTER IV.
1 The National Intelligencer, Dec. 6th, 1802.—Editor..
As Congress is on the point of meeting, the public papers will necessarily be occupied with the debates of the ensuing session, and as, in consequence of my long absence from America, my private affairs require my attendance, (for it is necessary I do this, or I could not preserve, as I do, my independence,) I shall close my address to the public with this letter.
As Congress is about to convene, the newspapers will naturally be focused on the discussions of the upcoming session. Since I've been away from America for a long time and my personal matters need my attention (I have to handle this to maintain my independence), I will end my public address with this letter.
I congratulate them on the success of the late elections, and that with the additional confidence, that while honest men are chosen and wise measures pursued, neither the treason of apostacy, masked under the name of Federalism, of which I have spoken in my second letter, nor the intrigues of foreign emissaries, acting in concert with that mask, can prevail.
I congratulate them on the success of the recent elections, and that with the added confidence that as long as honest people are elected and wise actions are taken, neither the betrayal of disloyalty, disguised as Federalism, which I mentioned in my second letter, nor the schemes of foreign agents working alongside that disguise can succeed.
As to the licentiousness of the papers calling themselves Federal, a name that apostacy has taken, it can hurt nobody but the party or the persons who support such papers. There is naturally a wholesome pride in the public mind that revolts at open vulgarity. It feels itself dishonoured even by hearing it, as a chaste woman feels dishonour by hearing obscenity she cannot avoid. It can smile at wit, or be diverted with strokes of satirical humour, but it detests the blackguard. The same sense of propriety that governs in private companies, governs in public life. If a man in company runs his wit upon another, it may draw a smile from some persons present, but as soon as he turns a blackguard in his language the company gives him up; and it is the same in public life. The event of the late election shows this to be true; for in proportion as those papers have become more and more vulgar and abusive, the elections have gone more and more against the party they support, or that supports them. Their predecessor, Porcupine [Cobbett] had wit—these scribblers have none. But as soon as his blackguardism (for it is the proper name of it) outran his wit, he was abandoned by every body but the English Minister who protected him.
Regarding the vulgarity of the papers calling themselves Federal, a name that has been misused, it only harms the party or the individuals who back such publications. There’s a natural sense of pride in the public that reacts against blatant vulgarity. It feels insulted just by hearing it, much like a respectable woman feels dishonored by unavoidable obscenity. The public may appreciate cleverness or laugh at satirical humor, but it despises the blackguard. The same standards of decency that apply in private gatherings also apply in public life. If someone makes a joke at another's expense in a group, it might get a laugh from some attendees, but as soon as he resorts to vulgar language, the group turns against him; the same happens in public life. The outcome of the recent election proves this true; as those papers have become increasingly crude and insulting, the elections have increasingly turned against the party they represent or that supports them. Their predecessor, Porcupine [Cobbett], had wit—these writers have none. However, once his blackguardism (which is the accurate term for it) exceeded his wit, he was abandoned by everyone except the English Minister who shielded him.
The Spanish proverb says, "there never was a cover large enough to hide itself"; and the proverb applies to the case of those papers and the shattered remnant of the faction that supports them. The falsehoods they fabricate, and the abuse they circulate, is a cover to hide something from being seen, but it is not large enough to hide itself. It is as a tub thrown out to the whale to prevent its attacking and sinking the vessel. They want to draw the attention of the public from thinking about, or inquiring into, the measures of the late administration, and the reason why so much public money was raised and expended; and so far as a lie today, and a new one tomorrow, will answer this purpose, it answers theirs. It is nothing to them whether they be believed or not, for if the negative purpose be answered the main point is answered, to them.
The Spanish proverb says, "there never was a cover large enough to hide itself"; and this saying applies to the situation with those papers and the broken remnants of the faction that backs them. The lies they create and the insults they spread are a cover to conceal something from being noticed, but it's not big enough to hide itself. It's like throwing a tub to a whale to stop it from attacking and sinking the ship. They want to distract the public from thinking about or investigating the actions of the previous administration and why so much public money was raised and spent. As long as a lie today and a new one tomorrow serve this purpose, it works for them. They don’t care whether people believe them or not because as long as their negative goal is achieved, that's what matters to them.
He that picks your pocket always tries to make you look another way. "Look," says he, "at yon man t'other side the street—what a nose he has got?—Lord, yonder is a chimney on fire!—Do you see yon man going along in the salamander great coat? That is the very man that stole one of Jupiter's satellites, and sold it to a countryman for a gold watch, and it set his breeches on fire!" Now the man that has his hand in your pocket, does not care a farthing whether you believe what he says or not. All his aim is to prevent your looking at him; and this is the case with the remnant of the Federal faction. The leaders of it have imposed upon the country, and they want to turn the attention of it from the subject.
The person who picks your pocket always tries to divert your attention. "Look," he says, "at that guy over there across the street—what a nose he has!—Oh, look, there's a chimney on fire!—Do you see that guy in the long coat? That's the guy who stole one of Jupiter's moons and sold it to a farmer for a gold watch, and it set his pants on fire!" The pickpocket doesn’t care at all whether you believe him or not. His only goal is to make you stop looking at him; and that’s what's happening with the rest of the Federal faction. Their leaders have fooled the country, and they want to distract people from the issue.
In taking up any public matter, I have never made it a consideration, and never will, whether it be popular or unpopular; but whether it be right or wrong. The right will always become the popular, if it has courage to show itself, and the shortest way is always a straight line. I despise expedients, they are the gutter-hole of politics, and the sink where reputation dies. In the present case, as in every other, I cannot be accused of using any; and I have no doubt but thousands will hereafter be ready to say, as Gouverneur Morris said to me, after having abused me pretty handsomely in Congress for the opposition I gave the fraudulent demand of Silas Deane of two thousand pounds sterling: "Well, we were all duped, and I among the rest!"(1)
When addressing any public issue, I have never considered, and never will consider, whether it's popular or unpopular; only whether it's right or wrong. The right will always become the popular choice if it has the courage to stand out, and the quickest path is always a straight line. I have little respect for shortcuts; they’re the dirt that politics crawls through, and the place where reputation goes to die. In this situation, as in every other, I can't be accused of taking any shortcuts; and I’m sure that many will later agree, just as Gouverneur Morris said to me after harshly criticizing me in Congress for opposing Silas Deane's fraudulent demand for two thousand pounds sterling: "Well, we were all duped, and I among the rest!"(1)
1 See vol. I, chapters 22, 23, 24 of this work. Also my "Life of Paine," vol. I, ch. 9, 10—Editor.
Were the late administration to be called upon to give reasons for the expence it put the country to, it can give none. The danger of an invasion was a bubble that served as a cover to raise taxes and armies to be employed on some other purpose. But if the people of America believed it true, the cheerfulness with which they supported those measures and paid those taxes is an evidence of their patriotism; and if they supposed me their enemy, though in that supposition they did me injustice, it was not injustice in them. He that acts as he believes, though he may act wrong, is not conscious of wrong.
If the previous administration were asked to justify the expenses it put on the country, it would have no answers. The threat of invasion was just a guise to justify raising taxes and assembling armies for other purposes. But if the people of America believed it was real, their willingness to support those actions and pay those taxes shows their patriotism; and even if they thought I was their enemy, which was unfair to me, they weren’t wrong to feel that way. A person who acts according to their beliefs, even if they act wrongly, is not aware of doing wrong.
But though there was no danger, no thanks are due to the late administration for it. They sought to blow up a flame between the two countries; and so intent were they upon this, that they went out of their way to accomplish it. In a letter which the Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, wrote to Mr. Skipwith, the American Consul at Paris, he broke off from the official subject of his letter, to thank God in very exulting language, that the Russians had cut the French army to pieces. Mr. Skipwith, after showing me the letter, very prudently concealed it.
But even though there was no danger, we can’t credit the previous administration for that. They tried to fan the flames between the two countries, and they were so focused on this that they went out of their way to make it happen. In a letter written by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering to Mr. Skipwith, the American Consul in Paris, he veered off from the official topic to thank God in very enthusiastic terms for the Russians having decimated the French army. Mr. Skipwith wisely hid the letter after showing it to me.
It was the injudicious and wicked acrimony of this letter, and some other like conduct of the then Secretary of State, that occasioned me, in a letter to a friend in the government, to say, that if there was any official business to be done in France, till a regular Minister could be appointed, it could not be trusted to a more proper person than Mr. Skipwith. "He is," said I, "an honest man, and will do business, and that with good manners to the government he is commissioned to act with. A faculty which that BEAR, Timothy Pickering, wanted, and which the BEAR of that bear, John Adams, never possessed."(2)
It was the thoughtless and malicious bitterness of this letter, along with some similar actions from the then Secretary of State, that led me, in a letter to a friend in the government, to say that if there was any official business to take care of in France until a regular Minister could be appointed, it couldn't be entrusted to anyone more suitable than Mr. Skipwith. "He is," I said, "an honest man, and will handle business, and do so with good manners towards the government he is serving. A trait that that jerk, Timothy Pickering, lacked, and which that jerk's boss, John Adams, never had."(2)
2 By looking at the letter itself (p. 376 of this volume) it’s clear that Paine is quoting it from memory.— Editor. vol III—
In another letter to the same friend, in 1797, and which was put unsealed under cover to Colonel Burr, I expressed a satisfaction that Mr. Jefferson, since he was not president, had accepted the vice presidency; "for," said I, "John Adams has such a talent for blundering and offending, it will be necessary to keep an eye over him." He has now sufficiently proved, that though I have not the spirit of prophecy, I have the gift of judging right. And all the world knows, for it cannot help knowing, that to judge rightly and to write clearly, and that upon all sorts of subjects, to be able to command thought and as it were to play with it at pleasure, and be always master of one's temper in writing, is the faculty only of a serene mind, and the attribute of a happy and philosophical temperament. The scribblers, who know me not, and who fill their papers with paragraphs about me, besides their want of talents, drink too many slings and drams in a morning to have any chance with me. But, poor fellows, they must do something for the little pittance they get from their employers. This is my apology for them.
In another letter to the same friend in 1797, which was sent unsealed to Colonel Burr, I expressed my satisfaction that Mr. Jefferson, now that he wasn't president, had accepted the vice presidency; “because,” I said, “John Adams has such a knack for making mistakes and upsetting people that it’s necessary to keep an eye on him.” He has now shown well enough that, while I may not have the gift of prophecy, I do have the ability to judge correctly. And everyone knows, because they can't avoid knowing, that to judge accurately and to write clearly—about any topic, really—to be able to command thought and essentially play with it at will, and to always maintain one's composure in writing is only possible for someone with a calm mind and a happy, philosophical nature. The writers who don’t know me and fill their columns with bits about me, besides lacking talent, drink too many cocktails and shots in the morning to stand a chance against me. But, poor souls, they have to do something for the little pay they get from their bosses. This is my excuse for them.
My anxiety to get back to America was great for many years. It is the country of my heart, and the place of my political and literary birth. It was the American revolution that made me an author, and forced into action the mind that had been dormant, and had no wish for public life, nor has it now. By the accounts I received, she appeared to me to be going wrong, and that some meditated treason against her liberties lurked at the bottom of her government. I heard that my friends were oppressed, and I longed to take my stand among them, and if other times to try mens souls were to arrive, that I might bear my share. But my efforts to return were ineffectual.
My longing to return to America lasted for many years. It’s the country I love and where I found my voice as a writer and my political identity. The American Revolution sparked my writing career and awakened a part of me that had been inactive and had no desire for public life, just like I feel now. From what I heard, things seemed to be going awry, and there were hints of treachery against its freedoms lurking within the government. I learned that my friends were struggling, and I yearned to stand with them, ready to face any challenges that might come my way. Unfortunately, my attempts to come back were unsuccessful.
As soon as Mr. Monroe had made a good standing with the French government, for the conduct of his predecessor [Morris] had made his reception as Minister difficult, he wanted to send despatches to his own government by a person to whom he could confide a verbal communication, and he fixed his choice on me. He then applied to the Committee of Public Safety for a passport; but as I had been voted again into the Convention, it was only the Convention that could give the passport; and as an application to them for that purpose, would have made my going publicly known, I was obliged to sustain the disappointment, and Mr. Monroe to lose the opportunity.(1)
As soon as Mr. Monroe had established a good relationship with the French government, since his predecessor [Morris] had made his reception as Minister challenging, he wanted to send messages to his own government through someone he could trust with a verbal communication, and he chose me. He then requested a passport from the Committee of Public Safety; however, since I had been voted back into the Convention, only the Convention could issue the passport. Making a request to them for this purpose would have revealed my plans, so I had to accept the disappointment, and Mr. Monroe lost the opportunity.
When that gentleman left France to return to America, I was to have gone with him. It was fortunate I did not. The vessel he sailed in was visited by a British frigate, that searched every part of it, and down to the hold, for Thomas Paine.(2) I then went, the same year, to embark at Havre. But several British frigates were cruizing in sight of the port who knew I was there, and I had to return again to Paris. Seeing myself thus cut off from every opportunity that was in my power to command, I wrote to Mr. Jefferson, that, if the fate of the election should put him in the chair of the presidency, and he should have occasion to send a frigate to France, he would give me the opportunity of returning by it, which he did. But I declined coming by the Maryland, the vessel that was offered me, and waited for the frigate that was to bring the new Minister, Mr. Chancellor Livingston, to France. But that frigate was ordered round to the Mediterranean; and as at that time the war was over, and the British cruisers called in, I could come any way. I then agreed to come with Commodore Barney in a vessel he had engaged. It was again fortunate I did not, for the vessel sank at sea, and the people were preserved in the boat.
When that gentleman left France to return to America, I was supposed to go with him. Luckily, I didn't. The ship he took was stopped by a British frigate, which searched every part of it, even the hold, for Thomas Paine. That same year, I tried to set sail from Havre. But several British frigates were patrolling near the port, aware that I was there, so I had to go back to Paris. Feeling completely cut off from any options I had, I wrote to Mr. Jefferson, asking that if he became president and needed to send a frigate to France, he would let me return on it, which he did. However, I turned down the offer to come back on the Maryland, the ship that was available, and waited for the frigate that was meant to bring the new Minister, Mr. Chancellor Livingston, to France. But that frigate was redirected to the Mediterranean; and since the war was over at that time and the British cruisers had been called back, I could travel by any means. I then agreed to go with Commodore Barney on a ship he had arranged. Once again, it was fortunate I didn’t, because that ship sank at sea, and the people were saved in the lifeboat.
1 The correspondence is in my "Life of Paine," vol. ii., pp. 154-5.—Editor. 2 The "Dublin Packet," Captain Clay, in whom Paine, as he wrote to Jefferson, "had no confidence."—Editor.
Had half the number of evils befallen me that the number of dangers amount to through which I have been pre-served, there are those who would ascribe it to the wrath of heaven; why then do they not ascribe my preservation to the protecting favour of heaven? Even in my worldly concerns I have been blessed. The little property I left in America, and which I cared nothing about, not even to receive the rent of it, has been increasing in the value of its capital more than eight hundred dollars every year, for the fourteen years and more that I have been absent from it. I am now in my circumstances independent; and my economy makes me rich. As to my health, it is perfectly good, and I leave the world to judge of the stature of my mind. I am in every instance a living contradiction to the mortified Federalists.
If I had experienced even half the troubles that the number of dangers I've avoided suggests, people would say it was due to the anger of heaven; so why don't they attribute my survival to the protective grace of heaven? I've also been fortunate in my worldly matters. The small property I left behind in America, which I didn't care about—didn't even bother to collect rent for—has been increasing in value by over eight hundred dollars a year for the fourteen years and more that I’ve been away. Now I find myself in a position of independence, and my careful management has made me wealthy. As for my health, it’s perfectly fine, and I’ll let the world judge the strength of my mind. In every way, I stand as a living contradiction to the mortified Federalists.
In my publications, I follow the rule I began with in Common Sense, that is, to consult nobody, nor to let any body see what I write till it appears publicly. Were I to do otherwise, the case would be, that between the timidity of some, who are so afraid of doing wrong that they never do right, the puny judgment of others, and the despicable craft of preferring expedient to right, as if the world was a world of babies in leading strings, I should get forward with nothing. My path is a right line, as straight and clear to me as a ray of light. The boldness (if they will have it to be so) with which I speak on any subject, is a compliment to the judgment of the reader. It is like saying to him, I treat you as a man and not as a child. With respect to any worldly object, as it is impossible to discover any in me, therefore what I do, and my manner of doing it, ought to be ascribed to a good motive.
In my publications, I stick to the rule I started with in Common Sense, which is to consult no one and not let anyone see what I write until it’s published. If I didn’t, I would end up with nothing because of the fearfulness of some who are so worried about making mistakes that they never do anything right, the limited judgment of others, and the pathetic tendency to choose expedient over right, as if the world were full of children on leashes. My path is a straight line, as clear to me as a ray of light. The boldness (if that’s how you see it) with which I speak on any topic is a sign of respect for the reader’s judgment. It’s like saying to him, I treat you as an adult, not as a child. As for any selfish interest, since it’s impossible to find any in me, what I do and how I do it should be seen as coming from a good intention.
In a great affair, where the happiness of man is at stake, I love to work for nothing; and so fully am I under the influence of this principle, that I should lose the spirit, the pleasure, and the pride of it, were I conscious that I looked for reward; and with this declaration, I take my leave for the present.(1)
In a major situation, where people's happiness is on the line, I enjoy working for free; I’m so committed to this belief that I would lose the motivation, enjoyment, and pride of it if I thought I was expecting a reward. With this statement, I’ll say goodbye for now.(1)
1 The boldness of this and other letters from around this time was actually a form of self-defense, as the attacks against him and the false accusations were so extreme that they’re hard to believe for anyone not acquainted with the publications of that era.—Editor.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
Federal City, Lovett's Hotel, Dec. 3, 1802.
Federal City, Lovett's Hotel, Dec. 3, 1802.
LETTER V.(1)
LETTER V.
1 The National Intelligencer, Feb., 1803. In the various collections of these Letters, there is a correspondence between Paine and Samuel Adams from Boston at this point, but since it concerns religious matters, I will save it for the fourth volume.—Editor..
It is always the interest of a far greater part of the nation to have a thing right than to have it wrong; and therefore, in a country whose government is founded on the system of election and representation, the fate of every party is decided by its principles.
It is always in the best interest of a much larger portion of the nation to get things right rather than wrong; and so, in a country where the government is based on elections and representation, the outcome for every party is determined by its principles.
As this system is the only form and principle of government by which liberty can be preserved, and the only one that can embrace all the varieties of a great extent of country, it necessarily follows, that to have the representation real, the election must be real; and that where the election is a fiction, the representation is a fiction also. Like will always produce like.
As this system is the only way and principle of government that can preserve freedom, and the only one that can encompass all the different parts of a large country, it follows that for the representation to be genuine, the election must be genuine too; and that where the election is fake, the representation is fake as well. Like will always produce like.
A great deal has been said and written concerning the conduct of Mr. Burr, during the late contest, in the federal legislature, whether Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Burr should be declared President of the United States. Mr. Burr has been accused of intriguing to obtain the Presidency. Whether this charge be substantiated or not makes little or no part of the purport of this letter. There is a point of much higher importance to attend to than any thing that relates to the individual Mr. Burr: for the great point is not whether Mr. Burr has intrigued, but whether the legislature has intrigued with him.
A lot has been said and written about Mr. Burr's actions during the recent struggle in the federal legislature over whether Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Burr should be declared President of the United States. Mr. Burr has been accused of scheming to get the presidency. Whether this accusation is true or not is not the main focus of this letter. There's a much more significant issue to consider than anything concerning Mr. Burr himself: the key question is not whether Mr. Burr has schemed, but whether the legislature has conspired with him.
Mr. Ogden, a relation of one of the senators of New Jersey of the same name, and of the party assuming the style of Federalists, has written a letter published in the New York papers, signed with his name, the purport of which is to exculpate Mr. Burr from the charges brought against him. In this letter he says:
Mr. Ogden, a relative of one of the senators from New Jersey with the same name, who is affiliated with the group calling themselves Federalists, has written a letter published in the New York papers, signed by him, aiming to clear Mr. Burr of the accusations made against him. In this letter, he states:
"When about to return from Washington, two or three members of Congress of the federal party spoke to me of their views, as to the election of a president, desiring me to converse with Colonel Burr on the subject, and to ascertain whether he would enter into terms. On my return to New York I called on Colonel Burr, and communicated the above to him. He explicitly declined the explanation, and did neither propose nor agree to any terms."
"When I was about to return from Washington, a couple of members of Congress from the federal party talked to me about their views on electing a president. They wanted me to talk to Colonel Burr about this and find out whether he would enter into terms. When I got back to New York, I visited Colonel Burr and shared this with him. He clearly declined to explain and did neither propose nor agree to any terms."
How nearly is human cunning allied to folly! The animals to whom nature has given the faculty we call cunning, know always when to use it, and use it wisely; but when man descends to cunning, he blunders and betrays.
How closely human cunning is connected to foolishness! The animals that nature has equipped with what we call cunning always know when to use it and do so wisely; but when a person resorts to cunning, they often make mistakes and reveal their true intentions.
Mr. Ogden's letter is intended to exculpate Mr. Burr from the charge of intriguing to obtain the presidency; and the letter that he (Ogden) writes for this purpose is direct evidence against his party in Congress, that they intrigued with Burr to obtain him for President, and employed him (Ogden) for the purpose. To save Aaron, he betrays Moses, and then turns informer against the Golden Calf.
Mr. Ogden's letter aims to clear Mr. Burr of the accusation of plotting to become president; and the letter he writes for this reason is clear evidence against his colleagues in Congress, showing that they conspired with Burr to make him president and used him (Ogden) for that purpose. To protect Aaron, he betrays Moses, and then becomes an informant against the Golden Calf.
It is but of little importance to the world to know if Mr. Burr listened to an intriguing proposal, but it is of great importance to the constituents to know if their representatives in Congress made one. The ear can commit no crime, but the tongue may; and therefore the right policy is to drop Mr. Burr, as being only the hearer, and direct the whole charge against the Federal faction in Congress as the active original culprit, or, if the priests will have scripture for it, as the serpent that beguiled Eve.
It really doesn't matter to the world whether Mr. Burr listened to a fascinating proposal, but it's really important for the people to know if their representatives in Congress did anything about it. The ear can't do any wrong, but the tongue can; so the right approach is to let Mr. Burr go, as he's just the one who heard it, and focus all the blame on the Federal faction in Congress as the main offender, or, if the priests want to back it up with scripture, as the serpent that deceived Eve.
1 In the presidential election of 1800, the electoral college votes were evenly split between Burr and Jefferson, forcing the election into the House of Representatives. Jefferson was elected on the 36th ballot, but he never forgave Burr, and Paine had to write this letter feeling somewhat awkward between these two old friends. The last paragraph of this letter reveals Paine's hope for reconciliation between Burr and Jefferson. Aaron Burr is one of the commonly criticized figures in American history. —Editor.
The plot of the intrigue was to make Mr. Burr President, on the private condition of his agreeing to, and entering into, terms with them, that is, with the proposers. Had then the election been made, the country, knowing nothing of this private and illegal transaction, would have supposed, for who could have supposed otherwise, that it had a President according to the forms, principles, and intention of the constitution. No such thing. Every form, principle, and intention of the constitution would have been violated; and instead of a President, it would have had a mute, a sort of image, hand-bound and tongue-tied, the dupe and slave of a party, placed on the theatre of the United States, and acting the farce of President.
The plan of the scheme was to make Mr. Burr President, on the condition that he agreed to terms set by the proposers. If the election had taken place, the country, unaware of this secret and illegal arrangement, would have believed, as no one could think otherwise, that it had a President following the forms, principles, and intentions of the constitution. But that wouldn’t have been the case. Every form, principle, and intention of the constitution would have been broken; instead of a President, there would have been a puppet, a type of figure, bound and silenced, a fool and slave of a party, placed on the stage of the United States, and pretending to be President.
It is of little importance, in a constitutional sense, to know what the terms to be proposed might be, because any terms other than those which the constitution prescribes to a President are criminal. Neither do I see how Mr. Burr, or any other person put in the same condition, could have taken the oath prescribed by the constitution to a President, which is, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm,) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It doesn’t really matter, in a constitutional sense, what the proposed terms might be, because any terms that are not those prescribed by the constitution for a President are illegal. I also don’t understand how Mr. Burr or anyone else in the same position could have taken the oath required by the constitution for a President, which is, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
How, I ask, could such a person have taken such an oath, knowing at the same time that he had entered into the Presidency on terms unknown in the Constitution, and private, and which would deprive him of the freedom and power of acting as President of the United States, agreeably to his constitutional oath?
How, I wonder, could someone make such an oath, knowing at the same time that they assumed the presidency under terms that weren't in the Constitution and privately agreed to, which would limit their freedom and ability to act as President of the United States, as stated in their constitutional oath?
Mr. Burr, by not agreeing to terms, has escaped the danger to which they exposed him, and the perjury that would have followed, and also the punishment annexed thereto. Had he accepted the Presidency on terms unknown in the constitution, and private, and had the transaction afterwards transpired, (which it most probably would, for roguery is a thing difficult to conceal,) it would have produced a sensation in the country too violent to be quieted, and too just to be resisted; and in any case the election must have been void.
Mr. Burr, by refusing to agree to the terms, has avoided the risks they posed to him, along with the perjury that would have followed and the related punishments. If he had accepted the presidency under terms not outlined in the constitution and kept it private, and if that information had eventually come out (which it likely would, since dishonesty is hard to hide), it would have caused a nationwide uproar that couldn't be silenced and was too fair to be ignored; in any case, the election would have been invalid.
But what are we to think of those members of Congress, who having taken an oath of the same constitutional import as the oath of the President, violate that oath by tampering to obtain a President on private conditions. If this is not sedition against the constitution and the country, it is difficult to define what sedition in a representative can be.
But what should we think of those members of Congress who, having taken an oath with the same constitutional significance as the President's oath, break that oath by trying to get a President elected under private conditions? If this isn't sedition against the constitution and the country, it's hard to pinpoint what sedition in a representative really is.
Say not that this statement of the case is the effect of personal or party resentment. No. It is the effect of sincere concern that such corruption, of which this is but a sample, should, in the space of a few years, have crept into a country that had the fairest opportunity that Providence ever gave, within the knowledge of history, of making itself an illustrious example to the world.
Don't say that this statement comes from personal or party resentment. No. It comes from sincere concern that this kind of corruption, of which this is just one example, has, in just a few years, sneaked into a country that had the best chance ever given by Providence, in all of history, to become an outstanding example for the world.
What the terms were, or were to be, it is probable we never shall know; or what is more probable, that feigned ones, if any, will be given. But from the conduct of the party since that time we may conclude, that no taxes would have been taken off, that the clamour for war would have been kept up, new expences incurred, and taxes and offices increased in consequence; and, among the articles of a private nature, that the leaders in this seditious traffic were to stipulate with the mock President for lucrative appointments for themselves.
What the terms were, or were supposed to be, we probably will never know; or, more likely, any terms presented will be fake. However, based on the group's actions since then, we can deduce that no taxes would have been eliminated, the demand for war would have continued, new expenses would have been added, and taxes and positions would have increased as a result; and, among the personal interests, the leaders in this rebellious activity were probably planning to negotiate with the fake President for profitable jobs for themselves.
But if these plotters against the Constitution understood their business, and they had been plotting long enough to be masters of it, a single article would have comprehended every thing, which is, That the President (thus made) should be governed in all cases whatsoever by a private junto appointed by themselves. They could then, through the medium of a mock President, have negatived all bills which their party in Congress could not have opposed with success, and reduced representation to a nullity.
But if these schemers against the Constitution knew what they were doing, and they had been at it long enough to be experts, they could have summed everything up in one article: That the President (as created) should be controlled in all cases by a private group they appointed themselves. Then, through a fake President, they could have vetoed any bills that their party in Congress couldn't successfully oppose, making representation meaningless.
The country has been imposed upon, and the real culprits are but few; and as it is necessary for the peace, harmony, and honour of the Union, to separate the deceiver from the deceived, the betrayer from the betrayed, that men who once were friends, and that in the worst of times, should be friends again, it is necessary, as a beginning, that this dark business be brought to full investigation. Ogden's letter is direct evidence of the fact of tampering to obtain a conditional President. He knows the two or three members of Congress that commissioned him, and they know who commissioned them.
The country has been wronged, and the real offenders are few; and since it’s essential for the peace, unity, and integrity of the Union to distinguish between the deceiver and the deceived, and the betrayer and the betrayed, so that people who were once friends—even in the toughest times—can become friends again, it’s crucial that this dark matter be fully investigated as a starting point. Ogden's letter is clear evidence of the fact that there was manipulation to secure a conditional President. He knows the two or three members of Congress who appointed him, and they know who appointed them.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
Federal City, Lovett's Hotel, Jan. 29th, 1803.
Federal City, Lovett's Hotel, Jan. 29, 1803.
LETTER VI.(1)
LETTER VI.
1 The Aurora (Philadelphia).—Editor..
Religion and War is the cry of the Federalists; Morality and Peace the voice of Republicans. The union of Morality and Peace is congenial; but that of Religion and War is a paradox, and the solution of it is hypocrisy.
Religion and War is the shout of the Federalists; Morality and Peace the call of the Republicans. The combination of Morality and Peace is harmonious; but that of Religion and War is a contradiction, and the resolution of it is hypocrisy.
The leaders of the Federalists have no judgment; their plans no consistency of parts; and want of consistency is the natural consequence of want of principle.
The leaders of the Federalists lack good judgment; their plans have no consistency, and the absence of consistency is a natural result of having no principles.
They exhibit to the world the curious spectacle of an Opposition without a cause, and conduct without system. Were they, as doctors, to prescribe medicine as they practise politics, they would poison their patients with destructive compounds.
They show the world the strange sight of an Opposition without a cause, and act without any plan. If they were doctors and prescribed medicine the way they handle politics, they would harm their patients with dangerous drugs.
There are not two things more opposed to each other than War and Religion; and yet, in the double game those leaders have to play, the one is necessarily the theme of their politics, and the other the text of their sermons. The week-day orator of Mars, and the Sunday preacher of Federal Grace, play like gamblers into each other's hands, and this they call Religion.
There are not two things more opposed to each other than War and Religion; and yet, in the double game those leaders have to play, one is necessarily the focus of their politics, and the other the message of their sermons. The weekday speaker of war and the Sunday preacher of federal grace play like gamblers into each other's hands, and this they call Religion.
Though hypocrisy can counterfeit every virtue, and become the associate of every vice, it requires a great dexterity of craft to give it the power of deceiving. A painted sun may glisten, but it cannot warm. For hypocrisy to personate virtue successfully it must know and feel what virtue is, and as it cannot long do this, it cannot long deceive. When an orator foaming for War breathes forth in another sentence a plaintive piety of words, he may as well write hypocrisy on his front.
Although hypocrisy can imitate every virtue and align itself with every vice, it takes a lot of skill to make it convincing. A painted sun might sparkle, but it can't provide warmth. For hypocrisy to convincingly portray virtue, it must understand and genuinely feel what virtue is, and since it can't maintain this for long, it can't deceive for long either. When a speaker passionately advocating for war suddenly expresses a "sorrowful piety of words," he might as well have "hypocrisy" written across his forehead.
The late attempt of the Federal leaders in Congress (for they acted without the knowledge of their constituents) to plunge the country into War, merits not only reproach but indignation. It was madness, conceived in ignorance and acted in wickedness. The head and the heart went partners in the crime.
The recent effort by Federal leaders in Congress (since they acted without knowing what their constituents wanted) to drag the country into War deserves not just criticism but anger. It was reckless, born from ignorance and executed in evil. Both reason and emotion teamed up in this wrongdoing.
A neglect of punctuality in the performance of a treaty is made a cause of war by the Barbary powers, and of remonstrance and explanation by civilised powers. The Mahometans of Barbary negociate by the sword—they seize first, and ex-postulate afterwards; and the federal leaders have been labouring to barbarize the United States by adopting the practice of the Barbary States, and this they call honour. Let their honour and their hypocrisy go weep together, for both are defeated. Their present Administration is too moral for hypocrites, and too economical for public spendthrifts.
A failure to be on time with a treaty is seen as a cause of war by the Barbary powers, while it leads to complaints and explanations from civilized powers. The Muslims of Barbary negotiate with force—they attack first and discuss later; and the federal leaders have been trying to barbarize the United States by adopting the tactics of the Barbary States, which they call honor. Let their honor and their hypocrisy weep together, since both are defeated. Their current Administration is too principled for hypocrites and too frugal for public spenders.
A man the least acquainted with diplomatic affairs must know that a neglect in punctuality is not one of the legal causes of war, unless that neglect be confirmed by a refusal to perform; and even then it depends upon circumstances connected with it. The world would be in continual quarrels and war, and commerce be annihilated, if Algerine policy was the law of nations. And were America, instead of becoming an example to the old world of good and moral government and civil manners, or, if they like it better, of gentlemanly conduct towards other nations, to set up the character of ruffian, that of word and blow, and the blow first, and thereby give the example of pulling down the little that civilization has gained upon barbarism, her Independence, instead of being an honour and a blessing, would become a curse upon the world and upon herself.
A man who knows even a little about diplomatic matters understands that being late is not a valid reason for war, unless it’s backed by a refusal to cooperate; and even then, it depends on the specific circumstances involved. If Algerian policies became the standard for international relations, the world would be in constant conflict, and trade would be destroyed. If America, instead of being a model for good governance, moral conduct, and civility towards other nations, chose to adopt a reputation for being brutish—characterized by word and blow, with the blow coming first—it would undermine the little progress civilization has made over barbarism. In that case, her Independence would not be a blessing, but rather a curse for both the world and herself.
The conduct of the Barbary powers, though unjust in principle, is suited to their prejudices, situation, and circumstances. The crusades of the church to exterminate them fixed in their minds the unobliterated belief that every Christian power was their mortal enemy. Their religious prejudices, therefore, suggest the policy, which their situation and circumstances protect them in. As a people, they are neither commercial nor agricultural, they neither import nor export, have no property floating on the seas, nor ships and cargoes in the ports of foreign nations. No retaliation, therefore, can be acted upon them, and they sin secure from punishment.
The actions of the Barbary powers, while unfair in principle, align with their beliefs, situation, and circumstances. The church's crusades to wipe them out ingrained in their minds the enduring belief that every Christian nation is their enemy. Their religious biases shape their policy, which their situation and circumstances allow them to maintain. As a people, they are neither focused on trade nor agriculture; they don’t import or export anything, have no assets at sea, and own no ships or goods in foreign ports. As a result, there can be no retaliation against them, and they commit their wrongs without fear of punishment.
But this is not the case with the United States. If she sins as a Barbary power, she must answer for it as a Civilized one. Her commerce is continually passing on the seas exposed to capture, and her ships and cargoes in foreign ports to detention and reprisal. An act of War committed by her in the Mississippi would produce a War against the commerce of the Atlantic States, and the latter would have to curse the policy that provoked the former. In every point, therefore, in which the character and interest of the United States be considered, it would ill become her to set an example contrary to the policy and custom of Civilized powers, and practised only by the Barbary powers, that of striking before she expostulates.
But this isn't the case with the United States. If it acts like a Barbary power, it has to be accountable like a civilized nation. Its commerce is constantly at risk on the seas, exposed to capture, while its ships and cargoes in foreign ports face detention and retaliation. An act of war by the U.S. in the Mississippi would lead to a war against the commerce of the Atlantic states, which would then regret the policy that triggered the conflict. Therefore, in every regard related to the character and interests of the United States, it would be inappropriate for it to set a precedent that goes against the policies and customs of civilized nations—something only practiced by the Barbary powers—by striking first before attempting to resolve disputes.
But can any man, calling himself a Legislator, and supposed by his constituents to know something of his duty, be so ignorant as to imagine that seizing on New Orleans would finish the affair or even contribute towards it? On the contrary it would have made it worse. The treaty right of deposite at New Orleans, and the right of the navigation of the Mississippi into the Gulph of Mexico, are distant things. New Orleans is more than an hundred miles in the country from the mouth of the river, and, as a place of deposite, is of no value if the mouth of the river be shut, which either France or Spain could do, and which our possession of New Orleans could neither prevent or remove. New Orleans in our possession, by an act of hostility, would have become a blockaded port, and consequently of no value to the western people as a place of deposite. Since, therefore, an interruption had arisen to the commerce of the western states, and until the matter could be brought to a fair explanation, it was of less injury to have the port shut and the river open, than to have the river shut and the port in our possession.
But can any person, calling themselves a Legislator and expected by their constituents to understand their responsibilities, really be so clueless as to think that taking New Orleans would solve the issue or even help? On the contrary, it would have made things worse. The treaty right to store goods in New Orleans and the right to navigate the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico are separate matters. New Orleans is more than a hundred miles inland from the river's mouth, and as a storage point, it’s useless if the mouth of the river is blocked, which either France or Spain could easily do, and our control of New Orleans wouldn’t change that. If we had taken New Orleans through an act of aggression, it would have turned into a blockaded port, making it worthless to the western people as a storage location. Therefore, since there was already an interruption to trade for the western states, it was less harmful to have the port closed and the river open than to have the river closed and still hold the port.
That New Orleans could be taken required no stretch of policy to plan, nor spirit of enterprize to effect. It was like marching behind a man to knock him down: and the dastardly slyness of such an attack would have stained the fame of the United States. Where there is no danger cowards are bold, and Captain Bobadils are to be found in the Senate as well as on the stage. Even Gouverneur, on such a march, dare have shown a leg.(1)
That New Orleans could be captured required no complicated strategy to plan or adventurous spirit to execute. It was like following someone to knock them down: the cowardly sneakiness of such an attack would have tarnished the reputation of the United States. When there’s no real threat, cowards tend to act bravely, and there are showy bullies in the Senate just like on the stage. Even Gouverneur, on such a march, would want to show off. (1)
1 Gouverneur Morris, now the leader of the warring faction in Congress, inspired Paine to reference a well-known incident (mentioned in his Diary and Letters, i., p. 14). A mob in Paris surrounded his fancy carriage, shouting "Aristocrat!" Morris revealed his wooden leg, claiming he lost his leg fighting for American liberty. The truth is, Morris was never in any battle; his leg was lost due to a regular accident while driving in Philadelphia. While Paine's remark might seem in poor taste, even with that reference, it was incredibly polite compared to the brutal insults that Morris (who wasn't satisfied with imprisoning Paine in Paris) and his supporters were directing at the author upon his return to America; also at Monroe, whom Jefferson had sent back to France to negotiate the purchase of Louisiana.—Editor.,
The people of the western country to whom the Mississippi serves as an inland sea to their commerce, must be supposed to understand the circumstances of that commerce better than a man who is a stranger to it; and as they have shown no approbation of the war-whoop measures of the Federal senators, it becomes presumptive evidence they disapprove them. This is a new mortification for those war-whoop politicians; for the case is, that finding themselves losing ground and withering away in the Atlantic States, they laid hold of the affair of New Orleans in the vain hope of rooting and reinforcing themselves in the western States; and they did this without perceiving that it was one of those ill judged hypocritical expedients in politics, that whether it succeeded or failed the event would be the same. Had their motion [that of Ross and Morris] succeeded, it would have endangered the commerce of the Atlantic States and ruined their reputation there; and on the other hand the attempt to make a tool of the western people was so badly concealed as to extinguish all credit with them.
The people in the western region, for whom the Mississippi acts as an inland sea for their trade, are presumed to have a better understanding of that trade than someone unfamiliar with it. Since they haven't shown any support for the aggressive tactics of the federal senators, it strongly suggests that they disapprove. This is another blow for those aggressive politicians; as they’re losing influence and fading in the Atlantic States, they tried to latch on to the situation in New Orleans, hoping to solidify their position in the western States. They failed to realize that it was one of those misguided, insincere political strategies where the outcome, whether successful or not, would be the same. If their proposal [by Ross and Morris] had succeeded, it would have threatened Atlantic States' commerce and damaged their reputation there; and conversely, the attempt to manipulate the western people was so poorly hidden that it killed any trust they might have had.
But hypocrisy is a vice of sanguine constitution. It flatters and promises itself every thing; and it has yet to learn, with respect to moral and political reputation, it is less dangerous to offend than to deceive.
But hypocrisy is a vice of a cheerful nature. It flatters and promises itself everything; and it still needs to learn that when it comes to moral and political reputation, it's less dangerous to offend than to deceive.
To the measures of administration, supported by the firmness and integrity of the majority in Congress, the United States owe, as far as human means are concerned, the preservation of peace, and of national honour. The confidence which the western people reposed in the government and their representatives is rewarded with success. They are reinstated in their rights with the least possible loss of time; and their harmony with the people of New Orleans, so necessary to the prosperity of the United States, which would have been broken, and the seeds of discord sown in its place, had hostilities been preferred to accommodation, remains unimpaired. Have the Federal ministers of the church meditated on these matters? and laying aside, as they ought to do, their electioneering and vindictive prayers and sermons, returned thanks that peace is preserved, and commerce, without the stain of blood?
To the actions of the government, backed by the determination and integrity of the majority in Congress, the United States owes, in terms of human efforts, the maintenance of peace and national honor. The trust that the people in the west placed in the government and their representatives has resulted in success. They have been restored to their rights with minimal delay, and their relationship with the people of New Orleans, which is essential for the prosperity of the United States, remains strong. This relationship could have been disrupted, and conflict could have emerged if fighting had been chosen over negotiation. Have the church's federal ministers thought about these issues? And, setting aside their political agendas and vengeful prayers and sermons, have they expressed gratitude that peace is intact and commerce continues without bloodshed?
In the pleasing contemplation of this state of things the mind, by comparison, carries itself back to those days of uproar and extravagance that marked the career of the former administration, and decides, by the unstudied impulse of its own feelings, that something must then have been wrong. Why was it, that America, formed for happiness, and remote by situation and circumstances from the troubles and tumults of the European world, became plunged into its vortex and contaminated with its crimes? The answer is easy. Those who were then at the head of affairs were apostates from the principles of the revolution. Raised to an elevation they had not a right to expect, nor judgment to conduct, they became like feathers in the air, and blown about by every puff of passion or conceit.
In the pleasant reflection on this situation, the mind naturally thinks back to the chaotic and extravagant days of the previous administration and concludes, based on its own feelings, that something must have been wrong then. Why did America, created for happiness and separated by its location and circumstances from the troubles and turmoil of Europe, get sucked into its chaos and stained by its wrongdoings? The answer is simple. Those in charge back then abandoned the principles of the revolution. Raised to a position they didn’t deserve or know how to manage, they became like feathers in the wind, swayed by every gust of emotion or arrogance.
Candour would find some apology for their conduct if want of judgment was their only defect. But error and crime, though often alike in their features, are distant in their characters and in their origin. The one has its source in the weakness of the head, the other in the hardness of the heart, and the coalition of the two, describes the former Administration.(1)
Candor might excuse their behavior if a lack of judgment was their only flaw. But mistakes and crimes, while often similar in appearance, are quite different in nature and origin. One stems from a weakness of the mind, while the other comes from a hardness of the heart, and the combination of the two describes the previous Administration.(1)
That of John Adams.—Editor.
Had no injurious consequences arisen from the conduct of that Administration, it might have passed for error or imbecility, and been permitted to die and be forgotten. The grave is kind to innocent offence. But even innocence, when it is a cause of injury, ought to undergo an enquiry.
Had no harmful consequences come from the actions of that Administration, it might have been seen as a mistake or ineptitude and allowed to fade away and be forgotten. The grave is generous to those with innocent faults. But even innocence, when it leads to harm, should be subject to investigation.
The country, during the time of the former Administration, was kept in continual agitation and alarm; and that no investigation might be made into its conduct, it entrenched itself within a magic circle of terror, and called it a SEDITION LAW.(1) Violent and mysterious in its measures and arrogant in its manners, it affected to disdain information, and insulted the principles that raised it from obscurity. John Adams and Timothy Pickering were men whom nothing but the accidents of the times rendered visible on the political horizon. Elevation turned their heads, and public indignation hath cast them to the ground. But an inquiry into the conduct and measures of that Administration is nevertheless necessary.
The country, during the time of the previous Administration, was in a constant state of unrest and fear; to prevent any scrutiny of its actions, it surrounded itself with a climate of terror and labeled it a SEDITION LAW.(1) With its aggressive and secretive tactics and a haughty attitude, it pretended to ignore information and insulted the principles that had brought it into the spotlight. John Adams and Timothy Pickering were individuals who were only visible on the political scene because of the circumstances of the time. Their rise made them conceited, and public outrage has brought them down. However, it is still essential to investigate the actions and policies of that Administration.
The country was put to great expense. Loans, taxes, and standing armies became the standing order of the day. The militia, said Secretary Pickering, are not to be depended upon, and fifty thousand men must be raised. For what? No cause to justify such measures has yet appeared. No discovery of such a cause has yet been made. The pretended Sedition Law shut up the sources of investigation, and the precipitate flight of John Adams closed the scene. But the matter ought not to sleep here.
The country was facing significant costs. Loans, taxes, and permanent armies became the norm. The militia, as Secretary Pickering said, can’t be relied on, and we need to raise fifty thousand men. For what? No reason to justify these actions has emerged yet. No discovery of such a reason has been made. The so-called Sedition Law stifled investigations, and the hasty departure of John Adams ended the situation. But this issue shouldn’t be left unresolved.
It is not to gratify resentment, or encourage it in others, that I enter upon this subject. It is not in the power of man to accuse me of a persecuting spirit. But some explanation ought to be had. The motives and objects respecting the extraordinary and expensive measures of the former Administration ought to be known. The Sedition Law, that shield of the moment, prevented it then, and justice demands it now. If the public have been imposed upon, it is proper they should know it; for where judgment is to act, or a choice is to be made, knowledge is first necessary. The conciliation of parties, if it does not grow out of explanation, partakes of the character of collusion or indifference.
I'm not bringing this up to feed resentment or to encourage it in others. No one can accuse me of having a persecuting spirit. However, some clarification is necessary. The reasons and goals behind the extraordinary and costly measures of the previous Administration need to be understood. The Sedition Law, which shielded these actions at the time, prevented scrutiny then, and justice requires it now. If the public has been misled, it’s important they know it; because when it comes to making judgments or choices, having knowledge is essential. Reaching an agreement between parties, if it doesn’t come from clarity, can feel like collusion or indifference.
1 Passed July 14, 1798, to continue until March 3, 1801. This Act, explained near the end of this Letter, along with another passed on June 35th, which gave the President absolute powers over foreigners in the United States, made up the well-known "Alien and Sedition Laws." Hamilton disagreed with them and correctly viewed them as the downfall of the Federal party.—Editor.
There has been guilt somewhere; and it is better to fix it where it belongs, and separate the deceiver from the deceived, than that suspicion, the bane of society, should range at large, and sour the public mind. The military measures that were proposed and carrying on during the former administration, could not have for their object the defence of the country against invasion. This is a case that decides itself; for it is self evident, that while the war raged in Europe, neither France nor England could spare a man to send to America. The object, therefore, must be something at home, and that something was the overthrow of the representative system of government, for it could be nothing else. But the plotters got into confusion and became enemies to each other. Adams hated and was jealous of Hamilton, and Hamilton hated and despised both Adams and Washington.(1) Surly Timothy stood aloof, as he did at the affair of Lexington, and the part that fell to the public was to pay the expense.(2)
There’s guilt somewhere, and it’s better to address it where it belongs, separating the deceiver from the deceived, than letting suspicion, the poison of society, spread unchecked and sour the public mood. The military actions proposed and being carried out during the previous administration couldn’t have been for defending the country against invasion. This is a clear case; it’s obvious that while the war was happening in Europe, neither France nor England could send anyone to America. Therefore, the purpose must have been something domestic, specifically the dismantling of the representative system of government, as it could only be that. But the conspirators got confused and turned against each other. Adams disliked and was jealous of Hamilton, while Hamilton hated and looked down on both Adams and Washington. Timothy stood back, just as he did during the Lexington incident, leaving the public to cover the costs.
1 Hamilton's harsh pamphlet against Adams came out in 1800, but it seems his old dispute with Washington from 1781 had been resolved. Still, despite the support Washington showed Hamilton, it's unclear if Hamilton ever truly changed his negative view of Washington, as he mentioned in a letter to General Schuyler on Feb. 18, 1781 (Lodge's "Hamilton's Works," vol. viii., p. 35).—Editor. 2 Colonel Pickering's failure in 1775 to get his Salem troops to intercept the British retreat from Lexington was blamed on his lack of enthusiasm for the patriotic cause.—Editor.
But ought a people who, but a few years ago, were fighting the battles of the world, for liberty had no home but here, ought such a people to stand quietly by and see that liberty undermined by apostacy and overthrown by intrigue? Let the tombs of the slain recall their recollection, and the forethought of what their children are to be revive and fix in their hearts the love of liberty.
But should a people who, just a few years ago, were fighting for freedom around the world, with no place to call home for liberty other than here, should such a people stand by and watch as their freedom is eroded by betrayal and destroyed by scheming? Let the graves of the fallen remind them, and let the thought of what their children will become strengthen and instill in their hearts the love of freedom.
If the former administration can justify its conduct, give it the opportunity. The manner in which John Adams disappeared from the government renders an inquiry the more necessary. He gave some account of himself, lame and confused as it was, to certain eastern wise men who came to pay homage to him on his birthday. But if he thought it necessary to do this, ought he not to have rendered an account to the public. They had a right to expect it of him. In that tjte-`-tjte account, he says, "Some measures were the effect of imperious necessity, much against my inclination." What measures does Mr. Adams mean, and what is the imperious necessity to which he alludes? "Others (says he) were measures of the Legislature, which, although approved when passed, were never previously proposed or recommended by me." What measures, it may be asked, were those, for the public have a right to know the conduct of their representatives? "Some (says he) left to my discretion were never executed, because no necessity for them, in my judgment, ever occurred."
If the previous administration can justify its actions, let's give it a chance. The way John Adams left the government makes an investigation even more necessary. He provided a somewhat unclear and messy account of himself to some eastern wise men who came to pay their respects on his birthday. But if he felt it was important to do this, shouldn’t he have given an account to the public? They had the right to expect it from him. In that account, he says, "Some measures were the result of unavoidable necessity, much against my will." What measures is Mr. Adams referring to, and what is the urgent necessity he mentions? "Others (he says) were measures of the Legislature, which, although I approved when they were passed, were never previously proposed or recommended by me." What measures were those, one might ask, since the public has a right to know how their representatives acted? "Some (he says) that were left to my discretion were never carried out because, in my view, there was never a necessity for them."
What does this dark apology, mixed with accusation, amount to, but to increase and confirm the suspicion that something was wrong? Administration only was possessed of foreign official information, and it was only upon that information communicated by him publicly or privately, or to Congress, that Congress could act; and it is not in the power of Mr. Adams to show, from the condition of the belligerent powers, that any imperious necessity called for the warlike and expensive measures of his Administration.
What does this dark apology, mixed with accusation, really mean other than to raise and reinforce the suspicion that something was off? Only the administration had access to foreign official information, and it was based on that information, whether shared publicly or privately, or with Congress, that Congress could take action. Mr. Adams cannot prove, based on the situation of the warring powers, that any urgent necessity required the aggressive and costly measures of his administration.
What the correspondence between Administration and Rufus King in London, or Quincy Adams in Holland, or Berlin, might be, is but little known. The public papers have told us that the former became cup-bearer from the London underwriters to Captain Truxtun,(1) for which, as Minister from a neutral nation, he ought to have been censured. It is, however, a feature that marks the politics of the Minister, and hints at the character of the correspondence.
What the communication between the government and Rufus King in London, or Quincy Adams in Holland, or Berlin, is not well known. Public documents have informed us that the former became a messenger for the London underwriters to Captain Truxtun,(1) which, as a representative of a neutral country, he should have been criticized for. However, this is a defining aspect of the Minister's politics and suggests the nature of the correspondence.
1 Thomas Truxtun (1755-1822), for capturing the French frigate "L'Insurgente" off Hen's Island in 1799, was presented with silver worth 600 guineas at Lloyd's coffee house. Rufus King (1755-1827), appointed Minister to England in 1796, served under Adams and for two years under Jefferson's administration.—Editor.
I know that it is the opinion of several members of both houses of Congress, that an enquiry, with respect to the conduct of the late Administration, ought to be gone into. The convulsed state into which the country has been thrown will be best settled by a full and fair exposition of the conduct of that Administration, and the causes and object of that conduct. To be deceived, or to remain deceived, can be the interest of no man who seeks the public good; and it is the deceiver only, or one interested in the deception, that can wish to preclude enquiry.
I know that many members of both houses of Congress believe that there should be an investigation into the actions of the previous Administration. The turmoil our country has experienced will be best resolved by a thorough and honest examination of that Administration's actions, along with the reasons and intentions behind them. No one who genuinely cares about the public good would want to be misled or continue to be misled; only the deceiver or someone benefiting from the deception would want to prevent an investigation.
The suspicion against the late Administration is, that it was plotting to overturn the representative system of government, and that it spread alarms of invasions that had no foundation, as a pretence for raising and establishing a military force as the means of accomplishing that object.
The suspicion around the previous Administration is that it was trying to undermine the representative system of government and that it caused panic about invasions that weren't real, as an excuse to build up and maintain a military force to achieve that goal.
The law, called the Sedition Law, enacted, that if any person should write or publish, or cause to be written or published, any libel [without defining what a libel is] against the Government of the United States, or either house of congress, or against the President, he should be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
The Sedition Law states that if anyone writes or publishes, or has someone write or publish, any libel against the Government of the United States, either house of Congress, or the President, they will face a fine of up to two thousand dollars and a prison sentence of up to two years.
But it is a much greater crime for a president to plot against a Constitution and the liberties of the people, than for an individual to plot against a President; and consequently, John Adams is accountable to the public for his conduct, as the individuals under his administration were to the sedition law.
But it's a far bigger crime for a president to conspire against the Constitution and the freedoms of the people than for someone to conspire against a president; therefore, John Adams is responsible to the public for his actions, just as the individuals in his administration were held accountable under the sedition law.
The object, however, of an enquiry, in this case, is not to punish, but to satisfy; and to shew, by example, to future administrations, that an abuse of power and trust, however disguised by appearances, or rendered plausible by pretence, is one time or other to be accounted for.
The goal of this inquiry, in this instance, is not to punish but to clarify. It aims to demonstrate, by example, to future administrations that any abuse of power and trust, no matter how it may be disguised or justified, will eventually need to be answered for.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
BORDENTOWN, ON THE DELAWARE,
Bordentown, on the Delaware,
New Jersey, March 12, 1803. vol. III—27
New Jersey, March 12, 1803. vol. III—27
LETTER VII.
LETTER 7.
EDITOR'S PREFACE. This letter was published in The True American, Trenton, New Jersey, shortly after Paine returned to his hometown of Bordenton. It is printed here from the original manuscript, for which I thank Mr. W. F. Havemeyer of New York. Although the Editor has decided to present Paine's "Maritime Compact" in its final form, the articles were printed in French in 1800, and by S. H. Smith in Washington at the end of the same year. There's an interesting history behind it. John Hall, in his diary ("Trenton, April 20, 1787"), recounts that Paine told him about Dr. Franklin, whom he (Paine) had just visited in Philadelphia, and the treaty the Doctor made with the late King of Prussia by adding a clause that, if war ever broke out, commerce would remain free. The Doctor mentioned that he showed it to Vergennes, who said it aligned with his views and was similar to what he would propose even with England. In his Address to the People of France, 1797 (see p. 366), Paine concludes with a suggestion on this topic, and a year later (September 30, 1798), when conditions were critical, he sent nine articles of his proposed Pacte Maritime to Talleyrand, the newly appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs. The letters exchanged are taken from the original documents (State Archives, Paris, États-Unis, vol. 48).
"Rue Theatre frangaise, No. 4, 9 Vendemaire, 6 year.
"Rue Theatre frangaise, No. 4, 9 Vendemaire, 6 year.
"Citizen Minister: I promised you some observations on the state of things between France and America. I divide the case into two parts. First, with respect to some Method that shall effectually put an end to all interruptions of the American Commerce. Secondly, with respect to the settlement for the captures that have been made on that Commerce.
"Citizen Minister: I promised to share my thoughts on the situation between France and America. I'll break this down into two parts. First, regarding a method that will effectively stop all disruptions to American commerce. Second, about the settlement for the seizures that have occurred in that commerce."
"As to the first case (the interruption of the American Commerce by France) it has foundation in the British Treaty, and it is the continuance of that treaty that renders the remedy difficult. Besides, the American administration has blundered so much in the business of treaty-making, that it is probable it will blunder again in making another with France. There is, however, one method left, and there is but one that I can see, that will be effectual. It is a non-importation Convention; that America agrees not to import from any Nation in Europe who shall interrupt her Commerce on the seas, any goods, wares, or merchandize whatever, and that all her ports shall be shut against the Nation that gives the offence. This will draw America out of her difficulties with respect to her treaty with England.
As for the first issue (the disruption of American commerce by France), it stems from the British treaty, and it's the ongoing nature of that treaty that makes finding a solution tricky. Additionally, the American government has made so many mistakes in crafting treaties that it's likely they'll mess up again if they try to create another one with France. However, there is still one solution that I can see that would be effective. It's a non-importation convention; America would agree not to import any goods, wares, or merchandise from any European nation that disrupts its commerce at sea, and all its ports would be closed to the nation at fault. This would help America resolve its problems regarding its treaty with England.
"But it will be far better if this non-importation convention were to be a general convention of Nations acting as a Whole. It would give a better protection to Neutral Commerce than the armed neutrality could do. I would rather be a Neutral Nation under the protection of such a Convention, which costs nothing to make it, than be under the protection of a navy equal to that of Great Britain. France should be the patron of such a Convention and sign it. It would be giving both her consent and her protection to the Rights of Neutral Nations. If England refuse to sign it she will nevertheless be obliged to respect it, or lose all her Commerce.
"But it would be much better if this non-importation agreement became a general agreement among Nations acting together. It would provide better protection for Neutral Commerce than armed neutrality ever could. I would prefer to be a Neutral Nation protected by such an agreement, which costs nothing to establish, rather than rely on a navy equal to Britain's. France should take the lead in creating and signing this agreement. It would show both her support and her protection for the Rights of Neutral Nations. If England refuses to sign it, she will still be forced to respect it or risk losing all her trade."
"I enclose you a plan I drew up about four months ago, when there was expectation that Mr. Madison would come to France. It has lain by me ever since.
"I’m sending you a plan I created about four months ago when it was expected that Mr. Madison would come to France. It’s been sitting with me ever since."
"The second part, that of settlement for the captures, I will make the subject of a future correspondence. Salut et respect."
"The second part, regarding the settlement for the captures, will be the topic of a future correspondence. Best regards."
Talleyrand's Reply ("Foreign Relations, 15 Vendemaire An. 6," Oct. 6, 1797): "I have the honor to return you, Citizen, with very sincere thanks, your Letter to General Washington which you have had the goodness to show me.
Talleyrand's Reply ("Foreign Relations, 15 Vendemaire An. 6," Oct. 6, 1797): "I’m honored to return your letter to General Washington that you kindly shared with me, Citizen, and I sincerely thank you for it."
"I have received the letter which you have taken the trouble to write me, the 9th of this month. I need not assure you of the appreciation with which I shall receive the further indications you promise on the means of terminating in a durable manner the differences which must excite your interest as a patriot and as a Republican. Animated by such a principle your ideas cannot fail to throw valuable light on the discussion you open, and which should have for its object to reunite the two Republics in whose alienation the enemies of liberty triumph."
"I got your letter you took the time to write to me on the 9th of this month. I don't need to tell you how much I appreciate the further information you promised about how to permanently resolve the differences that must concern you as a patriot and a Republican. Driven by such a principle, your ideas are sure to shed valuable light on the discussion you’ve started, which should aim to reunite the two Republics whose separation is celebrated by the enemies of liberty."
Paine's plan made a good impression in France—He writes to Jefferson, October 6, 1800, that the Consul Le Brun, at an entertainment given to the American envoys, gave for his toast: "@ l'union de 1' Amirique avec les Puissances du Nord pour faire respecter la liberti des mers."
Paine's plan made a positive impression in France—He writes to Jefferson on October 6, 1800, that Consul Le Brun, at a gathering held for the American envoys, toasted: "@ l’union de l'Amérique avec les Puissances du Nord pour faire respecter la liberté des mers."
The malignant mind, like the jaundiced eye, sees everything through a false medium of its own creating. The light of heaven appears stained with yellow to the distempered sight of the one, and the fairest actions have the form of crimes in the venomed imagination of the other.
The twisted mind, like a jaundiced eye, perceives everything through a distorted lens of its own making. The light of heaven seems tainted with yellow to the sickly vision of one, and the noblest actions look like crimes in the poisoned imagination of the other.
For seven months, both before and after my return to America in October last, the apostate papers styling themselves "Federal" were filled with paragraphs and Essays respecting a letter from Mr. Jefferson to me at Paris; and though none of them knew the contents of the letter, nor the occasion of writing it, malignity taught them to suppose it, and the lying tongue of injustice lent them its aid.
For seven months, both before and after I returned to America last October, the so-called "Federal" papers were packed with paragraphs and essays about a letter from Mr. Jefferson to me in Paris. Even though none of them knew what the letter said or why it was written, their spite led them to make assumptions, and the unjust rumors helped fuel their claims.
That the public may no longer be imposed upon by Federal apostacy, I will now publish the Letter, and the occasion of its being written.
That the public may no longer be misled by Federal betrayal, I will now publish the Letter and explain why it was written.
The Treaty negociated in England by John Jay, and ratified by the Washington Administration, had so disgracefully surrendered the right and freedom of the American flag, that all the Commerce of the United States on the Ocean became exposed to capture, and suffered in consequence of it. The duration of the Treaty was limited to two years after the war; and consequently America could not, during that period, relieve herself from the Chains which the Treaty had fixed upon her. This being the case, the only relief that could come must arise out of something originating in Europe, that would, in its consequences, extend to America. It had long been my opinion that Commerce contained within itself the means of its own protection; but as the time for bringing forward any new system is not always happening, it is necessary to watch its approach, and lay hold of it before it passes away.
The treaty negotiated in England by John Jay and approved by the Washington Administration had shamefully given up the rights and freedoms of the American flag, leaving all U.S. commerce on the ocean vulnerable to capture and suffering as a result. The treaty was set to last for two years after the war, meaning America couldn’t free itself from the constraints it imposed during that period. Given this situation, any relief could only come from something happening in Europe that would, in turn, affect America. I’ve long believed that commerce has within it the means of its own protection, but since the opportunity to introduce a new system doesn’t always come around, it’s essential to recognize it and seize it before it slips away.
As soon as the late Emperor Paul of Russia abandoned his coalition with England and become a Neutral Power, this Crisis of time, and also of circumstances, was then arriving; and I employed it in arranging a plan for the protection of the Commerce of Neutral Nations during War, that might, in its operation and consequences, relieve the Commerce of America. The Plan, with the pieces accompanying it, consisted of about forty pages. The Citizen Bonneville, with whom I lived in Paris, translated it into French; Mr. Skipwith, the American Consul, Joel Barlow, and myself, had the translation printed and distributed as a present to the Foreign Ministers of all the Neutral Nations then resident in Paris. This was in the summer of 1800.
As soon as the late Emperor Paul of Russia ended his alliance with England and became a Neutral Power, the crisis of that time and circumstances began to unfold. I took this opportunity to create a plan to protect the commerce of Neutral Nations during wartime, which could, through its operation and effects, help American commerce. The plan and the accompanying documents were about forty pages long. My friend Bonneville, who I lived with in Paris, translated it into French. Mr. Skipwith, the American Consul, Joel Barlow, and I had the translation printed and distributed as a gift to the Foreign Ministers of all the Neutral Nations then living in Paris. This happened in the summer of 1800.
It was entitled Maritime Compact (in French Pacte Maritime), The plan, exclusive of the pieces that accompanied it, consisted of the following Preamble and Articles.
It was titled Maritime Compact (in French Pacte Maritime). The plan, not including the accompanying documents, included the following Preamble and Articles.
MARITIME COMPACT.
Maritime Agreement.
Being an Unarmed Association of Nations for the protection of the Rights and Commerce of Nations that shall be neutral in time of War.
Being a non-military alliance of countries dedicated to protecting the rights and trade of nations that remain neutral during wartime.
Whereas, the Vexations and Injuries to which the Rights and Commerce of Neutral Nations have been, and continue to be, exposed during the time of maritime War, render it necessary to establish a law of Nations for the purpose of putting an end to such vexations and Injuries, and to guarantee to the Neutral Nations the exercise of their just Rights,
Whereas, the problems and harms that Neutral Nations face regarding their rights and trade during maritime wars make it essential to create international laws to stop these issues and ensure that Neutral Nations can fully enjoy their rightful entitlements,
We, therefore, the undersigned Powers, form ourselves into an Association, and establish the following as a Law of Nations on the Seas.
We, the undersigned nations, come together to create an Association and establish the following as international law for the seas.
ARTICLE THE FIRST. Definition of the Rights of neutral Nations.
ARTICLE THE FIRST. Definition of the Rights of Neutral Nations.
The Rights of Nations, such as are exercised by them in their intercourse with each other in time of Peace, are, and of right ought to be, the Rights of Neutral Nations at all times; because,
The Rights of Nations, as they are exercised in their interactions with one another during Peace, are and rightfully should be the Rights of Neutral Nations at all times; because,
First, those Rights not having been abandoned by them, remain with them.
First, those rights that they haven't given up still belong to them.
Secondly, because those Rights cannot become forfeited or void, in consequence of War breaking out between two or more other Nations.
Secondly, those rights cannot be lost or become invalid simply because war breaks out between two or more other nations.
A War of Nation against Nation being exclusively the act of the Nations that make the War, and not the act of the Neutral Nations, cannot, whether considered in itself or in its consequences, destroy or diminish the Rights of the Nations remaining in Peace.
A war between nations is solely the responsibility of the nations that are fighting, not the neutral nations. Therefore, whether you look at the war itself or its outcomes, it cannot take away or lessen the rights of the nations that stay peaceful.
ARTICLE THE SECOND.
ARTICLE TWO.
The Ships and Vessels of Nations that rest neuter and at Peace with the World during a War with other Nations, have a Right to navigate freely on the Seas as they navigated before that War broke out, and to proceed to and enter the Port or Ports of any of the Belligerent Powers, with the consent of that Power, without being seized, searched, visited, or any ways interrupted, by the Nation or Nations with which that Nation is at War.
The ships and vessels of nations that remain neutral and at peace with the world during a war with other nations have the right to navigate freely on the seas as they did before the war started, and to go to and enter the port or ports of any of the warring powers, with the consent of that power, without being seized, searched, inspected, or otherwise disturbed by the nation or nations that are at war with that nation.
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
ARTICLE III.
For the Conservation of the aforesaid Rights, We, the undersigned Powers, engaging to each other our Sacred Faith and Honour, declare,
For the protection of the aforementioned rights, we, the undersigned powers, pledge to one another our sacred faith and honor, declare,
That if any Belligerent Power shall seize, search, visit, or any ways interrupt any Ship or Vessel belonging to the Citizens or Subjects of any of the Powers composing this Association, then each and all of the said undersigned Powers will cease to import, and will not permit to be imported into the Ports or Dominions of any of the said undersigned Powers, in any Ship or Vessel whatever, any Goods, wares, or Merchandize, produced or manufactured in, or exported from, the Dominions of the Power so offending against the Association hereby established and Proclaimed.
If any warring nation seizes, searches, visits, or otherwise disrupts any ship or vessel belonging to the citizens or subjects of any of the nations in this alliance, then all of the undersigned nations will stop importing and will not allow any goods, wares, or merchandise produced or manufactured in, or exported from, the territory of the nation that violated the agreement established and declared here.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
ARTICLE FOUR.
That all the Ports appertaining to any and all of the Powers composing this Association shall be shut against the Flag of the offending Nation.
That all ports belonging to any and all of the countries in this Association will be closed to the flag of the offending nation.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
ARTICLE 5.
That no remittance or payment in Money, Merchandize, or Bills of Exchange, shall be made by any of the Citizens, or Subjects, of any of the Powers composing this Association, to the Citizens or Subjects of the offending Nation, for the Term of one year, or until reparation be made. The reparation to be —— times the amount of the damages sustained.
That no payments or transfers of money, goods, or bills of exchange shall be made by any citizens or subjects of any of the countries in this association to the citizens or subjects of the offending nation for one year, or until compensation is provided. The compensation will be —— times the amount of the damages incurred.
ARTICLE THE SIXTH.
ARTICLE SIX.
If any Ship or Vessel appertaining to any of the Citizens or Subjects of any of the Powers composing this Association shall be seized, searched, visited, or interrupted, by any Belligerent Nation, or be forcibly prevented entering the Port of her destination, or be seized, searched, visited, or interrupted, in coming out of such Port, or be forcibly prevented from proceeding to any new destination, or be insulted or visited by any Agent from on board any Vessel of any Belligerent Power, the Government or Executive Power of the Nation to which the Ship or Vessel so seized, searched, visited, or interrupted belongs, shall, on evidence of the fact, make public Proclamation of the same, and send a Copy thereof to the Government, or Executive, of each of the Powers composing this Association, who shall publish the same in all the extent of his Dominions, together with a Declaration, that at the expiration of —— days after publication, the penal articles of this Association shall be put in execution against the offending Nation.
If any ship or vessel belonging to any citizen or subject of the countries in this association is seized, searched, boarded, or interrupted by any warring nation, or is forcibly prevented from entering its intended port, or is seized, searched, boarded, or interrupted while leaving that port, or is forcibly prevented from going to a new destination, or is insulted or boarded by an agent from any vessel of a warring power, the government or executive authority of the nation to which the seized ship or vessel belongs must, upon evidence of the incident, make a public announcement and send a copy of it to the governments or executives of all the countries in this association. They shall publish it throughout their territories, along with a declaration that, after a period of —— days from the announcement, the punitive measures of this association will be enforced against the offending nation.
ARTICLE THE SEVENTH.
ARTICLE SEVEN.
If reparation be not made within the space of one year, the said Proclamation shall be renewed for one year more, and so on.
If reparations aren't made within a year, the Proclamation will be renewed for another year, and it will continue like that.
ARTICLE THE EIGHTH.
ARTICLE VIII.
The Association chooses for itself a Flag to be carried at the Mast-head conjointly with the National Flag of each Nation composing this Association.
The Association selects a flag to be displayed alongside the national flag of each country that is part of this Association.
The Flag of the Association shall be composed of the same colors as compose the Rainbow, and arranged in the same order as they appear in that Phenomenon.
The Flag of the Association will consist of the same colors as the Rainbow, arranged in the same order as they appear in that Phenomenon.
ARTICLE THE NINTH.
ARTICLE IX.
And whereas, it may happen that one or more of the Nations composing this Association may be, at the time of forming it, engaged in War or become so in future, in that case, the Ships and Vessels of such Nation shall carry the Flag of the Association bound round the Mast, to denote that the Nation to which she belongs is a Member of the Association and a respecter of its Laws.
And if it turns out that one or more of the Nations in this Association is involved in a War at the time of its formation or becomes engaged in one later, then the Ships and Vessels of that Nation must display the Flag of the Association wrapped around the Mast, to indicate that the Nation to which they belong is a Member of the Association and respects its Laws.
N. B. This distinction in the manner of carrying the Flag is mearly for the purpose, that Neutral Vessels having the Flag at the Mast-head, may be known at first sight.
N. B. This difference in how the Flag is displayed is simply to ensure that Neutral Vessels with the Flag at the Mast-head can be easily recognized at a glance.
ARTICLE THE TENTH.
ARTICLE 10.
And whereas, it is contrary to the moral principles of Neutrality and Peace, that any Neutral Nation should furnish to the Belligerent Powers, or any of them, the means of carrying on War against each other, We, therefore, the Powers composing this Association, Declare, that we will each one for itself, prohibit in our Dominions the exportation or transportation of military stores, comprehending gunpowder, cannon, and cannon-balls, fire arms of all kinds, and all kinds of iron and steel weapons used in War. Excluding therefrom all kinds of Utensils and Instruments used in civil or domestic life, and every other article that cannot, in its immediate state, be employed in War.
And since it goes against the moral principles of neutrality and peace for any neutral nation to provide the warring powers, or any of them, with the means to fight each other, we, the powers of this association, declare that we will each individually prohibit the export or transport of military supplies within our territories, including gunpowder, cannons, cannonballs, all types of firearms, and all kinds of iron and steel weapons used in war. This excludes all types of tools and instruments used in everyday life, as well as any other items that cannot be used in war in their current state.
Having thus declared the moral Motives of the foregoing Article, We declare also the civil and political Intention thereof, to wit,
Having stated the moral reasons for the previous Article, we also declare its civil and political purpose, which is,
That as Belligerent Nations have no right to visit or search any Ship or Vessel belonging to a Nation at Peace, and under the protection of the Laws and Government thereof, and as all such visit or search is an insult to the Nation to which such Ship or Vessel belongs and to the Government of the same, We, therefore, the Powers composing this Association, will take the right of prohibition on ourselves to whom it properly belongs, and by whom only it can be legally exercised, and not permit foreign Nations, in a state of War, to usurp the right of legislating by Proclamation for any of the Citizens or Subjects of the Powers composing this Association.
That belligerent nations have no right to visit or search any ship or vessel belonging to a nation at peace, which is under the protection of its laws and government. Any such visit or search is an insult to the nation that owns the ship or vessel and to its government. Therefore, we, the powers of this association, will take on the authority to prohibit this action, as it rightfully belongs to us and can only be legally exercised by us. We will not allow foreign nations at war to take over the right to legislate for any of the citizens or subjects of the powers in this association.
It is, therefore, in order to take away all pretence of search or visit, which by being offensive might become a new cause of War, that we will provide Laws and publish them by Proclamation, each in his own Dominion, to prohibit the supplying, or carrying to, the Belligerent Powers, or either of them, the military stores or articles before mentioned, annexing thereto a penalty to be levied or inflicted upon any persons within our several Dominions transgressing the same. And we invite all Persons, as well of the Belligerent Nations as of our own, or of any other, to give information of any knowledge they may have of any transgressions against the said Law, that the offenders may be prosecuted.
To eliminate any pretense of searching or visiting, which could potentially lead to new conflicts, we will establish laws and announce them through a proclamation in each of our territories. These laws will forbid the supply or transport of military supplies or goods mentioned earlier to either of the warring parties, with penalties imposed on anyone within our territories who violates these rules. We also encourage everyone, including those from both warring nations, our own citizens, and others, to report any knowledge they have of violations of this law so that we can take action against the offenders.
By this conduct we restore the word Contraband (contra and ban) to its true and original signification, which means against Law, edict, or Proclamation; and none but the Government of a Nation can have, or can exercise, the right of making Laws, edicts, or Proclamations, for the conduct of its Citizens or Subjects.
By doing this, we bring back the term Contraband (contra and ban) to its true and original meaning, which is against the law, edict, or proclamation; and only the government of a nation has the right to create or enforce laws, edicts, or proclamations that guide its citizens or subjects.
Now We, the undersigned Powers, declare the aforesaid Articles to be a Law of Nations at all times, or until a Congress of Nations shall meet to form some Law more effectual.
Now we, the undersigned Powers, declare the aforementioned Articles to be a Law of Nations at all times, or until a Congress of Nations meets to create a more effective Law.
And we do recommend that immediately on the breaking out of War between any two or more Nations, that Deputies be appointed by all Neutral Nations, whether members of this Association or not, to meet in Congress in some central place to take cognizance of any violations of the Rights of Neutral Nations.
And we recommend that as soon as war breaks out between any two or more nations, all neutral nations, whether members of this association or not, should appoint representatives to meet in Congress in a central location to address any violations of the rights of neutral nations.
Signed, &c.
Signed, etc.
For the purpose of giving operation to the aforesaid plan of an unarmed Association, the following Paragraph was subjoined:
For the purpose of implementing the above plan for an unarmed Association, the following paragraph was added:
It may be judged proper for the order of Business, that the Association of Nations have a President for a term of years, and the Presidency to pass by rotation, to each of the parties composing the Association.
It might be considered appropriate for the organization of Business that the Association of Nations has a President for a set number of years, with the Presidency rotating among each of the member parties in the Association.
In that case, and for the sake of regularity, the first President to be the Executive power of the most northerly Nation composing the Association, and his deputy or Minister at the Congress to be President of the Congress,—and the next most northerly to be Vice-president, who shall succeed to the Presidency, and so on. The line determining the Geographical situation of each, to be the latitude of the Capital of each Nation.
In that situation, and for the sake of consistency, the first President to hold the Executive power of the northernmost Nation in the Association, along with his deputy or Minister at the Congress, will serve as the President of the Congress—then the next northernmost will be the Vice President, who will succeed to the Presidency, and so forth. The line that defines the geographical position of each will be based on the latitude of each Nation’s Capital.
If this method be adopted it will be proper that the first President be nominally constituted in order to give rotation to the rest. In that case the following Article might be added to the foregoing, viz't. The Constitution of the Association nominates the Emperor Paul to be first President of the Association of Nations for the protection of Neutral Commerce, and securing the freedom of the Seas.
If this method is used, it would be appropriate for the first President to be officially assigned to create a rotation for the others. In that case, the following Article could be added to the previous one: The Constitution of the Association designates Emperor Paul as the first President of the Association of Nations for protecting Neutral Commerce and ensuring freedom of the Seas.
The foregoing plan, as I have before mentioned, was presented to the Ministers of all the Neutral Nations then in Paris, in the summer of 1800. Six Copies were given to the Russian General Springporten; and a Russian Gentleman who was going to Petersburgh took two expressly for the purpose of putting them into the hands of Paul I sent the original manuscript, in my own handwriting, to Mr. Jefferson, and also wrote him four Letters, dated the 1st, 4th, 6th, 16th of October, 1800, giving him an account of what was then going on in Europe respecting Neutral Commerce.
The plan I mentioned earlier was presented to the ministers of all the neutral nations in Paris during the summer of 1800. Six copies were given to the Russian General Springporten, and a Russian gentleman heading to Petersburgh took two specifically to deliver to Paul I. I sent the original manuscript, written in my own hand, to Mr. Jefferson and also wrote him four letters dated October 1st, 4th, 6th, and 16th, 1800, updating him on the situation in Europe regarding neutral commerce.
The Case was, that in order to compel the English Government to acknowledge the rights of Neutral Commerce, and that free Ships make free Goods, the Emperor Paul, in the month of September following the publication of the plan, shut all the Ports of Russia against England. Sweden and Denmark did the same by their Ports, and Denmark shut up Hamburgh. Prussia shut up the Elbe and the Weser. The ports of Spain, Portugal, and Naples were shut up, and, in general, all the ports of Italy, except Venice, which the Emperor of Germany held; and had it not been for the untimely death of Paul, a Law of Nations, founded on the authority of Nations, for establishing the rights of Neutral Commerce and the freedom of the Seas, would have been proclaimed, and the Government of England must have consented to that Law, or the Nation must have lost its Commerce; and the consequence to America would have been, that such a Law would, in a great measure if not entirely, have released her from the injuries of Jay's Treaty.
The situation was that to force the English Government to recognize the rights of Neutral Trade, and that free Ships make free Goods, Emperor Paul, in September after the plan was published, closed all Russian Ports to England. Sweden and Denmark did the same with their Ports, and Denmark also closed Hamburg. Prussia blocked the Elbe and Weser rivers. The ports of Spain, Portugal, and Naples were also shut down, along with most ports in Italy, except for Venice, which was held by the German Emperor. If it hadn’t been for Emperor Paul’s untimely death, a Law of Nations, based on the endorsement of various Nations, would have been established to affirm the rights of Neutral Trade and freedom of the Seas. The English Government would have had to agree to that Law, or else the Nation would have lost its Commerce; this would have significantly, if not completely, relieved America from the issues arising from Jay's Treaty.
Of all these matters I informed Mr. Jefferson. This was before he was President, and the Letter he wrote me after he was President was in answer to those I had written to him and the manuscript Copy of the plan I had sent here. Here follows the Letter:
Of all these matters, I informed Mr. Jefferson. This was before he was President, and the letter he wrote to me after he became President was in response to the ones I had sent him and the manuscript copy of the plan I had sent here. Here follows the letter:
Washington, March 18, 1801. Dear Sir:
Washington, March 18, 1801. Dear Sir:
Your letters of Oct. 1st, 4th, 6th, 16th, came duly to hand, and the papers which they covered were, according to your permission, published in the Newspapers, and in a Pamphlet, and under your own name. These papers contain precisely our principles, and I hope they will be generally recognized here. Determined as we are to avoid, if possible, wasting the energies of our People in war and destruction, we shall avoid implicating ourselves with the Powers of Europe, even in support of principles which we mean to pursue. They have so many other Interests different from ours that we must avoid being entangled in them. We believe we can enforce those principles as to ourselves by Peaceable means, now that we are likely to have our Public Councils detached from foreign views. The return of our citizens from the phrenzy into which they had been wrought, partly by ill conduct in France, partly by artifices practiced upon them, is almost extinct, and will, I believe, become quite so, But these details, too minute and long for a Letter, will be better developed by Mr. Dawson, the Bearer of this, a Member of the late Congress, to whom I refer you for them. He goes in the Maryland Sloop of War, which will wait a few days at Havre to receive his Letters to be written on his arrival at Paris. You expressed a wish to get a passage to this Country in a Public Vessel. Mr. Dawson is charged with orders to the Captain of the Maryland to receive and accommodate you back if you can be ready to depart at such a short warning. Rob't R. Livingston is appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to the Republic of France, but will not leave this, till we receive the ratification of the Convention by Mr. Dawson. I am in hopes you will find us returned generally to sentiments worthy of former times. In these it will be your glory to have steadily laboured and with as much effect as any man living. That you may long live to continue your useful Labours and to reap the reward in the thankfulness of Nations is my sincere prayer. Accept assurances of my high esteem and affectionate attachment.
Your letters from October 1st, 4th, 6th, and 16th arrived safely, and the documents you included were published in the newspapers and in a pamphlet under your own name, as you allowed. These documents clearly express our principles, and I hope they will be widely recognized here. Determined as we are to avoid wasting our people's energy on war and destruction, we will steer clear of getting involved with the Powers of Europe, even in support of the principles we intend to uphold. Their many other interests differ from ours, so we need to avoid getting caught up in them. We believe we can uphold these principles peacefully now that our public councils are likely to be free from foreign influences. The return of our citizens to sanity, which had been disrupted partly by poor behavior in France and partly by manipulation, is almost complete, and I believe it will be entirely resolved. These details, too detailed and lengthy for a letter, will be better explained by Mr. Dawson, the bearer of this message, a member of the recent Congress, to whom I refer you for more information. He is traveling on the Maryland sloop of war, which will stay a few days in Havre to receive his letters upon his arrival in Paris. You mentioned wanting to return to this country on a public vessel. Mr. Dawson has been instructed to ask the captain of the Maryland to provide you with a passage back if you're ready to leave on such short notice. Rob't R. Livingston has been appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to the Republic of France but will not depart until we receive the ratification of the convention from Mr. Dawson. I hope you will find us generally returned to the values of earlier times. In this return, it will be your honor to have worked steadily and effectively, as much as anyone alive. I sincerely wish you a long life to continue your valuable work and to earn the gratitude of nations. Please accept my assurance of high regard and affectionate attachment.
Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
This, Citizens of the United States, is the Letter about which the leaders and tools of the Federal faction, without knowing its contents or the occasion of writing it, have wasted so many malignant falsehoods. It is a Letter which, on account of its wise economy and peaceable principles, and its forbearance to reproach, will be read by every good Man and every good Citizen with pleasure; and the faction, mortified at its appearance, will have to regret they forced it into publication. The least atonement they can now offer is to make the Letter as public as they have made their own infamy, and learn to lie no more.
This, Citizens of the United States, is the letter that the leaders and supporters of the Federal faction, without knowing what it contains or why it was written, have spread so many harmful lies about. This letter, because of its thoughtful approach and peaceful principles, as well as its refusal to insult anyone, will be read with pleasure by every good person and every good citizen; and the faction, embarrassed by its release, will have to regret that they pushed for its publication. The least they can do now is to make this letter as widely known as they have made their own disgrace, and learn to stop lying.
The same injustice they shewed to Mr. Jefferson they shewed to me. I had employed myself in Europe, and at my own expense, in forming and promoting a plan that would, in its operation, have benefited the Commerce of America; and the faction here invented and circulated an account in the papers they employ, that I had given a plan to the French for burning all the towns on the Coast from Savannah to Baltimore. Were I to prosecute them for this (and I do not promise that I will not, for the Liberty of the Press is not the liberty of lying,) there is not a federal judge, not even one of Midnight appointment, but must, from the nature of the case, be obliged to condemn them. The faction, however, cannot complain they have been restrained in any thing. They have had their full swing of lying uncontradicted; they have availed themselves, unopposed, of all the arts Hypocrisy could devise; and the event has been, what in all such cases it ever will and ought to be, the ruin of themselves.
The same unfair treatment they showed to Mr. Jefferson, they showed to me. I had put my own time and money into Europe to develop and promote a plan that would have benefited American commerce. Yet, the group here created and spread a story in the newspapers they control, claiming that I had proposed a plan to the French to burn all the towns along the coast from Savannah to Baltimore. If I were to sue them for this (and I can't promise that I won't, because freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom to lie), there's not a federal judge, not even one appointed at the last minute, who wouldn't have to rule against them given the circumstances. However, the group can't complain that they've been held back in any way. They've had every opportunity to lie without being challenged; they've used all the tricks Hypocrisy could think of; and as usually happens in such cases, the result has been, and always should be, their own downfall.
The Characters of the late and of the present Administrations are now sufficiently marked, and the adherents of each keep up the distinction. The former Administration rendered itself notorious by outrage, coxcombical parade, false alarms, a continued increase of taxes, and an unceasing clamor for War; and as every vice has a virtue opposed to it, the present Administration moves on the direct contrary line. The question, therefore, at elections is not properly a question upon Persons, but upon principles. Those who are for Peace, moderate taxes, and mild Government, will vote for the Administration that conducts itself by those principles, in whatever hands that Administration may be.
The characteristics of the previous and current administrations are now clearly defined, and their supporters maintain that distinction. The previous administration became infamous for its outrageous behavior, showy displays, false alarms, constant tax increases, and relentless calls for war. Just as every vice has an opposing virtue, the current administration operates on the opposite path. Therefore, the real question during elections isn't about individual candidates but about principles. Those who support peace, reasonable taxes, and gentle governance will vote for the administration that aligns with those principles, regardless of who is in charge.
There are in the United States, and particularly in the middle States, several religious Sects, whose leading moral principle is PEACE. It is, therefore, impossible that such Persons, consistently with the dictates of that principle, can vote for an Administration that is clamorous for War. When moral principles, rather than Persons, are candidates for Power, to vote is to perform a moral duty, and not to vote is to neglect a duty.
There are several religious groups in the United States, especially in the Midwest, whose main moral principle is PEACE. Therefore, it's impossible for these individuals, in line with that principle, to support an Administration that advocates for War. When moral principles, rather than individuals, are running for Power, voting becomes a moral obligation, while choosing not to vote is to ignore that obligation.
That persons who are hunting after places, offices, and contracts, should be advocates for War, taxes, and extravagance, is not to be wondered at; but that so large a portion of the People who had nothing to depend upon but their Industry, and no other public prospect but that of paying taxes, and bearing the burden, should be advocates for the same measures, is a thoughtlessness not easily accounted for. But reason is recovering her empire, and the fog of delusion is clearing away.
It's not surprising that people chasing after jobs, positions, and contracts advocate for war, taxes, and extravagance. However, it's baffling that so many individuals who rely solely on their hard work and only see the prospect of paying taxes and carrying burdens would support the same policies. This lack of awareness is hard to explain. But reason is regaining control, and the haze of confusion is beginning to lift.
Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine.
BORDENTOWN, ON THE DELAWARE,
Bordentown, by the Delaware
New Jersey, April 21, 1803.(1)
New Jersey, April 21, 1803.
1 Endorsed: "Sent by Gen. Bloomfield through Mr. Wilson for Mr. Duane." And, in a later note: "Paine Letter 6. Found among the Bartram Papers sent by Col. Carr."—Editor.
XXXIV. TO THE FRENCH INHABITANTS OF LOUISIANA.(1)
1 In a letter to Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury (Oct 14, 1804), John Randolph of Roanoke suggested "the printing of — thousand copies of Tom Paine's response to their complaint, and sending them with as many thousand troops, who can speak a language that is easily understood by the people of Louisiana, no matter what their government's language may be." The purchase of Louisiana was announced to the Senate by President Jefferson on October 17, 1803.—Editor.
A publication having the appearance of a memorial and remonstrance, to be presented to Congress at the ensuing session, has appeared in several papers. It is therefore open to examination, and I offer you my remarks upon it. The title and introductory paragraph are as follows:
A document that looks like a memorial and complaint, intended to be presented to Congress at the upcoming session, has been published in several newspapers. It’s now available for review, and I’d like to share my thoughts on it. The title and introductory paragraph are as follows:
"To the Congress of the United States in the Senate and House of Representatives convened: We the subscribers, planters, merchants, and other inhabitants of Louisiana, respectfully approach the legislature of the United States with a memorial of our rights, a remonstrance against certain laws which contravene them, and a petition for that redress to which the laws of nature, sanctioned by positive stipulations, have entitled us."
"To the Congress of the United States in the Senate and House of Representatives convened: We, the undersigned, farmers, business owners, and other residents of Louisiana, respectfully come before the legislature of the United States with a statement of our rights, a complaint about certain laws that violate them, and a request for the justice to which the laws of nature and established agreements entitle us."
It often happens that when one party, or one that thinks itself a party, talks much about its rights, it puts those of the other party upon examining into their own, and such is the effect produced by your memorial.
It often happens that when one group, or one that believes it is a group, talks a lot about its rights, it causes the other group to reflect on their own rights, and that's the effect your memorial has created.
A single reading of that memorial will show it is the work of some person who is not of your people. His acquaintance with the cause, commencement, progress, and termination of the American revolution, decides this point; and his making our merits in that revolution the ground of your claims, as if our merits could become yours, show she does not understand your situation.
A single reading of that memorial will show it is the work of someone who is not from your community. Their knowledge of the cause, beginning, progress, and end of the American Revolution makes this clear; and their treating our contributions in that revolution as the basis for your claims, as if our achievements could become yours, demonstrates that they do not understand your situation.
We obtained our rights by calmly understanding principles, and by the successful event of a long, obstinate, and expensive war. But it is not incumbent on us to fight the battles of the world for the world's profit. You are already participating, without any merit or expense in obtaining it, the blessings of freedom acquired by ourselves; and in proportion as you become initiated into the principles and practice of the representative system of government, of which you have yet had no experience, you will participate more, and finally be partakers of the whole. You see what mischief ensued in France by the possession of power before they understood principles. They earned liberty in words, but not in fact. The writer of this was in France through the whole of the revolution, and knows the truth of what he speaks; for after endeavouring to give it principle, he had nearly fallen a victim to its rage.
We gained our rights by calmly understanding principles and by the outcome of a long, stubborn, and costly war. But it’s not our responsibility to fight the world’s battles for everyone else’s benefit. You are already enjoying, without any effort or cost to you, the freedoms we fought for; as you learn more about the principles and practices of representative government, which you haven't experienced yet, you'll benefit more and eventually be fully included. Just look at the chaos that unfolded in France when they gained power without understanding the principles behind it. They claimed freedom in words, but not in reality. The author was in France during the entire revolution and knows what he’s talking about; after trying to instill it with principles, he almost became a victim of its chaos.
There is a great want of judgment in the person who drew up your memorial. He has mistaken your case, and forgotten his own; and by trying to court your applause has injured your pretensions. He has written like a lawyer, straining every point that would please his client, without studying his advantage. I find no fault with the composition of the memorial, for it is well written; nor with the principles of liberty it contains, considered in the abstract. The error lies in the misapplication of them, and in assuming a ground they have not a right to stand upon. Instead of their serving you as a ground of reclamation against us, they change into a satire on yourselves. Why did you not speak thus when you ought to have spoken it? We fought for liberty when you stood quiet in slavery.
There’s a big lack of judgment in the person who created your memorial. They’ve misunderstood your situation and forgotten their own. In trying to win your approval, they’ve hurt your claims. They’ve written like a lawyer, pushing every point that might please you without considering your best interests. I don’t have an issue with how the memorial is written; it's well done. I also don’t disagree with the ideas of liberty it discusses in theory. The mistake is in how they’ve applied those ideas and in assuming a position they don’t have the right to take. Instead of acting as a basis for your complaints against us, they turn into a critique of you. Why didn’t you speak like this when you should have? We fought for liberty while you remained silent in oppression.
The author of the memorial injudiciously confounding two distinct cases together, has spoken as if he was the memorialist of a body of Americans, who, after sharing equally with us in all the dangers and hardships of the revolutionary war, had retired to a distance and made a settlement for themselves. If, in such a situation, Congress had established a temporary government over them, in which they were not personally consulted, they would have had a right to speak as the memorial speaks. But your situation is different from what the situation of such persons would be, and therefore their ground of reclamation cannot of right become yours. You are arriving at freedom by the easiest means that any people ever enjoyed it; without contest, without expense, and even without any contrivance of your own. And you already so far mistake principles, that under the name of rights you ask for powers; power to import and enslave Africans; and to govern a territory that we have purchased.
The author of the memorial mistakenly mixes two different cases together, implying he speaks for a group of Americans who, after facing the same dangers and hardships of the Revolutionary War, distanced themselves and formed their own settlement. If Congress had set up a temporary government over them without their input, they would have had the right to voice their concerns as the memorial does. However, your situation is different from theirs, so their reasons for complaint don't apply to you. You are gaining freedom in the easiest way any people have ever achieved it—without conflict, without cost, and without any effort on your part. You are already misunderstanding the principles involved, as you demand powers under the guise of "rights;" specifically, the power to import and enslave Africans and to govern a territory that we have purchased.
To give colour to your memorial, you refer to the treaty of cession, (in which you were not one of the contracting parties,) concluded at Paris between the governments of the United States and France.
To add detail to your memorial, you mention the treaty of cession, (in which you were not one of the contracting parties,) that was finalized in Paris between the governments of the United States and France.
"The third article" you say "of the treaty lately concluded at Paris declares, that the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time, they shall be protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the exercise of the religion they profess."
"The third article," you say, "of the treaty recently signed in Paris states that the residents of the transferred territory will be incorporated into the union of the United States and granted as soon as possible, based on the principles of the Federal Constitution, all the rights, benefits, and protections of U.S. citizens; and meanwhile, they will be safeguarded in their rights to liberty, property, and the practice of their religion."
As from your former condition, you cannot be much acquainted with diplomatic policy, and I am convinced that even the gentleman who drew up the memorial is not, I will explain to you the grounds of this article. It may prevent your running into further errors.
Since you haven't had much experience with diplomatic policy, I doubt you're very familiar with it. I’m also sure that even the guy who wrote the memorial isn't. I'll explain the reasons behind this article. It might help you avoid making more mistakes.
The territory of Louisiana had been so often ceded to different European powers, that it became a necessary article on the part of France, and for the security of Spain, the ally of France, and which accorded perfectly with our own principles and intentions, that it should be ceded no more; and this article, stipulating for the incorporation of Louisiana into the union of the United States, stands as a bar against all future cession, and at the same time, as well as "in the mean time" secures to you a civil and political permanency, personal security and liberty which you never enjoyed before.
The territory of Louisiana had been transferred so many times between different European powers that France needed to ensure, for its own security and that of its ally Spain, that it would be ceded no more; this requirement not only aligned with our principles and intentions but also included a clause for Louisiana to be integrated into the United States. This clause prevents any future transfers and, at the same time, guarantees you civil and political stability, personal safety, and freedoms that you have never experienced before.
France and Spain might suspect, (and the suspicion would not have been ill-founded had the cession been treated for in the administration of John Adams, or when Washington was president, and Alexander Hamilton president over him,) that we bought Louisiana for the British government, or with a view of selling it to her; and though such suspicion had no just ground to stand upon with respect to our present president, Thomas Jefferson, who is not only not a man of intrigue but who possesses that honest pride of principle that cannot be intrigued with, and which keeps intriguers at a distance, the article was nevertheless necessary as a precaution against future contingencies. But you, from not knowing the political ground of the article, apply to yourselves personally and exclusively, what had reference to the territory, to prevent its falling into the hands of any foreign power that might endanger the [establishment of] Spanish dominion in America, or those of the French in the West India Islands.
France and Spain might have their suspicions, which wouldn’t be unfounded had the transfer been handled during John Adams' administration or when Washington was president, with Alexander Hamilton influencing him. They might think we bought Louisiana for the British government or with the intent to sell it to them. While this suspicion has no real basis concerning our current president, Thomas Jefferson, who is not a person of intrigue and has a sincere pride in principle that prevents any intrigue and keeps schemers at bay, the article was still necessary as a precaution for future situations. However, you, unaware of the political context of the article, take it personally and exclusively, not recognizing that it was related to the territory, to prevent it from falling into the hands of any foreign power that could threaten the establishment of Spanish rule in America or their French counterparts in the West Indies.
You claim, (you say), to be incorporated into the union of the United States, and your remonstrances on this subject are unjust and without cause.
You say you're part of the United States, but your complaints about this are unfair and baseless.
You are already incorporated into it as fully and effectually as the Americans themselves are, who are settled in Louisiana. You enjoy the same rights, privileges, advantages, and immunities, which they enjoy; and when Louisiana, or some part of it, shall be erected into a constitutional State, you also will be citizens equal with them.
You are already incorporated into it as completely and effectively as the Americans living in Louisiana. You share the same rights, privileges, benefits, and protections that they do; and when Louisiana, or part of it, becomes a constitutional State, you will also be citizens on equal footing with them.
You speak in your memorial, as if you were the only people who were to live in Louisiana, and as if the territory was purchased that you exclusively might govern it. In both these cases you are greatly mistaken. The emigrations from the United States into the purchased territory, and the population arising therefrom, will, in a few years, exceed you in numbers. It is but twenty-six years since Kentucky began to be settled, and it already contains more than double your population.
You speak in your statement as if you're the only people who will live in Louisiana, and as if the territory was bought just for you to govern it. In both cases, you're very mistaken. The migration from the United States into the purchased territory, and the population that will grow there, will, in just a few years, outnumber you. It's only been twenty-six years since Kentucky started being settled, and it already has more than double your population.
In a candid view of the case, you ask for what would be injurious to yourselves to receive, and unjust in us to grant. Injurious, because the settlement of Louisiana will go on much faster under the government and guardianship of Congress, then if the government of it were committed to your hands; and consequently, the landed property you possessed as individuals when the treaty was concluded, or have purchased since, will increase so much faster in value.—Unjust to ourselves, because as the reimbursements of the purchase money must come out of the sale of the lands to new settlers, the government of it cannot suddenly go out of the hands of Congress. They are guardians of that property for all the people of the United States. And besides this, as the new settlers will be chiefly from the United States, it would be unjust and ill policy to put them and their property under the jurisdiction of a people whose freedom they had contributed to purchase. You ought also to recollect, that the French Revolution has not exhibited to the world that grand display of principles and rights, that would induce settlers from other countries to put themselves under a French jurisdiction in Louisiana. Beware of intriguers who may push you on from private motives of their own.
In a straightforward view of the situation, you are asking for something that would harm you to receive and would be unfair for us to grant. It would be harmful because the development of Louisiana will progress much more quickly under the control and oversight of Congress than if it were handled by you. As a result, the land you owned as individuals when the treaty was signed, or have bought since then, will rise in value much more rapidly. It would also be unfair to us because the repayments for the purchase must come from the sale of the land to new settlers, meaning that control cannot suddenly shift away from Congress. They are the guardians of that property for all the people of the United States. Additionally, since most new settlers will be coming from the United States, it would be both unfair and unwise to place them and their property under the authority of a group whose freedom they helped secure. You should also remember that the French Revolution hasn't shown the world a strong enough display of principles and rights that would encourage settlers from other countries to fall under French rule in Louisiana. Be cautious of those who might push you forward for their own private interests.
You complain of two cases, one of which you have no right, no concern with; and the other is founded in direct injustice.
You’re complaining about two situations, one of which you have no right to be concerned about, and the other is based on clear injustice.
You complain that Congress has passed a law to divide the country into two territories. It is not improper to inform you, that after the revolutionary war ended, Congress divided the territory acquired by that war into ten territories; each of which was to be erected into a constitutional State, when it arrived at a certain population mentioned in the Act; and, in the mean time, an officer appointed by the President, as the Governor of Louisiana now is, presided, as Governor of the Western Territory, over all such parts as have not arrived at the maturity of statehood. Louisiana will require to be divided into twelve States or more; but this is a matter that belongs to the purchaser of the territory of Louisiana, and with which the inhabitants of the town of New-Orleans have no right to interfere; and beside this, it is probable that the inhabitants of the other territory would choose to be independent of New-Orleans. They might apprehend, that on some speculating pretence, their produce might be put in requisition, and a maximum price put on it—a thing not uncommon in a French government. As a general rule, without refining upon sentiment, one may put confidence in the justice of those who have no inducement to do us injustice; and this is the case Congress stands in with respect to both territories, and to all other divisions that may be laid out, and to all inhabitants and settlers, of whatever nation they may be.
You’re unhappy that Congress has passed a law dividing the country into two territories. It’s worth mentioning that after the Revolutionary War, Congress divided the land acquired in that war into ten territories, each of which was supposed to become a state once it reached a certain population outlined in the Act. In the meantime, an officer appointed by the President, like the Governor of Louisiana now, acted as the Governor of the Western Territory over any parts that hadn’t yet achieved statehood. Louisiana will need to be divided into twelve states or more, but that’s a decision for the buyer of the territory and not for the residents of New Orleans to interfere with. Moreover, it’s likely that the residents of the other territory would prefer to be independent from New Orleans. They might worry that, for some speculative reason, their goods could be demanded, and a maximum price could be set for them—a situation not uncommon under French governance. As a general rule, without overthinking it, we can trust that those who have nothing to gain from treating us unfairly will treat us justly; and this is the relationship Congress has with both territories, as well as with any other divisions that may be established and all the inhabitants and settlers, regardless of their nationality.
There can be no such thing as what the memorial speaks of, that is, of a Governor appointed by the President who may have no interest in the welfare of Louisiana. He must, from the nature of the case, have more interest in it than any other person can have. He is entrusted with the care of an extensive tract of country, now the property of the United States by purchase. The value of those lands will depend on the increasing prosperity of Louisiana, its agriculture, commerce, and population. You have only a local and partial interest in the town of New-Orleans, or its vicinity; and if, in consequence of exploring the country, new seats of commerce should offer, his general interest would lead him to open them, and your partial interest to shut them up.
There can't be anything like what the memorial talks about, specifically, a Governor appointed by the President who might not care about the welfare of Louisiana. He must, by the very nature of his role, have more interest in it than anyone else. He is responsible for overseeing a large area of land that now belongs to the United States through purchase. The value of that land will depend on the growing success of Louisiana's agriculture, commerce, and population. You only have a local and limited interest in New Orleans or its surroundings; if exploring the area reveals new opportunities for trade, his broader interest would motivate him to pursue those, while your limited interest might cause you to want them to stay closed off.
There is probably some justice in your remark, as it applies to the governments under which you formerly lived. Such governments always look with jealousy, and an apprehension of revolt, on colonies increasing in prosperity and population, and they send governors to keep them down. But when you argue from the conduct of governments distant and despotic, to that of domestic and free government, it shows you do not understand the principles and interest of a Republic, and to put you right is friendship. We have had experience, and you have not.
There’s probably some truth to your comment, as it relates to the governments you formerly lived under. Those governments often feel jealous and fear a revolt from colonies that are becoming more prosperous and populous, so they send governors to keep them in check. However, when you compare the actions of distant and oppressive governments to that of local and free government, it shows you don’t fully grasp the principles and interests of a Republic, and correcting this misunderstanding is a sign of friendship. We have experience, and you do not.
The other case to which I alluded, as being founded in direct injustice, is that in which you petition for power, under the name of rights, to import and enslave Africans!
The other case I mentioned, which is based on clear injustice, is when you ask for power, under the term rights, to bring in and enslave Africans!
Dare you put up a petition to Heaven for such a power, without fearing to be struck from the earth by its justice?
Do you dare to petition Heaven for such power, without fearing that you might be struck down by its justice?
Why, then, do you ask it of man against man?
So, why do you ask this of one person against another?
Do you want to renew in Louisiana the horrors of Domingo?
Do you want to bring back the horrors of Domingo in Louisiana?
Common Sense.
Common sense.
Sept 22, 1804.
Sept 22, 1804.
END OF VOLUME III.
END OF VOLUME III.
THE WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE
Common Sense |
Volume One |
Volume Two |
Volume Three |
Volume Four |
THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE
THE AGE OF REASON - PART I and II
By Thomas Paine
Collected And Edited By Moncure Daniel Conway
VOLUME IV.
(1796)
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_19__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_20__
THE AGE OF REASON
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION
WITH SOME RESULTS OF RECENT RESEARCHES.
IN the opening year, 1793, when revolutionary France had beheaded its king, the wrath turned next upon the King of kings, by whose grace every tyrant claimed to reign. But eventualities had brought among them a great English and American heart—Thomas Paine. He had pleaded for Louis Caper—"Kill the king but spare the man." Now he pleaded,—"Disbelieve in the King of kings, but do not confuse with that idol the Father of Mankind!"
IN the opening year, 1793, when revolutionary France had executed its king, the anger shifted to the King of kings, by whose grace every tyrant claimed the right to rule. But circumstances had brought them a great English and American advocate—Thomas Paine. He had argued for Louis Capet—"Kill the king but spare the man." Now he pleaded, "Disbelieve in the King of kings, but do not confuse that idol with the Father of Humanity!"
In Paine's Preface to the Second Part of "The Age of Reason" he describes himself as writing the First Part near the close of the year 1793. "I had not finished it more than six hours, in the state it has since appeared, before a guard came about three in the morning, with an order signed by the two Committees of Public Safety and Surety General, for putting me in arrestation." This was on the morning of December 28. But it is necessary to weigh the words just quoted—"in the state it has since appeared." For on August 5, 1794, Francois Lanthenas, in an appeal for Paine's liberation, wrote as follows: "I deliver to Merlin de Thionville a copy of the last work of T. Payne [The Age of Reason], formerly our colleague, and in custody since the decree excluding foreigners from the national representation. This book was written by the author in the beginning of the year '93 (old style). I undertook its translation before the revolution against priests, and it was published in French about the same time. Couthon, to whom I sent it, seemed offended with me for having translated this work."
In Paine's Preface to the Second Part of "The Age of Reason," he mentions that he wrote the First Part near the end of 1793. "I had hardly finished it more than six hours, in the form it has since taken, before a guard arrived around three in the morning, with an order signed by the two Committees of Public Safety and Surety General, to arrest me." This happened on the morning of December 28. However, it's important to pay attention to the words just quoted—"in the form it has since taken." On August 5, 1794, Francois Lanthenas, in a plea for Paine's release, stated: "I deliver to Merlin de Thionville a copy of the latest work of T. Payne [The Age of Reason], who was previously our colleague and has been in custody since the decree banning foreigners from the national representation. This book was written by the author at the beginning of the year '93 (old style). I started translating it before the revolution against priests, and it was published in French around the same time. Couthon, to whom I sent it, seemed upset with me for translating this work."
Under the frown of Couthon, one of the most atrocious colleagues of Robespierre, this early publication seems to have been so effectually suppressed that no copy bearing that date, 1793, can be found in France or elsewhere. In Paine's letter to Samuel Adams, printed in the present volume, he says that he had it translated into French, to stay the progress of atheism, and that he endangered his life "by opposing atheism." The time indicated by Lanthenas as that in which he submitted the work to Couthon would appear to be the latter part of March, 1793, the fury against the priesthood having reached its climax in the decrees against them of March 19 and 26. If the moral deformity of Couthon, even greater than that of his body, be remembered, and the readiness with which death was inflicted for the most theoretical opinion not approved by the "Mountain," it will appear probable that the offence given Couthon by Paine's book involved danger to him and his translator. On May 31, when the Girondins were accused, the name of Lanthenas was included, and he barely escaped; and on the same day Danton persuaded Paine not to appear in the Convention, as his life might be in danger. Whether this was because of the "Age of Reason," with its fling at the "Goddess Nature" or not, the statements of author and translator are harmonized by the fact that Paine prepared the manuscript, with considerable additions and changes, for publication in English, as he has stated in the Preface to Part II.
Under Couthon's scowl, one of Robespierre's most ruthless colleagues, this early publication seems to have been so effectively suppressed that no copies from that date, 1793, can be found in France or anywhere else. In Paine's letter to Samuel Adams, printed in this volume, he mentions that he had it translated into French to curb the spread of atheism and that he risked his life "by opposing atheism." The time Lanthenas indicated for submitting the work to Couthon appears to be late March 1793, as the fury against the priesthood peaked with decrees against them on March 19 and 26. If we consider Couthon's moral depravity, which was even more severe than his physical condition, along with how quickly death was dealt out for any theoretical opinion not sanctioned by the "Mountain," it seems likely that Paine's book offended Couthon enough to pose a danger to him and his translator. On May 31, when the Girondins were accused, Lanthenas's name was included, and he barely escaped; on the same day, Danton convinced Paine not to attend the Convention, as his life could be at risk. Whether this was due to the "Age of Reason" and its criticism of the "Goddess Nature" or not, the accounts of the author and translator align with the fact that Paine prepared the manuscript, making notable additions and changes, for English publication, as he noted in the Preface to Part II.
A comparison of the French and English versions, sentence by sentence, proved to me that the translation sent by Lanthenas to Merlin de Thionville in 1794 is the same as that he sent to Couthon in 1793. This discovery was the means of recovering several interesting sentences of the original work. I have given as footnotes translations of such clauses and phrases of the French work as appeared to be important. Those familiar with the translations of Lanthenas need not be reminded that he was too much of a literalist to depart from the manuscript before him, and indeed he did not even venture to alter it in an instance (presently considered) where it was obviously needed. Nor would Lanthenas have omitted any of the paragraphs lacking in his translation. This original work was divided into seventeen chapters, and these I have restored, translating their headings into English. The "Age of Reason" is thus for the first time given to the world with nearly its original completeness.
A comparison of the French and English versions, sentence by sentence, revealed to me that the translation sent by Lanthenas to Merlin de Thionville in 1794 is the same one he sent to Couthon in 1793. This discovery allowed me to recover several interesting sentences from the original work. I have included translations of important clauses and phrases from the French work as footnotes. Those familiar with Lanthenas's translations know he was too much of a literalist to stray from the manuscript in front of him; in fact, he didn’t even change it in a case (which is discussed later) where it clearly needed alteration. Also, Lanthenas wouldn't have left out any of the paragraphs missing from his translation. This original work was divided into seventeen chapters, which I have restored by translating their headings into English. The "Age of Reason" is now presented to the world with almost its original completeness for the first time.
It should be remembered that Paine could not have read the proof of his "Age of Reason" (Part I.) which went through the press while he was in prison. To this must be ascribed the permanence of some sentences as abbreviated in the haste he has described. A notable instance is the dropping out of his estimate of Jesus the words rendered by Lanthenas "trop peu imite, trop oublie, trop meconnu." The addition of these words to Paine's tribute makes it the more notable that almost the only recognition of the human character and life of Jesus by any theological writer of that generation came from one long branded as an infidel.
It should be noted that Paine couldn't have reviewed the proof of his "Age of Reason" (Part I.) since it was being printed while he was in prison. This explains why some sentences were shortened in the rush he's mentioned. A significant example is the omission of his evaluation of Jesus, specifically the words translated by Lanthenas as "too little imitated, too forgotten, too misunderstood." By adding these words to Paine's tribute, it's even more remarkable that nearly the only acknowledgment of the human character and life of Jesus from any theological writer of that time came from someone who had long been labeled an infidel.
To the inability of the prisoner to give his work any revision must be attributed the preservation in it of the singular error already alluded to, as one that Lanthenas, but for his extreme fidelity, would have corrected. This is Paine's repeated mention of six planets, and enumeration of them, twelve years after the discovery of Uranus. Paine was a devoted student of astronomy, and it cannot for a moment be supposed that he had not participated in the universal welcome of Herschel's discovery. The omission of any allusion to it convinces me that the astronomical episode was printed from a manuscript written before 1781, when Uranus was discovered. Unfamiliar with French in 1793, Paine might not have discovered the erratum in Lanthenas' translation, and, having no time for copying, he would naturally use as much as possible of the same manuscript in preparing his work for English readers. But he had no opportunity of revision, and there remains an erratum which, if my conjecture be correct, casts a significant light on the paragraphs in which he alludes to the preparation of the work. He states that soon after his publication of "Common Sense" (1776), he "saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion," and that "man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God and no more." He tells Samuel Adams that it had long been his intention to publish his thoughts upon religion, and he had made a similar remark to John Adams in 1776. Like the Quakers among whom he was reared Paine could then readily use the phrase "word of God" for anything in the Bible which approved itself to his "inner light," and as he had drawn from the first Book of Samuel a divine condemnation of monarchy, John Adams, a Unitarian, asked him if he believed in the inspiration of the Old Testament. Paine replied that he did not, and at a later period meant to publish his views on the subject. There is little doubt that he wrote from time to time on religious points, during the American war, without publishing his thoughts, just as he worked on the problem of steam navigation, in which he had invented a practicable method (ten years before John Fitch made his discovery) without publishing it. At any rate it appears to me certain that the part of "The Age of Reason" connected with Paine's favorite science, astronomy, was written before 1781, when Uranus was discovered.
The prisoner's inability to revise his work is responsible for the persistence of the unique error previously mentioned, which Lanthenas would have corrected if not for his extreme loyalty. This error is Paine's repeated reference to six planets and their listing, a full twelve years after Uranus was discovered. Paine was a dedicated student of astronomy, and it’s hard to believe he didn’t celebrate Herschel's discovery. The lack of mention of it leads me to think that the astronomical part was printed from a manuscript written before 1781, the year Uranus was discovered. Not being familiar with French in 1793, Paine might not have caught the mistake in Lanthenas' translation, and since he didn’t have time to copy everything, he would have used as much of the original manuscript as he could for his English readers. However, he did not have a chance to revise his work, leaving an error that could, if my guess is right, provide significant insight into the sections where he discusses preparing the work. He mentions that shortly after he published "Common Sense" (1776), he "saw the strong likelihood that a revolution in government would lead to a revolution in religion," and that "man would return to the pure, simple, and undiluted belief in one God and no more." He informs Samuel Adams that he had long intended to share his thoughts on religion and shared a similar sentiment with John Adams in 1776. Like the Quakers he grew up with, Paine could easily refer to the phrase "word of God" for any part of the Bible that resonated with his "inner light," and after drawing a divine condemnation of monarchy from the first Book of Samuel, John Adams, a Unitarian, asked him if he believed in the inspiration of the Old Testament. Paine answered that he did not, and he planned at a later time to publish his views on the matter. It’s likely that he wrote about religious issues from time to time during the American War without sharing those ideas, similar to how he worked on steam navigation, for which he developed a workable method (ten years before John Fitch made his discovery) without publishing it. In any case, I am certain that the part of "The Age of Reason" discussing Paine's favored science, astronomy, was written before 1781, when Uranus was discovered.
Paine's theism, however invested with biblical and Christian phraseology, was a birthright. It appears clear from several allusions in "The Age of Reason" to the Quakers that in his early life, or before the middle of the eighteenth century, the people so called were substantially Deists. An interesting confirmation of Paine's statements concerning them appears as I write in an account sent by Count Leo Tolstoi to the London 'Times' of the Russian sect called Dukhobortsy (The Times, October 23, 1895). This sect sprang up in the last century, and the narrative says:
Paine's belief in God, although expressed with biblical and Christian language, was something he inherited. It's clear from various references in "The Age of Reason" to the Quakers that in his younger years, or before the mid-eighteenth century, those people were basically Deists. A fascinating confirmation of Paine's comments about them can be found in a report by Count Leo Tolstoi sent to the London 'Times' about the Russian sect called Dukhobortsy (The Times, October 23, 1895). This sect emerged in the last century, and the account states:
"The first seeds of the teaching called afterwards 'Dukhoborcheskaya' were sown by a foreigner, a Quaker, who came to Russia. The fundamental idea of his Quaker teaching was that in the soul of man dwells God himself, and that He himself guides man by His inner word. God lives in nature physically and in man's soul spiritually. To Christ, as to an historical personage, the Dukhobortsy do not ascribe great importance... Christ was God's son, but only in the sense in which we call, ourselves 'sons of God.' The purpose of Christ's sufferings was no other than to show us an example of suffering for truth. The Quakers who, in 1818, visited the Dukhobortsy, could not agree with them upon these religious subjects; and when they heard from them their opinion about Jesus Christ (that he was a man), exclaimed 'Darkness!' From the Old and New Testaments,' they say, 'we take only what is useful,' mostly the moral teaching.... The moral ideas of the Dukhobortsy are the following:—All men are, by nature, equal; external distinctions, whatsoever they may be, are worth nothing. This idea of men's equality the Dukhoborts have directed further, against the State authority.... Amongst themselves they hold subordination, and much more, a monarchical Government, to be contrary to their ideas."
"The first seeds of what became known as 'Dukhoborcheskaya' teaching were planted by a foreign Quaker who came to Russia. The core idea of his Quaker teachings was that God resides in every person’s soul and guides them through His inner voice. God exists physically in nature and spiritually in human souls. The Dukhobortsy do not place much importance on Christ as a historical figure... They view Christ as God's son only in the same way we refer to ourselves as 'children of God.' Christ's suffering was intended to serve as an example of enduring hardship for the sake of truth. When Quakers visited the Dukhobortsy in 1818, they disagreed on these religious matters, and when they learned that the Dukhobortsy considered Jesus Christ just a man, they exclaimed 'Darkness!' They say, 'From the Old and New Testaments, we take only what is useful,' focusing mainly on moral teachings.... The Dukhobortsy believe the following moral ideas: All people are inherently equal; any external distinctions, no matter what, are meaningless. They have taken this belief in equality further, opposing State authority.... Among themselves, they see hierarchy and much more, a monarchical government, as contradictory to their beliefs."
Here is an early Hicksite Quakerism carried to Russia long before the birth of Elias Hicks, who recovered it from Paine, to whom the American Quakers refused burial among them. Although Paine arraigned the union of Church and State, his ideal Republic was religious; it was based on a conception of equality based on the divine son-ship of every man. This faith underlay equally his burden against claims to divine partiality by a "Chosen People," a Priesthood, a Monarch "by the grace of God," or an Aristocracy. Paine's "Reason" is only an expansion of the Quaker's "inner light"; and the greater impression, as compared with previous republican and deistic writings made by his "Rights of Man" and "Age of Reason" (really volumes of one work), is partly explained by the apostolic fervor which made him a spiritual, successor of George Fox.
Here is an early version of Hicksite Quakerism brought to Russia long before Elias Hicks was born, who took it from Paine, to whom the American Quakers denied burial among them. Although Paine criticized the alliance of Church and State, his ideal Republic was religious; it was founded on a belief in equality based on the divine sonship of every person. This belief was the foundation of his opposition to claims of divine favoritism by a "Chosen People," a Priesthood, a Monarch "by the grace of God," or an Aristocracy. Paine's "Reason" is just an extension of the Quaker's "inner light"; and the greater impact, compared to earlier republican and deistic writings made by his "Rights of Man" and "Age of Reason" (which are essentially volumes of one work), can be partly attributed to the passionate fervor that made him a spiritual successor of George Fox.
Paine's mind was by no means skeptical, it was eminently instructive. That he should have waited until his fifty-seventh year before publishing his religious convictions was due to a desire to work out some positive and practicable system to take the place of that which he believed was crumbling. The English engineer Hall, who assisted Paine in making the model of his iron bridge, wrote to his friends in England, in 1786: "My employer has Common Sense enough to disbelieve most of the common systematic theories of Divinity, but does not seem to establish any for himself." But five years later Paine was able to lay the corner-stone of his temple: "With respect to religion itself, without regard to names, and as directing itself from the universal family of mankind to the 'Divine object of all adoration, it is man bringing to his Maker the fruits of his heart; and though those fruits may differ from each other like the fruits of the earth, the grateful tribute of every one, is accepted." ("Rights of Man." See my edition of Paine's Writings, ii., p. 326.) Here we have a reappearance of George Fox confuting the doctor in America who "denied the light and Spirit of God to be in every one; and affirmed that it was not in the Indians. Whereupon I called an Indian to us, and asked him 'whether or not, when he lied, or did wrong to anyone, there was not something in him that reproved him for it?' He said, 'There was such a thing in him that did so reprove him; and he was ashamed when he had done wrong, or spoken wrong.' So we shamed the doctor before the governor and the people." (Journal of George Fox, September 1672.)
Paine's mindset was anything but doubtful; it was highly educational. The reason he waited until he was fifty-seven to share his religious beliefs was because he wanted to create a solid and practical system that could replace the one he thought was falling apart. The English engineer Hall, who helped Paine design his iron bridge, wrote to his friends in England in 1786: "My employer has enough common sense to doubt many of the usual systematic theories about God, but he doesn't seem to set up any for himself." However, five years later, Paine was able to establish the foundation of his beliefs: "When it comes to religion itself, regardless of names, and as it connects people from the entire globe to the 'Divine object of all admiration, it is humanity offering to its Creator the fruits of their hearts; and even though these fruits may vary like the produce of the earth, the sincere tribute from each individual is accepted." ("Rights of Man." See my edition of Paine's Writings, ii., p. 326.) This echoes George Fox's confrontation with the doctor in America who "denied that the light and Spirit of God are in everyone; and claimed they were not in the Indians. So I called an Indian over and asked him, 'When you lie or do wrong to someone, isn’t there something inside you that makes you feel guilty about it?' He replied, 'There is indeed something inside me that does that; and I feel ashamed when I’ve done wrong or spoken incorrectly.' Thus, we embarrassed the doctor in front of the governor and the people." (Journal of George Fox, September 1672.)
Paine, who coined the phrase "Religion of Humanity" (The Crisis, vii., 1778), did but logically defend it in "The Age of Reason," by denying a special revelation to any particular tribe, or divine authority in any particular creed of church; and the centenary of this much-abused publication has been celebrated by a great conservative champion of Church and State, Mr. Balfour, who, in his "Foundations of Belief," affirms that "inspiration" cannot be denied to the great Oriental teachers, unless grapes may be gathered from thorns.
Paine, who came up with the term "Religion of Humanity" (The Crisis, vii., 1778), logically defended it in "The Age of Reason" by rejecting the idea of special revelation to any specific group or divine authority in any specific belief system or church. The centenary of this often-misunderstood publication was marked by a prominent conservative supporter of Church and State, Mr. Balfour, who, in his "Foundations of Belief," claims that "inspiration" can't be denied to the great Eastern teachers, unless you can gather grapes from thorns.
The centenary of the complete publication of "The Age of Reason," (October 25, 1795), was also celebrated at the Church Congress, Norwich, on October 10, 1895, when Professor Bonney, F.R.S., Canon of Manchester, read a paper in which he said: "I cannot deny that the increase of scientific knowledge has deprived parts of the earlier books of the Bible of the historical value which was generally attributed to them by our forefathers. The story of Creation in the Book of Genesis, unless we play fast and loose either with words or with science, cannot be brought into harmony with what we have learnt from geology. Its ethnological statements are imperfect, if not sometimes inaccurate. The stories of the Fall, of the Flood, and of the Tower of Babel, are incredible in their present form. Some historical element may underlie many of the traditions in the first eleven chapters in that book, but this we cannot hope to recover." Canon Bonney proceeded to say of the New Testament also, that "the Gospels are not so far as we know, strictly contemporaneous records, so we must admit the possibility of variations and even inaccuracies in details being introduced by oral tradition." The Canon thinks the interval too short for these importations to be serious, but that any question of this kind is left open proves the Age of Reason fully upon us. Reason alone can determine how many texts are as spurious as the three heavenly witnesses (i John v. 7), and like it "serious" enough to have cost good men their lives, and persecutors their charities. When men interpolate, it is because they believe their interpolation seriously needed. It will be seen by a note in Part II. of the work, that Paine calls attention to an interpolation introduced into the first American edition without indication of its being an editorial footnote. This footnote was: "The book of Luke was carried by a majority of one only. Vide Moshelm's Ecc. History." Dr. Priestley, then in America, answered Paine's work, and in quoting less than a page from the "Age of Reason" he made three alterations,—one of which changed "church mythologists" into "Christian mythologists,"—and also raised the editorial footnote into the text, omitting the reference to Mosheim. Having done this, Priestley writes: "As to the gospel of Luke being carried by a majority of one only, it is a legend, if not of Mr. Paine's own invention, of no better authority whatever." And so on with further castigation of the author for what he never wrote, and which he himself (Priestley) was the unconscious means of introducing into the text within the year of Paine's publication.
The 100th anniversary of the full publication of "The Age of Reason" (October 25, 1795) was also celebrated at the Church Congress in Norwich on October 10, 1895. Professor Bonney, F.R.S., Canon of Manchester, presented a paper where he stated: "I can't deny that the growth of scientific knowledge has stripped some parts of the earlier books of the Bible of the historical significance that our forefathers generally assigned to them. The account of Creation in the Book of Genesis, unless we manipulate either the language or the science, can't be aligned with what we've learned from geology. Its ethnological claims are flawed, if not sometimes incorrect. The tales of the Fall, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel are unbelievable in their current form. There may be some historical basis for many of the traditions in the first eleven chapters of that book, but we can't hope to uncover this." Canon Bonney also said about the New Testament, "the Gospels, as far as we know, are not strictly contemporary accounts, so we must accept the possibility of variations and even inaccuracies in details being introduced through oral tradition." The Canon believes the time span is too short for these imports to be significant, yet the mere existence of such questions proves that the Age of Reason is fully upon us. Only reason can determine how many texts are as questionable as the three heavenly witnesses (1 John 5:7), and like them "serious" enough to have cost good people their lives and those who persecuted them their compassion. When people insert things, it's because they genuinely think their additions are needed. It will be noted in Part II of the work that Paine points out an alteration made in the first American edition without indicating that it was an editorial footnote. This footnote read: "The book of Luke was carried by a majority of one only. See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History." Dr. Priestley, who was then in America, responded to Paine's work. When quoting less than a page from "The Age of Reason," he made three changes—one of which turned "church mythologists" into "Christian mythologists"—and also elevated the editorial footnote into the main text, omitting the reference to Mosheim. After doing this, Priestley wrote: "Regarding the gospel of Luke being carried by a majority of one only, it is a legend, if not Mr. Paine's own invention, of no better authority whatsoever." He then continued to criticize the author for things he never wrote, while being the unknowing agent who introduced those changes into the text within a year of Paine's publication.
If this could be done, unintentionally by a conscientious and exact man, and one not unfriendly to Paine, if such a writer as Priestley could make four mistakes in citing half a page, it will appear not very wonderful when I state that in a modern popular edition of "The Age of Reason," including both parts, I have noted about five hundred deviations from the original. These were mainly the accumulated efforts of friendly editors to improve Paine's grammar or spelling; some were misprints, or developed out of such; and some resulted from the sale in London of a copy of Part Second surreptitiously made from the manuscript. These facts add significance to Paine's footnote (itself altered in some editions!), in which he says: "If this has happened within such a short space of time, notwithstanding the aid of printing, which prevents the alteration of copies individually; what may not have happened in a much greater length of time, when there was no printing, and when any man who could write, could make a written copy, and call it an original, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John."
If this could happen, even unintentionally, by a careful and precise person who wasn't unfriendly to Paine, and if someone like Priestley could make four mistakes while citing just half a page, it shouldn't be too surprising when I say that in a modern popular edition of "The Age of Reason," which includes both parts, I've found about five hundred differences from the original text. Most of these were the result of well-meaning editors trying to improve Paine's grammar or spelling; some were just typos, or came from those; and some came from the unauthorized sale in London of a copy of Part Second made from the manuscript. These facts highlight Paine's footnote (which has also been altered in some editions!), where he states: "If this has occurred in such a short time, despite the help of printing, which prevents individual copies from being altered; what might not have happened over a much longer period, when there was no printing, and when anyone who could write could make a handwritten copy and call it an original, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John."
Nothing appears to me more striking, as an illustration of the far-reaching effects of traditional prejudice, than the errors into which some of our ablest contemporary scholars have fallen by reason of their not having studied Paine. Professor Huxley, for instance, speaking of the freethinkers of the eighteenth century, admires the acuteness, common sense, wit, and the broad humanity of the best of them, but says "there is rarely much to be said for their work as an example of the adequate treatment of a grave and difficult investigation," and that they shared with their adversaries "to the full the fatal weakness of a priori philosophizing." [NOTE: Science and Christian Tradition, p. 18 (Lon. ed., 1894).] Professor Huxley does not name Paine, evidently because he knows nothing about him. Yet Paine represents the turning-point of the historical freethinking movement; he renounced the 'a priori' method, refused to pronounce anything impossible outside pure mathematics, rested everything on evidence, and really founded the Huxleyan school. He plagiarized by anticipation many things from the rationalistic leaders of our time, from Strauss and Baur (being the first to expatiate on "Christian Mythology"), from Renan (being the first to attempt recovery of the human Jesus), and notably from Huxley, who has repeated Paine's arguments on the untrustworthiness of the biblical manuscripts and canon, on the inconsistencies of the narratives of Christ's resurrection, and various other points. None can be more loyal to the memory of Huxley than the present writer, and it is even because of my sense of his grand leadership that he is here mentioned as a typical instance of the extent to which the very elect of free-thought may be unconsciously victimized by the phantasm with which they are contending. He says that Butler overthrew freethinkers of the eighteenth century type, but Paine was of the nineteenth century type; and it was precisely because of his critical method that he excited more animosity than his deistical predecessors. He compelled the apologists to defend the biblical narratives in detail, and thus implicitly acknowledge the tribunal of reason and knowledge to which they were summoned. The ultimate answer by police was a confession of judgment. A hundred years ago England was suppressing Paine's works, and many an honest Englishman has gone to prison for printing and circulating his "Age of Reason." The same views are now freely expressed; they are heard in the seats of learning, and even in the Church Congress; but the suppression of Paine, begun by bigotry and ignorance, is continued in the long indifference of the representatives of our Age of Reason to their pioneer and founder. It is a grievous loss to them and to their cause. It is impossible to understand the religious history of England, and of America, without studying the phases of their evolution represented in the writings of Thomas Paine, in the controversies that grew out of them with such practical accompaniments as the foundation of the Theophilanthropist Church in Paris and New York, and of the great rationalist wing of Quakerism in America.
Nothing strikes me more powerfully as an example of the deep impact of traditional prejudice than the mistakes some of our smartest modern scholars have made by not studying Paine. For instance, Professor Huxley, when talking about the freethinkers of the eighteenth century, admires their sharpness, common sense, wit, and broad humanity, but says "there is rarely much to be said for their work as an example of the adequate treatment of a grave and difficult investigation," and that they shared with their opponents "to the full the fatal weakness of a priori philosophizing." [NOTE: Science and Christian Tradition, p. 18 (Lon. ed., 1894).] Professor Huxley doesn’t mention Paine, clearly because he knows nothing about him. Yet Paine is a key figure in the historical freethinking movement; he rejected the 'a priori' method, refused to declare anything impossible outside of pure mathematics, based everything on evidence, and truly laid the groundwork for the Huxleyan school. He anticipated many ideas from the rationalistic leaders of our time, from Strauss and Baur (being the first to elaborate on "Christian Mythology"), from Renan (being the first to try to recover the human Jesus), and especially from Huxley, who has repeated Paine's arguments about the unreliability of biblical manuscripts and the canon, the inconsistencies in the accounts of Christ's resurrection, and other points. No one could be more loyal to Huxley's memory than I am, and it's precisely because I admire his great leadership that I mention him as a typical example of how even the most respected figures in free thought can unknowingly fall victim to the illusions they are fighting against. He claims that Butler defeated freethinkers of the eighteenth century type, but Paine represented the type of the nineteenth century; and it was exactly because of his critical method that he provoked more hostility than his deist predecessors. He forced the apologists to defend the biblical narratives in detail, and thus implicitly acknowledge the authority of reason and knowledge to which they were called. The ultimate response from authority was a confession of judgment. A hundred years ago, England suppressed Paine's works, and many honest Englishmen went to prison for printing and distributing his "Age of Reason." Those same views are now openly expressed; they are heard in academic settings and even in the Church Congress; but the suppression of Paine, started by bigotry and ignorance, continues in the long indifference of the representatives of our Age of Reason towards their pioneer and founder. This is a significant loss for them and for their cause. It’s impossible to understand the religious history of England and America without examining the stages of their evolution represented in Thomas Paine's writings, in the controversies that arose from them, accompanied by significant events like the founding of the Theophilanthropist Church in Paris and New York, and the emergence of the large rationalist branch of Quakerism in America.
Whatever may be the case with scholars in our time, those of Paine's time took the "Age of Reason" very seriously indeed. Beginning with the learned Dr. Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, a large number of learned men replied to Paine's work, and it became a signal for the commencement of those concessions, on the part of theology, which have continued to our time; and indeed the so-called "Broad Church" is to some extent an outcome of "The Age of Reason." It would too much enlarge this Introduction to cite here the replies made to Paine (thirty-six are catalogued in the British Museum), but it may be remarked that they were notably free, as a rule, from the personalities that raged in the pulpits. I must venture to quote one passage from his very learned antagonist, the Rev. Gilbert Wakefield, B.A., "late Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge." Wakefield, who had resided in London during all the Paine panic, and was well acquainted with the slanders uttered against the author of "Rights of Man," indirectly brands them in answering Paine's argument that the original and traditional unbelief of the Jews, among whom the alleged miracles were wrought, is an important evidence against them. The learned divine writes:
Whatever the case may be with scholars today, those in Paine's time took the "Age of Reason" very seriously. Starting with the knowledgeable Dr. Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, many educated individuals responded to Paine's work, which marked the beginning of theological concessions that have continued to this day. In fact, the so-called "Broad Church" is partly a result of "The Age of Reason." It would be too lengthy for this Introduction to list all the replies made to Paine (thirty-six are listed in the British Museum), but it's worth noting that they were generally free from the personal attacks found in sermons. I must quote one passage from his highly learned opponent, the Rev. Gilbert Wakefield, B.A., "former Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge." Wakefield, who had lived in London during the Paine panic and was familiar with the slander directed at the author of "Rights of Man," indirectly addresses these in his response to Paine's argument that the longstanding disbelief of the Jews, who witnessed the alleged miracles, serves as significant evidence against them. The learned divine writes:
"But the subject before us admits of further illustration from the example of Mr. Paine himself. In this country, where his opposition to the corruptions of government has raised him so many adversaries, and such a swarm of unprincipled hirelings have exerted themselves in blackening his character and in misrepresenting all the transactions and incidents of his life, will it not be a most difficult, nay an impossible task, for posterity, after a lapse of 1700 years, if such a wreck of modern literature as that of the ancient, should intervene, to identify the real circumstances, moral and civil, of the man? And will a true historian, such as the Evangelists, be credited at that future period against such a predominant incredulity, without large and mighty accessions of collateral attestation? And how transcendently extraordinary, I had almost said miraculous, will it be estimated by candid and reasonable minds, that a writer whose object was a melioration of condition to the common people, and their deliverance from oppression, poverty, wretchedness, to the numberless blessings of upright and equal government, should be reviled, persecuted, and burned in effigy, with every circumstance of insult and execration, by these very objects of his benevolent intentions, in every corner of the kingdom?" After the execution of Louis XVI., for whose life Paine pleaded so earnestly,—while in England he was denounced as an accomplice in the deed,—he devoted himself to the preparation of a Constitution, and also to gathering up his religious compositions and adding to them. This manuscript I suppose to have been prepared in what was variously known as White's Hotel or Philadelphia House, in Paris, No. 7 Passage des Petits Peres. This compilation of early and fresh manuscripts (if my theory be correct) was labelled, "The Age of Reason," and given for translation to Francois Lanthenas in March 1793. It is entered, in Qudrard (La France Literaire) under the year 1793, but with the title "L'Age de la Raison" instead of that which it bore in 1794, "Le Siecle de la Raison." The latter, printed "Au Burcau de l'imprimerie, rue du Theatre-Francais, No. 4," is said to be by "Thomas Paine, Citoyen et cultivateur de l'Amerique septentrionale, secretaire du Congres du departement des affaires etrangeres pendant la guerre d'Amerique, et auteur des ouvrages intitules: LA SENS COMMUN et LES DROITS DE L'HOMME."
"But the topic at hand can be further illustrated by the example of Mr. Paine himself. In this country, where his opposition to the corruptions of government has earned him many enemies, and a horde of unprincipled individuals have worked to tarnish his reputation and misrepresent all the events and incidents of his life, will it not be an incredibly challenging, if not impossible, task for future generations, after a span of 1700 years, if such a fragmented body of modern literature as that of the ancient were to intervene, to clarify the true circumstances—both moral and civil—of the man? And will a genuine historian, like the Evangelists, be believed in that future time against such overwhelming skepticism, without significant and substantial corroborative evidence? How remarkably extraordinary, I would almost say miraculous, will it seem to fair-minded and reasonable people that a writer whose goal was to improve the conditions for ordinary people and free them from oppression, poverty, and misery, in order to grant them the countless blessings of honest and equal governance, should be criticized, persecuted, and burned in effigy, with every kind of insult and condemnation, by the very individuals he intended to help, in every corner of the kingdom?" After the execution of Louis XVI., for whose life Paine advocated so passionately—while in England he was denounced as an accomplice in the act—he dedicated himself to drafting a Constitution and also to compiling his religious writings and expanding them. I believe this manuscript was prepared in what was variously referred to as White's Hotel or Philadelphia House, at 7 Passage des Petits Pères in Paris. This collection of early and new manuscripts (if my theory is correct) was titled "The Age of Reason" and given for translation to Francois Lanthenas in March 1793. It is recorded in Qudrard (La France Littéraire) under the year 1793, but with the title "L'Age de la Raison," instead of the one it carried in 1794, "Le Siècle de la Raison." The latter, printed "Au Bureau de l'imprimerie, rue du Théâtre-Français, No. 4," is said to be by "Thomas Paine, Citoyen et cultivateur de l'Amérique septentrionale, secrétaire du Congrès du département des affaires étrangères pendant la guerre d'Amérique, et auteur des ouvrages intitulés: LA SENS COMMUN et LES DROITS DE L'HOMME."
When the Revolution was advancing to increasing terrors, Paine, unwilling to participate in the decrees of a Convention whose sole legal function was to frame a Constitution, retired to an old mansion and garden in the Faubourg St. Denis, No. 63. Mr. J.G. Alger, whose researches in personal details connected with the Revolution are original and useful, recently showed me in the National Archives at Paris, some papers connected with the trial of Georgeit, Paine's landlord, by which it appears that the present No. 63 is not, as I had supposed, the house in which Paine resided. Mr. Alger accompanied me to the neighborhood, but we were not able to identify the house. The arrest of Georgeit is mentioned by Paine in his essay on "Forgetfulness" (Writings, iii., 319). When his trial came on one of the charges was that he had kept in his house "Paine and other Englishmen,"—Paine being then in prison,—but he (Georgeit) was acquitted of the paltry accusations brought against him by his Section, the "Faubourg du Nord." This Section took in the whole east side of the Faubourg St. Denis, whereas the present No. 63 is on the west side. After Georgeit (or Georger) had been arrested, Paine was left alone in the large mansion (said by Rickman to have been once the hotel of Madame de Pompadour), and it would appear, by his account, that it was after the execution (October 31, 1793) Of his friends the Girondins, and political comrades, that he felt his end at hand, and set about his last literary bequest to the world,—"The Age of Reason,"—in the state in which it has since appeared, as he is careful to say. There was every probability, during the months in which he wrote (November and December 1793) that he would be executed. His religious testament was prepared with the blade of the guillotine suspended over him,—a fact which did not deter pious mythologists from portraying his death-bed remorse for having written the book.
When the Revolution was becoming increasingly terrifying, Paine, unwilling to take part in the decisions of a Convention that was solely meant to draft a Constitution, retreated to an old mansion and garden in the Faubourg St. Denis, No. 63. Mr. J.G. Alger, whose research on personal details related to the Revolution is original and insightful, recently showed me in the National Archives in Paris some documents related to the trial of Georgeit, Paine's landlord, which revealed that the current No. 63 is not the house where Paine lived, as I had thought. Mr. Alger joined me in the neighborhood, but we couldn't identify the house. Paine mentions Georgeit's arrest in his essay "Forgetfulness" (Writings, iii., 319). When his trial took place, one of the charges was that he had harbored "Paine and other Englishmen"—Paine was in prison at the time—but he (Georgeit) was cleared of the trivial accusations made against him by his Section, the "Faubourg du Nord." This Section covered the entire east side of the Faubourg St. Denis, while the current No. 63 is on the west side. After Georgeit (or Georger) was arrested, Paine was left alone in the large mansion (which Rickman claimed was once the hotel of Madame de Pompadour), and it seems, according to his account, that it was after the execution (October 31, 1793) of his friends the Girondins and political allies that he felt his end was near and began working on his final literary gift to the world—"The Age of Reason"—in the form it has since been published, as he explicitly states. There was a real likelihood, during the months he wrote (November and December 1793), that he would be executed. His religious testament was prepared with the guillotine's blade hanging over him—a fact that did not stop pious mythologists from depicting his deathbed regret for having written the book.
In editing Part I. of "The Age of Reason," I follow closely the first edition, which was printed by Barrois in Paris from the manuscript, no doubt under the superintendence of Joel Barlow, to whom Paine, on his way to the Luxembourg, had confided it. Barlow was an American ex-clergyman, a speculator on whose career French archives cast an unfavorable light, and one cannot be certain that no liberties were taken with Paine's proofs.
In editing Part I of "The Age of Reason," I closely follow the first edition, which was printed by Barrois in Paris from the manuscript, likely under the supervision of Joel Barlow, to whom Paine had entrusted it on his way to the Luxembourg. Barlow was an American former clergyman and a speculator whose career is viewed unfavorably in French archives, so it's uncertain whether any changes were made to Paine's original proofs.
I may repeat here what I have stated in the outset of my editorial work on Paine that my rule is to correct obvious misprints, and also any punctuation which seems to render the sense less clear. And to that I will now add that in following Paine's quotations from the Bible I have adopted the Plan now generally used in place of his occasionally too extended writing out of book, chapter, and verse.
I want to reiterate what I mentioned at the beginning of my editorial work on Paine: my guideline is to fix obvious typos and any punctuation that makes the meaning less clear. Additionally, I've decided to adopt the standard approach for citing Paine's quotes from the Bible, replacing his occasionally overly lengthy references to book, chapter, and verse.
Paine was imprisoned in the Luxembourg on December 28, 1793, and released on November 4, 1794. His liberation was secured by his old friend, James Monroe (afterwards President), who had succeeded his (Paine's) relentless enemy, Gouverneur Morris, as American Minister in Paris. He was found by Monroe more dead than alive from semi-starvation, cold, and an abscess contracted in prison, and taken to the Minister's own residence. It was not supposed that he could survive, and he owed his life to the tender care of Mr. and Mrs. Monroe. It was while thus a prisoner in his room, with death still hovering over him, that Paine wrote Part Second of "The Age of Reason."
Paine was imprisoned in the Luxembourg on December 28, 1793, and released on November 4, 1794. His release was arranged by his old friend, James Monroe (who later became President), who had taken over from Paine's relentless enemy, Gouverneur Morris, as the American Minister in Paris. Monroe found him more dead than alive from starvation, cold, and an abscess he developed in prison, and brought him to his own home. It was not expected that he would survive, and he owed his life to the kind care of Mr. and Mrs. Monroe. While he was still a prisoner in his room, with death lingering nearby, Paine wrote Part Second of "The Age of Reason."
The work was published in London by H.D. Symonds on October 25, 1795, and claimed to be "from the Author's manuscript." It is marked as "Entered at Stationers Hall," and prefaced by an apologetic note of "The Bookseller to the Public," whose commonplaces about avoiding both prejudice and partiality, and considering "both sides," need not be quoted. While his volume was going through the press in Paris, Paine heard of the publication in London, which drew from him the following hurried note to a London publisher, no doubt Daniel Isaacs Eaton:
The work was published in London by H.D. Symonds on October 25, 1795, and claimed to be "from the Author's manuscript." It is noted as "Entered at Stationers Hall," and begins with an apologetic note from "The Bookseller to the Public," whose common statements about avoiding bias and considering "both sides" don’t need to be quoted. While his volume was being printed in Paris, Paine learned about the publication in London, which prompted him to write the following quick note to a London publisher, most likely Daniel Isaacs Eaton:
"SIR,—I have seen advertised in the London papers the second Edition [part] of the Age of Reason, printed, the advertisement says, from the Author's Manuscript, and entered at Stationers Hall. I have never sent any manuscript to any person. It is therefore a forgery to say it is printed from the author's manuscript; and I suppose is done to give the Publisher a pretence of Copy Right, which he has no title to.
"SIR,—I noticed in the London papers that the second edition [part] of the Age of Reason is advertised as being printed from the author’s manuscript, according to the ad, and entered at Stationers Hall. I have never sent any manuscript to anyone. So, it's a forgery to claim it’s printed from the author’s manuscript; I assume this is done to give the publisher a reason to claim copyright, which he has no right to."
"I send you a printed copy, which is the only one I have sent to London. I wish you to make a cheap edition of it. I know not by what means any copy has got over to London. If any person has made a manuscript copy I have no doubt but it is full of errors. I wish you would talk to Mr. ——- upon this subject as I wish to know by what means this trick has been played, and from whom the publisher has got possession of any copy.
"I’m sending you a printed copy, which is the only one I’ve sent to London. I want you to create an affordable edition of it. I have no idea how any copy made it over to London. If someone has made a handwritten copy, I’m sure it’s full of mistakes. I’d appreciate it if you could discuss this with Mr. ----- because I want to find out how this happened and where the publisher got any copy from."
"T. PAINE.
T. Paine.
"PARIS, December 4, 1795"
"Paris, December 4, 1795"
Eaton's cheap edition appeared January 1, 1796, with the above letter on the reverse of the title. The blank in the note was probably "Symonds" in the original, and possibly that publisher was imposed upon. Eaton, already in trouble for printing one of Paine's political pamphlets, fled to America, and an edition of the "Age of Reason" was issued under a new title; no publisher appears; it is said to be "printed for, and sold by all the Booksellers in Great Britain and Ireland." It is also said to be "By Thomas Paine, author of several remarkable performances." I have never found any copy of this anonymous edition except the one in my possession. It is evidently the edition which was suppressed by the prosecution of Williams for selling a copy of it.
Eaton's low-cost edition was released on January 1, 1796, with the letter mentioned above on the back of the title page. The blank in the note was likely "Symonds" in the original, and that publisher might have been misled. Eaton, already in trouble for printing one of Paine's political pamphlets, escaped to America, and an edition of the "Age of Reason" was published under a new title; no publisher's name is listed; it's reportedly "printed for, and sold by all the Booksellers in Great Britain and Ireland." It also claims to be "By Thomas Paine, author of several notable works." I have never seen any copy of this anonymous edition besides the one I have. It is clearly the edition that was suppressed due to the prosecution of Williams for selling a copy.
A comparison with Paine's revised edition reveals a good many clerical and verbal errors in Symonds, though few that affect the sense. The worst are in the preface, where, instead of "1793," the misleading date "1790" is given as the year at whose close Paine completed Part First,—an error that spread far and wide and was fastened on by his calumnious American "biographer," Cheetham, to prove his inconsistency. The editors have been fairly demoralized by, and have altered in different ways, the following sentence of the preface in Symonds: "The intolerant spirit of religious persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, styled Revolutionary, supplied the place of the Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the State outdid the Fire and Faggot of the Church." The rogue who copied this little knew the care with which Paine weighed words, and that he would never call persecution "religious," nor connect the guillotine with the "State," nor concede that with all its horrors it had outdone the history of fire and faggot. What Paine wrote was: "The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, styled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition and the Guillotine, of the Stake."
A comparison with Paine's revised edition shows that there are quite a few clerical and verbal mistakes in Symonds, although most don’t change the meaning. The worst are in the preface, where instead of "1793," the misleading date "1790" is given as the year when Paine completed Part First—an error that spread widely and was seized upon by his slanderous American "biographer," Cheetham, to argue his inconsistency. The editors have been quite confused by, and have modified in different ways, the following sentence from the preface in Symonds: "The intolerant spirit of religious persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, styled Revolutionary, supplied the place of the Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the State outdid the Fire and Faggot of the Church." The person who copied this didn’t understand how carefully Paine chose his words, and he would never call persecution "religious," nor link the guillotine with the "State," nor admit that, despite its horrors, it had surpassed the history of fire and faggot. What Paine actually wrote was: "The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, styled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition and the Guillotine, of the Stake."
An original letter of Paine, in the possession of Joseph Cowen, ex-M.P., which that gentleman permits me to bring to light, besides being one of general interest makes clear the circumstances of the original publication. Although the name of the correspondent does not appear on the letter, it was certainly written to Col. John Fellows of New York, who copyrighted Part I. of the "Age of Reason." He published the pamphlets of Joel Barlow, to whom Paine confided his manuscript on his way to prison. Fellows was afterwards Paine's intimate friend in New York, and it was chiefly due to him that some portions of the author's writings, left in manuscript to Madame Bonneville while she was a freethinker were rescued from her devout destructiveness after her return to Catholicism. The letter which Mr. Cowen sends me, is dated at Paris, January 20, 1797.
An original letter from Paine, owned by Joseph Cowen, a former Member of Parliament, which he has allowed me to reveal, is not only of general interest but also clarifies the circumstances surrounding the original publication. While the correspondent's name isn't mentioned in the letter, it was definitely addressed to Col. John Fellows of New York, who copyrighted Part I of "Age of Reason." He published pamphlets by Joel Barlow, to whom Paine entrusted his manuscript on his way to prison. Fellows later became Paine's close friend in New York, and it was largely thanks to him that some parts of the author's writings, left in manuscript with Madame Bonneville while she was a freethinker, were saved from her devout destruction after she returned to Catholicism. The letter that Mr. Cowen sent me is dated Paris, January 20, 1797.
"SIR,—Your friend Mr. Caritat being on the point of his departure for America, I make it the opportunity of writing to you. I received two letters from you with some pamphlets a considerable time past, in which you inform me of your entering a copyright of the first part of the Age of Reason: when I return to America we will settle for that matter.
"SIR,—Your friend Mr. Caritat is about to leave for America, so I’m taking this chance to write to you. I received two letters from you along with some pamphlets a while ago, where you mentioned that you are registering a copyright for the first part of the Age of Reason. When I return to America, we will sort that out."
"As Doctor Franklin has been my intimate friend for thirty years past you will naturally see the reason of my continuing the connection with his grandson. I printed here (Paris) about fifteen thousand of the second part of the Age of Reason, which I sent to Mr. F[ranklin] Bache. I gave him notice of it in September 1795 and the copy-right by my own direction was entered by him. The books did not arrive till April following, but he had advertised it long before.
"As Doctor Franklin has been my close friend for the past thirty years, you can easily understand why I maintain my connection with his grandson. I published about fifteen thousand copies of the second part of the Age of Reason here in Paris, which I sent to Mr. F[ranklin] Bache. I informed him about it in September 1795, and the copyright was registered in his name at my request. The books didn't arrive until the following April, but he had already advertised them ahead of time."
"I sent to him in August last a manuscript letter of about 70 pages, from me to Mr. Washington to be printed in a pamphlet. Mr. Barnes of Philadelphia carried the letter from me over to London to be forwarded to America. It went by the ship Hope, Cap: Harley, who since his return from America told me that he put it into the post office at New York for Bache. I have yet no certain account of its publication. I mention this that the letter may be enquired after, in case it has not been published or has not arrived to Mr. Bache. Barnes wrote to me, from London 29 August informing me that he was offered three hundred pounds sterling for the manuscript. The offer was refused because it was my intention it should not appear till it appeared in America, as that, and not England was the place for its operation.
I sent him a manuscript letter of about 70 pages last August, addressed to Mr. Washington, to be printed as a pamphlet. Mr. Barnes from Philadelphia carried the letter to London to be forwarded to America. It was sent on the ship Hope, Captain Harley, who told me after returning from America that he delivered it to the post office in New York for Bache. I still have no confirmation of its publication. I'm mentioning this so that the letter can be followed up on, in case it hasn't been published or hasn't reached Mr. Bache. Barnes wrote to me from London on August 29, letting me know that he was offered three hundred pounds sterling for the manuscript. The offer was turned down because I intended for it to be published only after it appeared in America, as that, and not England, was the place for its impact.
"You ask me by your letter to Mr. Caritat for a list of my several works, in order to publish a collection of them. This is an undertaking I have always reserved for myself. It not only belongs to me of right, but nobody but myself can do it; and as every author is accountable (at least in reputation) for his works, he only is the person to do it. If he neglects it in his life-time the case is altered. It is my intention to return to America in the course of the present year. I shall then [do] it by subscription, with historical notes. As this work will employ many persons in different parts of the Union, I will confer with you upon the subject, and such part of it as will suit you to undertake, will be at your choice. I have sustained so much loss, by disinterestedness and inattention to money matters, and by accidents, that I am obliged to look closer to my affairs than I have done. The printer (an Englishman) whom I employed here to print the second part of 'the Age of Reason' made a manuscript copy of the work while he was printing it, which he sent to London and sold. It was by this means that an edition of it came out in London.
You wrote to Mr. Caritat asking for a list of my various works to publish a collection. This is something I've always kept to myself. It's not only my right but also something only I can do; since every author is responsible (at least for their reputation) for their works, only they should handle it. If they neglect it while they’re still alive, that's a different story. I plan to return to America sometime this year. I will then do it through subscriptions, with historical notes included. Since this project will involve many people from different parts of the country, I'll discuss it with you, and you can choose any part you'd like to take on. I've suffered so much loss due to being selfless and careless with money matters, and through unfortunate events, that I need to pay closer attention to my affairs than I have in the past. The printer (an Englishman) I hired here to print the second part of 'the Age of Reason' made a manuscript copy of the work while printing it, which he sent to London and sold. That's how an edition of it was published in London.
"We are waiting here for news from America of the state of the federal elections. You will have heard long before this reaches you that the French government has refused to receive Mr. Pinckney as minister. While Mr. Monroe was minister he had the opportunity of softening matters with this government, for he was in good credit with them tho' they were in high indignation at the infidelity of the Washington Administration. It is time that Mr. Washington retire, for he has played off so much prudent hypocrisy between France and England that neither government believes anything he says.
"We're waiting here for news from America about the federal elections. You will have heard long before this reaches you that the French government has refused to accept Mr. Pinckney as minister. While Mr. Monroe was minister, he had the chance to smooth things over with this government, as he was in good standing with them despite their anger at the betrayal by the Washington Administration. It's time for Mr. Washington to step down, as he has played so much cautious deception between France and England that neither government trusts anything he says."
"Your friend, etc.,
"Your friend, etc."
"THOMAS PAINE."
"Thomas Paine."
It would appear that Symonds' stolen edition must have got ahead of that sent by Paine to Franklin Bache, for some of its errors continue in all modern American editions to the present day, as well as in those of England. For in England it was only the shilling edition—that revised by Paine—which was suppressed. Symonds, who ministered to the half-crown folk, and who was also publisher of replies to Paine, was left undisturbed about his pirated edition, and the new Society for the suppression of Vice and Immorality fastened on one Thomas Williams, who sold pious tracts but was also convicted (June 24, 1797) of having sold one copy of the "Age of Reason." Erskine, who had defended Paine at his trial for the "Rights of Man," conducted the prosecution of Williams. He gained the victory from a packed jury, but was not much elated by it, especially after a certain adventure on his way to Lincoln's Inn. He felt his coat clutched and beheld at his feet a woman bathed in tears. She led him into the small book-shop of Thomas Williams, not yet called up for judgment, and there he beheld his victim stitching tracts in a wretched little room, where there were three children, two suffering with Smallpox. He saw that it would be ruin and even a sort of murder to take away to prison the husband, who was not a freethinker, and lamented his publication of the book, and a meeting of the Society which had retained him was summoned. There was a full meeting, the Bishop of London (Porteus) in the chair. Erskine reminded them that Williams was yet to be brought up for sentence, described the scene he had witnessed, and Williams' penitence, and, as the book was now suppressed, asked permission to move for a nominal sentence. Mercy, he urged, was a part of the Christianity they were defending. Not one of the Society took his side,—not even "philanthropic" Wilberforce—and Erskine threw up his brief. This action of Erskine led the Judge to give Williams only a year in prison instead of the three he said had been intended.
It seems that Symonds' stolen edition must have gotten out before the one Paine sent to Franklin Bache, because some of its mistakes continue in all modern American editions today, as well as in those from England. In England, only the shilling edition—that one revised by Paine—was suppressed. Symonds, who catered to the more affluent audience and also published responses to Paine, was not bothered about his pirated edition, while the new Society for the Suppression of Vice and Immorality targeted one Thomas Williams, who sold religious tracts but was also convicted (June 24, 1797) for selling one copy of the "Age of Reason." Erskine, who had defended Paine in his trial for the "Rights of Man," led the prosecution against Williams. He won the case with a biased jury but wasn’t particularly pleased with it, especially after a certain incident on his way to Lincoln's Inn. He felt someone grab his coat and saw a woman crying at his feet. She took him into the small bookshop of Thomas Williams, who hadn’t been called up for judgment yet, and there he found his victim stitching tracts in a tiny room, where three children were present, two of whom were suffering from smallpox. He realized it would be devastating, even a kind of murder, to send the husband, a non-freethinker, to prison and regretted the publication of the book. A meeting of the Society that had retained him was called. It was a full meeting, with the Bishop of London (Porteus) presiding. Erskine reminded them that Williams was still awaiting sentencing, described the scene he had witnessed, and Williams' remorse. Since the book was now suppressed, he asked for permission to move for a symbolic sentence. He argued that mercy was part of the Christianity they were defending. Not a single person from the Society supported him—not even “philanthropic” Wilberforce—and Erskine gave up his brief. This led the Judge to give Williams just a year in prison instead of the three that had been intended.
While Williams was in prison the orthodox colporteurs were circulating Erskine's speech on Christianity, but also an anonymous sermon "On the Existence and Attributes of the Deity," all of which was from Paine's "Age of Reason," except a brief "Address to the Deity" appended. This picturesque anomaly was repeated in the circulation of Paine's "Discourse to the Theophilanthropists" (their and the author's names removed) under the title of "Atheism Refuted." Both of these pamphlets are now before me, and beside them a London tract of one page just sent for my spiritual benefit. This is headed "A Word of Caution." It begins by mentioning the "pernicious doctrines of Paine," the first being "that there is No GOD" (sic,) then proceeds to adduce evidences of divine existence taken from Paine's works. It should be added that this one dingy page is the only "survival" of the ancient Paine effigy in the tract form which I have been able to find in recent years, and to this no Society or Publisher's name is attached.
While Williams was in prison, the traditional colporteurs were distributing Erskine's speech on Christianity, along with an anonymous sermon titled "On the Existence and Attributes of the Deity," which was mostly taken from Paine's "Age of Reason," except for a short "Address to the Deity" added at the end. This unusual situation was mirrored in the distribution of Paine's "Discourse to the Theophilanthropists" (with their and the author's names removed) under the title "Atheism Refuted." Both of these pamphlets are in front of me now, along with a one-page London tract that was just sent to me for my spiritual benefit. This one is titled "A Word of Caution." It starts by mentioning the "harmful doctrines of Paine," the first being "that there is No GOD" (sic), and then goes on to provide evidence of divine existence taken from Paine's works. It should be noted that this single, worn page is the only "survival" of the old Paine image in tract form that I have been able to find in recent years, and there is no Society or Publisher's name attached to it.
The imprisonment of Williams was the beginning of a thirty years' war for religious liberty in England, in the course of which occurred many notable events, such as Eaton receiving homage in his pillory at Choring Cross, and the whole Carlile family imprisoned,—its head imprisoned more than nine years for publishing the "Age of Reason." This last victory of persecution was suicidal. Gentlemen of wealth, not adherents of Paine, helped in setting Carlile up in business in Fleet Street, where free-thinking publications have since been sold without interruption. But though Liberty triumphed in one sense, the "Age of Reason." remained to some extent suppressed among those whose attention it especially merited. Its original prosecution by a Society for the Suppression of Vice (a device to, relieve the Crown) amounted to a libel upon a morally clean book, restricting its perusal in families; and the fact that the shilling book sold by and among humble people was alone prosecuted, diffused among the educated an equally false notion that the "Age of Reason" was vulgar and illiterate. The theologians, as we have seen, estimated more justly the ability of their antagonist, the collaborator of Franklin, Rittenhouse, and Clymer, on whom the University of Pennsylvania had conferred the degree of Master of Arts,—but the gentry confused Paine with the class described by Burke as "the swinish multitude." Skepticism, or its free utterance, was temporarily driven out of polite circles by its complication with the out-lawed vindicator of the "Rights of Man." But that long combat has now passed away. Time has reduced the "Age of Reason" from a flag of popular radicalism to a comparatively conservative treatise, so far as its negations are concerned. An old friend tells me that in his youth he heard a sermon in which the preacher declared that "Tom Paine was so wicked that he could not be buried; his bones were thrown into a box which was bandied about the world till it came to a button-manufacturer; and now Paine is travelling round the world in the form of buttons!" This variant of the Wandering Jew myth may now be regarded as unconscious homage to the author whose metaphorical bones may be recognized in buttons now fashionable, and some even found useful in holding clerical vestments together.
The imprisonment of Williams marked the start of a thirty-year struggle for religious freedom in England. During this time, many significant events took place, such as Eaton receiving public scorn in his pillory at Choring Cross, and the entire Carlile family being imprisoned—its leader jailed for over nine years for publishing the "Age of Reason." This last act of persecution backfired. Wealthy individuals, who were not supporters of Paine, helped set Carlile up in business on Fleet Street, where free-thinking publications have continued to be sold without interruption. However, while Liberty triumphed in some ways, the "Age of Reason" remained somewhat suppressed among those who would have benefited from it the most. Its original prosecution by a Society for the Suppression of Vice (a tactic to support the Crown) was essentially a slander against a morally sound book, limiting its readership in families. Moreover, the fact that only the shilling edition sold among less affluent people was prosecuted led educated individuals to develop a misleading belief that the "Age of Reason" was crude and uneducated. The theologians, as we've seen, recognized more accurately the skill of their opponent, the collaborator of Franklin, Rittenhouse, and Clymer, who had received a Master's degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Yet, the upper class confused Paine with the group described by Burke as "the swinish multitude." Skepticism, or the open expression of it, was temporarily pushed out of polite society because of its association with the outlawed champion of the "Rights of Man." But that long struggle has subsided now. Over time, the "Age of Reason" has shifted from a symbol of popular radicalism to a relatively conservative work, at least regarding its rejections. An old friend recalls that in his youth he heard a sermon in which the preacher claimed, "Tom Paine was so wicked that he couldn't be buried; his bones were tossed into a box that was passed around the world until it reached a button manufacturer; now Paine is traveling the world in the form of buttons!" This variation of the Wandering Jew myth can now be seen as an unintentional tribute to the author whose metaphorical remains can be recognized in fashionable buttons, some even serving the practical purpose of holding clerical vestments together.
But the careful reader will find in Paine's "Age of Reason" something beyond negations, and in conclusion I will especially call attention to the new departure in Theism indicated in a passage corresponding to a famous aphorism of Kant, indicated by a note in Part II. The discovery already mentioned, that Part I. was written at least fourteen years before Part II., led me to compare the two; and it is plain that while the earlier work is an amplification of Newtonian Deism, based on the phenomena of planetary motion, the work of 1795 bases belief in God on "the universal display of himself in the works of the creation and by that repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and disposition to do good ones." This exaltation of the moral nature of man to be the foundation of theistic religion, though now familiar, was a hundred years ago a new affirmation; it has led on a conception of deity subversive of last-century deism, it has steadily humanized religion, and its ultimate philosophical and ethical results have not yet been reached.
But the attentive reader will discover in Paine's "Age of Reason" something more than just denials. In conclusion, I want to highlight the fresh perspective on Theism presented in a passage that aligns with a well-known saying by Kant, noted in Part II. The previously mentioned fact that Part I was written at least fourteen years before Part II prompted me to compare the two. It's clear that while the earlier work expands on Newtonian Deism, which is based on the movements of planets, the 1795 work grounds belief in God in "the universal display of himself in the works of creation and the inner resistance we feel to bad actions, as well as our inclination to do good." This elevation of human moral nature as the foundation of theistic religion, though now familiar, was a novel assertion a hundred years ago; it has led to a view of divinity that challenges the deism of the previous century, gradually humanizing religion, and its ultimate philosophical and ethical implications are still unfolding.
CHAPTER I - THE AUTHOR'S PROFESSION OF FAITH.
IT has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my thoughts upon religion; I am well aware of the difficulties that attend the subject, and from that consideration, had reserved it to a more advanced period of life. I intended it to be the last offering I should make to my fellow-citizens of all nations, and that at a time when the purity of the motive that induced me to it could not admit of a question, even by those who might disapprove the work.
It has been my intention for several years to share my thoughts on religion. I know how challenging the topic can be, and because of that, I planned to wait until a later stage in my life to tackle it. I wanted it to be the final contribution I make to my fellow citizens from all nations, and I hoped to do so at a time when the sincerity of my motivation could not be questioned, even by those who might disagree with my work.
The circumstance that has now taken place in France, of the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest, in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.
The situation that has now unfolded in France, with the complete abolition of the entire national priesthood and everything related to forced religious systems and mandatory articles of faith, has not only accelerated my plans but has made a work like this incredibly necessary. If we don't address it, amidst the general collapse of superstition, false forms of government, and incorrect theology, we might lose sight of morality, humanity, and true theology.
As several of my colleagues, and others of my fellow-citizens of France, have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.
As some of my colleagues and fellow citizens of France have openly shared their personal beliefs, I will share mine as well; and I do this with all the sincerity and honesty with which a person expresses their thoughts.
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in one God and no other, and I hope for happiness after this life.
I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
I believe in the equality of all people, and I think that our religious responsibilities involve doing justice, showing mercy, and trying to make others happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
But, in case it seems like I believe many other things on top of these, I will, as I go through this work, share what I don't believe and my reasons for those beliefs.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
I don't believe in the beliefs put forward by the Jewish church, the Roman church, the Greek church, the Turkish church, the Protestant church, or any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
All national church institutions, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, seem to me to be nothing more than human creations designed to intimidate and control people, while also consolidating power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
I don’t mean to condemn those who think differently; they have the same right to their beliefs as I do to mine. However, for a person’s happiness, it’s important to be true to oneself mentally. Disloyalty isn’t about believing or not believing; it’s about claiming to believe something that one actually doesn’t.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?
It's impossible to measure the moral damage, if I can put it that way, that mental dishonesty has caused in society. When someone has so deeply compromised and tarnished the purity of their mind to the point of endorsing beliefs they don't actually hold, they have set themselves up to commit every other wrongdoing. They choose to become a priest for profit and start their journey with a lie. Can we imagine anything more harmful to morality than this?
Soon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.
Soon after I published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE in America, I recognized the strong likelihood that a change in government would lead to changes in religion. The corrupt relationship between church and state, whether it was Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had effectively banned any meaningful discussion about established beliefs and basic principles of religion, imposing severe consequences for doing so. Until the government was reformed, these topics could not be openly and fairly discussed. However, once that happened, a shift in religious beliefs would follow. Human-made ideas and priestly manipulation would be exposed, and people would return to the simple, pure belief in one God, and nothing more.
CHAPTER II - OF MISSIONS AND REVELATIONS.
EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
EVERY national church or religion has established itself by claiming some special mission from God, given to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians have their Jesus Christ, their apostles, and saints; and the Turks have their Muhammad; as if the way to God wasn't open to everyone equally.
Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.
Each of those churches has specific texts that they refer to as revelation or the Word of God. The Jews believe that their Word of God was given to Moses directly by God; Christians claim that their Word of God was revealed through divine inspiration; and the Muslims assert that their Word of God (the Koran) was conveyed by an angel from heaven. Each of these faiths accuses the others of lacking belief, and as for me, I don’t believe any of them.
As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
As it's important to attach the right ideas to words, I will, before I go further into the topic, share some thoughts on the word 'revelation.' In a religious context, revelation refers to something communicated directly from God to humanity.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.
No one can deny or argue against the Almighty's ability to communicate if He chooses to. But for the sake of discussion, if something has been revealed to one person and not to anyone else, it is a revelation only for that person. When they share it with someone else, and that person shares it with another, and so on, it stops being a revelation for all those others. It's a revelation only for the first person, and hearsay for everyone else, so they aren’t required to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
It’s contradictory to call something a revelation if it comes to us secondhand, whether spoken or written. A revelation is only valid when it’s the original communication. After that, it’s just an account of what someone claims was a revelation they received; and while they may feel compelled to believe it, I’m not obligated to believe it the same way because it wasn’t revealed to me, and I only have their word that it was revealed to them.
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [NOTE: It is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God 'visits the sins of the fathers upon the children'. This is contrary to every principle of moral justice.—Author.]
When Moses told the Israelites that he received the two tablets of the commandments from God, they weren't required to believe him because his claim was the only proof they had. Similarly, I only have the word of some historian to go on, and the commandments don't provide any clear evidence of divine origin. They include some good moral guidelines that any capable lawmaker could come up with on his own, without needing any supernatural help. [NOTE: However, it's important to point out the statement that God 'visits the sins of the fathers upon the children'. This goes against all principles of moral justice.—Author.]
When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.
When I hear that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Muhammad by an angel, it sounds like the same type of hearsay and secondhand information as before. I didn't see the angel myself, so I have the right not to believe it.
When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.
When I'm told that a woman named the Virgin Mary claimed she was pregnant without having been with a man, and that her fiancé, Joseph, said an angel informed him of this, I have the right to believe them or not. Such a situation calls for much stronger evidence than just their word for it. But we don't even have that; neither Joseph nor Mary wrote anything down themselves. It's only reported by others that they said this. It's hearsay upon hearsay, and I don't want to base my belief on such weak evidence.
It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.
It’s not hard to understand why people accepted the story of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. He was born at a time when pagan mythology was still popular and influential, and that mythology had set the stage for such a belief. Nearly all the extraordinary individuals of that era were believed to be the offspring of gods. It wasn’t unusual back then to think someone was divinely conceived; the idea of gods having relationships with women was widely accepted. Their Jupiter, according to their legends, had been with many women; so the story didn’t seem new, surprising, or inappropriate—it fit right in with the beliefs held by the Gentiles, or mythologists, who were the only ones who accepted it. The Jews, who strictly believed in only one God and consistently rejected pagan mythology, never believed the story.
It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.
It's interesting to see how the concept of what we call the Christian Church emerged from ancient pagan mythology. Initially, there was a direct incorporation, as the supposed founder was said to be born of divine origins. The trinity of gods that followed was just a simplified version of the earlier thousands of gods, which numbered around twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary took the place of the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes turned into the canonization of saints. Mythologists had gods for everything; Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as filled with saints as the pantheon was with gods, and Rome was the center for both. The Christian doctrine is essentially a modified version of the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, adapted for political and financial gain; it now remains for reason and philosophy to put an end to this ambiguous deception.
CHAPTER III - CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY.
NOTHING that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.
NOTHING written here is meant to disrespect the true character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and kind man. The morality he preached and lived was incredibly compassionate; and although similar moral teachings had been shared by Confucius, some Greek philosophers long ago, the Quakers since then, and many good people throughout history, none have surpassed it.
Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.
Jesus Christ didn’t write anything about himself, his birth, his parents, or anything else. Not a single line of what’s known as the New Testament is written by him. His story is entirely crafted by others; and regarding the accounts of his resurrection and ascension, they were necessary to balance out the story of his birth. The people who recorded his life, having introduced him into the world in a miraculous way, had to remove him the same way, or else the first part of the story would have fallen apart.
The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds everything that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was told could prove it himself.
The awful way this last part is told goes beyond anything that came before. The first part, about the miraculous conception, was something that couldn’t be made public. This gave the storytellers of this section an advantage: even if they weren’t believed, they couldn’t be caught lying. They couldn’t be expected to prove it because it wasn’t the kind of thing that could be proven, and it was impossible for the person it was about to prove it themselves.
But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.
But bringing a dead person back to life and having them rise through the air is very different in terms of the evidence it provides compared to a child being conceived in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, if they really happened, could have been publicly and visibly demonstrated, much like the ascension of a balloon or the sun at noon, at least to everyone in Jerusalem. If everyone is supposed to believe in this, then the proof and evidence should be accessible and universal. Since the public visibility of this last event was the only thing that could validate the earlier claim, it falls apart because that evidence was never provided. Instead, a small group of people, no more than eight or nine, are put forward as representatives for the whole world, claiming they saw it, while everyone else is expected to believe. But it seems Thomas didn’t believe in the resurrection, and as the story goes, he wouldn’t be convinced without seeing and touching it himself. I’m in the same boat; my reason for doubt is just as valid for me and for anyone else as it was for Thomas.
It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured that the books in which the account is related were written by the persons whose names they bear. The best surviving evidence we now have respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from the people who lived in the time this resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say 'it is not true.' It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I have told you, by producing the people who say it is false.
It's pointless to try to downplay or hide this issue. The story, especially the supernatural elements, shows clear signs of deceit and manipulation. We can't know who created it any more than we can be sure that the books that recount it were actually written by the people they say they were. The best evidence we have regarding this matter comes from the Jews. They are direct descendants of the people who lived during the time this resurrection and ascension supposedly occurred, and they claim, "it's not true." It has always seemed odd to me to use the Jews as proof of the story's truth. It's like someone saying they will prove the truth of what they said by presenting those who claim it's false.
That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priest-hood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehension of the effects of his doctrine as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life. [NOTE: The French work has here: "However this may be, for one or the other of these suppositions this virtuous reformer, this revolutionist, too little imitated, too much forgotten, too much misunderstood, lost his life."—Editor. (Conway)]
That a person like Jesus Christ existed and that he was crucified— the common method of execution at that time— are historical facts that fall within the realm of possibility. He preached outstanding moral values and the equality of all people, but he also spoke out against the corruption and greed of the Jewish priests, which led to their hatred and vengeance against him. The charges brought against him by those priests were sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and paying taxes. It's quite possible that the Roman government had some hidden concerns about the impact of his teachings, just like the Jewish priests did; it’s also likely that Jesus envisioned freeing the Jewish nation from Roman oppression. Ultimately, this virtuous reformer and revolutionary lost his life between these two forces. [NOTE: The French work has here: "However this may be, for one or the other of these suppositions this virtuous reformer, this revolutionist, too little imitated, too much forgotten, too much misunderstood, lost his life."—Editor. (Conway)]
CHAPTER IV - OF THE BASES OF CHRISTIANITY.
IT is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another case I am going to mention, that the Christian mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.
It is on this straightforward account of facts, along with another case I am about to mention, that the Christian mythologists, who refer to themselves as the Christian Church, have built their story, which for its absurdity and extravagance is matched by nothing found in ancient mythology.
The ancient mythologists tell us that the race of Giants made war against Jupiter, and that one of them threw a hundred rocks against him at one throw; that Jupiter defeated him with thunder, and confined him afterwards under Mount Etna; and that every time the Giant turns himself, Mount Etna belches fire. It is here easy to see that the circumstance of the mountain, that of its being a volcano, suggested the idea of the fable; and that the fable is made to fit and wind itself up with that circumstance.
The ancient mythologists tell us that the Giants fought against Jupiter, and one of them threw a hundred rocks at him in one go; Jupiter defeated him with thunder and later trapped him under Mount Etna. Every time the Giant moves, Mount Etna erupts with fire. It's clear that the volcano's presence inspired this myth, and the story was crafted to connect with that fact.
The Christian mythologists tell that their Satan made war against the Almighty, who defeated him, and confined him afterwards, not under a mountain, but in a pit. It is here easy to see that the first fable suggested the idea of the second; for the fable of Jupiter and the Giants was told many hundred years before that of Satan.
The Christian mythologists say that their Satan fought against the Almighty, who defeated him and then locked him up, not in a mountain, but in a pit. It's clear that the first story inspired the idea of the second; the tale of Jupiter and the Giants was told many centuries before the story of Satan.
Thus far the ancient and the Christian mythologists differ very little from each other. But the latter have contrived to carry the matter much farther. They have contrived to connect the fabulous part of the story of Jesus Christ with the fable originating from Mount Etna; and, in order to make all the parts of the story tie together, they have taken to their aid the traditions of the Jews; for the Christian mythology is made up partly from the ancient mythology, and partly from the Jewish traditions.
So far, the ancient and Christian mythologists are quite similar. However, the latter have managed to extend the story much further. They have linked the legendary aspects of Jesus Christ's story with the myths that come from Mount Etna; and to make all the elements of the story fit together, they have turned to Jewish traditions for support. Christian mythology is composed of elements from both ancient mythology and Jewish traditions.
The Christian mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the garden of Eden in the shape of a snake, or a serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no ways surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of this tete-a-tate is, that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.
The Christian storytellers, after locking Satan away in a pit, had to release him again to continue the story. He then appears in the Garden of Eden as a snake and casually chats with Eve, who isn’t at all shocked to hear a snake speak. This conversation leads her to eat an apple, and that act condemns all of humanity.
After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the church mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit, or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him, (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain) or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women, and doing more mischief. But instead of this, they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole. The secret of which is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?
After giving Satan this victory over all creation, you would think that the church mythologists would have been nice enough to send him back to the pit, or at least put a mountain on him (since they say their faith can move mountains) or trap him under one, like the earlier mythologists did, to stop him from getting back among women and causing more trouble. But instead, they let him roam free, without even requiring him to give his word. The reason for this is that they couldn't do without him; after going to the trouble of creating him, they actually bribed him to stick around. They promised him all the Jews, all the Turks in advance, nine-tenths of the world besides, and Muhammad as a bonus. After this, who can doubt the generosity of Christian Mythology?
Having thus made an insurrection and a battle in heaven, in which none of the combatants could be either killed or wounded—put Satan into the pit—let him out again—given him a triumph over the whole creation—damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, there Christian mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing [NOTE: The French work has: "yielding to an unrestrained appetite."—Editor.] had eaten an apple.
Having staged a rebellion and a battle in heaven, where no one could be killed or hurt—thrown Satan into the pit—let him out again—given him victory over all creation—condemned all humanity for eating an apple, this is how Christian mythologists tie their story together. They depict Jesus Christ as both God and man, and also the Son of God, who was divinely conceived to be sacrificed because they claim that Eve, in her desire, had eaten an apple.
CHAPTER V - EXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF THE PRECEDING BASES.
PUTTING aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is.
PUTTING aside everything that might provoke laughter with its ridiculousness or anger with its vulgarity, and focusing only on the parts, it's hard to imagine a story that's more insulting to God, less consistent with his wisdom, or more contradictory to his power than this one is.
In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan a power equally as great, if not greater, than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterwards to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.
To create a foundation for their ideas, the inventors felt compelled to give the being they call Satan a power that is just as great, if not greater, than what they ascribe to the Almighty. They've not only granted him the ability to free himself from the abyss after what they define as his fall, but they've also made that power infinite afterward. Before his fall, they depict him merely as an angel with limited existence, like the others. After his fall, he becomes, according to them, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, at the same time. He fills the entire vastness of space.
Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.
Not satisfied with this glorification of Satan, they portray him as outsmarting all the power and wisdom of the Almighty by taking on the form of an animal. They show him as forcing the Almighty into a position where He had no choice but to either give up the entire creation to Satan’s rule or agree to redeem it by coming down to Earth and showing Himself on a cross as a man.
Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd, less contradictory. But, instead of this they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.
Had the creators of this story told it the other way, meaning if they had shown God forcing Satan to appear on a cross as a snake as punishment for his latest wrongdoing, the story would have made more sense and been less contradictory. Instead, they have the wrongdoer come out on top while God falls flat.
That many good men have believed this strange fable, and lived very good lives under that belief (for credulity is not a crime) is what I have no doubt of. In the first place, they were educated to believe it, and they would have believed anything else in the same manner. There are also many who have been so enthusiastically enraptured by what they conceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in making a sacrifice of himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred them from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story. The more unnatural anything is, the more is it capable of becoming the object of dismal admiration. [NOTE: The French work has "blind and" preceding dismal.—Editor.]
That many good people have believed this strange story and lived very good lives based on that belief (because being naive isn’t a crime) is something I have no doubt about. First of all, they were taught to believe it, and they would likely have believed anything else in the same way. There are also many who have been so passionately moved by what they saw as God's limitless love for humanity, shown through a sacrifice of Himself, that the intensity of that idea has stopped them from questioning the absurdity and disrespect of the tale. The more unnatural something is, the more likely it is to become the subject of gloomy admiration. [NOTE: The French work has "blind and" preceding dismal.—Editor.]
CHAPTER VI - OF THE TRUE THEOLOGY.
BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born—a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator?
BUT if we seek things to be grateful for and admire, don't they show up every hour in front of us? Don’t we see a beautiful world ready to welcome us the moment we are born—a world that’s been provided for us, at no cost? Are we the ones who bring light to the sun, bring rain down, and fill the earth with plenty? Whether we’re asleep or awake, the vast machinery of the universe keeps running. Are these things, along with the blessings they promise for the future, not meaningful to us? Can our basic feelings be stirred only by tragedy and suicide? Or has humanity's gloomy pride become so unbearable that only a sacrifice of the Creator can satisfy it?
I know that this bold investigation will alarm many, but it would be paying too great a compliment to their credulity to forbear it on that account. The times and the subject demand it to be done. The suspicion that the theory of what is called the Christian church is fabulous, is becoming very extensive in all countries; and it will be a consolation to men staggering under that suspicion, and doubting what to believe and what to disbelieve, to see the subject freely investigated. I therefore pass on to an examination of the books called the Old and the New Testament.
I know this bold investigation will shock many, but it would be too much of a compliment to their gullibility to hold back for that reason. The current times and the topic require it to be done. The idea that the theory of what we call the Christian church is made up is growing widely in every country, and it will be a relief to those struggling with that suspicion and unsure of what to believe or doubt to see the topic openly examined. So, I will move on to an analysis of the books known as the Old and New Testaments.
CHAPTER VII - EXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
THESE books, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelations, (which, by the bye, is a book of riddles that requires a revelation to explain it) are, we are told, the word of God. It is, therefore, proper for us to know who told us so, that we may know what credit to give to the report. The answer to this question is, that nobody can tell, except that we tell one another so. The case, however, historically appears to be as follows:
THESE books, starting with Genesis and ending with Revelations, (which, by the way, is a book of puzzles that needs a revelation to clarify it) are said to be the word of God. So, it’s important for us to know who said that, so we can figure out how much trust to place in the claim. The answer to this question is that no one can really say, except that we keep telling one another this. However, historically, it seems to be as follows:
When the church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and the New Testament, are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them; or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.
When the church mythologists created their system, they gathered all the writings they could find and handled them as they wanted. It's completely uncertain for us whether the writings that now exist under the names of the Old and New Testament are in the same condition that those collectors claimed to have found them, or whether they added, changed, shortened, or modified them.
Be this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made, should be the WORD OF GOD, and which should not. They rejected several; they voted others to be doubtful, such as the books called the Apocrypha; and those books which had a majority of votes, were voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all the people since calling themselves Christians had believed otherwise; for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the people were that did all this, we know nothing of. They call themselves by the general name of the Church; and this is all we know of the matter.
Regardless, they voted on which books from their collection would be considered the WORD OF GOD and which would not. They rejected several, and labeled others as questionable, like the books known as the Apocrypha. The books that received a majority of votes were declared to be the word of God. If they had voted differently, everyone who identifies as Christian would have believed differently, because one group’s belief shapes another’s. We don’t know who these people were; they refer to themselves simply as the Church, and that's all we know about it.
As we have no other external evidence or authority for believing these books to be the word of God, than what I have mentioned, which is no evidence or authority at all, I come, in the next place, to examine the internal evidence contained in the books themselves.
Since we don’t have any other outside evidence or authority to believe these books are the word of God, other than what I’ve already mentioned—which isn’t really any evidence or authority at all—I will now examine the internal evidence found in the books themselves.
In the former part of this essay, I have spoken of revelation. I now proceed further with that subject, for the purpose of applying it to the books in question.
In the first part of this essay, I talked about revelation. I will now continue with that topic to apply it to the books in question.
Revelation is a communication of something, which the person, to whom that thing is revealed, did not know before. For if I have done a thing, or seen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done it, or seen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it.
Revelation is a way to share information about something that the person learning about it didn’t know before. If I have done something or seen it done, I don’t need a revelation to know that I did it or saw it, nor do I need it to tell or write about it.
Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth of which man is himself the actor or the witness; and consequently all the historical and anecdotal part of the Bible, which is almost the whole of it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word revelation, and, therefore, is not the word of God.
Revelation, then, can’t be applied to anything done on earth where humans are the ones acting or witnessing; therefore, all the historical and anecdotal parts of the Bible, which make up almost all of it, don’t fit the meaning and scope of the word revelation and, as a result, aren’t considered the word of God.
When Samson ran off with the gate-posts of Gaza, if he ever did so, (and whether he did or not is nothing to us,) or when he visited his Delilah, or caught his foxes, or did anything else, what has revelation to do with these things? If they were facts, he could tell them himself; or his secretary, if he kept one, could write them, if they were worth either telling or writing; and if they were fictions, revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them. When we contemplate the immensity of that Being, who directs and governs the incomprehensible WHOLE, of which the utmost ken of human sight can discover but a part, we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry stories the word of God.
When Samson took off with the gateposts of Gaza, if he even did that (and whether he did or not doesn’t concern us), or when he visited Delilah, or captured his foxes, or did anything else, what do these stories have to do with revelation? If they were true, he could share them himself; or his secretary, if he had one, could write them down if they were worth sharing or writing about; and if they were made up, revelation wouldn’t make them real; and whether they're true or not, we don’t gain anything or learn anything by knowing them. When we think about the vastness of that Being who directs and governs the incomprehensible WHOLE, of which the furthest reach of human sight can only discover a part, we should feel embarrassed to call such trivial stories the word of God.
As to the account of the creation, with which the book of Genesis opens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition which the Israelites had among them before they came into Egypt; and after their departure from that country, they put it at the head of their history, without telling, as it is most probable that they did not know, how they came by it. The manner in which the account opens, shows it to be traditionary. It begins abruptly. It is nobody that speaks. It is nobody that hears. It is addressed to nobody. It has neither first, second, nor third person. It has every criterion of being a tradition. It has no voucher. Moses does not take it upon himself by introducing it with the formality that he uses on other occasions, such as that of saying, "The Lords spake unto Moses, saying."
The account of creation at the beginning of the book of Genesis seems to be a tradition that the Israelites had even before they arrived in Egypt. After leaving that country, they placed it at the start of their history without explaining, probably because they didn't know, where it came from. The way this account starts indicates it is traditional. It begins suddenly. No one speaks, no one listens, and it is directed at no one in particular. It doesn't use first, second, or third person. It has all the signs of being a tradition. There’s no source. Moses doesn’t claim it as his own by introducing it formally like he does in other instances, such as saying, "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying."
Why it has been called the Mosaic account of the creation, I am at a loss to conceive. Moses, I believe, was too good a judge of such subjects to put his name to that account. He had been educated among the Egyptians, who were a people as well skilled in science, and particularly in astronomy, as any people of their day; and the silence and caution that Moses observes, in not authenticating the account, is a good negative evidence that he neither told it nor believed it.—The case is, that every nation of people has been world-makers, and the Israelites had as much right to set up the trade of world-making as any of the rest; and as Moses was not an Israelite, he might not chose to contradict the tradition. The account, however, is harmless; and this is more than can be said for many other parts of the Bible.
Why it's been called the Mosaic account of creation, I can't understand. Moses was too smart about these things to attach his name to that account. He was educated among the Egyptians, who were just as skilled in science, especially astronomy, as any other people of his time. The way Moses avoids confirming the account serves as good evidence that he neither wrote it nor believed it. The fact is, every nation has created their own version of the world, and the Israelites had as much right to do that as anyone else; since Moses wasn't an Israelite, he might not have wanted to contradict the tradition. However, the account is harmless, which is more than can be said for many other parts of the Bible.
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible [NOTE: It must be borne in mind that by the "Bible" Paine always means the Old Testament alone.—Editor.] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the indulgent excesses, the cruel and torturous executions, the relentless revengefulness that fills more than half the Bible [NOTE: It must be borne in mind that by the "Bible" Paine always means the Old Testament alone.—Editor.], it would make more sense to call it the word of a demon rather than the Word of God. It’s a history of wickedness that has only served to corrupt and brutalize humanity; and, for my part, I genuinely detest it, just like I detest anything that is cruel.
We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a great deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than many other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time as since.
We hardly encounter anything, aside from a few phrases, that doesn’t deserve either our disdain or our scorn, until we reach the various parts of the Bible. In the anonymous writings, the Psalms, and especially the Book of Job, we find a lot of elevated sentiments respectfully expressing the power and kindness of the Almighty; however, they hold no higher status than many other works on similar topics, both before and after that time.
The Proverbs which are said to be Solomon's, though most probably a collection, (because they discover a knowledge of life, which his situation excluded him from knowing) are an instructive table of ethics. They are inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards, and not more wise and oeconomical than those of the American Franklin.
The proverbs attributed to Solomon, though likely a collection (since they reveal a knowledge of life that his position prevented him from experiencing), serve as a valuable guide to ethics. They are not as sharp as the Spanish proverbs and are no wiser or more practical than those of American Franklin.
All the remaining parts of the Bible, generally known by the name of the Prophets, are the works of the Jewish poets and itinerant preachers, who mixed poetry, anecdote, and devotion together—and those works still retain the air and style of poetry, though in translation. [NOTE: As there are many readers who do not see that a composition is poetry, unless it be in rhyme, it is for their information that I add this note.
All the other parts of the Bible, commonly referred to as the Prophets, are the creations of Jewish poets and traveling preachers who blended poetry, stories, and devotion—these works still carry the essence and style of poetry, even in translation. [NOTE: I include this note for those readers who may not recognize a piece as poetry unless it has rhyme.]
Poetry consists principally in two things—imagery and composition. The composition of poetry differs from that of prose in the manner of mixing long and short syllables together. Take a long syllable out of a line of poetry, and put a short one in the room of it, or put a long syllable where a short one should be, and that line will lose its poetical harmony. It will have an effect upon the line like that of misplacing a note in a song.
Poetry mainly has two components—imagery and structure. The structure of poetry is different from prose because it mixes long and short syllables in a unique way. If you take a long syllable out of a line of poetry and replace it with a short one, or vice versa, that line will lose its poetic harmony. It’s similar to misplacing a note in a song.
The imagery in those books called the Prophets appertains altogether to poetry. It is fictitious, and often extravagant, and not admissible in any other kind of writing than poetry.
The imagery in those books known as the Prophets is purely poetic. It’s imaginary and often exaggerated, and it doesn’t fit in any other type of writing except for poetry.
To show that these writings are composed in poetical numbers, I will take ten syllables, as they stand in the book, and make a line of the same number of syllables, (heroic measure) that shall rhyme with the last word. It will then be seen that the composition of those books is poetical measure. The instance I shall first produce is from Isaiah:—
To demonstrate that these writings are in poetic form, I will take ten syllables as they appear in the book and create a line with the same number of syllables (heroic measure) that rhymes with the last word. It will then be clear that the writing in those books is poetic. The first example I will present is from Isaiah:—
"Hear, O you heavens, and listen, O earth, It’s God himself who is calling for your attention."
Another instance I shall quote is from the mournful Jeremiah, to which I shall add two other lines, for the purpose of carrying out the figure, and showing the intention of the poet.
Another example I’ll mention is from the sorrowful Jeremiah, and I’ll add two more lines to support the imagery and show the poet's intent.
"Oh, if my head were full of water and my eyes Were fountains flowing like the rain-filled skies; Then I would let the great flood pour out And cry a downpour for all of humanity."—Author.]
There is not, throughout the whole book called the Bible, any word that describes to us what we call a poet, nor any word that describes what we call poetry. The case is, that the word prophet, to which a later times have affixed a new idea, was the Bible word for poet, and the word 'propesying' meant the art of making poetry. It also meant the art of playing poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music.
There isn't a single word in the entire Bible that defines what we think of as a poet, nor is there a word for poetry itself. In the past, the term prophet, which later generations have defined differently, was actually the Biblical term for poet. The word 'prophesying' referred to the craft of creating poetry. It also encompassed the skill of performing poetry musically on any instrument.
We read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns—of prophesying with harps, with psalteries, with cymbals, and with every other instrument of music then in fashion. Were we now to speak of prophesying with a fiddle, or with a pipe and tabor, the expression would have no meaning, or would appear ridiculous, and to some people contemptuous, because we have changed the meaning of the word.
We hear about predicting with flutes, tambourines, and horns—about predicting with harps, psalteries, cymbals, and every other musical instrument popular at that time. If we were to talk about predicting with a violin, or with a pipe and tabor today, it wouldn’t make sense or would seem ridiculous, and to some, disrespectful, because the meaning of the word has changed.
We are told of Saul being among the prophets, and also that he prophesied; but we are not told what they prophesied, nor what he prophesied. The case is, there was nothing to tell; for these prophets were a company of musicians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert, and this was called prophesying.
We hear about Saul being among the prophets and that he prophesied; however, we don’t know what they actually prophesied or what he said. The reality is, there was nothing significant to mention; these prophets were a group of musicians and poets, and Saul participated in the performance, which was referred to as prophesying.
The account given of this affair in the book called Samuel, is, that Saul met a company of prophets; a whole company of them! coming down with a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe, and a harp, and that they prophesied, and that he prophesied with them. But it appears afterwards, that Saul prophesied badly, that is, he performed his part badly; for it is said that an "evil spirit from God [NOTE: As thos; men who call themselves divines and commentators are very fond of puzzling one another, I leave them to contest the meaning of the first part of the phrase, that of an evil spirit of God. I keep to my text. I keep to the meaning of the word prophesy.—Author.] came upon Saul, and he prophesied."
The story in the book of Samuel describes how Saul encountered a group of prophets— a whole group! They were coming down with musical instruments like a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe, and a harp, and they were prophesying, and Saul joined in. However, it later seems that Saul prophesied poorly, meaning he didn't do it well; it says that an "evil spirit from God [NOTE: Since those who call themselves divines and commentators love to confuse each other, I’ll let them debate the meaning of the first part of the phrase, that of an evil spirit from God. I stick to my text. I focus on the meaning of the word prophesy.—Author.] came upon Saul, and he prophesied."
Now, were there no other passage in the book called the Bible, than this, to demonstrate to us that we have lost the original meaning of the word prophesy, and substituted another meaning in its place, this alone would be sufficient; for it is impossible to use and apply the word prophesy, in the place it is here used and applied, if we give to it the sense which later times have affixed to it. The manner in which it is here used strips it of all religious meaning, and shews that a man might then be a prophet, or he might Prophesy, as he may now be a poet or a musician, without any regard to the morality or the immorality of his character. The word was originally a term of science, promiscuously applied to poetry and to music, and not restricted to any subject upon which poetry and music might be exercised.
Now, if there were no other passage in the book called the Bible than this, to show us that we have lost the original meaning of the word prophesy and replaced it with a different meaning, this alone would be enough; because it's impossible to use the word prophesy in the way it's used here if we take the sense that later times have attached to it. The way it is used here removes all religious significance and shows that a person could be a prophet or prophesy just like today someone can be a poet or a musician, regardless of the morality or immorality of their character. Originally, the word was a scientific term that was casually applied to poetry and music, and not limited to any particular subject that poetry and music might address.
Deborah and Barak are called prophets, not because they predicted anything, but because they composed the poem or song that bears their name, in celebration of an act already done. David is ranked among the prophets, for he was a musician, and was also reputed to be (though perhaps very erroneously) the author of the Psalms. But Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not called prophets; it does not appear from any accounts we have, that they could either sing, play music, or make poetry.
Deborah and Barak are referred to as prophets, not because they foretold anything, but because they created the poem or song named after them, celebrating a deed that had already taken place. David is considered one of the prophets because he was a musician and was also thought to be (though possibly incorrectly) the author of the Psalms. However, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not called prophets; there's no evidence from the records we have that they could sing, play music, or write poetry.
We are told of the greater and the lesser prophets. They might as well tell us of the greater and the lesser God; for there cannot be degrees in prophesying consistently with its modern sense. But there are degrees in poetry, and there-fore the phrase is reconcilable to the case, when we understand by it the greater and the lesser poets.
We hear about the major and minor prophets. They might as well talk about a major and minor God because you can’t really have different levels of prophesying in the way we understand it today. However, there are levels in poetry, so the phrase makes sense when we think of it as referring to the major and minor poets.
It is altogether unnecessary, after this, to offer any observations upon what those men, styled prophets, have written. The axe goes at once to the root, by showing that the original meaning of the word has been mistaken, and consequently all the inferences that have been drawn from those books, the devotional respect that has been paid to them, and the laboured commentaries that have been written upon them, under that mistaken meaning, are not worth disputing about.—In many things, however, the writings of the Jewish poets deserve a better fate than that of being bound up, as they now are, with the trash that accompanies them, under the abused name of the Word of God.
It's completely unnecessary, after this, to comment on what those men, called prophets, have written. The issue goes straight to the core, showing that the original meaning of the word has been misunderstood, and as a result, all the conclusions drawn from those texts, the reverence shown towards them, and the extensive commentaries written about them, based on that false interpretation, aren't worth arguing over. However, in many respects, the writings of the Jewish poets deserve a better fate than being bundled together, as they currently are, with the garbage that comes with them, under the misused title of the Word of God.
If we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must necessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the utter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means or accident whatever, in that which we would honour with the name of the Word of God; and therefore the Word of God cannot exist in any written or human language.
If we allow ourselves to think clearly about things, we have to accept the idea not just of unchangingness, but that it's completely impossible for any change to occur, by any means or accident, in what we would celebrate as the Word of God; therefore, the Word of God cannot exist in any written or human language.
The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of an universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of wilful alteration, are of themselves evidences that human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God.—The Word of God exists in something else.
The ongoing evolution of word meanings, the lack of a universal language that makes translation necessary, the mistakes that come with translations, the errors made by copyists and printers, along with the potential for intentional changes, all show that human language, whether spoken or written, cannot fully convey the Word of God. —The Word of God exists in something other than language.
Did the book called the Bible excel in purity of ideas and expression all the books now extant in the world, I would not take it for my rule of faith, as being the Word of God; because the possibility would nevertheless exist of my being imposed upon. But when I see throughout the greatest part of this book scarcely anything but a history of the grossest vices, and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales, I cannot dishonour my Creator by calling it by his name.
Did the book called the Bible surpass all the other books available in the world in terms of the purity of its ideas and expression, I still wouldn’t take it as my rule of faith, claiming it to be the Word of God; because there would still be a chance that I could be misled. However, when I see that much of this book consists of a history of the worst vices and a collection of the most trivial and disgraceful stories, I cannot disrespect my Creator by referring to it as His word.
CHAPTER VIII - OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
THUS much for the Bible; I now go on to the book called the New Testament. The new Testament! that is, the 'new' Will, as if there could be two wills of the Creator.
THUS much for the Bible; I now move on to the book called the New Testament. The New Testament! That is, the 'new' Will, as if there could be two wills of the Creator.
Had it been the object or the intention of Jesus Christ to establish a new religion, he would undoubtedly have written the system himself, or procured it to be written in his life time. But there is no publication extant authenticated with his name. All the books called the New Testament were written after his death. He was a Jew by birth and by profession; and he was the son of God in like manner that every other person is; for the Creator is the Father of All.
Had Jesus Christ intended to start a new religion, he surely would have written the system himself or gotten it written during his lifetime. But there’s no existing publication verified to be by him. All the books known as the New Testament were written after he died. He was a Jew by birth and profession; and he was the son of God just like everyone else, as the Creator is the Father of All.
The first four books, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not give a history of the life of Jesus Christ, but only detached anecdotes of him. It appears from these books, that the whole time of his being a preacher was not more than eighteen months; and it was only during this short time that those men became acquainted with him. They make mention of him at the age of twelve years, sitting, they say, among the Jewish doctors, asking and answering them questions. As this was several years before their acquaintance with him began, it is most probable they had this anecdote from his parents. From this time there is no account of him for about sixteen years. Where he lived, or how he employed himself during this interval, is not known. Most probably he was working at his father's trade, which was that of a carpenter. It does not appear that he had any school education, and the probability is, that he could not write, for his parents were extremely poor, as appears from their not being able to pay for a bed when he was born. [NOTE: One of the few errors traceable to Paine's not having a Bible at hand while writing Part I. There is no indication that the family was poor, but the reverse may in fact be inferred.—Editor.]
The first four books, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, don’t provide a complete history of Jesus Christ's life, but rather just a collection of anecdotes about him. These books suggest that his preaching lasted no more than eighteen months, and it was only during this brief period that those men got to know him. They mention him at the age of twelve, sitting among the Jewish teachers, asking them questions and answering them. Since this was several years before they met him, it’s likely they heard this story from his parents. After that, there’s no information about him for about sixteen years. We don’t know where he lived or how he spent that time. Most likely, he was working in his father's trade as a carpenter. It doesn't seem like he had any formal education, and it's probable that he couldn’t write, as his family was very poor, which is suggested by their inability to pay for a bed when he was born. [NOTE: One of the few errors traceable to Paine's not having a Bible at hand while writing Part I. There is no indication that the family was poor, but the reverse may in fact be inferred.—Editor.]
It is somewhat curious that the three persons whose names are the most universally recorded were of very obscure parentage. Moses was a foundling; Jesus Christ was born in a stable; and Mahomet was a mule driver. The first and the last of these men were founders of different systems of religion; but Jesus Christ founded no new system. He called men to the practice of moral virtues, and the belief of one God. The great trait in his character is philanthropy.
It’s interesting that the three people most commonly known in history came from very humble backgrounds. Moses was abandoned as a baby; Jesus Christ was born in a stable; and Muhammad was a mule driver. The first and the last of these men started different religions, but Jesus Christ didn’t create a new religion. He encouraged people to live morally and believe in one God. The key characteristic of his personality is compassion.
The manner in which he was apprehended shows that he was not much known, at that time; and it shows also that the meetings he then held with his followers were in secret; and that he had given over or suspended preaching publicly. Judas could no otherways betray him than by giving information where he was, and pointing him out to the officers that went to arrest him; and the reason for employing and paying Judas to do this could arise only from the causes already mentioned, that of his not being much known, and living concealed.
The way he was caught shows that he wasn't well-known at that time; it also indicates that the meetings he held with his followers were kept secret, and that he had stopped or paused preaching in public. Judas could only betray him by telling the authorities where he was and identifying him to the officers who came to arrest him. The reason for hiring and paying Judas to do this could only stem from the reasons already mentioned: that he wasn't well-known and was living in hiding.
The idea of his concealment, not only agrees very ill with his reputed divinity, but associates with it something of pusillanimity; and his being betrayed, or in other words, his being apprehended, on the information of one of his followers, shows that he did not intend to be apprehended, and consequently that he did not intend to be crucified.
The idea that he was hiding not only poorly aligns with his supposed divinity but also suggests a lack of courage; and his betrayal, or in other words, his capture based on information from one of his followers, indicates that he did not plan to be captured and therefore did not plan to be crucified.
The Christian mythologists tell us that Christ died for the sins of the world, and that he came on Purpose to die. Would it not then have been the same if he had died of a fever or of the small pox, of old age, or of anything else?
The Christian mythologists say that Christ died for the sins of the world, and that he came with the intention to die. Would it not have been the same if he had died from a fever, smallpox, old age, or anything else?
The declaratory sentence which, they say, was passed upon Adam, in case he ate of the apple, was not, that thou shalt surely be crucified, but, thou shale surely die. The sentence was death, and not the manner of dying. Crucifixion, therefore, or any other particular manner of dying, made no part of the sentence that Adam was to suffer, and consequently, even upon their own tactic, it could make no part of the sentence that Christ was to suffer in the room of Adam. A fever would have done as well as a cross, if there was any occasion for either.
The statement that was supposedly made to Adam if he ate the apple wasn’t that he would definitely be crucified, but that he would surely die. The sentence was death, not how he would die. So, crucifixion or any specific way of dying wasn’t part of the punishment Adam faced, and therefore, using their own reasoning, it couldn’t be part of the punishment that Christ was to endure in place of Adam. A fever would have been just as sufficient as a cross, if either were needed.
This sentence of death, which, they tell us, was thus passed upon Adam, must either have meant dying naturally, that is, ceasing to live, or have meant what these mythologists call damnation; and consequently, the act of dying on the part of Jesus Christ, must, according to their system, apply as a prevention to one or other of these two things happening to Adam and to us.
This death sentence that was declared upon Adam must have meant either dying naturally, which is to stop living, or what these mythologists refer to as damnation. Therefore, according to their beliefs, Jesus Christ's death must have prevented one of these two outcomes from happening to Adam and to us.
That it does not prevent our dying is evident, because we all die; and if their accounts of longevity be true, men die faster since the crucifixion than before: and with respect to the second explanation, (including with it the natural death of Jesus Christ as a substitute for the eternal death or damnation of all mankind,) it is impertinently representing the Creator as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a pun or a quibble upon the word death. That manufacturer of, quibbles, St. Paul, if he wrote the books that bear his name, has helped this quibble on by making another quibble upon the word Adam. He makes there to be two Adams; the one who sins in fact, and suffers by proxy; the other who sins by proxy, and suffers in fact. A religion thus interlarded with quibble, subterfuge, and pun, has a tendency to instruct its professors in the practice of these arts. They acquire the habit without being aware of the cause.
That it doesn't stop us from dying is clear, because we all die; and if their claims about longevity are true, people die more quickly since the crucifixion than they did before. Regarding the second explanation—considering the natural death of Jesus Christ as a substitute for the eternal death or damnation of all humanity—it unnecessarily portrays the Creator as getting out of or reversing the judgment through a play on words about death. That master of wordplay, St. Paul, if he wrote the books attributed to him, has added to this wordplay by creating another twist with the word Adam. He suggests there are two Adams: the one who sins in reality and suffers on behalf of others, and the other who sins on behalf of others and suffers in reality. A religion filled with wordplay, tricks, and puns tends to teach its followers to practice these tricks. They develop the habit without realizing the reason behind it.
If Jesus Christ was the being which those mythologists tell us he was, and that he came into this world to suffer, which is a word they sometimes use instead of 'to die,' the only real suffering he could have endured would have been 'to live.' His existence here was a state of exilement or transportation from heaven, and the way back to his original country was to die.—In fine, everything in this strange system is the reverse of what it pretends to be. It is the reverse of truth, and I become so tired of examining into its inconsistencies and absurdities, that I hasten to the conclusion of it, in order to proceed to something better.
If Jesus Christ was the being that those mythologists claim he was, and he came into this world to suffer—often a term they use instead of 'to die'—then the only real suffering he could have faced would have been 'to live.' His existence here was a state of exile or a removal from heaven, and the way back to his original home was through death. Essentially, everything in this strange system is the opposite of what it appears to be. It contradicts the truth, and I become so exhausted from dissecting its inconsistencies and absurdities that I rush to wrap it up in order to move on to something better.
How much, or what parts of the books called the New Testament, were written by the persons whose names they bear, is what we can know nothing of, neither are we certain in what language they were originally written. The matters they now contain may be classed under two heads: anecdote, and epistolary correspondence.
We have no way of knowing how much or which parts of the New Testament were written by the people whose names are on them, and we’re also not sure what language they were originally written in. The topics they cover can be divided into two categories: stories and letters.
The four books already mentioned, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are altogether anecdotal. They relate events after they had taken place. They tell what Jesus Christ did and said, and what others did and said to him; and in several instances they relate the same event differently. Revelation is necessarily out of the question with respect to those books; not only because of the disagreement of the writers, but because revelation cannot be applied to the relating of facts by the persons who saw them done, nor to the relating or recording of any discourse or conversation by those who heard it. The book called the Acts of the Apostles (an anonymous work) belongs also to the anecdotal part.
The four books we’ve talked about—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are mostly anecdotal. They describe events that happened in the past. They share what Jesus Christ did and said, as well as what others did and said to him; in several cases, they recount the same event in different ways. Revelation definitely doesn’t apply to those books, not only because the writers don’t agree, but also because revelation can’t be linked to people recounting facts they witnessed or to the sharing or recording of any dialogues or conversations they heard. The book called the Acts of the Apostles (which is an anonymous work) also falls into the anecdotal category.
All the other parts of the New Testament, except the book of enigmas, called the Revelations, are a collection of letters under the name of epistles; and the forgery of letters has been such a common practice in the world, that the probability is at least equal, whether they are genuine or forged. One thing, however, is much less equivocal, which is, that out of the matters contained in those books, together with the assistance of some old stories, the church has set up a system of religion very contradictory to the character of the person whose name it bears. It has set up a religion of pomp and of revenue in pretended imitation of a person whose life was humility and poverty.
All the other parts of the New Testament, except for the book of mysteries known as Revelation, are a collection of letters referred to as epistles. The forgery of letters has been such a common practice that it's equally likely they are genuine or fake. One thing, however, is much clearer: from the contents of those books, along with some old stories, the church has created a religious system that is very much at odds with the character of the person it's named after. It has established a religion focused on show and wealth, pretending to imitate someone whose life was all about humility and poverty.
The invention of a purgatory, and of the releasing of souls therefrom, by prayers, bought of the church with money; the selling of pardons, dispensations, and indulgences, are revenue laws, without bearing that name or carrying that appearance. But the case nevertheless is, that those things derive their origin from the proxysm of the crucifixion, and the theory deduced therefrom, which was, that one person could stand in the place of another, and could perform meritorious services for him. The probability, therefore, is, that the whole theory or doctrine of what is called the redemption (which is said to have been accomplished by the act of one person in the room of another) was originally fabricated on purpose to bring forward and build all those secondary and pecuniary redemptions upon; and that the passages in the books upon which the idea of theory of redemption is built, have been manufactured and fabricated for that purpose. Why are we to give this church credit, when she tells us that those books are genuine in every part, any more than we give her credit for everything else she has told us; or for the miracles she says she has performed? That she could fabricate writings is certain, because she could write; and the composition of the writings in question, is of that kind that anybody might do it; and that she did fabricate them is not more inconsistent with probability, than that she should tell us, as she has done, that she could and did work miracles.
The idea of purgatory and the release of souls from it through prayers purchased from the church with money, along with the selling of pardons, dispensations, and indulgences, operates like a revenue system without directly calling it that or making it obvious. However, these practices trace back to the events surrounding the crucifixion and the theory that one person could take the place of another, performing good deeds on their behalf. Therefore, it's likely that the entire concept of what is called redemption—claiming it was achieved by the actions of one person in the place of another—was originally created to support and promote these secondary, monetary forms of redemption. It seems the texts that supposedly back up this theory of redemption may have been fabricated for that reason. Why should we trust the church when it claims these texts are completely genuine, any more than we trust everything else it tells us, or the miracles it claims to have performed? It's certainly possible for the church to create documents since it has the ability to write; and the kind of writings in question could easily have been produced by anyone. The idea that the church created them is no more unlikely than its claims that it could and did work miracles.
Since, then, no external evidence can, at this long distance of time, be produced to prove whether the church fabricated the doctrine called redemption or not, (for such evidence, whether for or against, would be subject to the same suspicion of being fabricated,) the case can only be referred to the internal evidence which the thing carries of itself; and this affords a very strong presumption of its being a fabrication. For the internal evidence is, that the theory or doctrine of redemption has for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice.
Since no external evidence can be presented after such a long time to prove whether the church made up the doctrine of redemption or not (because any evidence, whether for or against, could be questioned as being fabricated), we can only look at the internal evidence that the doctrine provides. This gives a strong indication that it is likely a fabrication. The internal evidence shows that the theory or doctrine of redemption is based on the idea of financial justice rather than moral justice.
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.
If I owe someone money and can't pay, and they threaten to put me in jail, another person can take on the debt and pay it for me. But if I've committed a crime, everything changes. Moral justice can't take the innocent in place of the guilty, even if the innocent offers themselves. To think justice would do this is to undermine the very principle of its existence, which is justice itself. It then becomes something else entirely. It's no longer justice; it's just blind revenge.
This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.
This single reflection will show that the idea of redemption is based on a simple financial concept similar to a debt that someone else might pay off; and since this financial idea also aligns with the practice of second redemptions, which were achieved through money given to the church for pardons, it's likely that the same people created both theories. In reality, there is no such thing as redemption; it's a myth; and humans are in the same relationship with their Maker as they have always been since the beginning of humanity; and it's his greatest comfort to believe that.
Let him believe this, and he will live more consistently and morally, than by any other system. It is by his being taught to contemplate himself as an out-law, as an out-cast, as a beggar, as a mumper, as one thrown as it were on a dunghill, at an immense distance from his Creator, and who must make his approaches by creeping, and cringing to intermediate beings, that he conceives either a contemptuous disregard for everything under the name of religion, or becomes indifferent, or turns what he calls devout. In the latter case, he consumes his life in grief, or the affectation of it. His prayers are reproaches. His humility is ingratitude. He calls himself a worm, and the fertile earth a dunghill; and all the blessings of life by the thankless name of vanities. He despises the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF REASON; and having endeavoured to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human reason, as if man could give reason to himself.
Let him believe this, and he'll live more consistently and morally than with any other approach. It's by being taught to see himself as an outcast, a beggar, thrown onto a dung heap, far from his Creator, who must approach by crawling and begging from intermediaries, that he develops either a contempt for everything called religion, becomes indifferent, or turns what he calls devout. In the latter situation, he spends his life in grief or pretending to feel it. His prayers turn into accusations. His humility feels like ingratitude. He calls himself a worm, views the fertile earth as a dung heap, and refers to all of life's blessings with the thankless label of vanities. He looks down on the greatest gift God gave to humanity, the GIFT OF REASON; and having tried to force himself to believe in a system that reason rejects, he ungratefully names it human reason, as if man could create reason for himself.
Yet, with all this strange appearance of humility, and this contempt for human reason, he ventures into the boldest presumptions. He finds fault with everything. His selfishness is never satisfied; his ingratitude is never at an end. He takes on himself to direct the Almighty what to do, even in the govemment of the universe. He prays dictatorially. When it is sunshine, he prays for rain, and when it is rain, he prays for sunshine. He follows the same idea in everything that he prays for; for what is the amount of all his prayers, but an attempt to make the Almighty change his mind, and act otherwise than he does? It is as if he were to say—thou knowest not so well as I.
Yet, despite his strange display of humility and disdain for human reasoning, he makes the boldest assumptions. He criticizes everything. His selfishness is never satisfied, and his ingratitude never stops. He takes it upon himself to instruct the Almighty on what to do, even in the governance of the universe. He prays with a sense of entitlement. When it's sunny, he prays for rain, and when it's raining, he prays for sunshine. He applies the same reasoning to everything he prays for; ultimately, all his prayers are just attempts to get the Almighty to change His mind and act differently than He does. It's as if he’s saying— you don’t know as well as I do.
CHAPTER IX - IN WHAT THE TRUE REVELATION CONSISTS.
BUT some perhaps will say—Are we to have no word of God—no revelation? I answer yes. There is a Word of God; there is a revelation.
BUT some might say—Are we not going to have any word from God—no revelation? I say yes. There is a Word of God; there is a revelation.
THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.
THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE SEE: And it is in this word, which no human invention can imitate or change, that God speaks universally to humankind.
Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. The idea that God sent Jesus Christ to publish, as they say, the glad tidings to all nations, from one end of the earth unto the other, is consistent only with the ignorance of those who know nothing of the extent of the world, and who believed, as those world-saviours believed, and continued to believe for several centuries, (and that in contradiction to the discoveries of philosophers and the experience of navigators,) that the earth was flat like a trencher; and that a man might walk to the end of it.
Human language is local and constantly changing, so it can't serve as a way to convey unchanging and universal information. The belief that God sent Jesus Christ to spread, as they say, the good news to all nations, from one end of the earth to the other, only reflects the ignorance of those who knew nothing about the vastness of the world. They believed, just like those self-proclaimed saviors of the world, and continued to believe for many centuries—despite what philosophers discovered and navigators experienced—that the earth was flat like a plate and that a person could simply walk to the edge of it.
But how was Jesus Christ to make anything known to all nations? He could speak but one language, which was Hebrew; and there are in the world several hundred languages. Scarcely any two nations speak the same language, or understand each other; and as to translations, every man who knows anything of languages, knows that it is impossible to translate from one language into another, not only without losing a great part of the original, but frequently of mistaking the sense; and besides all this, the art of printing was wholly unknown at the time Christ lived.
But how could Jesus Christ make himself known to all nations? He could only speak one language, which was Hebrew, and there are several hundred languages in the world. Hardly any two nations speak the same language or understand each other. And when it comes to translations, anyone who knows about languages realizes that it’s impossible to translate from one language to another without losing a significant part of the original meaning and often misunderstanding the sense. On top of that, the art of printing was completely unknown during the time Jesus lived.
It is always necessary that the means that are to accomplish any end be equal to the accomplishment of that end, or the end cannot be accomplished. It is in this that the difference between finite and infinite power and wisdom discovers itself. Man frequently fails in accomplishing his end, from a natural inability of the power to the purpose; and frequently from the want of wisdom to apply power properly. But it is impossible for infinite power and wisdom to fail as man faileth. The means it useth are always equal to the end: but human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information; and therefore it is not the means that God useth in manifesting himself universally to man.
It is always necessary for the means that achieve any goal to be equal to that goal; otherwise, the goal can’t be reached. This is where the difference between finite and infinite power and wisdom becomes clear. Humans often fail to achieve their goals due to a natural inability of their power to match the purpose, or because they lack the wisdom to use their power correctly. However, it’s impossible for infinite power and wisdom to fail as humans do. The means they use are always adequate for the end. But human language, especially since there's no universal language, cannot be used as a universal means of consistent and reliable information; therefore, it is not the means that God uses to reveal Himself universally to humanity.
It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.
It is only in the CREATION that all our thoughts and understandings of God's word can come together. Creation speaks a universal language, regardless of the many forms of human speech. It is an ever-present original that everyone can interpret. It cannot be forged, counterfeited, lost, altered, or suppressed. It doesn't rely on human choice to be shared; it spreads itself from one end of the earth to the other. It delivers its message to all nations and all worlds, and this word of God shows humanity everything necessary to understand God.
Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible Whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the scripture, which any human hand might make, but the scripture called the Creation.
Do we want to think about his power? We see it in the vastness of creation. Do we want to think about his wisdom? We see it in the consistent order by which the incomprehensible Whole operates. Do we want to think about his generosity? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to think about his mercy? We see it in his willingness to share that abundance even with those who are ungrateful. In short, do we want to understand what God is? Don't look in the book called scripture, created by human hands, but in the scripture called Creation.
CHAPTER X - CONCERNING GOD, AND THE LIGHTS CAST ON HIS EXISTENCE
AND ATTRIBUTES BY THE BIBLE.
THE only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things. And, incomprehensibly difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it, from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it. It is difficult beyond description to conceive that space can have no end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It is difficult beyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration of what we call time; but it is more impossible to conceive a time when there shall be no time.
THE only idea that people can attach to the name of God is that of a first cause, the origin of everything. And, as incredibly challenging as it is for someone to understand what a first cause is, they come to believe in it because it’s even harder to imagine not believing in it. It's almost impossible to grasp that space might have no end; yet, it’s even harder to imagine that it does have an end. It’s beyond our ability to comprehend an eternal duration of what we call time; however, it’s even more impossible to think of a time when there will be no time.
In like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in itself the internal evidence that it did not make itself. Every man is an evidence to himself, that he did not make himself; neither could his father make himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race; neither could any tree, plant, or animal make itself; and it is the conviction arising from this evidence, that carries us on, as it were, by necessity, to the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally different to any material existence we know of, and by the power of which all things exist; and this first cause, man calls God.
Similarly, everything we see has within it the proof that it didn't create itself. Each person knows deep down that they didn't make themselves; neither could their father, grandfather, or any of their ancestors create themselves. No tree, plant, or animal can make itself either. This understanding leads us, almost inevitably, to believe in a first cause that has always existed, which is completely different from any material existence we know of, and through which everything exists; and this first cause is what we call God.
It is only by the exercise of reason, that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and in this case it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How then is it that those people pretend to reject reason?
It is only by using reason that people can find God. Without that reason, they wouldn’t be able to understand anything; in that case, it would make just as much sense to read the book called the Bible to a horse as to a person. So how is it that some people claim to reject reason?
Almost the only parts in the book called the Bible, that convey to us any idea of God, are some chapters in Job, and the 19th Psalm; I recollect no other. Those parts are true deistical compositions; for they treat of the Deity through his works. They take the book of Creation as the word of God; they refer to no other book; and all the inferences they make are drawn from that volume.
Almost the only sections in the book known as the Bible that give us any concept of God are some chapters in Job and the 19th Psalm; I can't recall any others. Those sections are genuine deistical writings because they discuss the Deity through his creations. They treat the book of Creation as the word of God; they don't reference any other book, and all their conclusions are derived from that volume.
I insert in this place the 19th Psalm, as paraphrased into English verse by Addison. I recollect not the prose, and where I write this I have not the opportunity of seeing it:
I’m including the 19th Psalm here, as paraphrased into English verse by Addison. I don’t remember the prose, and where I’m writing this, I don’t have the chance to see it:
The vast sky up high, With all the blue, endless space, And sparkling heavens, a bright frame, Declare their amazing origin. The tireless sun, every day, Shows off the Creator's power, And announces to every land The work of an Almighty hand. As evening shadows take over, The moon picks up the amazing story, And nightly to the listening earth Repeats the tale of her beginning; While all the stars that glow around her, And all the planets, in their turn, Confirm the news as they move, Spreading the truth from pole to pole. Even though everything silently Moves around this dark earthly sphere, Even if there’s no real voice or sound, Among their shining orbs, they can still be found, In reason's ear, they all rejoice, And proclaim a glorious voice, Forever singing as they shine, THE HAND THAT MADE US IS DIVINE.
What more does man want to know, than that the hand or power that made these things is divine, is omnipotent? Let him believe this, with the force it is impossible to repel if he permits his reason to act, and his rule of moral life will follow of course.
What else does a person want to know, other than that the force or power that created these things is divine and all-powerful? Let them believe this, with the conviction that is impossible to deny if they allow their reasoning to engage, and their moral guidelines will naturally follow.
The allusions in Job have all of them the same tendency with this Psalm; that of deducing or proving a truth that would be otherwise unknown, from truths already known.
The references in Job have the same tendency as this Psalm; they aim to deduce or prove a truth that would otherwise be unknown, based on truths that are already known.
I recollect not enough of the passages in Job to insert them correctly; but there is one that occurs to me that is applicable to the subject I am speaking upon. "Canst thou by searching find out God; canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?"
I don't remember enough of the verses in Job to quote them correctly; but there's one that comes to mind that's relevant to what I'm discussing. "Can you, by searching, find God? Can you find the Almighty completely?"
I know not how the printers have pointed this passage, for I keep no Bible; but it contains two distinct questions that admit of distinct answers.
I don't know how the printers have interpreted this passage, since I don't have a Bible; but it includes two separate questions that allow for different answers.
First, Canst thou by searching find out God? Yes. Because, in the first place, I know I did not make myself, and yet I have existence; and by searching into the nature of other things, I find that no other thing could make itself; and yet millions of other things exist; therefore it is, that I know, by positive conclusion resulting from this search, that there is a power superior to all those things, and that power is God.
First, can you discover God through searching? Yes. Because, first of all, I know I didn’t create myself, yet I exist; and by examining the nature of other things, I find that nothing else could create itself either; yet millions of other things exist. Therefore, I know, through the definitive conclusions drawn from this search, that there is a power greater than all those things, and that power is God.
Secondly, Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? No. Not only because the power and wisdom He has manifested in the structure of the Creation that I behold is to me incomprehensible; but because even this manifestation, great as it is is probably but a small display of that immensity of power and wisdom, by which millions of other worlds, to me invisible by their distance, were created and continue to exist.
Secondly, can you understand the Almighty completely? No. Not just because the power and wisdom He has shown in the creation I see is beyond my understanding, but also because even this display, as great as it is, is probably just a tiny glimpse of the vast power and wisdom that created millions of other worlds, which remain invisible to me due to their distance, and that keep on existing.
It is evident that both of these questions were put to the reason of the person to whom they are supposed to have been addressed; and it is only by admitting the first question to be answered affirmatively, that the second could follow. It would have been unnecessary, and even absurd, to have put a second question, more difficult than the first, if the first question had been answered negatively. The two questions have different objects; the first refers to the existence of God, the second to his attributes. Reason can discover the one, but it falls infinitely short in discovering the whole of the other.
It’s clear that both of these questions were directed at the reasoning of the person they were aimed at; and it’s only by accepting that the first question was answered yes that the second could follow. It would have been pointless, and even absurd, to ask a second question, which is more challenging than the first, if the first question had received a no. The two questions focus on different things; the first is about the existence of God, while the second pertains to His attributes. Reason can uncover the first, but it falls far short of grasping the entirety of the second.
I recollect not a single passage in all the writings ascribed to the men called apostles, that conveys any idea of what God is. Those writings are chiefly controversial; and the gloominess of the subject they dwell upon, that of a man dying in agony on a cross, is better suited to the gloomy genius of a monk in a cell, by whom it is not impossible they were written, than to any man breathing the open air of the Creation. The only passage that occurs to me, that has any reference to the works of God, by which only his power and wisdom can be known, is related to have been spoken by Jesus Christ, as a remedy against distrustful care. "Behold the lilies of the field, they toil not, neither do they spin." This, however, is far inferior to the allusions in Job and in the 19th Psalm; but it is similar in idea, and the modesty of the imagery is correspondent to the modesty of the man.
I can't recall a single section in all the writings attributed to the apostles that offers any insight into what God is like. Those writings are mostly argumentative, and the dark theme they focus on— a man suffering and dying on a cross—seems better suited to the somber nature of a monk in a cell, who may very well have written them, rather than to any person living freely in the world. The only line that comes to mind, which touches on the works of God and shows His power and wisdom, is said to have been spoken by Jesus Christ as a solution to anxious worry: "Look at the lilies of the field; they don’t labor or spin." However, this is far less impactful than the references found in Job and in the 19th Psalm. Still, it shares a similar idea, and the simplicity of the imagery matches the humility of the man.
CHAPTER XI - OF THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIANS; AND THE TRUE THEOLOGY.
As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism; a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of man-ism with but little deism, and is as near to atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or an irreligious eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.
As for the Christian faith, it seems to me like a form of atheism; a type of religious denial of God. It claims to believe in a person rather than in God. It's mostly centered around humanism with very little deism, and it's as close to atheism as twilight is to complete darkness. It places an opaque figure, which it calls a redeemer, between humans and their Creator, much like the moon blocks the sun's light from reaching the Earth, creating a religious or irreligious eclipse of light. It has cast a shadow over the entire realm of reason.
The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down, and representing it in reverse; and among the revolutions it has thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in Theology.
The effect of this ambiguity has been to turn everything upside down and show it in reverse; among the changes it has magically created, it has led to a revolution in Theology.
That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.
What we now refer to as natural philosophy, encompassing the entire scope of science, with astronomy taking the central role, is the examination of God's creations, as well as the power and wisdom of God evident in those creations, and is the genuine theology.
As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or writings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition.
The theology being studied today focuses on people's opinions and ideas about God. It doesn't involve examining God through the works He created, but rather through the writings made by humans. One of the significant harms the Christian system has inflicted upon the world is that it has forsaken the original and beautiful system of theology, leaving it vulnerable to distress and criticism, in favor of the ugly reality of superstition.
The Book of Job and the 19th Psalm, which even the church admits to be more ancient than the chronological order in which they stand in the book called the Bible, are theological orations conformable to the original system of theology. The internal evidence of those orations proves to a demonstration that the study and contemplation of the works of creation, and of the power and wisdom of God revealed and manifested in those works, made a great part of the religious devotion of the times in which they were written; and it was this devotional study and contemplation that led to the discovery of the principles upon which what are now called Sciences are established; and it is to the discovery of these principles that almost all the Arts that contribute to the convenience of human life owe their existence. Every principal art has some science for its parent, though the person who mechanically performs the work does not always, and but very seldom, perceive the connection.
The Book of Job and the 19th Psalm, which even the church acknowledges are older than their placement in the Bible, are theological speeches that align with the original system of theology. The internal evidence of these speeches clearly shows that studying and contemplating the works of creation, as well as the power and wisdom of God displayed in those works, were significant aspects of religious devotion during the times they were written. It was this devotional study and contemplation that led to the discovery of the principles that now form the basis of what we call Sciences, and it is these discoveries that have given rise to almost all the Arts that enhance human life. Every major art has a science as its foundation, though the person who performs the work mechanically rarely, if ever, realizes the connection.
It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences 'human inventions;' it is only the application of them that is human. Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them.
It’s a misconception of the Christian system to label the sciences as 'human inventions;' it’s only their application that is human. Every science is built on a set of principles that are as fixed and unchangeable as the rules that govern the universe. Humans cannot create principles; they can only uncover them.
For example: Every person who looks at an almanack sees an account when an eclipse will take place, and he sees also that it never fails to take place according to the account there given. This shows that man is acquainted with the laws by which the heavenly bodies move. But it would be something worse than ignorance, were any church on earth to say that those laws are an human invention.
For example: Every person who looks at an almanac sees a schedule for when an eclipse will happen, and they also see that it always occurs as described. This shows that humans understand the laws governing the movement of celestial bodies. It would be something worse than ignorance if any church on earth claimed that those laws are a human invention.
It would also be ignorance, or something worse, to say that the scientific principles, by the aid of which man is enabled to calculate and foreknow when an eclipse will take place, are an human invention. Man cannot invent any thing that is eternal and immutable; and the scientific principles he employs for this purpose must, and are, of necessity, as eternal and immutable as the laws by which the heavenly bodies move, or they could not be used as they are to ascertain the time when, and the manner how, an eclipse will take place.
It would also be foolish, or even worse, to claim that the scientific principles that allow us to predict when an eclipse will happen are a human invention. Humans can't create anything that is eternal and unchanging; the scientific principles used for this purpose must be as eternal and unchanging as the laws that govern the movement of celestial bodies. Otherwise, they couldn't be effectively used to determine when and how an eclipse will occur.
The scientific principles that man employs to obtain the foreknowledge of an eclipse, or of any thing else relating to the motion of the heavenly bodies, are contained chiefly in that part of science that is called trigonometry, or the properties of a triangle, which, when applied to the study of the heavenly bodies, is called astronomy; when applied to direct the course of a ship on the ocean, it is called navigation; when applied to the construction of figures drawn by a rule and compass, it is called geometry; when applied to the construction of plans of edifices, it is called architecture; when applied to the measurement of any portion of the surface of the earth, it is called land-surveying. In fine, it is the soul of science. It is an eternal truth: it contains the mathematical demonstration of which man speaks, and the extent of its uses are unknown.
The scientific concepts that people use to predict an eclipse, or anything else related to the movement of celestial bodies, are mainly found in a branch of science known as trigonometry, or the properties of triangles. When this is applied to the study of the stars and planets, it’s called astronomy; when it’s used to navigate a ship across the ocean, it’s called navigation; when it’s used to create shapes with a ruler and compass, it's referred to as geometry; when used for designing buildings, it’s called architecture; and when it’s used to measure areas of land, it’s known as land surveying. In short, it is the essence of science. It is an eternal truth: it contains the mathematical proof that people refer to, and the full range of its applications is unknown.
It may be said, that man can make or draw a triangle, and therefore a triangle is an human invention.
It can be said that humans can create or draw a triangle, so a triangle is a human invention.
But the triangle, when drawn, is no other than the image of the principle: it is a delineation to the eye, and from thence to the mind, of a principle that would otherwise be imperceptible. The triangle does not make the principle, any more than a candle taken into a room that was dark, makes the chairs and tables that before were invisible. All the properties of a triangle exist independently of the figure, and existed before any triangle was drawn or thought of by man. Man had no more to do in the formation of those properties or principles, than he had to do in making the laws by which the heavenly bodies move; and therefore the one must have the same divine origin as the other.
But the triangle, when drawn, is simply a representation of the principle: it visually conveys to our eyes and then to our minds a concept that would be unnoticed otherwise. The triangle doesn't create the principle, just like bringing a candle into a dark room doesn't create the chairs and tables that were invisible before. All the properties of a triangle exist independently of the shape and existed long before any triangle was drawn or conceived by humans. Humans had no more involvement in forming those properties or principles than they did in creating the laws that govern the movement of celestial bodies; therefore, both must have the same divine origin.
In the same manner as, it may be said, that man can make a triangle, so also, may it be said, he can make the mechanical instrument called a lever. But the principle by which the lever acts, is a thing distinct from the instrument, and would exist if the instrument did not; it attaches itself to the instrument after it is made; the instrument, therefore, can act no otherwise than it does act; neither can all the efforts of human invention make it act otherwise. That which, in all such cases, man calls the effect, is no other than the principle itself rendered perceptible to the senses.
Just like it can be said that a person can create a triangle, it can also be said that they can create a mechanical tool called a lever. However, the principle that allows the lever to function is separate from the tool itself and would still exist even if the tool didn't. This principle becomes associated with the tool once it's made; therefore, the tool can only operate in the way it currently does, and no amount of human ingenuity can change that. What people refer to as the effect in these situations is simply the principle itself made perceptible to the senses.
Since, then, man cannot make principles, from whence did he gain a knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply them, not only to things on earth, but to ascertain the motion of bodies so immensely distant from him as all the heavenly bodies are? From whence, I ask, could he gain that knowledge, but from the study of the true theology?
Since man can't create principles, where did he get the knowledge of them that allows him to apply them not just to things on Earth, but also to understand the motion of bodies that are so far away, like all the heavenly bodies? I ask, where could he have gained that knowledge if not from studying true theology?
It is the structure of the universe that has taught this knowledge to man. That structure is an ever-existing exhibition of every principle upon which every part of mathematical science is founded. The offspring of this science is mechanics; for mechanics is no other than the principles of science applied practically. The man who proportions the several parts of a mill uses the same scientific principles as if he had the power of constructing an universe, but as he cannot give to matter that invisible agency by which all the component parts of the immense machine of the universe have influence upon each other, and act in motional unison together, without any apparent contact, and to which man has given the name of attraction, gravitation, and repulsion, he supplies the place of that agency by the humble imitation of teeth and cogs. All the parts of man's microcosm must visibly touch. But could he gain a knowledge of that agency, so as to be able to apply it in practice, we might then say that another canonical book of the word of God had been discovered.
The structure of the universe has taught humans this knowledge. That structure is a constant display of every principle on which all aspects of math are based. The result of this science is mechanics; mechanics is just the application of those scientific principles in a practical way. The person who designs the different parts of a mill uses the same scientific principles as if they could create an entire universe. However, since they can't give matter the invisible force that allows all the parts of the vast machine of the universe to influence one another and work together in motion without any visible contact—what humans refer to as attraction, gravitation, and repulsion—they replace that force with simple gears and cogs. In man's smaller world, all parts must physically touch. But if he could understand that force well enough to put it into practice, we could then say that another sacred text of God's word had been discovered.
If man could alter the properties of the lever, so also could he alter the properties of the triangle: for a lever (taking that sort of lever which is called a steel-yard, for the sake of explanation) forms, when in motion, a triangle. The line it descends from, (one point of that line being in the fulcrum,) the line it descends to, and the chord of the arc, which the end of the lever describes in the air, are the three sides of a triangle. The other arm of the lever describes also a triangle; and the corresponding sides of those two triangles, calculated scientifically, or measured geometrically,—and also the sines, tangents, and secants generated from the angles, and geometrically measured,—have the same proportions to each other as the different weights have that will balance each other on the lever, leaving the weight of the lever out of the case.
If a person can change the properties of the lever, they can also change the properties of the triangle. A lever, specifically the kind called a steel yard for explanation, forms a triangle when it moves. The line it descends from (with one point on the fulcrum), the line it descends to, and the arc's chord that the lever's end traces through the air create the three sides of a triangle. The other side of the lever also forms a triangle, and when the corresponding sides of those two triangles are calculated scientifically or measured geometrically—along with the sines, tangents, and secants generated from the angles and measured geometrically—they maintain the same proportions to each other as the different weights that will balance on the lever, not counting the weight of the lever itself.
It may also be said, that man can make a wheel and axis; that he can put wheels of different magnitudes together, and produce a mill. Still the case comes back to the same point, which is, that he did not make the principle that gives the wheels those powers. This principle is as unalterable as in the former cases, or rather it is the same principle under a different appearance to the eye.
It can also be said that a person can create a wheel and axle; that they can combine wheels of different sizes to make a mill. Yet, it ultimately comes back to the same point, which is that they did not create the principle that grants the wheels their abilities. This principle is just as unchangeable as in the previous cases, or rather, it’s the same principle but appears differently to the eye.
The power that two wheels of different magnitudes have upon each other is in the same proportion as if the semi-diameter of the two wheels were joined together and made into that kind of lever I have described, suspended at the part where the semi-diameters join; for the two wheels, scientifically considered, are no other than the two circles generated by the motion of the compound lever.
The force that two wheels of different sizes exert on each other is proportional to how their radii are combined, creating a lever like I described, hanging from the point where the radii meet; because, from a scientific perspective, the two wheels are essentially just the two circles created by the movement of the compound lever.
It is from the study of the true theology that all our knowledge of science is derived; and it is from that knowledge that all the arts have originated.
It is from the study of genuine theology that all our understanding of science comes; and it is from that understanding that all the arts have emerged.
The Almighty lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if he had said to the inhabitants of this globe that we call ours, "I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, AND LEARN FROM MY MUNIFICENCE TO ALL, TO BE KIND TO EACH OTHER."
The great lecturer, by showing the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has encouraged people to study and to imitate. It’s as if he said to the inhabitants of this world we call ours, "I have created a land for people to live on, and I have made the starry sky visible to teach them science and the arts. Now they can take care of their own comfort, AND LEARN FROM MY GENEROSITY TO ALL, TO BE KIND TO ONE ANOTHER."
Of what use is it, unless it be to teach man something, that his eye is endowed with the power of beholding, to an incomprehensible distance, an immensity of worlds revolving in the ocean of space? Or of what use is it that this immensity of worlds is visible to man? What has man to do with the Pleiades, with Orion, with Sirius, with the star he calls the north star, with the moving orbs he has named Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury, if no uses are to follow from their being visible? A less power of vision would have been sufficient for man, if the immensity he now possesses were given only to waste itself, as it were, on an immense desert of space glittering with shows.
What's the point of having the ability to see, if it doesn't teach us anything, especially when our eyes can take in the vastness of countless worlds spinning in the ocean of space? Why should it matter that we can see all these worlds? What connection does humanity have with the Pleiades, Orion, Sirius, the North Star, or the planets we call Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury, if there's no benefit from being able to see them? A lesser ability to see would have sufficed for us if the vastness we have now was just wasted on a huge emptiness filled with dazzling sights.
It is only by contemplating what he calls the starry heavens, as the book and school of science, that he discovers any use in their being visible to him, or any advantage resulting from his immensity of vision. But when he contemplates the subject in this light, he sees an additional motive for saying, that nothing was made in vain; for in vain would be this power of vision if it taught man nothing.
It’s only by reflecting on what he calls the starry skies, as the book and school of science, that he finds any value in their visibility to him or any benefit from his vast vision. But when he considers the topic this way, he recognizes another reason to say that nothing was created for no purpose; this ability to see would be pointless if it taught humans nothing.
CHAPTER XII - THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANISM ON EDUCATION; PROPOSED
REFORMS.
Changes.
As the Christian system of faith has made a revolution in theology, so also has it made a revolution in the state of learning. That which is now called learning, was not learning originally. Learning does not consist, as the schools now make it consist, in the knowledge of languages, but in the knowledge of things to which language gives names.
As the Christian faith has transformed theology, it has also changed the landscape of learning. What we now consider learning was not originally viewed that way. Learning isn't just about knowing languages, as schools often suggest; it's about understanding the things that those languages refer to.
The Greeks were a learned people, but learning with them did not consist in speaking Greek, any more than in a Roman's speaking Latin, or a Frenchman's speaking French, or an Englishman's speaking English. From what we know of the Greeks, it does not appear that they knew or studied any language but their own, and this was one cause of their becoming so learned; it afforded them more time to apply themselves to better studies. The schools of the Greeks were schools of science and philosophy, and not of languages; and it is in the knowledge of the things that science and philosophy teach that learning consists.
The Greeks were an educated people, but being educated for them didn’t just mean speaking Greek, just like for a Roman it didn’t mean just speaking Latin, or for a French person speaking French, or for an English person speaking English. From what we know about the Greeks, it doesn’t seem they studied any language other than their own, and this was one reason they became so knowledgeable; it gave them more time to focus on more important studies. The Greek schools were focused on science and philosophy rather than languages, and true learning comes from understanding the subjects that science and philosophy teach.
Almost all the scientific learning that now exists, came to us from the Greeks, or the people who spoke the Greek language. It therefore became necessary to the people of other nations, who spoke a different language, that some among them should learn the Greek language, in order that the learning the Greeks had might be made known in those nations, by translating the Greek books of science and philosophy into the mother tongue of each nation.
Almost all the scientific knowledge we have today comes from the Greeks or those who spoke Greek. As a result, it was essential for people from other countries who spoke different languages to have some individuals learn Greek, so that the knowledge of the Greeks could be shared with those nations by translating Greek scientific and philosophical texts into each nation's native language.
The study, therefore, of the Greek language (and in the same manner for the Latin) was no other than the drudgery business of a linguist; and the language thus obtained, was no other than the means, or as it were the tools, employed to obtain the learning the Greeks had. It made no part of the learning itself; and was so distinct from it as to make it exceedingly probable that the persons who had studied Greek sufficiently to translate those works, such for instance as Euclid's Elements, did not understand any of the learning the works contained.
The study of the Greek language (and similarly, Latin) was simply the tedious task of a linguist; the language learned was just the means or tools used to access the knowledge the Greeks had. It wasn't part of the knowledge itself and was so separate that it's highly likely the people who studied Greek enough to translate those works, like Euclid's Elements, didn't actually grasp any of the knowledge contained in those works.
As there is now nothing new to be learned from the dead languages, all the useful books being already translated, the languages are become useless, and the time expended in teaching and in learning them is wasted. So far as the study of languages may contribute to the progress and communication of knowledge (for it has nothing to do with the creation of knowledge) it is only in the living languages that new knowledge is to be found; and certain it is, that, in general, a youth will learn more of a living language in one year, than of a dead language in seven; and it is but seldom that the teacher knows much of it himself. The difficulty of learning the dead languages does not arise from any superior abstruseness in the languages themselves, but in their being dead, and the pronunciation entirely lost. It would be the same thing with any other language when it becomes dead. The best Greek linguist that now exists does not understand Greek so well as a Grecian plowman did, or a Grecian milkmaid; and the same for the Latin, compared with a plowman or a milkmaid of the Romans; and with respect to pronunciation and idiom, not so well as the cows that she milked. It would therefore be advantageous to the state of learning to abolish the study of the dead languages, and to make learning consist, as it originally did, in scientific knowledge.
Since there’s nothing new to gain from dead languages, and all useful books have already been translated, these languages have become pointless, and the time spent teaching and learning them is wasted. As far as studying languages helps us progress and communicate knowledge (it doesn't create knowledge), new insights can only be found in living languages. It’s clear that, in general, a student will learn more in one year of a living language than in seven years of a dead language; and it’s rare for the teacher to know much about it either. The difficulty in learning dead languages doesn’t come from their complexity but from the fact that they are dead, and their pronunciation is completely lost. The same would happen with any other language once it becomes dead. The best Greek linguist today doesn’t understand Greek as well as a Greek farmer or milkmaid did, and the same goes for Latin when compared to a Roman farmer or milkmaid; regarding pronunciation and idioms, not as well as the cows they milked. Thus, it would benefit the state of learning to eliminate the study of dead languages and return to a focus on scientific knowledge, as it once was.
The apology that is sometimes made for continuing to teach the dead languages is, that they are taught at a time when a child is not capable of exerting any other mental faculty than that of memory. But this is altogether erroneous. The human mind has a natural disposition to scientific knowledge, and to the things connected with it. The first and favourite amusement of a child, even before it begins to play, is that of imitating the works of man. It builds houses with cards or sticks; it navigates the little ocean of a bowl of water with a paper boat; or dams the stream of a gutter, and contrives something which it calls a mill; and it interests itself in the fate of its works with a care that resembles affection. It afterwards goes to school, where its genius is killed by the barren study of a dead language, and the philosopher is lost in the linguist.
The excuse often given for still teaching dead languages is that students learn them at a time when they can only use their memory. But that’s completely wrong. The human mind naturally leans towards scientific understanding and related topics. A child's first and favorite activity, even before they start playing, is imitating human creations. They build houses out of cards or sticks, sail tiny paper boats in a bowl of water, or block a gutter stream to create something they call a mill; they care about their creations with a level of interest that looks a lot like affection. Then they go to school, where their creativity gets stifled by the unproductive study of a dead language, and the philosopher within them gets lost in the linguist.
But the apology that is now made for continuing to teach the dead languages, could not be the cause at first of cutting down learning to the narrow and humble sphere of linguistry; the cause therefore must be sought for elsewhere. In all researches of this kind, the best evidence that can be produced, is the internal evidence the thing carries with itself, and the evidence of circumstances that unites with it; both of which, in this case, are not difficult to be discovered.
But the reason given now for continuing to teach dead languages couldn’t have been the initial cause of restricting learning to the limited and modest field of linguistics; the actual cause must be found elsewhere. In any research like this, the best evidence is the internal evidence that the subject itself provides and the surrounding circumstances that relate to it; both of which, in this case, are not hard to identify.
Putting then aside, as matter of distinct consideration, the outrage offered to the moral justice of God, by supposing him to make the innocent suffer for the guilty, and also the loose morality and low contrivance of supposing him to change himself into the shape of a man, in order to make an excuse to himself for not executing his supposed sentence upon Adam; putting, I say, those things aside as matter of distinct consideration, it is certain that what is called the christian system of faith, including in it the whimsical account of the creation—the strange story of Eve, the snake, and the apple—the amphibious idea of a man-god—the corporeal idea of the death of a god—the mythological idea of a family of gods, and the christian system of arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three, are all irreconcilable, not only to the divine gift of reason, that God has given to man, but to the knowledge that man gains of the power and wisdom of God by the aid of the sciences, and by studying the structure of the universe that God has made.
Setting aside, as a separate point of consideration, the injustice done to the moral justice of God by suggesting that He would make the innocent suffer for the guilty, as well as the questionable morality and dubious reasoning behind the idea that He would transform into a human to justify not carrying out His supposed punishment on Adam; putting those matters aside for now, it's clear that what is referred to as the Christian system of faith—encompassing the bizarre account of creation, the strange tale of Eve, the snake, and the apple, the mixed idea of a man-god, the physical concept of a god's death, the mythological notion of a family of gods, and the Christian arithmetic that three equals one and one equals three—are all incompatible, not only with the divine gift of reason that God has given to humanity, but also with the understanding that humans acquire about God's power and wisdom through the sciences and by examining the structure of the universe that God has created.
The setters up, therefore, and the advocates of the Christian system of faith, could not but foresee that the continually progressive knowledge that man would gain by the aid of science, of the power and wisdom of God, manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all the works of creation, would militate against, and call into question, the truth of their system of faith; and therefore it became necessary to their purpose to cut learning down to a size less dangerous to their project, and this they effected by restricting the idea of learning to the dead study of dead languages.
The creators and supporters of the Christian faith had to anticipate that the ongoing knowledge humanity would gain through science—about the power and wisdom of God shown in the universe's structure and all of creation—might challenge and undermine the validity of their beliefs. Therefore, they found it essential to limit education to something less threatening to their agenda, which they accomplished by confining the concept of learning to the tedious study of ancient languages.
They not only rejected the study of science out of the christian schools, but they persecuted it; and it is only within about the last two centuries that the study has been revived. So late as 1610, Galileo, a Florentine, discovered and introduced the use of telescopes, and by applying them to observe the motions and appearances of the heavenly bodies, afforded additional means for ascertaining the true structure of the universe. Instead of being esteemed for these discoveries, he was sentenced to renounce them, or the opinions resulting from them, as a damnable heresy. And prior to that time Virgilius was condemned to be burned for asserting the antipodes, or in other words, that the earth was a globe, and habitable in every part where there was land; yet the truth of this is now too well known even to be told. [NOTE: I cannot discover the source of this statement concerning the ancient author whose Irish name Feirghill was Latinized into Virgilius. The British Museum possesses a copy of the work (Decalogiunt) which was the pretext of the charge of heresy made by Boniface, Archbishop of Mayence, against Virgilius, Abbot—bishop of Salzburg, These were leaders of the rival "British" and "Roman parties, and the British champion made a countercharge against Boniface of irreligious practices." Boniface had to express a "regret," but none the less pursued his rival. The Pope, Zachary II., decided that if his alleged "doctrine, against God and his soul, that beneath the earth there is another world, other men, or sun and moon," should be acknowledged by Virgilius, he should be excommunicated by a Council and condemned with canonical sanctions. Whatever may have been the fate involved by condemnation with "canonicis sanctionibus," in the middle of the eighth century, it did not fall on Virgilius. His accuser, Boniface, was martyred, 755, and it is probable that Virgilius harmonied his Antipodes with orthodoxy. The gravamen of the heresy seems to have been the suggestion that there were men not of the progeny of Adam. Virgilius was made Bishop of Salzburg in 768. He bore until his death, 789, the curious title, "Geometer and Solitary," or "lone wayfarer" (Solivagus). A suspicion of heresy clung to his memory until 1233, when he was raised by Gregory IX, to sainthood beside his accuser, St. Boniface.—Editor. (Conway)]
They not only dismissed the study of science in Christian schools, but they also persecuted it. It’s only been in the last couple of centuries that this study has made a comeback. As recently as 1610, Galileo, a Florentine, discovered and introduced telescopes, using them to observe the movements and appearances of celestial bodies, which provided further insight into the true structure of the universe. Instead of being celebrated for these discoveries, he was forced to renounce them, along with any resulting opinions, as a serious heresy. Before that, Virgilius was condemned to be burned for claiming that there were antipodes, meaning that the Earth was a globe and habitable in every area with land; however, this truth is now widely recognized. [NOTE: I cannot find the source of this statement regarding the ancient author whose Irish name Feirghill was Latinized to Virgilius. The British Museum has a copy of the work (Decalogiunt), which was the basis for the heresy charge made by Boniface, Archbishop of Mayence, against Virgilius, Abbot-bishop of Salzburg. These were leaders of the competing "British" and "Roman parties," and the British leader countercharged Boniface with irreligious practices. Boniface had to express "regret," but he continued to pursue his rival. Pope Zachary II. decided that if Virgilius acknowledged the alleged "doctrine, against God and his soul, that beneath the Earth there is another world, with other people, or sun and moon," he would be excommunicated by a Council and condemned with canonical penalties. Whatever consequences that condemnation entailed in the mid-eighth century, it did not befall Virgilius. His accuser, Boniface, was martyred in 755, and it's likely that Virgilius reconciled his views on antipodes with orthodox beliefs. The core issue of the heresy seemed to be the suggestion of people not descended from Adam. Virgilius was made Bishop of Salzburg in 768. He held the intriguing title of "Geometer and Solitary," or "lone wayfarer" (Solivagus), until his death in 789. A hint of heresy remained associated with his memory until 1233, when he was canonized by Gregory IX alongside his accuser, St. Boniface.—Editor. (Conway)
If the belief of errors not morally bad did no mischief, it would make no part of the moral duty of man to oppose and remove them. There was no moral ill in believing the earth was flat like a trencher, any more than there was moral virtue in believing it was round like a globe; neither was there any moral ill in believing that the Creator made no other world than this, any more than there was moral virtue in believing that he made millions, and that the infinity of space is filled with worlds. But when a system of religion is made to grow out of a supposed system of creation that is not true, and to unite itself therewith in a manner almost inseparable therefrom, the case assumes an entirely different ground. It is then that errors, not morally bad, become fraught with the same mischiefs as if they were. It is then that the truth, though otherwise indifferent itself, becomes an essential, by becoming the criterion that either confirms by corresponding evidence, or denies by contradictory evidence, the reality of the religion itself. In this view of the case it is the moral duty of man to obtain every possible evidence that the structure of the heavens, or any other part of creation affords, with respect to systems of religion. But this, the supporters or partizans of the christian system, as if dreading the result, incessantly opposed, and not only rejected the sciences, but persecuted the professors. Had Newton or Descartes lived three or four hundred years ago, and pursued their studies as they did, it is most probable they would not have lived to finish them; and had Franklin drawn lightning from the clouds at the same time, it would have been at the hazard of expiring for it in flames.
If the belief in errors that aren't morally wrong caused no harm, it wouldn't be part of our moral duty to challenge and eliminate them. There was nothing morally wrong in thinking the earth was flat like a plate, just as there was no moral virtue in believing it was round like a globe; similarly, there was no moral wrongdoing in believing that the Creator made only this world, just as there was no moral virtue in thinking He created millions of worlds filling the infinite space. However, when a religion is based on a false understanding of creation and becomes almost inseparable from it, the situation changes completely. At that point, errors that aren't morally wrong can cause the same harm as if they were. It's then that the truth, though itself neutral, becomes essential because it serves as the standard that either confirms with supporting evidence or rejects with contradictory evidence the validity of that religion. From this perspective, it is our moral duty to seek out every possible piece of evidence that the structure of the heavens or any part of creation offers regarding religious systems. Yet, the supporters of the Christian system, seemingly fearing the outcome, constantly resisted this effort, not only dismissing science but also persecuting its advocates. If Newton or Descartes had lived three or four hundred years ago and conducted their studies as they did, it's highly likely they wouldn't have survived to complete them; and if Franklin had drawn lightning from the clouds at that time, it would have put him at risk of dying in flames.
Later times have laid all the blame upon the Goths and Vandals, but, however unwilling the partizans of the Christian system may be to believe or to acknowledge it, it is nevertheless true, that the age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system. There was more knowledge in the world before that period, than for many centuries afterwards; and as to religious knowledge, the Christian system, as already said, was only another species of mythology; and the mythology to which it succeeded, was a corruption of an ancient system of theism. [NOTE by Paine: It is impossible for us now to know at what time the heathen mythology began; but it is certain, from the internal evidence that it carries, that it did not begin in the same state or condition in which it ended. All the gods of that mythology, except Saturn, were of modern invention. The supposed reign of Saturn was prior to that which is called the heathen mythology, and was so far a species of theism that it admitted the belief of only one God. Saturn is supposed to have abdicated the govemment in favour of his three sons and one daughter, Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune, and Juno; after this, thousands of other gods and demigods were imaginarily created, and the calendar of gods increased as fast as the calendar of saints and the calendar of courts have increased since.
Later times have placed all the blame on the Goths and Vandals, but, no matter how reluctant supporters of the Christian faith may be to accept it, it’s still true that the age of ignorance began with the Christian system. There was more knowledge in the world before that time than for many centuries after; and regarding religious knowledge, the Christian system, as mentioned before, was just another form of mythology; and the mythology that preceded it was a distortion of an ancient theistic system. [NOTE by Paine: We can’t know exactly when pagan mythology started, but it’s clear, based on its internal evidence, that it didn’t begin in the same state in which it ended. All the gods of that mythology, except for Saturn, were modern inventions. The supposed reign of Saturn was before what we now call pagan mythology, and was a form of theism because it supported the belief in only one God. Saturn is said to have given up his rule in favor of his three sons and one daughter, Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune, and Juno; after that, thousands of other gods and demigods were creatively imagined, and the list of gods grew as quickly as the lists of saints and courts have grown since.]
All the corruptions that have taken place, in theology and in religion have been produced by admitting of what man calls 'revealed religion.' The mythologists pretended to more revealed religion than the christians do. They had their oracles and their priests, who were supposed to receive and deliver the word of God verbally on almost all occasions.
All the corruptions that have happened in theology and religion have come from accepting what people refer to as 'revealed religion.' The mythologists claimed to have more revealed religion than Christians do. They had their oracles and priests, who were believed to receive and communicate the word of God verbally on nearly every occasion.
Since then all corruptions down from Moloch to modern predestinarianism, and the human sacrifices of the heathens to the christian sacrifice of the Creator, have been produced by admitting of what is called revealed religion, the most effectual means to prevent all such evils and impositions is, not to admit of any other revelation than that which is manifested in the book of Creation., and to contemplate the Creation as the only true and real word of God that ever did or ever will exist; and every thing else called the word of God is fable and imposition.—Author.]
Since then, all corruptions from Moloch to modern predestinarianism, and the human sacrifices of pagans to the Christian sacrifice of the Creator, have come from accepting what is known as revealed religion. The most effective way to prevent such evils and deceptions is not to accept any revelation besides the one shown in the book of Creation, and to see Creation as the only true and real word of God that has ever existed or will ever exist; everything else referred to as the word of God is a myth and a deception. —Author.
It is owing to this long interregnum of science, and to no other cause, that we have now to look back through a vast chasm of many hundred years to the respectable characters we call the Ancients. Had the progression of knowledge gone on proportionably with the stock that before existed, that chasm would have been filled up with characters rising superior in knowledge to each other; and those Ancients we now so much admire would have appeared respectably in the background of the scene. But the christian system laid all waste; and if we take our stand about the beginning of the sixteenth century, we look back through that long chasm, to the times of the Ancients, as over a vast sandy desert, in which not a shrub appears to intercept the vision to the fertile hills beyond.
Due to this long break in scientific advancement, and for no other reason, we now have to look back through a huge gap of many hundred years to the esteemed figures we refer to as the Ancients. If the progression of knowledge had continued at a rate similar to what existed before, that gap would have been filled with figures who were increasingly knowledgeable; and those Ancients we admire so much would have appeared respectably in the background of the scene. However, the Christian system left everything in ruins; and if we position ourselves around the early sixteenth century, we look back through that long gap, to the times of the Ancients, as over a vast sandy desert, lacking any shrub to block our view of the fertile hills beyond.
It is an inconsistency scarcely possible to be credited, that any thing should exist, under the name of a religion, that held it to be irreligious to study and contemplate the structure of the universe that God had made. But the fact is too well established to be denied. The event that served more than any other to break the first link in this long chain of despotic ignorance, is that known by the name of the Reformation by Luther. From that time, though it does not appear to have made any part of the intention of Luther, or of those who are called Reformers, the Sciences began to revive, and Liberality, their natural associate, began to appear. This was the only public good the Reformation did; for, with respect to religious good, it might as well not have taken place. The mythology still continued the same; and a multiplicity of National Popes grew out of the downfall of the Pope of Christendom.
It's hard to believe that there could be a religion that considered it unholy to study and reflect on the universe that God created. But the reality is undeniable. The event that broke the first link in this long chain of oppressive ignorance was the Reformation led by Luther. From that point on, even though it wasn’t the main goal of Luther or the other Reformers, the sciences began to flourish, and with them, a sense of openness started to emerge. This was the only real benefit of the Reformation; in terms of religious improvement, it might as well not have happened. The mythology remained unchanged, and a number of National Popes emerged from the collapse of the Pope of Christendom.
CHAPTER XIII - COMPARISON OF CHRISTIANISM WITH THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS
INSPIRED BY NATURE.
Inspired by nature.
HAVING thus shewn, from the internal evidence of things, the cause that produced a change in the state of learning, and the motive for substituting the study of the dead languages, in the place of the Sciences, I proceed, in addition to the several observations already made in the former part of this work, to compare, or rather to confront, the evidence that the structure of the universe affords, with the christian system of religion. But as I cannot begin this part better than by referring to the ideas that occurred to me at an early part of life, and which I doubt not have occurred in some degree to almost every other person at one time or other, I shall state what those ideas were, and add thereto such other matter as shall arise out of the subject, giving to the whole, by way of preface, a short introduction.
HAVING shown, based on the evidence of things, the reason for the change in the state of learning, and the motivation for replacing the study of dead languages with the Sciences, I will now, in addition to the various observations already made in the first part of this work, compare, or rather confront, the evidence that the structure of the universe presents with the Christian system of religion. However, I can't begin this section better than by referring to the thoughts I had early in life, which I’m sure have crossed the minds of many others at some point. I will explain what those thoughts were and include any additional insights that arise from the topic, providing a brief introduction as a preface.
My father being of the quaker profession, it was my good fortune to have an exceedingly good moral education, and a tolerable stock of useful learning. Though I went to the grammar school, I did not learn Latin, not only because I had no inclination to learn languages, but because of the objection the quakers have against the books in which the language is taught. But this did not prevent me from being acquainted with the subjects of all the Latin books used in the school.
My dad was a Quaker, so I was lucky to receive a really good moral education and a decent amount of useful knowledge. Even though I attended grammar school, I didn’t learn Latin, not just because I wasn’t interested in learning languages, but also because Quakers have objections to the books where that language is taught. However, that didn’t stop me from understanding the subjects covered in all the Latin books used in school.
The natural bent of my mind was to science. I had some turn, and I believe some talent for poetry; but this I rather repressed than encouraged, as leading too much into the field of imagination. As soon as I was able, I purchased a pair of globes, and attended the philosophical lectures of Martin and Ferguson, and became afterwards acquainted with Dr. Bevis, of the society called the Royal Society, then living in the Temple, and an excellent astronomer.
My natural inclination was towards science. I had some interest, and I think some talent, for poetry; but I chose to downplay it instead of nurturing it, as it wandered too far into the realm of imagination. As soon as I could, I bought a pair of globes and attended the philosophy lectures by Martin and Ferguson. Later, I met Dr. Bevis, a member of the Royal Society, who was then living in the Temple and was an excellent astronomer.
I had no disposition for what was called politics. It presented to my mind no other idea than is contained in the word jockeyship. When, therefore, I turned my thoughts towards matters of government, I had to form a system for myself, that accorded with the moral and philosophic principles in which I had been educated. I saw, or at least I thought I saw, a vast scene opening itself to the world in the affairs of America; and it appeared to me, that unless the Americans changed the plan they were then pursuing, with respect to the government of England, and declared themselves independent, they would not only involve themselves in a multiplicity of new difficulties, but shut out the prospect that was then offering itself to mankind through their means. It was from these motives that I published the work known by the name of Common Sense, which is the first work I ever did publish, and so far as I can judge of myself, I believe I should never have been known in the world as an author on any subject whatever, had it not been for the affairs of America. I wrote Common Sense the latter end of the year 1775, and published it the first of January, 1776. Independence was declared the fourth of July following. [NOTE: The pamphlet Common Sense was first advertised, as "just published," on January 10, 1776. His plea for the Officers of Excise, written before leaving England, was printed, but not published until 1793. Despite his reiterated assertion that Common Sense was the first work he ever published the notion that he was "junius" still finds some believers. An indirect comment on our Paine-Junians may be found in Part 2 of this work where Paine says a man capable of writing Homer "would not have thrown away his own fame by giving it to another." It is probable that Paine ascribed the Letters of Junius to Thomas Hollis. His friend F. Lanthenas, in his translation of the Age of Reason (1794) advertises his translation of the Letters of Junius from the English "(Thomas Hollis)." This he could hardly have done without consultation with Paine. Unfortunately this translation of Junius cannot be found either in the Bibliotheque Nationale or the British Museum, and it cannot be said whether it contains any attempt at an identification of Junius—Editor.]
I didn’t have much interest in what was called politics. To me, it only brought to mind the idea of jockeying for position. So, when I started thinking about government issues, I had to create a system for myself that aligned with the moral and philosophical principles I had been taught. I saw, or at least thought I saw, a huge opportunity unfolding in America’s situation; and it seemed to me that unless the Americans changed their approach to governing themselves in relation to England and declared their independence, they would not only face a host of new challenges but also miss out on the chances that were presenting themselves to humanity through their actions. It was for these reasons that I published the work known as Common Sense, which was my first published work. I believe that had it not been for the events in America, I might never have been recognized as an author at all. I wrote Common Sense at the end of 1775 and published it on January 1, 1776. Independence was declared on July 4 of that year. [NOTE: The pamphlet Common Sense was first advertised, as "just published," on January 10, 1776. His plea for the Officers of Excise, written before leaving England, was printed but not published until 1793. Despite his repeated claim that Common Sense was his first published work, some people still believe he was “junius.” An indirect comment on our Paine-Junians can be found in Part 2 of this work where Paine mentions that a man capable of writing Homer "would not have thrown away his own fame by giving it to another." It’s likely that Paine thought the Letters of Junius were written by Thomas Hollis. His friend F. Lanthenas, in his translation of the Age of Reason (1794), advertises his translation of the Letters of Junius from the English "(Thomas Hollis)." He couldn’t have done this without consulting Paine. Unfortunately, this translation of Junius cannot be found either in the Bibliothèque Nationale or the British Museum, so we can’t confirm if it attempts to identify Junius—Editor.]
Any person, who has made observations on the state and progress of the human mind, by observing his own, can not but have observed, that there are two distinct classes of what are called Thoughts; those that we produce in ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking, and those that bolt into the mind of their own accord. I have always made it a rule to treat those voluntary visitors with civility, taking care to examine, as well as I was able, if they were worth entertaining; and it is from them I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have. As to the learning that any person gains from school education, it serves only, like a small capital, to put him in the way of beginning learning for himself afterwards. Every person of learning is finally his own teacher; the reason of which is, that principles, being of a distinct quality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their place of mental residence is the understanding, and they are never so lasting as when they begin by conception. Thus much for the introductory part.
Anyone who has thought about the state and development of the human mind, by reflecting on their own, can’t help but notice that there are two different kinds of what we call Thoughts: those we create ourselves through reflection and thinking, and those that pop into our minds spontaneously. I've always made it a point to treat those uninvited thoughts courteously, trying my best to determine whether they’re worth considering; and it's from them that I’ve gained almost all my knowledge. As for the education someone gets in school, it only serves, like a small investment, to help them start learning on their own later. In the end, every educated person is their own teacher; the reason being that principles, being fundamentally different from circumstances, can’t be just memorized; they settle in the understanding, and they last longest when they start from an idea. That wraps up the introduction.
From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea, and acting upon it by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the christian system, or thought it to be a strange affair; I scarcely knew which it was: but I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the church, upon the subject of what is called Redemption by the death of the Son of God. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind of thoughts that had any thing in it of childish levity; it was to me a serious reflection, arising from the idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it. I believe in the same manner to this moment; and I moreover believe, that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.
From the time I was able to think for myself and act on my thoughts, I either doubted the truth of Christianity or found it to be strange; I could hardly tell which. I clearly remember when I was about seven or eight years old, hearing a sermon read by a relative who was very devoted to the church, discussing what’s called Redemption through the death of the Son of God. After the sermon, I went into the garden, and as I was walking down the steps (I can still remember the spot), I felt a strong aversion to what I had just heard. I thought to myself that it made God seem like a passionate man who killed his son when he couldn't seek revenge any other way; and since I was sure a man would be hanged for doing something like that, I couldn't understand why they preached such sermons. This wasn't just a childish whim; it was a serious reflection based on my belief that God was too good to act that way and too powerful to be forced into such actions. I still believe this today, and I also think that any religion with ideas that disturb a child's mind cannot be a true religion.
It seems as if parents of the christian profession were ashamed to tell their children any thing about the principles of their religion. They sometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of what they call Providence; for the Christian mythology has five deities: there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the God Providence, and the Goddess Nature. But the christian story of God the Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it, (for that is the plain language of the story,) cannot be told by a parent to a child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and better, is making the story still worse; as if mankind could be improved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a mystery, is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it.
It seems like Christian parents are embarrassed to share the principles of their faith with their children. They might teach them about morals and discuss the goodness of what they call Providence. After all, Christian mythology has five deities: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, God Providence, and Goddess Nature. However, the Christian story of God the Father sacrificing his son, or having people carry it out (which is essentially what the story says), is something no parent would want to explain to a child. To say it was done to make humanity happier and better only makes the explanation worse, as if humanity could be improved by the example of murder. Claiming that all of this is a mystery doesn’t help; it just serves as an excuse for its implausibility.
How different is this to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavouring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and mechanical.
How different is this from the straightforward and simple belief in Deism! The true deist has only one Deity; and their religion involves reflecting on the power, wisdom, and kindness of the Deity through their creations, and trying to emulate that in everything moral, scientific, and mechanical.
The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true Deism, in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the quakers: but they have contracted themselves too much by leaving the works of God out of their system. Though I reverence their philanthropy, I can not help smiling at the conceit, that if the taste of a quaker could have been consulted at the creation, what a silent and drab-colored creation it would have been! Not a flower would have blossomed its gaieties, nor a bird been permitted to sing.
The religion that comes closest to true Deism, in its moral and kind aspects, is the one practiced by Quakers. However, they have limited themselves too much by excluding the works of God from their beliefs. While I respect their commitment to helping others, I can't help but chuckle at the idea that if a Quaker had been consulted during creation, it would have resulted in a very dull and colorless world. Not a single flower would have bloomed with its bright colors, nor would any bird have been allowed to sing.
Quitting these reflections, I proceed to other matters. After I had made myself master of the use of the globes, and of the orrery, [NOTE by Paine: As this book may fall into the bands of persons who do not know what an orrery is, it is for their information I add this note, as the name gives no idea of the uses of the thing. The orrery has its name from the person who invented it. It is a machinery of clock-work, representing the universe in miniature: and in which the revolution of the earth round itself and round the sun, the revolution of the moon round the earth, the revolution of the planets round the sun, their relative distances from the sun, as the center of the whole system, their relative distances from each other, and their different magnitudes, are represented as they really exist in what we call the heavens.—Author.] and conceived an idea of the infinity of space, and of the eternal divisibility of matter, and obtained, at least, a general knowledge of what was called natural philosophy, I began to compare, or, as I have before said, to confront, the internal evidence those things afford with the christian system of faith.
I stopped these reflections and moved on to other things. After mastering the use of the globes and the orrery, [NOTE by Paine: As this book might reach people who don’t know what an orrery is, I'm adding this note for their information since the name doesn't hint at its purpose. The orrery is named after its inventor. It’s a clockwork model that represents the universe on a small scale, showing the Earth's rotation on its axis and around the sun, the moon's orbit around the Earth, the planets' orbits around the sun, their relative distances from the sun— the center of the entire system—their distances from each other, and their different sizes, as they actually exist in what we call the heavens.—Author.] and grasped the concept of infinite space and the endless divisibility of matter, while gaining at least a general understanding of what’s known as natural philosophy, I started to compare, or as I mentioned before, to confront, the internal evidence of those things with the Christian system of belief.
Though it is not a direct article of the christian system that this world that we inhabit is the whole of the habitable creation, yet it is so worked up therewith, from what is called the Mosaic account of the creation, the story of Eve and the apple, and the counterpart of that story, the death of the Son of God, that to believe otherwise, that is, to believe that God created a plurality of worlds, at least as numerous as what we call stars, renders the christian system of faith at once little and ridiculous; and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the air. The two beliefs can not be held together in the same mind; and he who thinks that he believes both, has thought but little of either.
Although it's not a core teaching of Christianity that the world we live in is the entirety of habitable creation, it's so intertwined with the Mosaic account of creation, the story of Eve and the apple, and the parallel story of the death of the Son of God, that believing otherwise—specifically, that God created multiple worlds, as many as the stars—makes the Christian faith seem trivial and absurd; it scatters it in the mind like feathers in the wind. The two beliefs cannot coexist in the same mind; anyone who thinks they believe in both has not deeply considered either.
Though the belief of a plurality of worlds was familiar to the ancients, it is only within the last three centuries that the extent and dimensions of this globe that we inhabit have been ascertained. Several vessels, following the tract of the ocean, have sailed entirely round the world, as a man may march in a circle, and come round by the contrary side of the circle to the spot he set out from. The circular dimensions of our world, in the widest part, as a man would measure the widest round of an apple, or a ball, is only twenty-five thousand and twenty English miles, reckoning sixty-nine miles and an half to an equatorial degree, and may be sailed round in the space of about three years. [NOTE by Paine: Allowing a ship to sail, on an average, three miles in an hour, she would sail entirely round the world in less than one year, if she could sail in a direct circle, but she is obliged to follow the course of the ocean.—Author.]
Although the idea of multiple worlds was common among ancient people, it’s only in the last three centuries that we’ve figured out the size and dimensions of the Earth we live on. Several ships have sailed completely around the globe, just like a person can walk in a circle and arrive back at the same point from the opposite direction. The Earth's circumference, measured at its widest point like you would measure the biggest part of an apple or a ball, is about twenty-five thousand and twenty English miles, based on sixty-nine and a half miles per equatorial degree, and it can be sailed around in roughly three years. [NOTE by Paine: If a ship sails, on average, three miles per hour, it could sail completely around the world in less than a year if it could go in a straight line, but it has to follow the ocean's route.—Author.]
A world of this extent may, at first thought, appear to us to be great; but if we compare it with the immensity of space in which it is suspended, like a bubble or a balloon in the air, it is infinitely less in proportion than the smallest grain of sand is to the size of the world, or the finest particle of dew to the whole ocean, and is therefore but small; and, as will be hereafter shown, is only one of a system of worlds, of which the universal creation is composed.
A world this large might seem vast at first glance; however, when we compare it to the vastness of space around it, like a bubble or a balloon in the air, it is incredibly smaller in proportion than even the tiniest grain of sand is to the size of the Earth, or a single drop of dew is to the entire ocean, making it seem quite small. As will be shown later, it is just one part of a system of worlds that make up the entire universe.
It is not difficult to gain some faint idea of the immensity of space in which this and all the other worlds are suspended, if we follow a progression of ideas. When we think of the size or dimensions of, a room, our ideas limit themselves to the walls, and there they stop. But when our eye, or our imagination darts into space, that is, when it looks upward into what we call the open air, we cannot conceive any walls or boundaries it can have; and if for the sake of resting our ideas we suppose a boundary, the question immediately renews itself, and asks, what is beyond that boundary? and in the same manner, what beyond the next boundary? and so on till the fatigued imagination returns and says, there is no end. Certainly, then, the Creator was not pent for room when he made this world no larger than it is; and we have to seek the reason in something else.
It's not hard to get a glimpse of the vastness of space where this and all other worlds hang, if we follow a line of thought. When we consider the size of a room, our thoughts are limited to the walls, and that’s where they stay. But when our eyes, or our imagination, gaze into space—when we look up into what we call the open air—we can't imagine any walls or limits it might have. And if we try to put a boundary there just for clarity, it immediately prompts the question, what’s beyond that boundary? And then what’s beyond the next boundary? And so on, until our tired imagination finally concedes that there is no end. Clearly, the Creator wasn’t short on space when He made this world as big as it is; we need to look for the reason elsewhere.
If we take a survey of our own world, or rather of this, of which the Creator has given us the use as our portion in the immense system of creation, we find every part of it, the earth, the waters, and the air that surround it, filled, and as it were crowded with life, down from the largest animals that we know of to the smallest insects the naked eye can behold, and from thence to others still smaller, and totally invisible without the assistance of the microscope. Every tree, every plant, every leaf, serves not only as an habitation, but as a world to some numerous race, till animal existence becomes so exceedingly refined, that the effluvia of a blade of grass would be food for thousands.
If we look around at our world, which the Creator has given us as a part of the vast system of creation, we see every part of it—the land, the water, and the air around us—teeming with life, from the largest animals we know to the tiniest insects visible to the naked eye, and even smaller ones that can only be seen with a microscope. Every tree, every plant, every leaf isn't just a home but a whole ecosystem for countless creatures, to the point where something as small as the scent of a blade of grass can provide sustenance for thousands.
Since then no part of our earth is left unoccupied, why is it to be supposed that the immensity of space is a naked void, lying in eternal waste? There is room for millions of worlds as large or larger than ours, and each of them millions of miles apart from each other.
Since then, no part of our Earth is left unoccupied. Why should we assume that the vastness of space is just an empty void, lying in eternal waste? There's enough space for millions of worlds, as big or bigger than ours, and each one is millions of miles away from the others.
Having now arrived at this point, if we carry our ideas only one thought further, we shall see, perhaps, the true reason, at least a very good reason for our happiness, why the Creator, instead of making one immense world, extending over an immense quantity of space, has preferred dividing that quantity of matter into several distinct and separate worlds, which we call planets, of which our earth is one. But before I explain my ideas upon this subject, it is necessary (not for the sake of those that already know, but for those who do not) to show what the system of the universe is.
Having reached this point, if we take our thoughts just a step further, we might discover the real reason, or at least a solid reason, for our happiness—why the Creator chose to create not one enormous world filling up a vast amount of space, but instead divided that matter into several distinct and separate worlds, which we refer to as planets, our Earth being one of them. However, before I share my thoughts on this topic, it’s essential (not for those who already understand, but for those who do not) to outline what the system of the universe is.
CHAPTER XIV - SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE.
THAT part of the universe that is called the solar system (meaning the system of worlds to which our earth belongs, and of which Sol, or in English language, the Sun, is the center) consists, besides the Sun, of six distinct orbs, or planets, or worlds, besides the secondary bodies, called the satellites, or moons, of which our earth has one that attends her in her annual revolution round the Sun, in like manner as the other satellites or moons, attend the planets or worlds to which they severally belong, as may be seen by the assistance of the telescope.
That part of the universe known as the solar system (which means the system of worlds that includes our Earth, with the Sun at its center) consists, in addition to the Sun, of six different celestial bodies, or planets, along with their secondary bodies called satellites or moons. Our Earth has one moon that follows her as she makes her yearly orbit around the Sun, just like the other moons follow the planets they belong to, which can be observed with a telescope.
The Sun is the center round which those six worlds or planets revolve at different distances therefrom, and in circles concentric to each other. Each world keeps constantly in nearly the same tract round the Sun, and continues at the same time turning round itself, in nearly an upright position, as a top turns round itself when it is spinning on the ground, and leans a little sideways.
The Sun is the center that six planets orbit at varying distances, moving in circles that are all centered on it. Each planet follows a consistent path around the Sun while also rotating on its own axis, almost straight up, similar to how a spinning top turns while slightly tilting to the side.
It is this leaning of the earth (23 1/2 degrees) that occasions summer and winter, and the different length of days and nights. If the earth turned round itself in a position perpendicular to the plane or level of the circle it moves in round the Sun, as a top turns round when it stands erect on the ground, the days and nights would be always of the same length, twelve hours day and twelve hours night, and the season would be uniformly the same throughout the year.
It’s the tilt of the Earth (23.5 degrees) that causes summer and winter, as well as the varying lengths of days and nights. If the Earth rotated on its axis perpendicular to its orbit around the Sun, like a spinning top standing upright, days and nights would always be equal, with twelve hours of day and twelve hours of night, and the seasons would remain consistent all year round.
Every time that a planet (our earth for example) turns round itself, it makes what we call day and night; and every time it goes entirely round the Sun, it makes what we call a year, consequently our world turns three hundred and sixty-five times round itself, in going once round the Sun.
Every time a planet (like our Earth) rotates on its axis, it creates what we call day and night; and every time it orbits the Sun completely, it creates what we refer to as a year. Therefore, our world rotates three hundred and sixty-five times on its axis while orbiting the Sun once.
The names that the ancients gave to those six worlds, and which are still called by the same names, are Mercury, Venus, this world that we call ours, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. They appear larger to the eye than the stars, being many million miles nearer to our earth than any of the stars are. The planet Venus is that which is called the evening star, and sometimes the morning star, as she happens to set after, or rise before the Sun, which in either case is never more than three hours.
The names that ancient people assigned to those six planets, which are still used today, are Mercury, Venus, our Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. They look bigger to the eye than the stars because they are millions of miles closer to us than any star. The planet Venus is known as the evening star or sometimes the morning star, depending on whether it sets after or rises before the Sun, which is never more than three hours apart in either case.
The Sun as before said being the center, the planet or world nearest the Sun is Mercury; his distance from the Sun is thirty-four million miles, and he moves round in a circle always at that distance from the Sun, as a top may be supposed to spin round in the tract in which a horse goes in a mill. The second world is Venus; she is fifty-seven million miles distant from the Sun, and consequently moves round in a circle much greater than that of Mercury. The third world is this that we inhabit, and which is eighty-eight million miles distant from the Sun, and consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of Venus. The fourth world is Mars; he is distant from the sun one hundred and thirty-four million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of our earth. The fifth is Jupiter; he is distant from the Sun five hundred and fifty-seven million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of Mars. The sixth world is Saturn; he is distant from the Sun seven hundred and sixty-three million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle that surrounds the circles or orbits of all the other worlds or planets.
The Sun, as mentioned before, is the center of our solar system. The closest planet to the Sun is Mercury, which is thirty-four million miles away, and it orbits in a circle at that distance, similar to how a spinning top moves in the same path as a horse on a mill. The second planet is Venus, located fifty-seven million miles from the Sun, which means its orbit is much larger than Mercury's. The third planet is Earth, which is eighty-eight million miles away from the Sun, and it orbits in a circle larger than Venus's. The fourth planet is Mars, at a distance of one hundred and thirty-four million miles from the Sun, and it moves in an orbit larger than Earth's. The fifth planet is Jupiter, which is five hundred fifty-seven million miles from the Sun and orbits in a path larger than Mars's. The sixth planet is Saturn, located seven hundred sixty-three million miles from the Sun, and it orbits in a circle that encompasses the orbits of all the other planets.
The space, therefore, in the air, or in the immensity of space, that our solar system takes up for the several worlds to perform their revolutions in round the Sun, is of the extent in a strait line of the whole diameter of the orbit or circle in which Saturn moves round the Sun, which being double his distance from the Sun, is fifteen hundred and twenty-six million miles; and its circular extent is nearly five thousand million; and its globical content is almost three thousand five hundred million times three thousand five hundred million square miles. [NOTE by Paine: If it should be asked, how can man know these things? I have one plain answer to give, which is, that man knows how to calculate an eclipse, and also how to calculate to a minute of time when the planet Venus, in making her revolutions round the Sun, will come in a strait line between our earth and the Sun, and will appear to us about the size of a large pea passing across the face of the Sun. This happens but twice in about a hundred years, at the distance of about eight years from each other, and has happened twice in our time, both of which were foreknown by calculation. It can also be known when they will happen again for a thousand years to come, or to any other portion of time. As therefore, man could not be able to do these things if he did not understand the solar system, and the manner in which the revolutions of the several planets or worlds are performed, the fact of calculating an eclipse, or a transit of Venus, is a proof in point that the knowledge exists; and as to a few thousand, or even a few million miles, more or less, it makes scarcely any sensible difference in such immense distances.—Author.]
The space in the air, or throughout the vastness of space, that our solar system occupies for the various worlds to orbit around the Sun measures in a straight line the entire diameter of the orbit or circle in which Saturn revolves around the Sun. This diameter, being double Saturn's distance from the Sun, is one billion five hundred twenty-six million miles. Its circular extent is nearly five billion miles, and its spherical volume is almost three thousand five hundred million times three thousand five hundred million square miles. [NOTE by Paine: If someone asks how we can know these things, I have a simple answer: people know how to calculate an eclipse and can also determine to the minute when the planet Venus, while orbiting the Sun, will align in a straight line between our Earth and the Sun, appearing to us about the size of a large pea crossing the Sun's surface. This event happens only twice in about a hundred years, approximately eight years apart, and has occurred twice in our lifetime, both times predicted by calculation. It is also possible to forecast when these events will happen again for the next thousand years or any other time period. Therefore, since people could not achieve these calculations without understanding the solar system and how the various planets revolve, the ability to calculate an eclipse or a transit of Venus proves that the knowledge exists. And when it comes to a few thousand or even millions of miles, it hardly matters in such enormous distances.—Author.]
But this, immense as it is, is only one system of worlds. Beyond this, at a vast distance into space, far beyond all power of calculation, are the stars called the fixed stars. They are called fixed, because they have no revolutionary motion, as the six worlds or planets have that I have been describing. Those fixed stars continue always at the same distance from each other, and always in the same place, as the Sun does in the center of our system. The probability, therefore, is that each of those fixed stars is also a Sun, round which another system of worlds or planets, though too remote for us to discover, performs its revolutions, as our system of worlds does round our central Sun. By this easy progression of ideas, the immensity of space will appear to us to be filled with systems of worlds; and that no part of space lies at waste, any more than any part of our globe of earth and water is left unoccupied.
But this, as vast as it is, is just one system of worlds. Beyond this, at an immense distance in space, far beyond what we can calculate, are the stars known as the fixed stars. They’re called fixed because they don’t move around like the six planets I’ve been describing. These fixed stars remain at the same distance from each other and always in the same position, just like the Sun does at the center of our system. So, it’s likely that each of those fixed stars is also a Sun, with its own system of worlds or planets, even though they’re too far away for us to see, rotating around it like our own system does around our central Sun. With this straightforward line of thought, we can see that the vastness of space is filled with systems of worlds, and that no part of space is empty, just as no part of our Earth, made of land and water, is left unoccupied.
Having thus endeavoured to convey, in a familiar and easy manner, some idea of the structure of the universe, I return to explain what I before alluded to, namely, the great benefits arising to man in consequence of the Creator having made a Plurality of worlds, such as our system is, consisting of a central Sun and six worlds, besides satellites, in preference to that of creating one world only of a vast extent.
Having tried to explain the structure of the universe in a simple and straightforward way, I want to go back to what I mentioned earlier: the significant advantages for humanity because the Creator chose to create multiple worlds, like our own system, which has a central Sun and six worlds, along with their satellites, instead of just one vast world.
CHAPTER XV - ADVANTAGES OF THE EXISTENCE OF MANY WORLDS IN EACH SOLAR
SYSTEM.
SYSTEM.
IT is an idea I have never lost sight of, that all our knowledge of science is derived from the revolutions (exhibited to our eye and from thence to our understanding) which those several planets or worlds of which our system is composed make in their circuit round the Sun.
It's an idea I've always kept in mind: all our understanding of science comes from the changes we observe (and then comprehend) that the various planets or worlds in our solar system make as they orbit around the Sun.
Had then the quantity of matter which these six worlds contain been blended into one solitary globe, the consequence to us would have been, that either no revolutionary motion would have existed, or not a sufficiency of it to give us the ideas and the knowledge of science we now have; and it is from the sciences that all the mechanical arts that contribute so much to our earthly felicity and comfort are derived.
If the amount of matter in these six worlds had been combined into one single globe, the result for us would have been that either there would be no revolutionary motion at all, or not enough of it to provide us with the ideas and knowledge of science that we currently possess; and it is from the sciences that all the mechanical arts, which greatly enhance our happiness and comfort on Earth, are derived.
As therefore the Creator made nothing in vain, so also must it be believed that he organized the structure of the universe in the most advantageous manner for the benefit of man; and as we see, and from experience feel, the benefits we derive from the structure of the universe, formed as it is, which benefits we should not have had the opportunity of enjoying if the structure, so far as relates to our system, had been a solitary globe, we can discover at least one reason why a plurality of worlds has been made, and that reason calls forth the devotional gratitude of man, as well as his admiration.
Since the Creator made nothing for no reason, we must also believe that He arranged the universe in the best way possible for the benefit of humanity. As we observe and experience the advantages we gain from the universe's structure, which we wouldn’t be able to enjoy if our system were just a single globe, we can find at least one reason why multiple worlds exist. This reason inspires both gratitude and admiration in humanity.
But it is not to us, the inhabitants of this globe, only, that the benefits arising from a plurality of worlds are limited. The inhabitants of each of the worlds of which our system is composed, enjoy the same opportunities of knowledge as we do. They behold the revolutionary motions of our earth, as we behold theirs. All the planets revolve in sight of each other; and, therefore, the same universal school of science presents itself to all.
But the benefits of having multiple worlds aren't just for us, the people of this planet. The inhabitants of each world in our system have the same opportunities for knowledge that we do. They observe the changes in our Earth just as we observe theirs. All the planets revolve in view of one another; therefore, the same universal school of science is available to everyone.
Neither does the knowledge stop here. The system of worlds next to us exhibits, in its revolutions, the same principles and school of science, to the inhabitants of their system, as our system does to us, and in like manner throughout the immensity of space.
The knowledge doesn’t end here. The system of worlds around us shows, in its movements, the same principles and branches of science to the inhabitants of those worlds, just as our system does for us, and similarly throughout the vastness of space.
Our ideas, not only of the almightiness of the Creator, but of his wisdom and his beneficence, become enlarged in proportion as we contemplate the extent and the structure of the universe. The solitary idea of a solitary world, rolling or at rest in the immense ocean of space, gives place to the cheerful idea of a society of worlds, so happily contrived as to administer, even by their motion, instruction to man. We see our own earth filled with abundance; but we forget to consider how much of that abundance is owing to the scientific knowledge the vast machinery of the universe has unfolded.
Our understanding of the Creator's power, wisdom, and kindness grows as we reflect on the size and structure of the universe. The isolated concept of a single world, floating or stationary in the vastness of space, transforms into the uplifting idea of a community of worlds, cleverly designed to provide guidance to humanity through their movements. We see how abundant our own Earth is, but we often forget to recognize how much of that abundance comes from the scientific knowledge revealed by the vast workings of the universe.
CHAPTER XVI - APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING TO THE SYSTEM OF THE
CHRISTIANS.
CHRISTIANS.
BUT, in the midst of those reflections, what are we to think of the christian system of faith that forms itself upon the idea of only one world, and that of no greater extent, as is before shown, than twenty-five thousand miles. An extent which a man, walking at the rate of three miles an hour for twelve hours in the day, could he keep on in a circular direction, would walk entirely round in less than two years. Alas! what is this to the mighty ocean of space, and the almighty power of the Creator!
BUT, while considering these thoughts, what are we supposed to make of the Christian faith that is based on the idea of just one world, which as mentioned before, covers only about twenty-five thousand miles? That's a distance that a person, walking at three miles an hour for twelve hours a day, could circle in under two years. What does this even mean compared to the vast ocean of space and the incredible power of the Creator!
From whence then could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world, because, they say, one man and one woman had eaten an apple! And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer? In this case, the person who is irreverently called the Son of God, and sometimes God himself, would have nothing else to do than to travel from world to world, in an endless succession of death, with scarcely a momentary interval of life.
Where could the odd idea come from that the Almighty, who has millions of worlds depending on His care, would abandon all the others to die in our world just because one man and one woman ate an apple? And do we really think that every world in the infinite universe had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a savior? If that's the case, the person that’s irreverently called the Son of God, and sometimes God Himself, would only have the job of traveling from one world to another, endlessly dying with hardly a moment of life in between.
It has been by rejecting the evidence, that the word, or works of God in the creation, affords to our senses, and the action of our reason upon that evidence, that so many wild and whimsical systems of faith, and of religion, have been fabricated and set up. There may be many systems of religion that so far from being morally bad are in many respects morally good: but there can be but ONE that is true; and that one necessarily must, as it ever will, be in all things consistent with the ever existing word of God that we behold in his works. But such is the strange construction of the christian system of faith, that every evidence the heavens affords to man, either directly contradicts it or renders it absurd.
It's by ignoring the evidence that God's word or actions in creation provide to our senses, along with our reasoning about that evidence, that so many bizarre and fanciful belief systems and religions have been created. There may be many religions that, far from being morally wrong, are actually good in various ways: but there can only be ONE that is true; and that one must always align with the eternal word of God we see in His creations. However, the peculiar nature of the Christian belief system is such that every piece of evidence the heavens present to us either directly contradicts it or makes it seem unreasonable.
It is possible to believe, and I always feel pleasure in encouraging myself to believe it, that there have been men in the world who persuaded themselves that what is called a pious fraud, might, at least under particular circumstances, be productive of some good. But the fraud being once established, could not afterwards be explained; for it is with a pious fraud as with a bad action, it begets a calamitous necessity of going on.
It’s possible to believe, and I always find pleasure in convincing myself of this, that there have been people who convinced themselves that what’s known as a pious fraud might, at least in certain situations, lead to some good. But once the fraud is established, it can’t be explained later; because a pious fraud is like a bad action—it creates a disastrous need to keep it going.
The persons who first preached the christian system of faith, and in some measure combined with it the morality preached by Jesus Christ, might persuade themselves that it was better than the heathen mythology that then prevailed. From the first preachers the fraud went on to the second, and to the third, till the idea of its being a pious fraud became lost in the belief of its being true; and that belief became again encouraged by the interest of those who made a livelihood by preaching it.
The people who first spread the Christian faith, and somewhat blended it with the morality taught by Jesus Christ, might have convinced themselves that it was superior to the pagan myths that were common at the time. From the first preachers, the deception continued to the second, and then to the third, until the notion of it being a deliberate deception faded away, leaving the belief that it was true. This belief was further promoted by those who earned their living through preaching it.
But though such a belief might, by such means, be rendered almost general among the laity, it is next to impossible to account for the continual persecution carried on by the church, for several hundred years, against the sciences, and against the professors of science, if the church had not some record or tradition that it was originally no other than a pious fraud, or did not foresee that it could not be maintained against the evidence that the structure of the universe afforded.
But even though this belief might have been made almost widespread among ordinary people through such means, it’s nearly impossible to explain the ongoing persecution by the church, which lasted for several hundred years, against science and its scholars, unless the church had some record or tradition that it originally knew it was just a pious deception, or didn’t realize that it couldn’t be upheld against the evidence provided by the structure of the universe.
CHAPTER XVII - OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST
UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE THE PEOPLES.
Globally, to deceive the people.
HAVING thus shown the irreconcileable inconsistencies between the real word of God existing in the universe, and that which is called the word of God, as shown to us in a printed book that any man might make, I proceed to speak of the three principal means that have been employed in all ages, and perhaps in all countries, to impose upon mankind.
HAVING shown the fundamental contradictions between the true word of God that exists in the universe and the word of God presented to us in a printed book that anyone could create, I will now discuss the three main methods that have been used throughout history, and possibly in every country, to deceive humanity.
Those three means are Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy, The first two are incompatible with true religion, and the third ought always to be suspected.
Those three means are Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy. The first two don’t really align with true religion, and the third should always be viewed with skepticism.
With respect to Mystery, everything we behold is, in one sense, a mystery to us. Our own existence is a mystery: the whole vegetable world is a mystery. We cannot account how it is that an acorn, when put into the ground, is made to develop itself and become an oak. We know not how it is that the seed we sow unfolds and multiplies itself, and returns to us such an abundant interest for so small a capital.
In terms of mystery, everything we see is, in a way, a mystery to us. Our own existence is a mystery; the entire plant world is a mystery. We can’t explain how an acorn, when planted in the ground, grows and turns into an oak. We don’t understand how the seed we plant unfolds and multiplies, returning to us such a generous yield from such a small investment.
The fact however, as distinct from the operating cause, is not a mystery, because we see it; and we know also the means we are to use, which is no other than putting the seed in the ground. We know, therefore, as much as is necessary for us to know; and that part of the operation that we do not know, and which if we did, we could not perform, the Creator takes upon himself and performs it for us. We are, therefore, better off than if we had been let into the secret, and left to do it for ourselves.
The fact, however, is not a mystery, because we can see it; and we also know the way to go about it, which is simply putting the seed in the ground. So we know everything we need to know; and the part of the process that we don’t understand, and couldn’t do even if we did, the Creator takes on and does for us. We're actually better off than if we were given the full details and had to manage it on our own.
But though every created thing is, in this sense, a mystery, the word mystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity can be applied to light. The God in whom we believe is a God of moral truth, and not a God of mystery or obscurity. Mystery is the antagonist of truth. It is a fog of human invention that obscures truth, and represents it in distortion. Truth never envelops itself in mystery; and the mystery in which it is at any time enveloped, is the work of its antagonist, and never of itself.
But even though everything created is, in this sense, a mystery, we can't use the word mystery when talking about moral truth, just like we can't call light obscured. The God we believe in is a God of moral truth, not a God of mystery or darkness. Mystery is the enemy of truth. It’s a fog of human imagination that clouds truth and distorts it. Truth never surrounds itself with mystery; when it seems to be surrounded by mystery, it’s the result of its enemy, not of truth itself.
Religion, therefore, being the belief of a God, and the practice of moral truth, cannot have connection with mystery. The belief of a God, so far from having any thing of mystery in it, is of all beliefs the most easy, because it arises to us, as is before observed, out of necessity. And the practice of moral truth, or, in other words, a practical imitation of the moral goodness of God, is no other than our acting towards each other as he acts benignly towards all. We cannot serve God in the manner we serve those who cannot do without such service; and, therefore, the only idea we can have of serving God, is that of contributing to the happiness of the living creation that God has made. This cannot be done by retiring ourselves from the society of the world, and spending a recluse life in selfish devotion.
Religion, then, is the belief in God and the practice of moral truth, which shouldn't be connected to mystery. The belief in God, far from being mysterious, is actually the simplest of all beliefs because it comes to us out of necessity, as mentioned before. The practice of moral truth, or in other words, acting in a way that reflects God's goodness, means treating each other as God treats everyone with kindness. We can't serve God in the same way we serve those who depend on our help; therefore, our only way of serving God is by contributing to the happiness of all living beings that He has created. This can't be achieved by isolating ourselves from the world and living a withdrawn life focused only on our own devotion.
The very nature and design of religion, if I may so express it, prove even to demonstration that it must be free from every thing of mystery, and unincumbered with every thing that is mysterious. Religion, considered as a duty, is incumbent upon every living soul alike, and, therefore, must be on a level to the understanding and comprehension of all. Man does not learn religion as he learns the secrets and mysteries of a trade. He learns the theory of religion by reflection. It arises out of the action of his own mind upon the things which he sees, or upon what he may happen to hear or to read, and the practice joins itself thereto.
The very nature and design of religion, if I can put it that way, clearly show that it must be free from anything mysterious and not burdened by any mysteries. Religion, seen as a responsibility, applies equally to every living person, so it must be accessible to everyone's understanding and comprehension. People don’t learn religion like they learn the secrets of a trade. They understand the principles of religion through reflection. It comes from the workings of their own mind regarding the things they see or what they might hear or read, and practical experience connects with it.
When men, whether from policy or pious fraud, set up systems of religion incompatible with the word or works of God in the creation, and not only above but repugnant to human comprehension, they were under the necessity of inventing or adopting a word that should serve as a bar to all questions, inquiries and speculations. The word mystery answered this purpose, and thus it has happened that religion, which is in itself without mystery, has been corrupted into a fog of mysteries.
When people, whether out of strategy or deceit, create religious systems that clash with the word or works of God in creation, and are not only above but also contrary to human understanding, they feel the need to come up with or use a term that would block all questions, inquiries, and speculations. The term "mystery" served this purpose, and as a result, religion, which is inherently without mystery, has been twisted into a haze of mysteries.
As mystery answered all general purposes, miracle followed as an occasional auxiliary. The former served to bewilder the mind, the latter to puzzle the senses. The one was the lingo, the other the legerdemain.
As mystery answered all general purposes, miracle followed as an occasional helper. The former served to confuse the mind, while the latter aimed to bewilder the senses. One was the language, and the other was the sleight of hand.
But before going further into this subject, it will be proper to inquire what is to be understood by a miracle.
But before we dive deeper into this topic, it’s important to clarify what we mean by a miracle.
In the same sense that every thing may be said to be a mystery, so also may it be said that every thing is a miracle, and that no one thing is a greater miracle than another. The elephant, though larger, is not a greater miracle than a mite: nor a mountain a greater miracle than an atom. To an almighty power it is no more difficult to make the one than the other, and no more difficult to make a million of worlds than to make one. Every thing, therefore, is a miracle, in one sense; whilst, in the other sense, there is no such thing as a miracle. It is a miracle when compared to our power, and to our comprehension. It is not a miracle compared to the power that performs it. But as nothing in this description conveys the idea that is affixed to the word miracle, it is necessary to carry the inquiry further.
In the same way that everything can be seen as a mystery, it can also be said that everything is a miracle, and that no one thing is a greater miracle than another. The elephant, while larger, is not a greater miracle than a tiny mite; nor is a mountain a greater miracle than an atom. To an all-powerful force, creating one is no more challenging than creating the other, and making a million worlds is no harder than making just one. Therefore, in one sense, everything is a miracle, while in another sense, there’s no such thing as a miracle. It's a miracle when viewed from our limited power and understanding. However, it’s not a miracle when viewed from the perspective of the power that brings it about. Since nothing in this explanation captures the idea typically associated with the word miracle, it's important to dig deeper.
Mankind have conceived to themselves certain laws, by which what they call nature is supposed to act; and that a miracle is something contrary to the operation and effect of those laws. But unless we know the whole extent of those laws, and of what are commonly called the powers of nature, we are not able to judge whether any thing that may appear to us wonderful or miraculous, be within, or be beyond, or be contrary to, her natural power of acting.
Humans have developed certain laws that they believe govern how what they call nature works, and they see a miracle as something that goes against these laws. However, unless we fully understand the complete range of these laws and what are usually referred to as the powers of nature, we can't accurately determine whether something that seems amazing or miraculous is actually within, beyond, or opposed to nature's natural way of functioning.
The ascension of a man several miles high into the air, would have everything in it that constitutes the idea of a miracle, if it were not known that a species of air can be generated several times lighter than the common atmospheric air, and yet possess elasticity enough to prevent the balloon, in which that light air is inclosed, from being compressed into as many times less bulk, by the common air that surrounds it. In like manner, extracting flashes or sparks of fire from the human body, as visibly as from a steel struck with a flint, and causing iron or steel to move without any visible agent, would also give the idea of a miracle, if we were not acquainted with electricity and magnetism; so also would many other experiments in natural philosophy, to those who are not acquainted with the subject. The restoring persons to life who are to appearance dead as is practised upon drowned persons, would also be a miracle, if it were not known that animation is capable of being suspended without being extinct.
A man rising several miles into the air would seem like a miracle if it weren't for the fact that a type of air can be created that is several times lighter than regular air but still has enough elasticity to keep the balloon, containing that light air, from being squished down by the surrounding atmosphere. Similarly, pulling visible sparks of fire from a person just like you would from striking steel against flint, or making metal move without any visible force, would also appear miraculous if we weren't familiar with electricity and magnetism. Many other experiments in science would seem miraculous to those who don't understand the concepts. Reviving people who appear dead, like what is done with drowning victims, would also be seen as a miracle if we weren't aware that life can be temporarily paused without being lost.
Besides these, there are performances by slight of hand, and by persons acting in concert, that have a miraculous appearance, which, when known, are thought nothing of. And, besides these, there are mechanical and optical deceptions. There is now an exhibition in Paris of ghosts or spectres, which, though it is not imposed upon the spectators as a fact, has an astonishing appearance. As, therefore, we know not the extent to which either nature or art can go, there is no criterion to determine what a miracle is; and mankind, in giving credit to appearances, under the idea of their being miracles, are subject to be continually imposed upon.
Besides these, there are performances involving sleight of hand and people acting together that seem miraculous, but once understood, are seen as nothing special. Additionally, there are mechanical and optical illusions. Currently, there's an exhibition in Paris featuring ghosts or specters, which, although not presented as reality to the audience, looks truly astonishing. Therefore, since we don't know how far either nature or art can stretch, there's no way to define what a miracle really is; and people, in believing in appearances and considering them miracles, are likely to be constantly deceived.
Since then appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real have a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more inconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means, such as are called miracles, that would subject the person who performed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention.
Since appearances can be so misleading and unreal things often look like real things, it makes no sense to think that the Almighty would use methods, like what we call miracles, that would lead people to suspect the person performing them is a fraud, the person telling the story is lying, and the beliefs they’re trying to support are just made up.
Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show) it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a show-man, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter, who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.
Of all the types of evidence ever created to gain belief in any system or opinion referred to as religion, miracles, no matter how successfully they may have fooled people, are the most inconsistent. First of all, whenever one resorts to demonstrations to gain that belief (since a miracle, by any definition, is a demonstration), it suggests a weakness in the doctrine being preached. Secondly, it reduces the Almighty to the role of a showman, performing tricks to entertain and amaze people. It's also the most ambiguous kind of evidence that can be presented; belief doesn’t depend on the miracle itself, but on the credibility of the person claiming to have witnessed it. Therefore, even if the miracle were true, it wouldn't have a better chance of being believed than if it were a falsehood.
Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand presented itself in the air, took up the pen and wrote every word that is herein written; would any body believe me? Certainly they would not. Would they believe me a whit the more if the thing had been a fact? Certainly they would not. Since then a real miracle, were it to happen, would be subject to the same fate as the falsehood, the inconsistency becomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means that would not answer the purpose for which they were intended, even if they were real.
If I were to say that when I sat down to write this book, a hand appeared in the air, picked up the pen, and wrote every word contained within, would anyone believe me? Definitely not. Would they believe me any more if it were true? Absolutely not. So, if a real miracle were to occur, it would be treated the same way as a lie; the inconsistency becomes more pronounced when you think about the idea of the Almighty using methods that wouldn’t achieve the intended purpose, even if they were genuine.
If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is,—Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.
If we assume a miracle is something completely outside the realm of what we call nature, requiring nature to deviate from its usual path to make it happen, and we hear someone claim to have witnessed such a miracle, it raises a straightforward question: Is it more likely that nature would change its course, or that someone would lie? In our experience, we have never seen nature deviate from its course, but we have strong evidence that millions of lies have been told in the same period; therefore, it’s at least millions to one that the person reporting the miracle is lying.
The story of the whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough to do it, borders greatly on the marvellous; but it would have approached nearer to the idea of a miracle, if Jonah had swallowed the whale. In this, which may serve for all cases of miracles, the matter would decide itself as before stated, namely, Is it more probable that a man should have, swallowed a whale, or told a lie?
The story of the whale swallowing Jonah, while a whale is certainly big enough to do it, leans heavily towards the unbelievable; but it would seem more like a miracle if Jonah had swallowed the whale instead. In this case, which applies to all miracles, the question comes down to this: Is it more likely that a man could swallow a whale, or that he is lying?
But suppose that Jonah had really swallowed the whale, and gone with it in his belly to Nineveh, and to convince the people that it was true have cast it up in their sight, of the full length and size of a whale, would they not have believed him to have been the devil instead of a prophet? or if the whale had carried Jonah to Nineveh, and cast him up in the same public manner, would they not have believed the whale to have been the devil, and Jonah one of his imps?
But what if Jonah had actually swallowed the whale and gone with it in his belly to Nineveh? If he threw it up in front of the people, showing the full length and size of the whale, wouldn't they have thought he was the devil instead of a prophet? Or if the whale had brought Jonah to Nineveh and spat him out in the same public way, wouldn't they have seen the whale as the devil and Jonah as one of his demons?
The most extraordinary of all the things called miracles, related in the New Testament, is that of the devil flying away with Jesus Christ, and carrying him to the top of a high mountain; and to the top of the highest pinnacle of the temple, and showing him and promising to him all the kingdoms of the world. How happened it that he did not discover America? or is it only with kingdoms that his sooty highness has any interest.
The most incredible miracle mentioned in the New Testament is when the devil took Jesus Christ and brought him to the top of a high mountain and to the highest point of the temple, showing him and promising him all the kingdoms of the world. Why didn’t he find America? Or is it just kingdoms that his dark majesty cares about?
I have too much respect for the moral character of Christ to believe that he told this whale of a miracle himself: neither is it easy to account for what purpose it could have been fabricated, unless it were to impose upon the connoisseurs of miracles, as is sometimes practised upon the connoisseurs of Queen Anne's farthings, and collectors of relics and antiquities; or to render the belief of miracles ridiculous, by outdoing miracle, as Don Quixote outdid chivalry; or to embarrass the belief of miracles, by making it doubtful by what power, whether of God or of the devil, any thing called a miracle was performed. It requires, however, a great deal of faith in the devil to believe this miracle.
I have too much respect for Christ’s moral character to think he would claim this huge miracle as his own. It's also hard to figure out what purpose it could have served if it were made up, unless it was to trick those who appreciate miracles, like collectors of Queen Anne's coins and relics; or to make belief in miracles seem silly by surpassing what we consider a miracle, similar to how Don Quixote exaggerated chivalry; or to confuse belief in miracles by making it unclear whether a miracle was done by God or the devil. It does require a significant amount of faith in the devil to believe this miracle happened.
In every point of view in which those things called miracles can be placed and considered, the reality of them is improbable, and their existence unnecessary. They would not, as before observed, answer any useful purpose, even if they were true; for it is more difficult to obtain belief to a miracle, than to a principle evidently moral, without any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself. Miracle could be but a thing of the moment, and seen but by a few; after this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a miracle upon man's report. Instead, therefore, of admitting the recitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion being true, they ought to be considered as symptoms of its being fabulous. It is necessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects the crutch; and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek the aid that truth rejects. Thus much for Mystery and Miracle.
From every perspective we look at what are known as miracles, their reality seems unlikely, and their existence is unnecessary. As mentioned earlier, they wouldn’t serve any practical purpose, even if they were true; it’s harder to convince someone of a miracle than to accept a clearly moral principle that doesn’t involve a miracle. Moral principles speak for themselves universally. A miracle can only be a fleeting event, witnessed by a few; afterwards, belief in it relies on faith transferred from God to humans based on someone else's account. Therefore, rather than accepting accounts of miracles as proof that any religion is true, we should view them as signs of its falsehood. For truth to maintain its full and honest character, it must stand on its own and not lean on support; meanwhile, fables often seek the support that truth rejects. This is the essence of Mystery and Miracle.
As Mystery and Miracle took charge of the past and the present, Prophecy took charge of the future, and rounded the tenses of faith. It was not sufficient to know what had been done, but what would be done. The supposed prophet was the supposed historian of times to come; and if he happened, in shooting with a long bow of a thousand years, to strike within a thousand miles of a mark, the ingenuity of posterity could make it point-blank; and if he happened to be directly wrong, it was only to suppose, as in the case of Jonah and Nineveh, that God had repented himself and changed his mind. What a fool do fabulous systems make of man!
As Mystery and Miracle handled the past and the present, Prophecy took care of the future and shaped the tenses of faith. It wasn’t enough to know what had happened; we also needed to know what would happen. The supposed prophet was essentially the supposed historian of future times; and if he happened to, with the imagination of a thousand years, get within a thousand miles of his target, future generations could adjust it to be spot-on. And if he happened to be completely wrong, we could just assume, like in the case of Jonah and Nineveh, that God had changed his mind. What fools these elaborate systems make of people!
It has been shewn, in a former part of this work, that the original meaning of the words prophet and prophesying has been changed, and that a prophet, in the sense of the word as now used, is a creature of modern invention; and it is owing to this change in the meaning of the words, that the flights and metaphors of the Jewish poets, and phrases and expressions now rendered obscure by our not being acquainted with the local circumstances to which they applied at the time they were used, have been erected into prophecies, and made to bend to explanations at the will and whimsical conceits of sectaries, expounders, and commentators. Every thing unintelligible was prophetical, and every thing insignificant was typical. A blunder would have served for a prophecy; and a dish-clout for a type.
It has been shown in an earlier part of this work that the original meaning of the words "prophet" and "prophesying" has changed, and that a prophet, in the way we use the word today, is a modern invention. Because of this shift in meaning, the flights and metaphors of Jewish poets, along with phrases and expressions that are now unclear due to our lack of knowledge about the local circumstances at the time they were used, have been interpreted as prophecies. These interpretations have been shaped to fit the views and eccentric ideas of those who follow different sects, as well as interpreters and commentators. Everything that was unclear became prophetic, and anything trivial was seen as symbolic. A mistake could qualify as a prophecy, and a rag could be treated as a symbol.
If by a prophet we are to suppose a man to whom the Almighty communicated some event that would take place in future, either there were such men, or there were not. If there were, it is consistent to believe that the event so communicated would be told in terms that could be understood, and not related in such a loose and obscure manner as to be out of the comprehension of those that heard it, and so equivocal as to fit almost any circumstance that might happen afterwards. It is conceiving very irreverently of the Almighty, to suppose he would deal in this jesting manner with mankind; yet all the things called prophecies in the book called the Bible come under this description.
If we define a prophet as a person to whom God revealed some future event, then either such people existed or they did not. If they did exist, it makes sense to believe that the event shared would be communicated in a way that was clear and understandable, rather than being vague and ambiguous to the point that those who heard it couldn't grasp its meaning, and could be interpreted to fit almost any situation that arose later. It shows a lack of respect for God to think He would communicate in such a frivolous way with humans; yet all the so-called prophecies in the book known as the Bible fit this description.
But it is with Prophecy as it is with Miracle. It could not answer the purpose even if it were real. Those to whom a prophecy should be told could not tell whether the man prophesied or lied, or whether it had been revealed to him, or whether he conceited it; and if the thing that he prophesied, or pretended to prophesy, should happen, or some thing like it, among the multitude of things that are daily happening, nobody could again know whether he foreknew it, or guessed at it, or whether it was accidental. A prophet, therefore, is a character useless and unnecessary; and the safe side of the case is to guard against being imposed upon, by not giving credit to such relations.
But prophecy is just like a miracle. It wouldn't fulfill its purpose even if it were real. Those who hear a prophecy wouldn't be able to tell if the person was actually predicting the future or just lying, if it was revealed to him, or if he made it up; and if what he predicted, or claimed to predict, actually happened—or something similar in the endless stream of daily events—no one could be sure whether he genuinely knew it beforehand, guessed it, or if it was just a coincidence. Therefore, a prophet is a character who serves no real purpose; the best approach is to protect yourself from being fooled by not believing such claims.
Upon the whole, Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy, are appendages that belong to fabulous and not to true religion. They are the means by which so many Lo heres! and Lo theres! have been spread about the world, and religion been made into a trade. The success of one impostor gave encouragement to another, and the quieting salvo of doing some good by keeping up a pious fraud protected them from remorse.
Overall, Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy are features that belong to mythology rather than genuine religion. They're the tools through which so many "Look here!" and "Look there!" claims have been spread across the world, turning religion into a business. The success of one fraudster encouraged another, and the soothing justification of doing some good by maintaining a devout deception shielded them from guilt.
RECAPITULATION.
RECAP.
HAVING now extended the subject to a greater length than I first intended, I shall bring it to a close by abstracting a summary from the whole.
HAVING now discussed the topic longer than I originally planned, I will conclude by summarizing the overall points.
First, That the idea or belief of a word of God existing in print, or in writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for the reasons already assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of an universal language; the mutability of language; the errors to which translations are subject, the possibility of totally suppressing such a word; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and imposing it upon the world.
First, the idea or belief that a word of God exists in print, writing, or speech is self-contradictory for the reasons already mentioned. These reasons, among many others, include the lack of a universal language, the changing nature of language, the mistakes that can occur in translations, the possibility of completely suppressing such a word, and the likelihood of altering it or even creating a fabricated version and passing it off as real.
Secondly, That the Creation we behold is the real and ever existing word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power, it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence.
Secondly, the creation we see is the true and constantly present word of God, in which we cannot be misled. It proclaims His power, it shows His wisdom, and it reveals His goodness and generosity.
Thirdly, That the moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation towards all his creatures. That seeing as we daily do the goodness of God to all men, it is an example calling upon all men to practise the same towards each other; and, consequently, that every thing of persecution and revenge between man and man, and every thing of cruelty to animals, is a violation of moral duty.
Thirdly, the moral responsibility of humans is to reflect the goodness and kindness of God shown in creation toward all His creatures. Since we see God's goodness to everyone every day, it sets an example for all people to treat each other in the same way. Therefore, any form of persecution and revenge between people, as well as any cruelty toward animals, is a breach of moral duty.
I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence began.
I don't worry about what happens after this life. I'm satisfied believing, even firmly convinced, that the force that gave me life can keep it going in whatever way it chooses, whether in this body or another. It seems more likely to me that I will continue to exist in the future than that I had this life before I actually began to exist.
It is certain that, in one point, all nations of the earth and all religions agree. All believe in a God. The things in which they disgrace are the redundancies annexed to that belief; and therefore, if ever an universal religion should prevail, it will not be believing any thing new, but in getting rid of redundancies, and believing as man believed at first. ["In the childhood of the world," according to the first (French) version; and the strict translation of the final sentence is: "Deism was the religion of Adam, supposing him not an imaginary being; but none the less must it be left to all men to follow, as is their right, the religion and worship they prefer."—Editor.] Adam, if ever there was such a man, was created a Deist; but in the mean time, let every man follow, as he has a right to do, the religion and worship he prefers.
It's clear that, in one aspect, all nations and religions around the world agree. They all believe in a God. The issues they argue about are the extra beliefs that come with that core belief; therefore, if a universal religion were to emerge, it wouldn't be about believing something new, but about shedding those extra beliefs and returning to the faith that humanity held at the beginning. ["In the childhood of the world," according to the first (French) version; and the direct translation of the final sentence is: "Deism was the religion of Adam, assuming he wasn't just a fictional character; yet, it must still be left to everyone to follow, as is their right, the religion and worship they choose."—Editor.] Adam, if he ever existed, was created a Deist; but in the meantime, let everyone pursue, as they have the right to do, the religion and worship they prefer.
THE AGE OF REASON - PART II
Contents * Preface * Chapter I - The Old Testament * Chapter II - The New Testament * Chapter III - Conclusion
PREFACE
I HAVE mentioned in the former part of The Age of Reason that it had long been my intention to publish my thoughts upon Religion; but that I had originally reserved it to a later period in life, intending it to be the last work I should undertake. The circumstances, however, which existed in France in the latter end of the year 1793, determined me to delay it no longer. The just and humane principles of the Revolution which Philosophy had first diffused, had been departed from. The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty,—that priests could forgive sins,—though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself.
I mentioned earlier in The Age of Reason that I had long intended to share my thoughts on religion, but I had planned to do that later in life, making it the final work I would undertake. However, the circumstances in France at the end of 1793 led me to decide to put it off no longer. The just and humane principles of the Revolution, which Philosophy had originally spread, had been abandoned. The idea—which is always dangerous to society because it undermines the Almighty—that priests could forgive sins, even though it seemed to fade away, had dulled our sense of humanity and cynically prepared people to commit all kinds of crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had shifted into politics; the courts, known as Revolutionary, had taken the place of an Inquisition, and the Guillotine had replaced the Stake. I saw many of my closest friends destroyed; others were taken to prison daily; and I had reason to believe, and received hints, that I was facing the same danger.
Under these disadvantages, I began the former part of the Age of Reason; I had, besides, neither Bible nor Testament [It must be borne in mind that throughout this work Paine generally means by "Bible" only the Old Testament, and speaks of the New as the "Testament."—Editor.] to refer to, though I was writing against both; nor could I procure any; notwithstanding which I have produced a work that no Bible Believer, though writing at his ease and with a Library of Church Books about him, can refute. Towards the latter end of December of that year, a motion was made and carried, to exclude foreigners from the Convention. There were but two, Anacharsis Cloots and myself; and I saw I was particularly pointed at by Bourdon de l'Oise, in his speech on that motion.
Facing these challenges, I started the earlier part of the Age of Reason; I also didn't have a Bible or New Testament to reference [It's important to remember that throughout this work, Paine usually refers to the "Bible" as only the Old Testament and calls the New Testament the "Testament."—Editor.], even though I was writing against both; and I couldn't get any. Despite this, I created a work that no believer in the Bible, even with all their books on the Church around them, can refute. Toward the end of December that year, a motion was proposed and passed to exclude foreigners from the Convention. There were only two of us, Anacharsis Cloots and me; I noticed that Bourdon de l'Oise specifically targeted me in his speech regarding that motion.
Conceiving, after this, that I had but a few days of liberty, I sat down and brought the work to a close as speedily as possible; and I had not finished it more than six hours, in the state it has since appeared, [This is an allusion to the essay which Paine wrote at an earlier part of 1793. See Introduction.—Editor.] before a guard came there, about three in the morning, with an order signed by the two Committees of Public Safety and Surety General, for putting me in arrestation as a foreigner, and conveying me to the prison of the Luxembourg. I contrived, in my way there, to call on Joel Barlow, and I put the Manuscript of the work into his hands, as more safe than in my possession in prison; and not knowing what might be the fate in France either of the writer or the work, I addressed it to the protection of the citizens of the United States.
Realizing that I only had a few days of freedom left, I sat down and finished the work as quickly as I could; I had barely completed it six hours before a guard arrived around three in the morning with orders signed by the two Committees of Public Safety and Surety General to arrest me as a foreigner and take me to the Luxembourg prison. On my way there, I managed to stop by and see Joel Barlow, handing the manuscript to him since it felt safer with him than in my possession in prison. Not knowing what would happen to either the writer or the work in France, I dedicated it to the protection of the citizens of the United States.
It is justice that I say, that the guard who executed this order, and the interpreter to the Committee of General Surety, who accompanied them to examine my papers, treated me not only with civility, but with respect. The keeper of the 'Luxembourg, Benoit, a man of good heart, shewed to me every friendship in his power, as did also all his family, while he continued in that station. He was removed from it, put into arrestation, and carried before the tribunal upon a malignant accusation, but acquitted.
I have to say it’s only fair that the guard who carried out this order and the interpreter for the Committee of General Surety, who came with them to check my papers, treated me not just with politeness, but with respect. The keeper of the 'Luxembourg, Benoit, was a kind-hearted man who showed me every kindness he could, as did his entire family, while he remained in that position. He was later removed from it, placed under arrest, and taken before the court on a false accusation, but he was found not guilty.
After I had been in Luxembourg about three weeks, the Americans then in Paris went in a body to the Convention to reclaim me as their countryman and friend; but were answered by the President, Vadier, who was also President of the Committee of Surety General, and had signed the order for my arrestation, that I was born in England. [These excited Americans do not seem to have understood or reported the most important item in Vadeer's reply, namely that their application was "unofficial," i.e. not made through or sanctioned by Gouverneur Morris, American Minister. For the detailed history of all this see vol. iii.—Editor.] I heard no more, after this, from any person out of the walls of the prison, till the fall of Robespierre, on the 9th of Thermidor—July 27, 1794.
After I had been in Luxembourg for about three weeks, a group of Americans in Paris went to the Convention to reclaim me as one of their own and a friend. However, they were met by the President, Vadier, who was also the President of the Committee of General Security and had signed the order for my arrest. He informed them that I was born in England. [This group of excited Americans didn’t seem to grasp or report the key point in Vadier's reply, which was that their request was "unofficial," meaning it wasn't made through or approved by Gouverneur Morris, the American Minister. For a detailed history of all this, see vol. iii.—Editor.] I didn't hear anything else from anyone outside the prison until the fall of Robespierre on the 9th of Thermidor—July 27, 1794.
About two months before this event, I was seized with a fever that in its progress had every symptom of becoming mortal, and from the effects of which I am not recovered. It was then that I remembered with renewed satisfaction, and congratulated myself most sincerely, on having written the former part of The Age of Reason. I had then but little expectation of surviving, and those about me had less. I know therefore by experience the conscientious trial of my own principles.
About two months before this happened, I came down with a fever that seemed to be life-threatening, and I’m still dealing with the effects of it. It was during this time that I felt a strong sense of satisfaction and congratulated myself for having written the earlier part of The Age of Reason. I had little hope of surviving, and the people around me had even less. So, I know from experience what it’s like to seriously test my own beliefs.
I was then with three chamber comrades: Joseph Vanheule of Bruges, Charles Bastfni, and Michael Robyns of Louvain. The unceasing and anxious attention of these three friends to me, by night and day, I remember with gratitude and mention with pleasure. It happened that a physician (Dr. Graham) and a surgeon, (Mr. Bond,) part of the suite of General O'Hara, [The officer who at Yorktown, Virginia, carried out the sword of Cornwallis for surrender, and satirically offered it to Rochambeau instead of Washington. Paine loaned him 300 pounds when he (O'Hara) left the prison, the money he had concealed in the lock of his cell-door.—Editor.] were then in the Luxembourg: I ask not myself whether it be convenient to them, as men under the English Government, that I express to them my thanks; but I should reproach myself if I did not; and also to the physician of the Luxembourg, Dr. Markoski.
I was then with three fellow members: Joseph Vanheule from Bruges, Charles Bastfni, and Michael Robyns from Louvain. I remember with gratitude and mention with pleasure how these three friends constantly and anxiously cared for me, day and night. It happened that a doctor (Dr. Graham) and a surgeon (Mr. Bond), who were part of General O'Hara's entourage, [The officer who at Yorktown, Virginia, carried out the sword of Cornwallis for surrender, and satirically offered it to Rochambeau instead of Washington. Paine loaned him 300 pounds when he (O'Hara) left the prison, the money he had concealed in the lock of his cell-door.—Editor.] were then in the Luxembourg: I don't concern myself with whether it's convenient for them, as men under the English Government, for me to express my thanks; but I would feel guilty if I didn't; also to the physician of the Luxembourg, Dr. Markoski.
I have some reason to believe, because I cannot discover any other, that this illness preserved me in existence. Among the papers of Robespierre that were examined and reported upon to the Convention by a Committee of Deputies, is a note in the hand writing of Robespierre, in the following words:
I have some reason to believe, because I can’t find any other explanation, that this illness kept me alive. Among the papers of Robespierre that were reviewed and reported to the Convention by a Committee of Deputies, there is a note in Robespierre's handwriting that says:
"Demander que Thomas Paine soit decrete d'accusation, pour l'interet de l'Amerique autant que de la France."
"Request that Thomas Paine be charged, for the benefit of both America and France."
[Demand that Thomas Paine be decreed of accusation, for the interest of America, as well as of France.] From what cause it was that the intention was not put in execution, I know not, and cannot inform myself; and therefore I ascribe it to impossibility, on account of that illness.
[Demand that Thomas Paine be cleared of all accusations, for the sake of America, as well as France.] I don't know why the plan wasn't carried out, and I can't find out; therefore, I attribute it to being impossible due to that illness.
The Convention, to repair as much as lay in their power the injustice I had sustained, invited me publickly and unanimously to return into the Convention, and which I accepted, to shew I could bear an injury without permitting it to injure my principles or my disposition. It is not because right principles have been violated, that they are to be abandoned.
The Convention, in an effort to fix the injustice I had experienced as much as they could, publicly and unanimously invited me to return to the Convention, which I accepted to show that I could endure an injury without allowing it to compromise my principles or my attitude. Just because right principles have been violated doesn’t mean they should be abandoned.
I have seen, since I have been at liberty, several publications written, some in America, and some in England, as answers to the former part of "The Age of Reason." If the authors of these can amuse themselves by so doing, I shall not interrupt them, They may write against the work, and against me, as much as they please; they do me more service than they intend, and I can have no objection that they write on. They will find, however, by this Second Part, without its being written as an answer to them, that they must return to their work, and spin their cobweb over again. The first is brushed away by accident.
Since I’ve been free, I’ve seen several publications, some from America and some from England, responding to the first part of "The Age of Reason." If the authors want to entertain themselves with that, I won’t stop them. They can criticize the work and me as much as they want; they’re actually doing me more good than they realize, and I have no issue with them writing about it. However, they’ll find in this Second Part, without it being a direct response to them, that they’ll have to go back to their work and spin their theories all over again. The first part has been cleared away by chance.
They will now find that I have furnished myself with a Bible and Testament; and I can say also that I have found them to be much worse books than I had conceived. If I have erred in any thing, in the former part of the Age of Reason, it has been by speaking better of some parts than they deserved.
They will now see that I’ve equipped myself with a Bible and Testament; and I can also say that I’ve found them to be much worse books than I had thought. If I made any mistakes in the earlier part of the Age of Reason, it was by speaking more favorably of some parts than they warranted.
I observe, that all my opponents resort, more or less, to what they call Scripture Evidence and Bible authority, to help them out. They are so little masters of the subject, as to confound a dispute about authenticity with a dispute about doctrines; I will, however, put them right, that if they should be disposed to write any more, they may know how to begin.
I notice that all my opponents lean, to varying degrees, on what they refer to as Scripture Evidence and biblical authority to support their arguments. They are so unclear on the topic that they mix up a debate about authenticity with a debate about doctrines; however, I’ll set them straight so that if they feel like writing more, they’ll know how to start.
THOMAS PAINE. October, 1795.
THOMAS PAINE. October 1795.
CHAPTER I - THE OLD TESTAMENT
IT has often been said that any thing may be proved from the Bible; but before any thing can be admitted as proved by Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of any thing.
It has often been said that anything can be proven from the Bible; however, before anything can be accepted as true based on the Bible, the Bible itself must be proven to be reliable. If the Bible is not true, or if its truth is uncertain, it loses its authority and cannot be accepted as proof of anything.
It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the world as a mass of truth, and as the word of God; they have disputed and wrangled, and have anathematized each other about the supposeable meaning of particular parts and passages therein; one has said and insisted that such a passage meant such a thing, another that it meant directly the contrary, and a third, that it meant neither one nor the other, but something different from both; and this they have called understanding the Bible.
It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, as well as all Christian priests and preachers, to present the Bible to the world as a source of absolute truth and as the word of God. They have argued and clashed, condemning each other over the supposed meaning of specific parts and passages within it. One argues that a particular passage means one thing, another claims it means the exact opposite, and a third insists that it means neither and has a different meaning altogether. This, they've called understanding the Bible.
It has happened, that all the answers that I have seen to the former part of 'The Age of Reason' have been written by priests: and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.
It has happened that all the responses I’ve seen to the earlier part of 'The Age of Reason' have been written by priests. These devout individuals, like those before them, argue and debate, claiming to understand the Bible; each has their own interpretation, but each believes theirs is the most accurate. The only thing they all agree on is that Thomas Paine does not understand it.
Now instead of wasting their time, and heating themselves in fractious disputations about doctrinal points drawn from the Bible, these men ought to know, and if they do not it is civility to inform them, that the first thing to be understood is, whether there is sufficient authority for believing the Bible to be the word of God, or whether there is not?
Now, instead of wasting their time and getting worked up over contentious arguments about doctrinal issues from the Bible, these people should understand—and if they don’t, it’s polite to let them know—that the first thing to figure out is whether there’s enough authority to believe that the Bible is the word of God, or if there isn’t.
There are matters in that book, said to be done by the express command of God, that are as shocking to humanity, and to every idea we have of moral justice, as any thing done by Robespierre, by Carrier, by Joseph le Bon, in France, by the English government in the East Indies, or by any other assassin in modern times. When we read in the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon whole nations of people, who, as the history itself shews, had given them no offence; that they put all those nations to the sword; that they spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly destroyed men, women and children; that they left not a soul to breathe; expressions that are repeated over and over again in those books, and that too with exulting ferocity; are we sure these things are facts? are we sure that the Creator of man commissioned those things to be done? Are we sure that the books that tell us so were written by his authority?
There are things in that book that are said to have been done by the direct command of God, which are as shocking to humanity and every idea we have of moral justice as anything done by Robespierre, Carrier, Joseph le Bon in France, the English government in the East Indies, or any other assassin in modern times. When we read in the books attributed to Moses, Joshua, and others that they (the Israelites) secretly attacked entire nations of people who, as the history itself shows, had done them no harm; that they killed all those nations; that they spared neither the elderly nor infants; that they completely wiped out men, women, and children; that they left no one alive; phrases that are repeated again and again in those books, often with an attitude of fierce pride; can we really be sure these things are facts? Can we be sure that the Creator of humanity commanded these actions? Can we be sure that the books saying so were written by his authority?
It is not the antiquity of a tale that is an evidence of its truth; on the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for the more ancient any history pretends to be, the more it has the resemblance of a fable. The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other.
It’s not the age of a story that proves its truth; in fact, it often shows that it’s a made-up tale. The older a history claims to be, the more it resembles a fable. The beginnings of every nation are shrouded in myth, and the history of the Jews should be viewed with the same skepticism as any other.
To charger the commission of things upon the Almighty, which in their own nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes, as all assassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants, is matter of serious concern. The Bible tells us, that those assassinations were done by the express command of God. To believe therefore the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God; for wherein could crying or smiling infants offend? And to read the Bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man. Speaking for myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous, than the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone would be sufficient to determine my choice.
Blaming the Almighty for things that are, by their very nature and every standard of moral justice, crimes—like all assassinations, especially the assassination of infants—is truly concerning. The Bible suggests that these assassinations were carried out at God's command. To accept the Bible as true, we would have to abandon our belief in God's moral justice; after all, how could crying or smiling infants be offensive? To read the Bible without feeling horrified, we would have to erase everything that is tender, compassionate, and kind in the human heart. Personally, if I had no other reason to believe the Bible is a fabrication, the sacrifice I would have to make to accept it as true would be enough for me to reject it.
But in addition to all the moral evidence against the Bible, I will, in the progress of this work, produce such other evidence as even a priest cannot deny; and show, from that evidence, that the Bible is not entitled to credit, as being the word of God.
But besides all the moral arguments against the Bible, I will, as this work unfolds, present other evidence that even a priest can't ignore; and from that evidence, I will demonstrate that the Bible does not deserve to be believed as the word of God.
But, before I proceed to this examination, I will show wherein the Bible differs from all other ancient writings with respect to the nature of the evidence necessary to establish its authenticity; and this is is the more proper to be done, because the advocates of the Bible, in their answers to the former part of 'The Age of Reason,' undertake to say, and they put some stress thereon, that the authenticity of the Bible is as well established as that of any other ancient book: as if our belief of the one could become any rule for our belief of the other.
But before I dive into this examination, I will point out how the Bible differs from all other ancient writings regarding the type of evidence needed to establish its authenticity. This is especially important because the supporters of the Bible, in their replies to the first part of 'The Age of Reason,' assert, and they emphasize this, that the Bible's authenticity is as well established as that of any other ancient book, as if our belief in one can serve as a standard for our belief in the other.
I know, however, but of one ancient book that authoritatively challenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid's Elements of Geometry; [Euclid, according to chronological history, lived three hundred years before Christ, and about one hundred before Archimedes; he was of the city of Alexandria, in Egypt.—Author.] and the reason is, because it is a book of self-evident demonstration, entirely independent of its author, and of every thing relating to time, place, and circumstance. The matters contained in that book would have the same authority they now have, had they been written by any other person, or had the work been anonymous, or had the author never been known; for the identical certainty of who was the author makes no part of our belief of the matters contained in the book. But it is quite otherwise with respect to the books ascribed to Moses, to Joshua, to Samuel, etc.: those are books of testimony, and they testify of things naturally incredible; and therefore the whole of our belief, as to the authenticity of those books, rests, in the first place, upon the certainty that they were written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel; secondly, upon the credit we give to their testimony. We may believe the first, that is, may believe the certainty of the authorship, and yet not the testimony; in the same manner that we may believe that a certain person gave evidence upon a case, and yet not believe the evidence that he gave. But if it should be found that the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were not written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, every part of the authority and authenticity of those books is gone at once; for there can be no such thing as forged or invented testimony; neither can there be anonymous testimony, more especially as to things naturally incredible; such as that of talking with God face to face, or that of the sun and moon standing still at the command of a man.
I only know of one ancient book that challenges universal agreement and belief, and that’s Euclid's Elements of Geometry; [Euclid, according to historical records, lived around three hundred years before Christ and about a hundred years before Archimedes; he was from the city of Alexandria in Egypt.—Author.] The reason for this is that it’s a book of self-evident proof, completely independent of its author and everything related to time, place, and circumstance. The content in that book would hold the same authority it does now, even if it were written by someone else, or if the work were anonymous, or if the author were never known; because knowing who the author is doesn’t influence our belief in the book's content. However, it’s quite different when it comes to the books attributed to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc.: those are books of testimony, and they testify to things that are naturally hard to believe; therefore, our belief in the authenticity of those books relies primarily on the certainty that they were written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, and secondarily on the trust we place in their testimony. We might believe the first—that is, we might be sure of the authorship—and still not believe the testimony, just as we can believe that someone gave evidence in a case without believing the evidence they provided. But if it were found that the books attributed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel weren’t written by them, then all authority and authenticity of those books would disappear immediately; because there’s no such thing as forged or invented testimony, nor can there be anonymous testimony, especially about things that are naturally hard to believe; like talking to God face to face or the sun and moon standing still at a man’s command.
The greatest part of the other ancient books are works of genius; of which kind are those ascribed to Homer, to Plato, to Aristotle, to Demosthenes, to Cicero, etc. Here again the author is not an essential in the credit we give to any of those works; for as works of genius they would have the same merit they have now, were they anonymous. Nobody believes the Trojan story, as related by Homer, to be true; for it is the poet only that is admired, and the merit of the poet will remain, though the story be fabulous. But if we disbelieve the matters related by the Bible authors (Moses for instance) as we disbelieve the things related by Homer, there remains nothing of Moses in our estimation, but an imposter. As to the ancient historians, from Herodotus to Tacitus, we credit them as far as they relate things probable and credible, and no further: for if we do, we must believe the two miracles which Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian, that of curing a lame man, and a blind man, in just the same manner as the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his historians. We must also believe the miracles cited by Josephus, that of the sea of Pamphilia opening to let Alexander and his army pass, as is related of the Red Sea in Exodus. These miracles are quite as well authenticated as the Bible miracles, and yet we do not believe them; consequently the degree of evidence necessary to establish our belief of things naturally incredible, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, is far greater than that which obtains our belief to natural and probable things; and therefore the advocates for the Bible have no claim to our belief of the Bible because that we believe things stated in other ancient writings; since that we believe the things stated in those writings no further than they are probable and credible, or because they are self-evident, like Euclid; or admire them because they are elegant, like Homer; or approve them because they are sedate, like Plato; or judicious, like Aristotle.
Most of the other ancient books are works of genius, like those attributed to Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Cicero, and others. Here again, the author isn't the crucial factor in the value we assign to these works; as works of genius, they would hold the same merit even if they were anonymous. No one believes the Trojan story as told by Homer is true; it's the poet who receives the admiration, and the poet's merit remains intact regardless of the story's fictional nature. However, if we disbelieve the narratives given by the Bible authors (like Moses, for example) in the same way we disbelieve Homer's tales, we only see Moses as a fraud. As for the ancient historians, from Herodotus to Tacitus, we accept what they say only as far as it seems likely and credible; beyond that, we hesitate to believe. For if we don’t, we’d have to accept the two miracles that Tacitus describes as performed by Vespasian—healing a lame man and a blind man—just like the same miracles told about Jesus Christ by his historians. We’d also have to accept the miracles mentioned by Josephus, such as the sea of Pamphilia parting for Alexander and his army, similar to the story of the Red Sea in Exodus. These miracles are authenticated just as well as the biblical ones, yet we don't believe them; therefore, the level of evidence needed for us to believe in naturally unbelievable events, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, is much higher than what makes us accept natural and probable events. Thus, advocates for the Bible don't have a valid claim to our belief in it just because we accept claims in other ancient writings; we trust those writings only as far as they seem probable and credible, or because they are self-evident, like Euclid; or we admire them for their elegance, like Homer; or appreciate them for their seriousness, like Plato; or for their wisdom, like Aristotle.
Having premised these things, I proceed to examine the authenticity of the Bible; and I begin with what are called the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. My intention is to shew that those books are spurious, and that Moses is not the author of them; and still further, that they were not written in the time of Moses nor till several hundred years afterwards; that they are no other than an attempted history of the life of Moses, and of the times in which he is said to have lived, and also of the times prior thereto, written by some very ignorant and stupid pretenders to authorship, several hundred years after the death of Moses; as men now write histories of things that happened, or are supposed to have happened, several hundred or several thousand years ago.
Having established these points, I will now look into the authenticity of the Bible, starting with the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. My goal is to demonstrate that these books are inauthentic and that Moses did not write them. Furthermore, I will argue that they were not composed during Moses' time but rather several hundred years later. They are essentially an attempt at a history of Moses' life and the era in which he is said to have lived, as well as the preceding times, crafted by some very ignorant and foolish individuals pretending to be authors, long after Moses' death—similar to how people today write histories about events that happened or are believed to have happened many hundreds or thousands of years ago.
The evidence that I shall produce in this case is from the books themselves; and I will confine myself to this evidence only. Were I to refer for proofs to any of the ancient authors, whom the advocates of the Bible call prophane authors, they would controvert that authority, as I controvert theirs: I will therefore meet them on their own ground, and oppose them with their own weapon, the Bible.
The evidence I will present in this case comes directly from the books themselves, and I will stick to this evidence only. If I were to reference any of the ancient authors, whom the supporters of the Bible call secular authors, they would dispute that authority just as I dispute theirs. So, I will confront them on their own terms and challenge them using their own tool: the Bible.
In the first place, there is no affirmative evidence that Moses is the author of those books; and that he is the author, is altogether an unfounded opinion, got abroad nobody knows how. The style and manner in which those books are written give no room to believe, or even to suppose, they were written by Moses; for it is altogether the style and manner of another person speaking of Moses. In Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, (for every thing in Genesis is prior to the times of Moses and not the least allusion is made to him therein,) the whole, I say, of these books is in the third person; it is always, the Lord said unto Moses, or Moses said unto the Lord; or Moses said unto the people, or the people said unto Moses; and this is the style and manner that historians use in speaking of the person whose lives and actions they are writing. It may be said, that a man may speak of himself in the third person, and, therefore, it may be supposed that Moses did; but supposition proves nothing; and if the advocates for the belief that Moses wrote those books himself have nothing better to advance than supposition, they may as well be silent.
First of all, there’s no solid evidence that Moses wrote those books; claiming he did is just an unfounded opinion that spread for reasons unknown. The way those books are written doesn’t support the idea that Moses is the author; instead, they reflect the style of someone else talking about Moses. In Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (since everything in Genesis predates Moses and doesn’t mention him at all), these books are written in the third person. It’s always phrased like "the Lord said to Moses," or "Moses said to the Lord," or "Moses said to the people," or "the people said to Moses," which is how historians talk about the individuals they’re writing about. One might argue that someone can refer to themselves in the third person, so it’s possible Moses did too, but speculation proves nothing. If those who believe Moses authored these books can’t provide stronger evidence than speculation, they might as well stay quiet.
But granting the grammatical right, that Moses might speak of himself in the third person, because any man might speak of himself in that manner, it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books, that it is Moses who speaks, without rendering Moses truly ridiculous and absurd:—for example, Numbers xii. 3: "Now the man Moses was very MEEK, above all the men which were on the face of the earth." If Moses said this of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and arrogant coxcombs; and the advocates for those books may now take which side they please, for both sides are against them: if Moses was not the author, the books are without authority; and if he was the author, the author is without credit, because to boast of meekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment.
But even if it’s grammatically correct for Moses to refer to himself in the third person—since anyone can speak about themselves that way—it can't be accepted as a fact in those books that it is Moses who is speaking without making him seem ridiculous and absurd. For example, in Numbers 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very MEEK, above all the men which were on the face of the earth." If Moses really said this about himself, instead of being the meekest man, he would be one of the most vain and arrogant fools. Those who support these books can choose whichever argument they prefer because both positions go against them: if Moses wasn't the author, the books have no authority; and if he was the author, then he lacks credibility, because boasting about meekness is the opposite of being meek, and it’s a lie in spirit.
In Deuteronomy, the style and manner of writing marks more evidently than in the former books that Moses is not the writer. The manner here used is dramatical; the writer opens the subject by a short introductory discourse, and then introduces Moses as in the act of speaking, and when he has made Moses finish his harrangue, he (the writer) resumes his own part, and speaks till he brings Moses forward again, and at last closes the scene with an account of the death, funeral, and character of Moses.
In Deuteronomy, it's clearer than in the earlier books that Moses didn't write this. The writing style is more dramatic; the author begins with a brief introduction and then presents Moses as if he is speaking. After Moses finishes his speech, the author takes over again, continuing until Moses is brought back into the conversation, and ultimately concludes with a description of Moses' death, funeral, and character.
This interchange of speakers occurs four times in this book: from the first verse of the first chapter, to the end of the fifth verse, it is the writer who speaks; he then introduces Moses as in the act of making his harrangue, and this continues to the end of the 40th verse of the fourth chapter; here the writer drops Moses, and speaks historically of what was done in consequence of what Moses, when living, is supposed to have said, and which the writer has dramatically rehearsed.
This back-and-forth between speakers happens four times in this book: from the first verse of the first chapter to the end of the fifth verse, the writer is the one speaking; then he introduces Moses, who delivers his speech, and this goes on until the end of the 40th verse of the fourth chapter; at this point, the writer stops quoting Moses and talks about what happened as a result of what Moses is believed to have said while he was alive, which the writer has dramatically recounted.
The writer opens the subject again in the first verse of the fifth chapter, though it is only by saying that Moses called the people of Israel together; he then introduces Moses as before, and continues him as in the act of speaking, to the end of the 26th chapter. He does the same thing at the beginning of the 27th chapter; and continues Moses as in the act of speaking, to the end of the 28th chapter. At the 29th chapter the writer speaks again through the whole of the first verse, and the first line of the second verse, where he introduces Moses for the last time, and continues him as in the act of speaking, to the end of the 33d chapter.
The writer brings up the topic again in the first verse of the fifth chapter, simply stating that Moses gathered the people of Israel. He then presents Moses as before and continues his speech until the end of the 26th chapter. He does the same at the start of the 27th chapter, keeping Moses speaking until the end of the 28th chapter. In the 29th chapter, the writer again speaks through the entire first verse and the first line of the second verse, where he introduces Moses for the last time and continues his speech until the end of the 33rd chapter.
The writer having now finished the rehearsal on the part of Moses, comes forward, and speaks through the whole of the last chapter: he begins by telling the reader, that Moses went up to the top of Pisgah, that he saw from thence the land which (the writer says) had been promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; that he, Moses, died there in the land of Moab, that he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, but that no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day, that is unto the time in which the writer lived who wrote the book of Deuteronomy. The writer then tells us, that Moses was one hundred and ten years of age when he died—that his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated; and he concludes by saying, that there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom, says this anonymous writer, the Lord knew face to face.
The writer, having now completed the rehearsal for Moses' part, steps forward and speaks throughout the entire last chapter. He starts by telling the reader that Moses went up to the top of Pisgah and from there saw the land that had been promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He states that Moses died there in the land of Moab, and that he was buried in a valley in Moab, but no one knows where his grave is to this day, meaning up to the time when the writer lived who wrote the book of Deuteronomy. The writer then informs us that Moses was one hundred and ten years old when he died—his eyesight wasn't dim, nor had his strength faded; he wraps up by saying that there has not been a prophet in Israel like Moses since then, whom, this anonymous writer notes, the Lord knew face to face.
Having thus shewn, as far as grammatical evidence implies, that Moses was not the writer of those books, I will, after making a few observations on the inconsistencies of the writer of the book of Deuteronomy, proceed to shew, from the historical and chronological evidence contained in those books, that Moses was not, because he could not be, the writer of them; and consequently, that there is no authority for believing that the inhuman and horrid butcheries of men, women, and children, told of in those books, were done, as those books say they were, at the command of God. It is a duty incumbent on every true deist, that he vindicates the moral justice of God against the calumnies of the Bible.
Having shown, as far as grammar indicates, that Moses was not the writer of those books, I will, after making a few remarks on the inconsistencies of the writer of the book of Deuteronomy, proceed to demonstrate, based on the historical and chronological evidence in those books, that Moses was not the writer, because he couldn't be; and therefore, that there is no basis for believing that the cruel and horrific killings of men, women, and children described in those books were carried out, as those books claim, under God's command. It is the responsibility of every true deist to defend the moral justice of God against the accusations made by the Bible.
The writer of the book of Deuteronomy, whoever he was, for it is an anonymous work, is obscure, and also contradictory with himself in the account he has given of Moses.
The author of the book of Deuteronomy, whoever that may be since it’s an anonymous piece, is unclear and also inconsistent in the portrayal of Moses.
After telling that Moses went to the top of Pisgah (and it does not appear from any account that he ever came down again) he tells us, that Moses died there in the land of Moab, and that he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab; but as there is no antecedent to the pronoun he, there is no knowing who he was, that did bury him. If the writer meant that he (God) buried him, how should he (the writer) know it? or why should we (the readers) believe him? since we know not who the writer was that tells us so, for certainly Moses could not himself tell where he was buried.
After mentioning that Moses went to the top of Pisgah (and it doesn't seem from any account that he ever came down again), it says that Moses died there in the land of Moab and that he was buried in a valley in the land of Moab. However, since there’s no clear reference for the pronoun "he," we can't know who actually buried him. If the writer meant that God buried him, how could he (the writer) know that? And why should we (the readers) believe him? We don't even know who the writer was, since Moses certainly couldn't have told where he was buried.
The writer also tells us, that no man knoweth where the sepulchre of Moses is unto this day, meaning the time in which this writer lived; how then should he know that Moses was buried in a valley in the land of Moab? for as the writer lived long after the time of Moses, as is evident from his using the expression of unto this day, meaning a great length of time after the death of Moses, he certainly was not at his funeral; and on the other hand, it is impossible that Moses himself could say that no man knoweth where the sepulchre is unto this day. To make Moses the speaker, would be an improvement on the play of a child that hides himself and cries nobody can find me; nobody can find Moses.
The writer also tells us that no one knows where Moses' grave is to this day, meaning during the time the writer lived; so how could he know that Moses was buried in a valley in the land of Moab? Since the writer lived long after Moses, as shown by his use of the phrase "to this day," which signifies a considerable time after Moses' death, he definitely wasn't at his funeral. Moreover, it's impossible for Moses himself to have said that no one knows where his grave is to this day. Making Moses the speaker would be like a child hiding and claiming that nobody can find him; nobody can find Moses.
This writer has no where told us how he came by the speeches which he has put into the mouth of Moses to speak, and therefore we have a right to conclude that he either composed them himself, or wrote them from oral tradition. One or other of these is the more probable, since he has given, in the fifth chapter, a table of commandments, in which that called the fourth commandment is different from the fourth commandment in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. In that of Exodus, the reason given for keeping the seventh day is, because (says the commandment) God made the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh; but in that of Deuteronomy, the reason given is, that it was the day on which the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and therefore, says this commandment, the Lord thy God commanded thee to kee the sabbath-day This makes no mention of the creation, nor that of the coming out of Egypt. There are also many things given as laws of Moses in this book, that are not to be found in any of the other books; among which is that inhuman and brutal law, xxi. 18, 19, 20, 21, which authorizes parents, the father and the mother, to bring their own children to have them stoned to death for what it pleased them to call stubbornness.—But priests have always been fond of preaching up Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preaches up tythes; and it is from this book, xxv. 4, they have taken the phrase, and applied it to tything, that "thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth Out the corn:" and that this might not escape observation, they have noted it in the table of contents at the head of the chapter, though it is only a single verse of less than two lines. O priests! priests! ye are willing to be compared to an ox, for the sake of tythes. [An elegant pocket edition of Paine's Theological Works (London. R. Carlile, 1822) has in its title a picture of Paine, as a Moses in evening dress, unfolding the two tables of his "Age of Reason" to a farmer from whom the Bishop of Llandaff (who replied to this work) has taken a sheaf and a lamb which he is carrying to a church at the summit of a well stocked hill.—Editor.]—Though it is impossible for us to know identically who the writer of Deuteronomy was, it is not difficult to discover him professionally, that he was some Jewish priest, who lived, as I shall shew in the course of this work, at least three hundred and fifty years after the time of Moses.
This writer hasn’t told us how he got the speeches he attributed to Moses, so we can assume he either created them himself or based them on oral tradition. One of these is more likely since in the fifth chapter, there’s a list of commandments where the fourth commandment is different from the fourth commandment in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. In Exodus, the reason for keeping the seventh day is that God made the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh; however, in Deuteronomy, the reason given is that it was the day the Israelites left Egypt, and therefore, this commandment says the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath. This doesn’t mention creation or the exodus. Additionally, there are many laws attributed to Moses in this book that aren’t found in any other books, including that cruel law in xxi. 18, 19, 20, 21, which allows parents to bring their children to be stoned to death for what they consider stubbornness. Yet, priests have always liked promoting Deuteronomy because it talks about tithes; they’ve taken the phrase from this book, xxv. 4, “you shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the corn,” applying it to tithing. To ensure it doesn't go unnoticed, they’ve highlighted it in the table of contents at the top of the chapter, despite it being just a single verse of less than two lines. Oh, priests! You’re willing to be compared to an ox for the sake of tithes. [An elegant pocket edition of Paine's Theological Works (London. R. Carlile, 1822) features a picture of Paine as a Moses in evening dress, revealing the two tables of his "Age of Reason" to a farmer from whom the Bishop of Llandaff (who responded to this work) has taken a sheaf and a lamb he’s carrying to a church on top of a well-stocked hill.—Editor.] Although we can’t know exactly who wrote Deuteronomy, it’s not hard to figure out that he was some Jewish priest who lived, as I will show in this work, at least three hundred and fifty years after Moses.
I come now to speak of the historical and chronological evidence. The chronology that I shall use is the Bible chronology; for I mean not to go out of the Bible for evidence of any thing, but to make the Bible itself prove historically and chronologically that Moses is not the author of the books ascribed to him. It is therefore proper that I inform the readers (such an one at least as may not have the opportunity of knowing it) that in the larger Bibles, and also in some smaller ones, there is a series of chronology printed in the margin of every page for the purpose of showing how long the historical matters stated in each page happened, or are supposed to have happened, before Christ, and consequently the distance of time between one historical circumstance and another.
I will now discuss the historical and chronological evidence. The timeline I’ll be using is based on the Bible chronology; I intend to stay within the Bible for evidence and demonstrate that the Bible itself historically and chronologically shows that Moses is not the author of the books attributed to him. Therefore, it’s important to inform readers (especially those who may not have the chance to know) that in larger Bibles, and also in some smaller ones, there’s a chronology printed in the margin of every page. This is meant to indicate how long ago the historical events mentioned on each page occurred, or are believed to have occurred, before Christ, and thus the time gap between one historical event and another.
I begin with the book of Genesis.—In Genesis xiv., the writer gives an account of Lot being taken prisoner in a battle between the four kings against five, and carried off; and that when the account of Lot being taken came to Abraham, that he armed all his household and marched to rescue Lot from the captors; and that he pursued them unto Dan. (ver. 14.)
I start with the book of Genesis. In Genesis 14, the author tells the story of Lot being captured in a battle between four kings and five kings, and taken away; and when Abraham heard about Lot’s capture, he gathered all his household and set out to rescue Lot from his captors, pursuing them all the way to Dan. (ver. 14.)
To shew in what manner this expression of Pursuing them unto Dan applies to the case in question, I will refer to two circumstances, the one in America, the other in France. The city now called New York, in America, was originally New Amsterdam; and the town in France, lately called Havre Marat, was before called Havre-de-Grace. New Amsterdam was changed to New York in the year 1664; Havre-de-Grace to Havre Marat in the year 1793. Should, therefore, any writing be found, though without date, in which the name of New-York should be mentioned, it would be certain evidence that such a writing could not have been written before, and must have been written after New Amsterdam was changed to New York, and consequently not till after the year 1664, or at least during the course of that year. And in like manner, any dateless writing, with the name of Havre Marat, would be certain evidence that such a writing must have been written after Havre-de-Grace became Havre Marat, and consequently not till after the year 1793, or at least during the course of that year.
To show how the phrase "Pursuing them unto Dan" relates to the situation at hand, I'll point out two examples, one from America and the other from France. The city now known as New York in America was originally called New Amsterdam, and the town in France now known as Havre Marat was previously referred to as Havre-de-Grace. New Amsterdam was renamed New York in 1664, and Havre-de-Grace became Havre Marat in 1793. Therefore, if any undated document is found mentioning the name New York, it would definitely indicate that the document could not have been written before the change from New Amsterdam to New York, meaning it was produced after 1664 or at least during that year. Similarly, any undated document that mentions Havre Marat would clearly mean that it was written after Havre-de-Grace was changed to Havre Marat, so it couldn't have been created before 1793 or at least during that year.
I now come to the application of those cases, and to show that there was no such place as Dan till many years after the death of Moses; and consequently, that Moses could not be the writer of the book of Genesis, where this account of pursuing them unto Dan is given.
I now address the application of those cases and demonstrate that there was no place called Dan until many years after Moses' death; therefore, Moses could not have been the author of the book of Genesis, where this account of pursuing them to Dan is mentioned.
The place that is called Dan in the Bible was originally a town of the Gentiles, called Laish; and when the tribe of Dan seized upon this town, they changed its name to Dan, in commemoration of Dan, who was the father of that tribe, and the great grandson of Abraham.
The location known as Dan in the Bible was originally a Gentile town called Laish. When the tribe of Dan took over this town, they renamed it Dan to honor Dan, the father of that tribe and the great-grandson of Abraham.
To establish this in proof, it is necessary to refer from Genesis to chapter xviii. of the book called the Book of judges. It is there said (ver. 27) that "they (the Danites) came unto Laish to a people that were quiet and secure, and they smote them with the edge of the sword [the Bible is filled with murder] and burned the city with fire; and they built a city, (ver. 28,) and dwelt therein, and [ver. 29,] they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan, their father; howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first."
To prove this point, we need to refer from Genesis to chapter 18 of the book known as the Book of Judges. It states (ver. 27) that "the Danites came to Laish, a people who were peaceful and secure, and they killed them with the sword [the Bible is full of murder] and burned the city; then they built a city (ver. 28) and lived there, and (ver. 29) they named the city Dan, after their father Dan; however, the city's original name was Laish."
This account of the Danites taking possession of Laish and changing it to Dan, is placed in the book of Judges immediately after the death of Samson. The death of Samson is said to have happened B.C. 1120 and that of Moses B.C. 1451; and, therefore, according to the historical arrangement, the place was not called Dan till 331 years after the death of Moses.
This story about the Danites capturing Laish and renaming it Dan is found in the book of Judges right after the death of Samson. Samson's death is said to have occurred in 1120 B.C., while Moses' death happened in 1451 B.C.; therefore, according to the historical timeline, the place wasn't named Dan until 331 years after Moses died.
There is a striking confusion between the historical and the chronological arrangement in the book of judges. The last five chapters, as they stand in the book, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, are put chronologically before all the preceding chapters; they are made to be 28 years before the 16th chapter, 266 before the 15th, 245 before the 13th, 195 before the 9th, go before the 4th, and 15 years before the 1st chapter. This shews the uncertain and fabulous state of the Bible. According to the chronological arrangement, the taking of Laish, and giving it the name of Dan, is made to be twenty years after the death of Joshua, who was the successor of Moses; and by the historical order, as it stands in the book, it is made to be 306 years after the death of Joshua, and 331 after that of Moses; but they both exclude Moses from being the writer of Genesis, because, according to either of the statements, no such a place as Dan existed in the time of Moses; and therefore the writer of Genesis must have been some person who lived after the town of Laish had the name of Dan; and who that person was nobody knows, and consequently the book of Genesis is anonymous, and without authority.
There is a noticeable confusion between the historical and chronological arrangement in the book of Judges. The last five chapters, as they appear in the book—17, 18, 19, 20, 21—are placed chronologically before all the earlier chapters; they occur 28 years before the 16th chapter, 266 years before the 15th, 245 years before the 13th, 195 years before the 9th, precede the 4th, and come 15 years before the 1st chapter. This highlights the uncertain and mythical state of the Bible. According to the chronological arrangement, the capture of Laish and its renaming to Dan is said to happen twenty years after the death of Joshua, who succeeded Moses; however, in the historical order as it appears in the book, it occurs 306 years after Joshua's death and 331 years after Moses’. But both arrangements exclude Moses from being the writer of Genesis because, according to either account, no place called Dan existed during Moses’ time; therefore, the writer of Genesis must have been someone who lived after the town of Laish was named Dan. Who that person was remains unknown, making the book of Genesis anonymous and lacking authority.
I come now to state another point of historical and chronological evidence, and to show therefrom, as in the preceding case, that Moses is not the author of the book of Genesis.
I now want to point out another piece of historical and chronological evidence, and from that, like in the previous case, demonstrate that Moses is not the author of the book of Genesis.
In Genesis xxxvi. there is given a genealogy of the sons and descendants of Esau, who are called Edomites, and also a list by name of the kings of Edom; in enumerating of which, it is said, verse 31, "And these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel."
In Genesis 36, there is a genealogy of the sons and descendants of Esau, who are called Edomites, along with a list of the kings of Edom by name. It mentions in verse 31, "These are the kings who reigned in Edom before any king ruled over the Israelites."
Now, were any dateless writing to be found, in which, speaking of any past events, the writer should say, these things happened before there was any Congress in America, or before there was any Convention in France, it would be evidence that such writing could not have been written before, and could only be written after there was a Congress in America or a Convention in France, as the case might be; and, consequently, that it could not be written by any person who died before there was a Congress in the one country, or a Convention in the other.
If there were any undated writing found where the author refers to past events and mentions that these things took place before there was a Congress in America or before there was a Convention in France, it would prove that such writing could only have been produced after the establishment of a Congress in America or a Convention in France, whichever is applicable. Therefore, it couldn't have been written by anyone who died before a Congress existed in the first case or a Convention in the second.
Nothing is more frequent, as well in history as in conversation, than to refer to a fact in the room of a date: it is most natural so to do, because a fact fixes itself in the memory better than a date; secondly, because the fact includes the date, and serves to give two ideas at once; and this manner of speaking by circumstances implies as positively that the fact alluded to is past, as if it was so expressed. When a person in speaking upon any matter, says, it was before I was married, or before my son was born, or before I went to America, or before I went to France, it is absolutely understood, and intended to be understood, that he has been married, that he has had a son, that he has been in America, or been in France. Language does not admit of using this mode of expression in any other sense; and whenever such an expression is found anywhere, it can only be understood in the sense in which only it could have been used.
Nothing is more common, both in history and in everyday conversation, than to refer to an event instead of a specific date. It’s completely natural because an event sticks in the memory better than a date. Plus, mentioning the event automatically includes the date and conveys two ideas at once. This way of speaking about circumstances clearly indicates that the event being referenced is in the past, just as if it were directly stated. When someone talks about an issue and says, “it was before I got married,” or “before my son was born,” or “before I went to America,” or “before I went to France,” it is clearly understood—and meant to be understood—that they have been married, that they have a son, that they have been to America, or that they have been to France. Language doesn’t allow for this way of expressing things to mean anything else, and whenever you see such a phrase, it can only be interpreted in the way it was intended.
The passage, therefore, that I have quoted—that "these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," could only have been written after the first king began to reign over them; and consequently that the book of Genesis, so far from having been written by Moses, could not have been written till the time of Saul at least. This is the positive sense of the passage; but the expression, any king, implies more kings than one, at least it implies two, and this will carry it to the time of David; and, if taken in a general sense, it carries itself through all times of the Jewish monarchy.
The quoted passage that says, "these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," must have been written after the first king started ruling over them. Therefore, the book of Genesis, rather than being written by Moses, couldn't have been written until at least the time of Saul. This is the clear meaning of the passage; however, the phrase "any king" suggests more than one king, at least implying two, which would extend it to the time of David. If understood more broadly, it could apply throughout all periods of the Jewish monarchy.
Had we met with this verse in any part of the Bible that professed to have been written after kings began to reign in Israel, it would have been impossible not to have seen the application of it. It happens then that this is the case; the two books of Chronicles, which give a history of all the kings of Israel, are professedly, as well as in fact, written after the Jewish monarchy began; and this verse that I have quoted, and all the remaining verses of Genesis xxxvi. are, word for word, In 1 Chronicles i., beginning at the 43d verse.
If we had encountered this verse in any part of the Bible that claims to have been written after kings started ruling in Israel, it would have been impossible not to recognize its relevance. And indeed, that's the case; the two books of Chronicles, which provide a history of all the kings of Israel, were clearly written after the Jewish monarchy began. This verse that I referenced, along with all the other verses from Genesis 36, is quoted verbatim in 1 Chronicles 1, starting at verse 43.
It was with consistency that the writer of the Chronicles could say as he has said, 1 Chron. i. 43, "These are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king ever the children of Israel," because he was going to give, and has given, a list of the kings that had reigned in Israel; but as it is impossible that the same expression could have been used before that period, it is as certain as any thing can be proved from historical language, that this part of Genesis is taken from Chronicles, and that Genesis is not so old as Chronicles, and probably not so old as the book of Homer, or as AEsop's Fables; admitting Homer to have been, as the tables of chronology state, contemporary with David or Solomon, and AEsop to have lived about the end of the Jewish monarchy.
It was consistently observed by the author of the Chronicles when he stated, 1 Chron. i. 43, "These are the kings that reigned in Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel," because he intended to provide, and has provided, a list of the kings who ruled in Israel. However, since it's impossible that the same phrasing was used prior to that time, it is as clear as anything can be demonstrated from historical language that this section of Genesis is derived from Chronicles, and that Genesis is not as old as Chronicles, and probably not as old as the book of Homer, or Aesop's Fables; assuming that Homer was, according to the chronology tables, contemporary with David or Solomon, and that Aesop lived around the end of the Jewish monarchy.
Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. The story of Eve and the serpent, and of Noah and his ark, drops to a level with the Arabian Tales, without the merit of being entertaining, and the account of men living to eight and nine hundred years becomes as fabulous as the immortality of the giants of the Mythology.
Remove the assumption that Moses wrote Genesis, which is based solely on the odd belief that it’s the word of God, and you’ll find that Genesis is just an anonymous collection of stories, fables, and either traditional or made-up absurdities, or outright lies. The tale of Eve and the serpent and Noah and his ark fall to the same level as the Arabian Nights, without even being entertaining, and the idea of people living to eight or nine hundred years feels as fictional as the immortal giants in mythology.
Besides, the character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most horrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he was the wretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or on the pretence of religion; and under that mask, or that infatuation, committed the most unexampled atrocities that are to be found in the history of any nation. Of which I will state only one instance:
Besides, the character of Moses, as described in the Bible, is the most terrible that can be imagined. If those accounts are true, he was the one who first started and continued wars based on or under the guise of religion; and under that disguise, or that delusion, committed some of the most shocking atrocities found in the history of any nation. I will mention just one example:
When the Jewish army returned from one of their plundering and murdering excursions, the account goes on as follows (Numbers xxxi. 13): "And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said unto them, 'Have ye saved all the women alive?' behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, 'kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for Yourselves.'"
When the Jewish army came back from one of their plundering and killing expeditions, the account continues as follows (Numbers 31:13): "And Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp; and Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds who had come from the battle; and Moses said to them, 'Have you saved all the women alive? Look, these caused the Israelites, through the advice of Balaam, to sin against the Lord regarding Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who has slept with a man; but all the young girls who have not slept with a man, keep alive for yourselves.'"
Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world have disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than Moses, if this account be true. Here is an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters.
Among the despicable villains in any era who have brought shame to humanity, it’s hard to find anyone worse than Moses, if this story is accurate. Here’s a command to slaughter the boys, to kill the mothers, and to corrupt the daughters.
Let any mother put herself in the situation of those mothers, one child murdered, another destined to violation, and herself in the hands of an executioner: let any daughter put herself in the situation of those daughters, destined as a prey to the murderers of a mother and a brother, and what will be their feelings? It is in vain that we attempt to impose upon nature, for nature will have her course, and the religion that tortures all her social ties is a false religion.
Let any mother imagine being in the shoes of those mothers, one child killed, another facing abuse, and herself at the mercy of an executioner: let any daughter envision being in the situation of those daughters, set up to be victims of the murderers of a mother and a brother, and what will their emotions be? It's pointless to try to go against nature, because nature will follow its own path, and a belief system that disrupts all her social connections is not a true belief.
After this detestable order, follows an account of the plunder taken, and the manner of dividing it; and here it is that the profaneings of priestly hypocrisy increases the catalogue of crimes. Verse 37, "And the Lord's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen; and the beeves were thirty and six thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was threescore and twelve; and the asses were thirty thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was threescore and one; and the persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was thirty and two." In short, the matters contained in this chapter, as well as in many other parts of the Bible, are too horrid for humanity to read, or for decency to hear; for it appears, from the 35th verse of this chapter, that the number of women-children consigned to debauchery by the order of Moses was thirty-two thousand.
After this terrible order, there's a report of the loot taken and how it was divided; and it's here that the shamelessness of priestly hypocrisy adds to the list of crimes. Verse 37 states, "The Lord's share of the sheep was six hundred and fifteen; the cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which the Lord's share was seventy-two; the donkeys were thirty thousand, of which the Lord's share was sixty-one; and the people were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord's share was thirty-two." In short, the contents of this chapter, as well as many other parts of the Bible, are too horrific for humanity to read or for decency to listen to; for it appears, from the 35th verse of this chapter, that the number of women and children subjected to corruption by Moses's order was thirty-two thousand.
People in general know not what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing, it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy, than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty!
People generally don't realize the evil behind this so-called word of God. Raised with superstitious beliefs, they assume the Bible is true and good; they don't allow themselves to question it, and they project their ideas of the benevolence of God onto the book they've been taught is divinely inspired. Good grief! It's entirely different; it's a book of lies, evil, and blasphemy, because what could be more blasphemous than blaming human wickedness on God's commands!
But to return to my subject, that of showing that Moses is not the author of the books ascribed to him, and that the Bible is spurious. The two instances I have already given would be sufficient, without any additional evidence, to invalidate the authenticity of any book that pretended to be four or five hundred years more ancient than the matters it speaks of, refers to, them as facts; for in the case of pursuing them unto Dan, and of the kings that reigned over the children of Israel; not even the flimsy pretence of prophecy can be pleaded. The expressions are in the preter tense, and it would be downright idiotism to say that a man could prophecy in the preter tense.
But to get back to my point, which is showing that Moses didn’t actually write the books attributed to him and that the Bible is not genuine. The two examples I've already provided would be enough, without any further evidence, to prove that any book claiming to be four or five hundred years older than the events it discusses is not authentic; it refers to those events as facts. In the case of following them to Dan and the kings who ruled over the children of Israel, there’s not even a weak claim of prophecy that can be made. The statements are in the past tense, and it would be completely ridiculous to argue that someone could prophesy in the past tense.
But there are many other passages scattered throughout those books that unite in the same point of evidence. It is said in Exodus, (another of the books ascribed to Moses,) xvi. 35: "And the children of Israel did eat manna until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan."
But there are many other sections spread across those books that come together to support the same point. It is mentioned in Exodus, (another book attributed to Moses,) xvi. 35: "And the Israelites ate manna until they reached a land filled with people; they continued to eat manna until they arrived at the borders of the land of Canaan."
Whether the children of Israel ate manna or not, or what manna was, or whether it was anything more than a kind of fungus or small mushroom, or other vegetable substance common to that part of the country, makes no part of my argument; all that I mean to show is, that it is not Moses that could write this account, because the account extends itself beyond the life time of Moses. Moses, according to the Bible, (but it is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe, or whether any) died in the wilderness, and never came upon the borders of 'the land of Canaan; and consequently, it could not be he that said what the children of Israel did, or what they ate when they came there. This account of eating manna, which they tell us was written by Moses, extends itself to the time of Joshua, the successor of Moses, as appears by the account given in the book of Joshua, after the children of Israel had passed the river Jordan, and came into the borders of the land of Canaan. Joshua, v. 12: "And the manna ceased on the morrow, after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more, but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year."
Whether the Israelites ate manna or not, what manna actually was, or if it was just some kind of fungus or small mushroom, or another plant common to that area, isn’t relevant to my argument. All I want to demonstrate is that Moses couldn’t have written this account because it goes beyond his lifetime. According to the Bible (although it's filled with lies and contradictions, making it hard to know what to believe or if anything is true), Moses died in the wilderness and never reached the borders of Canaan. Therefore, he couldn’t have documented what the Israelites did or what they ate when they got there. This account of eating manna, which is claimed to be written by Moses, goes up to the time of Joshua, Moses’ successor, as shown in the book of Joshua after the Israelites crossed the Jordan River and entered the land of Canaan. Joshua 5:12: "And the manna stopped the day after they ate the old grain from the land. The Israelites no longer had manna, but that year they ate the produce of Canaan."
But a more remarkable instance than this occurs in Deuteronomy; which, while it shows that Moses could not be the writer of that book, shows also the fabulous notions that prevailed at that time about giants' In Deuteronomy iii. 11, among the conquests said to be made by Moses, is an account of the taking of Og, king of Bashan: "For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the race of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." A cubit is 1 foot 9 888/1000 inches; the length therefore of the bed was 16 feet 4 inches, and the breadth 7 feet 4 inches: thus much for this giant's bed. Now for the historical part, which, though the evidence is not so direct and positive as in the former cases, is nevertheless very presumable and corroborating evidence, and is better than the best evidence on the contrary side.
But a more remarkable example than this can be found in Deuteronomy, which not only indicates that Moses couldn't have written that book but also reflects the mythical ideas that were common at that time about giants. In Deuteronomy 3:11, among the victories attributed to Moses, there’s a story about the defeat of Og, king of Bashan: "For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the race of giants; look, his bed was made of iron; isn't it in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits, according to the cubit of a man." A cubit is 1 foot 9 888/1000 inches; therefore, the bed's length was 16 feet 4 inches, and its width was 7 feet 4 inches: that's a lot for this giant’s bed. Now for the historical aspect, which, although not as direct and conclusive as in the previous examples, still provides very plausible and supporting evidence, and is better than the strongest evidence against it.
The writer, by way of proving the existence of this giant, refers to his bed, as an ancient relick, and says, is it not in Rabbath (or Rabbah) of the children of Ammon? meaning that it is; for such is frequently the bible method of affirming a thing. But it could not be Moses that said this, because Moses could know nothing about Rabbah, nor of what was in it. Rabbah was not a city belonging to this giant king, nor was it one of the cities that Moses took. The knowledge therefore that this bed was at Rabbah, and of the particulars of its dimensions, must be referred to the time when Rabbah was taken, and this was not till four hundred years after the death of Moses; for which, see 2 Sam. xii. 26: "And Joab [David's general] fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city," etc.
The writer, to prove the existence of this giant, mentions his bed as an ancient relic and asks if it isn't in Rabbath (or Rabbah) of the children of Ammon? This implies that it is; for that’s often how the Bible confirms something. However, it couldn't have been Moses who said this because Moses wouldn't have known anything about Rabbah or what was there. Rabbah wasn't a city owned by this giant king, nor was it one of the cities that Moses conquered. Therefore, the knowledge that this bed was in Rabbah and the details about its size must be linked to the time when Rabbah was captured, which happened four hundred years after Moses died; for reference, see 2 Sam. xii. 26: "And Joab [David's general] fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city," etc.
As I am not undertaking to point out all the contradictions in time, place, and circumstance that abound in the books ascribed to Moses, and which prove to demonstration that those books could not be written by Moses, nor in the time of Moses, I proceed to the book of Joshua, and to shew that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that it is anonymous and without authority. The evidence I shall produce is contained in the book itself: I will not go out of the Bible for proof against the supposed authenticity of the Bible. False testimony is always good against itself.
As I’m not going to point out all the contradictions in time, place, and circumstance that can be found in the books attributed to Moses, which clearly show that these books couldn't have been written by him or during his time, I’ll move on to the book of Joshua. I aim to demonstrate that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that it is both anonymous and lacks authority. The evidence I will present is found within the book itself: I won’t look outside the Bible for proof against the alleged authenticity of the Bible. False testimony always works well against itself.
Joshua, according to Joshua i., was the immediate successor of Moses; he was, moreover, a military man, which Moses was not; and he continued as chief of the people of Israel twenty-five years; that is, from the time that Moses died, which, according to the Bible chronology, was B.C. 1451, until B.C. 1426, when, according to the same chronology, Joshua died. If, therefore, we find in this book, said to have been written by Joshua, references to facts done after the death of Joshua, it is evidence that Joshua could not be the author; and also that the book could not have been written till after the time of the latest fact which it records. As to the character of the book, it is horrid; it is a military history of rapine and murder, as savage and brutal as those recorded of his predecessor in villainy and hypocrisy, Moses; and the blasphemy consists, as in the former books, in ascribing those deeds to the orders of the Almighty.
Joshua, according to Joshua 1, was Moses' immediate successor; he was also a military leader, which Moses was not. He led the people of Israel for twenty-five years, from the time of Moses' death, which the Bible dates to 1451 B.C., until 1426 B.C., when Joshua himself died. Therefore, if we find in this book, which is said to have been written by Joshua, references to events that occurred after his death, it shows that Joshua could not have been the author, and that the book could not have been written until after the last recorded event. Regarding the nature of the book, it’s terrible; it’s a military history filled with pillaging and murder, as savage and brutal as the actions of his predecessor in villainy and hypocrisy, Moses. The blasphemy lies, as in previous books, in attributing those actions to the commands of the Almighty.
In the first place, the book of Joshua, as is the case in the preceding books, is written in the third person; it is the historian of Joshua that speaks, for it would have been absurd and vainglorious that Joshua should say of himself, as is said of him in the last verse of the sixth chapter, that "his fame was noised throughout all the country."—I now come more immediately to the proof.
In the first place, the book of Joshua, like the previous ones, is written in the third person; it is the historian of Joshua speaking, because it would be ridiculous and boastful for Joshua to declare, as stated in the last verse of the sixth chapter, that "his fame was known throughout all the land."—Now I will present the evidence.
In Joshua xxiv. 31, it is said "And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that over-lived Joshua." Now, in the name of common sense, can it be Joshua that relates what people had done after he was dead? This account must not only have been written by some historian that lived after Joshua, but that lived also after the elders that out-lived Joshua.
In Joshua 24:31, it states, "And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua." Now, using common sense, can it really be Joshua who talks about what people did after he was dead? This account must have been written by some historian who lived not only after Joshua but also after the elders who outlived him.
There are several passages of a general meaning with respect to time, scattered throughout the book of Joshua, that carries the time in which the book was written to a distance from the time of Joshua, but without marking by exclusion any particular time, as in the passage above quoted. In that passage, the time that intervened between the death of Joshua and the death of the elders is excluded descriptively and absolutely, and the evidence substantiates that the book could not have been written till after the death of the last.
There are several passages with a general meaning regarding time scattered throughout the book of Joshua. These passages suggest that the time when the book was written is distant from the time of Joshua, but they don't specifically exclude any particular time, like the passage mentioned above. In that passage, the period between Joshua's death and the death of the elders is completely left out, and the evidence supports that the book couldn't have been written until after the last elder died.
But though the passages to which I allude, and which I am going to quote, do not designate any particular time by exclusion, they imply a time far more distant from the days of Joshua than is contained between the death of Joshua and the death of the elders. Such is the passage, x. 14, where, after giving an account that the sun stood still upon Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, at the command of Joshua, (a tale only fit to amuse children) [NOTE: This tale of the sun standing still upon Motint Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, is one of those fables that detects itself. Such a circumstance could not have happened without being known all over the world. One half would have wondered why the sun did not rise, and the other why it did not set; and the tradition of it would be universal; whereas there is not a nation in the world that knows anything about it. But why must the moon stand still? What occasion could there be for moonlight in the daytime, and that too whilst the sun shined? As a poetical figure, the whole is well enough; it is akin to that in the song of Deborah and Barak, The stars in their courses fought against Sisera; but it is inferior to the figurative declaration of Mahomet to the persons who came to expostulate with him on his goings on, Wert thou, said he, to come to me with the sun in thy right hand and the moon in thy left, it should not alter my career. For Joshua to have exceeded Mahomet, he should have put the sun and moon, one in each pocket, and carried them as Guy Faux carried his dark lanthorn, and taken them out to shine as he might happen to want them. The sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related that it is difficult to class them separately. One step above the sublime makes the ridiculous, and one step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again; the account, however, abstracted from the poetical fancy, shews the ignorance of Joshua, for he should have commanded the earth to have stood still.—Author.] the passage says: "And there was no day like that, before it, nor after it, that the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man."
But even though the parts I’m referring to, which I’m about to quote, don’t specify any particular time by excluding others, they suggest a time that’s much further removed from the days of Joshua than the span between Joshua’s death and the death of the elders. Take, for example, the passage in x. 14, which describes how the sun stood still over Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon at Joshua’s command—something more suited for children’s stories. [NOTE: The story of the sun standing still over Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon is one of those tales that reveals its own absurdity. Such an event could not have occurred without being known worldwide. Half the world would have wondered why the sun didn’t rise, and the other half would have been puzzled about why it didn’t set; the memory of it would have spread everywhere, yet there isn’t a single nation that knows anything about it. And why would the moon need to stand still? What need could there have been for moonlight during the day while the sun was shining? As a poetic image, it’s fine, similar to the line in Deborah and Barak’s song: The stars in their courses fought against Sisera; but it doesn’t compare to the figurative declaration of Muhammad to those who criticized him, saying, If you were to come to me with the sun in your right hand and the moon in your left, it wouldn’t change my path. For Joshua to surpass Muhammad, he should have carried the sun and moon, one in each pocket, like Guy Fawkes carried his dark lantern, pulling them out to shine whenever he needed. The sublime and the ridiculous are often so closely intertwined that it’s hard to categorize them individually. A small step beyond the sublime turns into the ridiculous, and a small step beyond the ridiculous returns to the sublime; however, the account, stripped of poetic imagination, reveals Joshua's ignorance, for he should have commanded the earth to stand still.—Author.] The passage states: "And there was no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord listened to the voice of a man."
The time implied by the expression after it, that is, after that day, being put in comparison with all the time that passed before it, must, in order to give any expressive signification to the passage, mean a great length of time:—for example, it would have been ridiculous to have said so the next day, or the next week, or the next month, or the next year; to give therefore meaning to the passage, comparative with the wonder it relates, and the prior time it alludes to, it must mean centuries of years; less however than one would be trifling, and less than two would be barely admissible.
The time indicated by the phrase "after that day," when compared to all the time that came before it, must mean a significant amount of time to give any real significance to the passage. For example, it would be absurd to say this the next day, or the week after, or even the month or year following. To make the passage meaningful in relation to the wonder it describes and the earlier time it references, it must signify centuries; anything less than that would be trivial, and less than two centuries would hardly be acceptable.
A distant, but general time is also expressed in chapter viii.; where, after giving an account of the taking the city of Ai, it is said, ver. 28th, "And Joshua burned Ai, and made it an heap for ever, a desolation unto this day;" and again, ver. 29, where speaking of the king of Ai, whom Joshua had hanged, and buried at the entering of the gate, it is said, "And he raised thereon a great heap of stones, which remaineth unto this day," that is, unto the day or time in which the writer of the book of Joshua lived. And again, in chapter x. where, after speaking of the five kings whom Joshua had hanged on five trees, and then thrown in a cave, it is said, "And he laid great stones on the cave's mouth, which remain unto this very day."
A distant but general timeframe is also mentioned in chapter viii., where, after describing the capture of the city of Ai, it states in verse 28, "And Joshua burned Ai, turning it into a heap forever, a desolation to this day"; and again in verse 29, referring to the king of Ai, whom Joshua had hanged and buried at the entrance of the gate, it says, "And he raised a large heap of stones there, which still exists to this day," meaning up to the time the writer of the book of Joshua lived. Additionally, in chapter x., after discussing the five kings whom Joshua had hung on five trees and then placed in a cave, it says, "And he placed large stones at the cave’s entrance, which remain to this very day."
In enumerating the several exploits of Joshua, and of the tribes, and of the places which they conquered or attempted, it is said, xv. 63, "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah AT JERUSALEM unto this day." The question upon this passage is, At what time did the Jebusites and the children of Judah dwell together at Jerusalem? As this matter occurs again in judges i. I shall reserve my observations till I come to that part.
In listing the various achievements of Joshua, the tribes, and the places they conquered or tried to conquer, it's mentioned in xv. 63, "Regarding the Jebusites, the people living in Jerusalem, the tribe of Judah was unable to drive them out; so the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in JERUSALEM to this day." The question about this passage is, when did the Jebusites and the tribe of Judah live together in Jerusalem? Since this topic comes up again in Judges I, I will hold off on my comments until I reach that section.
Having thus shewn from the book of Joshua itself, without any auxiliary evidence whatever, that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that it is anonymous, and consequently without authority, I proceed, as before-mentioned, to the book of Judges.
Having shown from the book of Joshua itself, without any additional evidence, that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that it is anonymous, and therefore lacks authority, I will now move on, as mentioned earlier, to the book of Judges.
The book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it; and, therefore, even the pretence is wanting to call it the word of God; it has not so much as a nominal voucher; it is altogether fatherless.
The book of Judges doesn't have an identified author; therefore, it lacks any claim to be considered the word of God. It doesn't even have a nominal reference; it is completely without a parent.
This book begins with the same expression as the book of Joshua. That of Joshua begins, chap i. 1, Now after the death of Moses, etc., and this of the Judges begins, Now after the death of Joshua, etc. This, and the similarity of stile between the two books, indicate that they are the work of the same author; but who he was, is altogether unknown; the only point that the book proves is that the author lived long after the time of Joshua; for though it begins as if it followed immediately after his death, the second chapter is an epitome or abstract of the whole book, which, according to the Bible chronology, extends its history through a space of 306 years; that is, from the death of Joshua, B.C. 1426 to the death of Samson, B.C. 1120, and only 25 years before Saul went to seek his father's asses, and was made king. But there is good reason to believe, that it was not written till the time of David, at least, and that the book of Joshua was not written before the same time.
This book starts with the same phrase as the book of Joshua. The book of Joshua begins with, "Now after the death of Moses," and this book of Judges starts with, "Now after the death of Joshua." This, along with the similar writing style between the two books, suggests that they were written by the same author; however, the identity of the author is completely unknown. The only thing the book confirms is that the author lived well after the time of Joshua; although it begins as if it continues right after his death, the second chapter summarizes the entire book, which, according to Biblical chronology, spans 306 years—from the death of Joshua in 1426 B.C. to the death of Samson in 1120 B.C., just 25 years before Saul went to look for his father's donkeys and became king. There is strong evidence to believe that it wasn't written until the time of David at the earliest, and that the book of Joshua wasn’t written until about the same time.
In Judges i., the writer, after announcing the death of Joshua, proceeds to tell what happened between the children of Judah and the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan. In this statement the writer, having abruptly mentioned Jerusalem in the 7th verse, says immediately after, in the 8th verse, by way of explanation, "Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it;" consequently this book could not have been written before Jerusalem had been taken. The reader will recollect the quotation I have just before made from Joshua xv. 63, where it said that the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem at this day; meaning the time when the book of Joshua was written.
In Judges 1, the author, after stating that Joshua has died, goes on to describe what happened between the people of Judah and the native inhabitants of Canaan. In this account, the writer briefly mentions Jerusalem in verse 7 and then explains in verse 8, "Now the people of Judah fought against Jerusalem and captured it;" hence, this book could not have been written before Jerusalem was taken. The reader will remember the earlier quote from Joshua 15:63, which says that the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day, referring to the time when the book of Joshua was written.
The evidence I have already produced to prove that the books I have hitherto treated of were not written by the persons to whom they are ascribed, nor till many years after their death, if such persons ever lived, is already so abundant, that I can afford to admit this passage with less weight than I am entitled to draw from it. For the case is, that so far as the Bible can be credited as an history, the city of Jerusalem was not taken till the time of David; and consequently, that the book of Joshua, and of Judges, were not written till after the commencement of the reign of David, which was 370 years after the death of Joshua.
The evidence I've already presented shows that the books I've discussed so far were not written by the people they're attributed to, nor were they written until many years after those individuals died, if they even existed at all. There's so much evidence that I can afford to give this passage less weight than it deserves. The fact is that, as far as the Bible can be trusted as a historical account, the city of Jerusalem wasn't captured until the time of David. Therefore, the books of Joshua and Judges couldn't have been written until after David began his reign, which was 370 years after Joshua's death.
The name of the city that was afterward called Jerusalem was originally Jebus, or Jebusi, and was the capital of the Jebusites. The account of David's taking this city is given in 2 Samuel, v. 4, etc.; also in 1 Chron. xiv. 4, etc. There is no mention in any part of the Bible that it was ever taken before, nor any account that favours such an opinion. It is not said, either in Samuel or in Chronicles, that they "utterly destroyed men, women and children, that they left not a soul to breathe," as is said of their other conquests; and the silence here observed implies that it was taken by capitulation; and that the Jebusites, the native inhabitants, continued to live in the place after it was taken. The account therefore, given in Joshua, that "the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah" at Jerusalem at this day, corresponds to no other time than after taking the city by David.
The city that later became known as Jerusalem was originally called Jebus, or Jebusi, and it was the capital of the Jebusites. The story of David capturing this city is found in 2 Samuel, v. 4, etc.; also in 1 Chronicles xiv. 4, etc. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible that it was ever captured before, nor is there any evidence to support such a belief. It is not stated, either in Samuel or in Chronicles, that they "utterly destroyed men, women, and children, leaving not a soul to breathe," as is mentioned for their other conquests; the lack of such a description suggests that it was taken through surrender and that the Jebusites, the local inhabitants, continued to live there after its capture. Therefore, the account in Joshua that "the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah" in Jerusalem today only aligns with the period after David took the city.
Having now shown that every book in the Bible, from Genesis to Judges, is without authenticity, I come to the book of Ruth, an idle, bungling story, foolishly told, nobody knows by whom, about a strolling country-girl creeping slily to bed to her cousin Boaz. [The text of Ruth does not imply the unpleasant sense Paine's words are likely to convey.—Editor.] Pretty stuff indeed to be called the word of God. It is, however, one of the best books in the Bible, for it is free from murder and rapine.
Having shown that every book in the Bible, from Genesis to Judges, lacks authenticity, I will now address the book of Ruth, which is a trivial, clumsy story, poorly told, by an unknown author, about a country girl sneaking into bed with her cousin Boaz. [The text of Ruth does not imply the unpleasant sense Paine's words are likely to convey.—Editor.] It’s quite absurd to label this as the word of God. However, it is one of the better books in the Bible because it is free from violence and wrongdoing.
I come next to the two books of Samuel, and to shew that those books were not written by Samuel, nor till a great length of time after the death of Samuel; and that they are, like all the former books, anonymous, and without authority.
I now turn to the two books of Samuel to show that they were not written by Samuel and were composed a long time after his death. Like all the previous books, they are anonymous and lack authority.
To be convinced that these books have been written much later than the time of Samuel, and consequently not by him, it is only necessary to read the account which the writer gives of Saul going to seek his father's asses, and of his interview with Samuel, of whom Saul went to enquire about those lost asses, as foolish people now-a-days go to a conjuror to enquire after lost things.
To believe that these books were written long after Samuel's time, and therefore not by him, you just need to read the story where the author describes Saul going to look for his father's donkeys and his meeting with Samuel, whom Saul approached to ask about the lost donkeys, similar to how people today go to a fortune teller to find lost things.
The writer, in relating this story of Saul, Samuel, and the asses, does not tell it as a thing that had just then happened, but as an ancient story in the time this writer lived; for he tells it in the language or terms used at the time that Samuel lived, which obliges the writer to explain the story in the terms or language used in the time the writer lived.
The writer, in telling the story of Saul, Samuel, and the donkeys, doesn’t present it as something that just happened, but as a tale from a long time ago during the writer's own time; because he uses the language or terms that were common in Samuel's era, which requires the writer to explain the story using the language or terms relevant to his own time.
Samuel, in the account given of him in the first of those books, chap. ix. 13 called the seer; and it is by this term that Saul enquires after him, ver. 11, "And as they [Saul and his servant] went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water; and they said unto them, Is the seer here?" Saul then went according to the direction of these maidens, and met Samuel without knowing him, and said unto him, ver. 18, "Tell me, I pray thee, where the seer's house is? and Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer."
Samuel, as mentioned in the first of those books, chapter ix. 13, is referred to as the seer; this is the term Saul uses when he asks about him, verse 11: "As Saul and his servant went up the hill to the city, they encountered young women heading out to draw water, and they asked them, 'Is the seer here?'" Saul then followed the direction of these women and met Samuel without recognizing him, and said to him, verse 18, "Can you tell me, please, where the seer's house is?" Samuel replied to Saul, saying, "I am the seer."
As the writer of the book of Samuel relates these questions and answers, in the language or manner of speaking used in the time they are said to have been spoken, and as that manner of speaking was out of use when this author wrote, he found it necessary, in order to make the story understood, to explain the terms in which these questions and answers are spoken; and he does this in the 9th verse, where he says, "Before-time in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a prophet, was before-time called a seer." This proves, as I have before said, that this story of Saul, Samuel, and the asses, was an ancient story at the time the book of Samuel was written, and consequently that Samuel did not write it, and that the book is without authenticity.
As the author of the book of Samuel recounts these questions and answers, in the language or style used during the time they’re said to have been spoken, and since that style was no longer in use when this author wrote, he found it necessary to clarify the terms used in these questions and answers to make the story understandable. He does this in verse 9, where he says, "In the past in Israel, when a man wanted to ask God something, he would say, 'Come, let’s go to the seer;' because the one we now call a prophet was once called a seer." This shows, as I mentioned earlier, that the story of Saul, Samuel, and the donkeys was already an old story when the book of Samuel was written, which means that Samuel didn't write it, and the book lacks authenticity.
But if we go further into those books the evidence is still more positive that Samuel is not the writer of them; for they relate things that did not happen till several years after the death of Samuel. Samuel died before Saul; for i Samuel, xxviii. tells, that Saul and the witch of Endor conjured Samuel up after he was dead; yet the history of matters contained in those books is extended through the remaining part of Saul's life, and to the latter end of the life of David, who succeeded Saul. The account of the death and burial of Samuel (a thing which he could not write himself) is related in i Samuel xxv.; and the chronology affixed to this chapter makes this to be B.C. 1060; yet the history of this first book is brought down to B.C. 1056, that is, to the death of Saul, which was not till four years after the death of Samuel.
But if we look deeper into those books, the evidence becomes even clearer that Samuel didn’t write them; they cover events that happened several years after Samuel died. Samuel passed away before Saul, as 1 Samuel 28 explains that Saul and the witch of Endor called up Samuel after his death. However, the history in those books continues through the rest of Saul's life and into the later years of David, who succeeded Saul. The account of Samuel's death and burial (something he couldn’t have written himself) is detailed in 1 Samuel 25; the timeline attached to this chapter indicates it was in 1060 B.C. Yet, the history in this first book continues until 1056 B.C., which is when Saul died, four years after Samuel's death.
The second book of Samuel begins with an account of things that did not happen till four years after Samuel was dead; for it begins with the reign of David, who succeeded Saul, and it goes on to the end of David's reign, which was forty-three years after the death of Samuel; and, therefore, the books are in themselves positive evidence that they were not written by Samuel.
The second book of Samuel starts with events that took place four years after Samuel's death; it begins with David's reign, who took over from Saul, and continues until the end of David's reign, which lasted forty-three years after Samuel died. This clearly shows that the books were not written by Samuel himself.
I have now gone through all the books in the first part of the Bible, to which the names of persons are affixed, as being the authors of those books, and which the church, styling itself the Christian church, have imposed upon the world as the writings of Moses, Joshua and Samuel; and I have detected and proved the falsehood of this imposition.—And now ye priests, of every description, who have preached and written against the former part of the 'Age of Reason,' what have ye to say? Will ye with all this mass of evidence against you, and staring you in the face, still have the assurance to march into your pulpits, and continue to impose these books on your congregations, as the works of inspired penmen and the word of God? when it is as evident as demonstration can make truth appear, that the persons who ye say are the authors, are not the authors, and that ye know not who the authors are. What shadow of pretence have ye now to produce for continuing the blasphemous fraud? What have ye still to offer against the pure and moral religion of deism, in support of your system of falsehood, idolatry, and pretended revelation? Had the cruel and murdering orders, with which the Bible is filled, and the numberless torturing executions of men, women, and children, in consequence of those orders, been ascribed to some friend, whose memory you revered, you would have glowed with satisfaction at detecting the falsehood of the charge, and gloried in defending his injured fame. It is because ye are sunk in the cruelty of superstition, or feel no interest in the honour of your Creator, that ye listen to the horrid tales of the Bible, or hear them with callous indifference. The evidence I have produced, and shall still produce in the course of this work, to prove that the Bible is without authority, will, whilst it wounds the stubbornness of a priest, relieve and tranquillize the minds of millions: it will free them from all those hard thoughts of the Almighty which priestcraft and the Bible had infused into their minds, and which stood in everlasting opposition to all their ideas of his moral justice and benevolence.
I have now gone through all the books in the first part of the Bible, which are attributed to authors whose names are attached, and which the church, calling itself the Christian church, has imposed on the world as the writings of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel; and I have uncovered and proven the falsehood of this claim. —And now, you priests of every kind, who have preached and written against the earlier part of the 'Age of Reason,' what do you have to say? Will you, with all this evidence against you, right in front of you, still have the confidence to walk into your pulpits and continue to impose these books on your congregations as the works of inspired writers and the word of God? It is as clear as can be that the people you say are the authors are not the authors, and that you don’t know who the authors are. What basis do you have now to justify continuing this blasphemous deception? What can you still present against the pure and moral religion of deism to support your system of falsehood, idolatry, and made-up revelations? If the cruel and murderous orders that fill the Bible, and the countless torturous executions of men, women, and children that resulted from those orders, had been attributed to someone you respected, you would have felt satisfaction in exposing the lie and would have taken pride in defending their good name. It is because you are lost in the cruelty of superstition or feel no concern for the honor of your Creator that you can bear to listen to the horrific stories in the Bible or hear them with callous indifference. The evidence I have presented, and will continue to present throughout this work, to show that the Bible has no authority, will, while it challenges the stubbornness of a priest, ease and calm the minds of millions: it will free them from all those harsh thoughts of the Almighty that priestcraft and the Bible have instilled in their minds, thoughts that stood in constant opposition to all their ideas of his moral justice and kindness.
I come now to the two books of Kings, and the two books of Chronicles.—Those books are altogether historical, and are chiefly confined to the lives and actions of the Jewish kings, who in general were a parcel of rascals: but these are matters with which we have no more concern than we have with the Roman emperors, or Homer's account of the Trojan war. Besides which, as those books are anonymous, and as we know nothing of the writer, or of his character, it is impossible for us to know what degree of credit to give to the matters related therein. Like all other ancient histories, they appear to be a jumble of fable and of fact, and of probable and of improbable things, but which distance of time and place, and change of circumstances in the world, have rendered obsolete and uninteresting.
I'm now discussing the two books of Kings and the two books of Chronicles. These books are entirely historical and mostly focus on the lives and actions of the Jewish kings, who were generally a bunch of troublemakers. However, this is not something we need to be concerned about any more than we are with the Roman emperors or Homer’s account of the Trojan War. Additionally, since these books are anonymous and we know nothing about the author or their character, it's impossible for us to determine how much credibility to assign to the stories within them. Like all other ancient histories, they seem to be a mix of myths and facts, along with things that are likely and unlikely, but the passage of time and changes in the world have made them outdated and uninteresting.
The chief use I shall make of those books will be that of comparing them with each other, and with other parts of the Bible, to show the confusion, contradiction, and cruelty in this pretended word of God.
The main purpose I’ll have for those books will be to compare them with each other and with other sections of the Bible, to highlight the confusion, contradictions, and cruelty in this so-called word of God.
The first book of Kings begins with the reign of Solomon, which, according to the Bible chronology, was B.C. 1015; and the second book ends B.C. 588, being a little after the reign of Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar, after taking Jerusalem and conquering the Jews, carried captive to Babylon. The two books include a space of 427 years.
The first book of Kings starts with Solomon's reign, which, according to the Bible's timeline, was in 1015 B.C. The second book concludes in 588 B.C., shortly after Zedekiah's reign, who was taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar after he captured Jerusalem and defeated the Jews. Together, the two books cover a period of 427 years.
The two books of Chronicles are an history of the same times, and in general of the same persons, by another author; for it would be absurd to suppose that the same author wrote the history twice over. The first book of Chronicles (after giving the genealogy from Adam to Saul, which takes up the first nine chapters) begins with the reign of David; and the last book ends, as in the last book of Kings, soon, after the reign of Zedekiah, about B.C. 588. The last two verses of the last chapter bring the history 52 years more forward, that is, to 536. But these verses do not belong to the book, as I shall show when I come to speak of the book of Ezra.
The two books of Chronicles cover the same time period and generally the same people, but they are by a different author; it would be unreasonable to think the same person wrote the history twice. The first book of Chronicles starts with the genealogy from Adam to Saul, which spans the first nine chapters, and then continues with the reign of David. The last book wraps up shortly after the reign of Zedekiah, around 588 B.C. The final two verses of the last chapter push the timeline forward by 52 years, bringing it to 536. However, these verses don’t actually belong to this book, as I’ll explain when I discuss the book of Ezra.
The two books of Kings, besides the history of Saul, David, and Solomon, who reigned over all Israel, contain an abstract of the lives of seventeen kings, and one queen, who are stiled kings of Judah; and of nineteen, who are stiled kings of Israel; for the Jewish nation, immediately on the death of Solomon, split into two parties, who chose separate kings, and who carried on most rancorous wars against each other.
The two books of Kings, along with the history of Saul, David, and Solomon, who ruled over all of Israel, include a summary of the lives of seventeen kings and one queen, referred to as the kings of Judah, and nineteen referred to as the kings of Israel. After Solomon's death, the Jewish nation split into two factions, each choosing their own kings, leading to intense wars between them.
These two books are little more than a history of assassinations, treachery, and wars. The cruelties that the Jews had accustomed themselves to practise on the Canaanites, whose country they had savagely invaded, under a pretended gift from God, they afterwards practised as furiously on each other. Scarcely half their kings died a natural death, and in some instances whole families were destroyed to secure possession to the successor, who, after a few years, and sometimes only a few months, or less, shared the same fate. In 2 Kings x., an account is given of two baskets full of children's heads, seventy in number, being exposed at the entrance of the city; they were the children of Ahab, and were murdered by the orders of Jehu, whom Elisha, the pretended man of God, had anointed to be king over Israel, on purpose to commit this bloody deed, and assassinate his predecessor. And in the account of the reign of Menahem, one of the kings of Israel who had murdered Shallum, who had reigned but one month, it is said, 2 Kings xv. 16, that Menahem smote the city of Tiphsah, because they opened not the city to him, and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
These two books are basically a history of assassinations, betrayal, and wars. The cruelty that the Jews had become used to inflicting on the Canaanites, whose land they brutally invaded under the guise of a divine gift, they later directed at each other with equal ferocity. Hardly half of their kings died of natural causes, and in some cases, entire families were wiped out to ensure the throne for the successor, who often met the same fate within a few years, months, or even sooner. In 2 Kings 10, there's a grim account of two baskets filled with the heads of seventy children displayed at the city entrance; these were Ahab's children, murdered on the orders of Jehu, whom Elisha, the so-called man of God, had anointed as king over Israel precisely to carry out this bloody act and eliminate his predecessor. Additionally, during the reign of Menahem, who had killed Shallum after just one month in power, it is noted in 2 Kings 15:16 that Menahem attacked the city of Tiphsah because they wouldn't open their gates to him, and he brutally ripped open all the pregnant women there.
Could we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would distinguish any nation of people by the name of his chosen people, we must suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest of the world of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a nation of ruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were,—a people who, corrupted by and copying after such monsters and imposters as Moses and Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, and David, had distinguished themselves above all others on the face of the known earth for barbarity and wickedness. If we will not stubbornly shut our eyes and steel our hearts it is impossible not to see, in spite of all that long-established superstition imposes upon the mind, that the flattering appellation of his chosen people is no other than a LIE which the priests and leaders of the Jews had invented to cover the baseness of their own characters; and which Christian priests sometimes as corrupt, and often as cruel, have professed to believe.
Could we allow ourselves to think that the Almighty would choose any nation and call them His chosen people, we must believe that this nation would serve as a model for everyone else in the world, showing the highest levels of piety and humanity—not a group of thugs and criminals like the ancient Jews were. This was a people who, influenced by corrupt figures and impostors like Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, and David, became known above all others for their brutality and wickedness. If we aren’t willfully blind or hard-hearted, it’s impossible not to recognize, despite all the long-standing superstition that clouds our judgment, that the flattering title of His chosen people is nothing but a LIE invented by Jewish priests and leaders to disguise their own moral failings; a lie that Christian priests, who are sometimes just as corrupt and often just as cruel, have also chosen to believe.
The two books of Chronicles are a repetition of the same crimes; but the history is broken in several places, by the author leaving out the reign of some of their kings; and in this, as well as in that of Kings, there is such a frequent transition from kings of Judah to kings of Israel, and from kings of Israel to kings of Judah, that the narrative is obscure in the reading. In the same book the history sometimes contradicts itself: for example, in 2 Kings, i. 17, we are told, but in rather ambiguous terms, that after the death of Ahaziah, king of Israel, Jehoram, or Joram, (who was of the house of Ahab), reigned in his stead in the second Year of Jehoram, or Joram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah; and in viii. 16, of the same book, it is said, "And in the fifth year of Joram, the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat king of judah, began to reign." That is, one chapter says Joram of Judah began to reign in the second year of Joram of Israel; and the other chapter says, that Joram of Israel began to reign in the fifth year of Joram of Judah.
The two books of Chronicles repeat the same mistakes, but the narrative is interrupted in several places because the author leaves out some kings' reigns. Both this and the Kings book frequently switch between the kings of Judah and the kings of Israel, making the story hard to follow. Sometimes the history even contradicts itself: for instance, in 2 Kings, 1:17, it ambiguously states that after Ahaziah, king of Israel, died, Jehoram (or Joram), from Ahab's family, began to reign in the second year of Jehoram (or Joram), son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. Then, in 2 Kings 8:16, it says, "And in the fifth year of Joram, the son of Ahab, king of Israel, while Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, began to reign." So one chapter claims Joram of Judah started to reign in the second year of Joram of Israel, while the other chapter states that Joram of Israel began to reign in the fifth year of Joram of Judah.
Several of the most extraordinary matters related in one history, as having happened during the reign of such or such of their kings, are not to be found in the other, in relating the reign of the same king: for example, the two first rival kings, after the death of Solomon, were Rehoboam and Jeroboam; and in i Kings xii. and xiii. an account is given of Jeroboam making an offering of burnt incense, and that a man, who is there called a man of God, cried out against the altar (xiii. 2): "O altar, altar! thus saith the Lord: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burned upon thee." Verse 4: "And it came to pass, when king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him; and his hand which he put out against him dried up so that he could not pull it again to him."
Several remarkable events described in one account, occurring during the reign of specific kings, are not mentioned in another account of the same king's reign. For instance, the first two rival kings after Solomon's death were Rehoboam and Jeroboam. In 1 Kings 12 and 13, there's a story about Jeroboam offering burnt incense and a man identified as a man of God calling out against the altar (13:2): "O altar, altar! This is what the Lord says: A child will be born to the house of David, named Josiah, and he will offer sacrifices on you, burning the bones of human priests on you." Verse 4: "When King Jeroboam heard the words of the man of God, who had spoken against the altar in Bethel, he reached out his hand from the altar and said, 'Seize him!' But the hand he stretched out against him shriveled up so that he couldn't bring it back."
One would think that such an extraordinary case as this, (which is spoken of as a judgement,) happening to the chief of one of the parties, and that at the first moment of the separation of the Israelites into two nations, would, if it,. had been true, have been recorded in both histories. But though men, in later times, have believed all that the prophets have said unto them, it does appear that those prophets, or historians, disbelieved each other: they knew each other too well.
One would think that such an extraordinary case as this, (which is referred to as a judgment,) happening to the leader of one of the parties, and at the very moment the Israelites divided into two nations, would have been recorded in both histories if it were true. But even though people in later times have believed everything the prophets said to them, it seems that those prophets, or historians, didn’t believe each other: they knew each other too well.
A long account also is given in Kings about Elijah. It runs through several chapters, and concludes with telling, 2 Kings ii. 11, "And it came to pass, as they (Elijah and Elisha) still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder, and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." Hum! this the author of Chronicles, miraculous as the story is, makes no mention of, though he mentions Elijah by name; neither does he say anything of the story related in the second chapter of the same book of Kings, of a parcel of children calling Elisha bald head; and that this man of God (ver. 24) "turned back, and looked upon them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord; and there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." He also passes over in silence the story told, 2 Kings xiii., that when they were burying a man in the sepulchre where Elisha had been buried, it happened that the dead man, as they were letting him down, (ver. 21) "touched the bones of Elisha, and he (the dead man) revived, and stood up on his feet." The story does not tell us whether they buried the man, notwithstanding he revived and stood upon his feet, or drew him up again. Upon all these stories the writer of the Chronicles is as silent as any writer of the present day, who did not chose to be accused of lying, or at least of romancing, would be about stories of the same kind.
A detailed account is also provided in Kings about Elijah. It spans several chapters and ends by saying, 2 Kings ii. 11, "As they (Elijah and Elisha) continued on their way, talking, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind." Interestingly, the author of Chronicles, despite the miraculous nature of the story, doesn't mention this, even though he references Elijah by name; he also doesn't mention the story from the second chapter of the same book of Kings, where a group of children called Elisha bald head, and this man of God (ver. 24) "turned around, looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord; then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the children." He also remains silent about the story told in 2 Kings xiii, where, while burying a man in the tomb where Elisha had been buried, the dead man accidentally touched Elisha's bones as they lowered him (ver. 21), and he (the dead man) came back to life and stood up on his feet. The story doesn’t clarify whether they went ahead and buried the man, after he revived and stood up, or pulled him back up again. About all these stories, the writer of Chronicles is as quiet as any contemporary writer who wouldn’t want to be accused of lying, or at least exaggerating, would be about similar tales.
But, however these two historians may differ from each other with respect to the tales related by either, they are silent alike with respect to those men styled prophets whose writings fill up the latter part of the Bible. Isaiah, who lived in the time of Hezekiab, is mentioned in Kings, and again in Chronicles, when these histories are speaking of that reign; but except in one or two instances at most, and those very slightly, none of the rest are so much as spoken of, or even their existence hinted at; though, according to the Bible chronology, they lived within the time those histories were written; and some of them long before. If those prophets, as they are called, were men of such importance in their day, as the compilers of the Bible, and priests and commentators have since represented them to be, how can it be accounted for that not one of those histories should say anything about them?
But, even though these two historians may disagree with each other regarding the stories they tell, they both remain quiet about the individuals referred to as prophets, whose writings make up the later sections of the Bible. Isaiah, who lived during Hezekiah's reign, is mentioned in both Kings and Chronicles when discussing that time; however, aside from one or two brief mentions, none of the others are even acknowledged or hinted at. This is surprising considering that, according to the Bible's timeline, they lived during the period when these histories were written, and some long before. If these prophets were truly significant figures in their time, as the Bible's compilers, priests, and commentators have since portrayed them, how can it be explained that none of these historical accounts mention them?
The history in the books of Kings and of Chronicles is brought forward, as I have already said, to the year B.C. 588; it will, therefore, be proper to examine which of these prophets lived before that period.
The history in the books of Kings and Chronicles goes up to the year 588 B.C.; so, it’s important to look at which of these prophets lived before that time.
Here follows a table of all the prophets, with the times in which they lived before Christ, according to the chronology affixed to the first chapter of each of the books of the prophets; and also of the number of years they lived before the books of Kings and Chronicles were written:
Here is a table of all the prophets, including the times they lived before Christ, based on the chronology provided in the first chapter of each prophet's book; it also shows how many years they lived before the books of Kings and Chronicles were written:
TABLE of the Prophets, with the time they lived before Christ, and before the books of Kings and Chronicles were written: Years Years before NAMES. before Kings and Observations. Christ. Chronicles. Isaiah............... 760 172 mentioned. (mentioned only in Jeremiah............. 629 41 the last [two] chapters of Chronicles. Ezekiel.............. 595 7 not mentioned. Daniel............... 607 19 not mentioned. Hosea................ 785 97 not mentioned. Joel................. 800 212 not mentioned. Amos................. 789 199 not mentioned. Obadiah.............. 789 199 not mentioned. Jonah................ 862 274 see the note. Micah................ 750 162 not mentioned. Nahum................ 713 125 not mentioned. Habakkuk............. 620 38 not mentioned. Zephaniah............ 630 42 not mentioned.
Haggai Zechariah all three after the year 588 Medachi [NOTE In 2 Kings xiv. 25, the name of Jonah is mentioned on account of the restoration of a tract of land by Jeroboam; but nothing further is said of him, nor is any allusion made to the book of Jonah, nor to his expedition to Nineveh, nor to his encounter with the whale.—Author.]
Haggai, Zechariah, and all three after the year 588 Medachi [NOTE In 2 Kings xiv. 25, the name of Jonah is mentioned because of the restoration of a tract of land by Jeroboam; but nothing more is said about him, and there's no reference to the book of Jonah, his mission to Nineveh, or his encounter with the whale.—Author.]
This table is either not very honourable for the Bible historians, or not very honourable for the Bible prophets; and I leave to priests and commentators, who are very learned in little things, to settle the point of etiquette between the two; and to assign a reason, why the authors of Kings and of Chronicles have treated those prophets, whom, in the former part of the 'Age of Reason,' I have considered as poets, with as much degrading silence as any historian of the present day would treat Peter Pindar.
This table doesn't reflect well on either the Bible historians or the Bible prophets. I'll leave it to the priests and scholars, who are knowledgeable about minor details, to sort out the etiquette between the two. They can also explain why the authors of Kings and Chronicles have regarded those prophets—whom I considered poets earlier in the 'Age of Reason'—with the same dismissive silence that a modern historian would use for Peter Pindar.
I have one more observation to make on the book of Chronicles; after which I shall pass on to review the remaining books of the Bible.
I have one more thing to point out about the book of Chronicles; after that, I will move on to review the other books of the Bible.
In my observations on the book of Genesis, I have quoted a passage from xxxvi. 31, which evidently refers to a time, after that kings began to reign over the children of Israel; and I have shown that as this verse is verbatim the same as in 1 Chronicles i. 43, where it stands consistently with the order of history, which in Genesis it does not, that the verse in Genesis, and a great part of the 36th chapter, have been taken from Chronicles; and that the book of Genesis, though it is placed first in the Bible, and ascribed to Moses, has been manufactured by some unknown person, after the book of Chronicles was written, which was not until at least eight hundred and sixty years after the time of Moses.
In my examination of the book of Genesis, I've referenced a passage from xxxvi. 31, which clearly points to a time after kings began to rule over the people of Israel. I've also demonstrated that this verse matches exactly with 1 Chronicles i. 43, where it aligns properly with the sequence of historical events, unlike in Genesis. This indicates that the verse in Genesis, along with a significant portion of the 36th chapter, was sourced from Chronicles. Even though Genesis is the first book of the Bible and attributed to Moses, it appears to have been compiled by an unknown author after Chronicles was written, which happened at least eight hundred sixty years after Moses' time.
The evidence I proceed by to substantiate this, is regular, and has in it but two stages. First, as I have already stated, that the passage in Genesis refers itself for time to Chronicles; secondly, that the book of Chronicles, to which this passage refers itself, was not begun to be written until at least eight hundred and sixty years after the time of Moses. To prove this, we have only to look into 1 Chronicles iii. 15, where the writer, in giving the genealogy of the descendants of David, mentions Zedekiah; and it was in the time of Zedekiah that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem, B.C. 588, and consequently more than 860 years after Moses. Those who have superstitiously boasted of the antiquity of the Bible, and particularly of the books ascribed to Moses, have done it without examination, and without any other authority than that of one credulous man telling it to another: for, so far as historical and chronological evidence applies, the very first book in the Bible is not so ancient as the book of Homer, by more than three hundred years, and is about the same age with AEsop's Fables.
The evidence I present to support this is straightforward and consists of just two points. First, as I have already mentioned, the reference in Genesis connects to Chronicles in terms of time; second, the book of Chronicles, to which this reference connects, wasn't started until at least 860 years after Moses. To prove this, we need to look at 1 Chronicles 3:15, where the author, while detailing the genealogy of David's descendants, mentions Zedekiah. It was during Zedekiah's time that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in 588 B.C., which is therefore over 860 years after Moses. Those who have mindlessly bragged about the ancient origins of the Bible, especially the books attributed to Moses, have done so without proper investigation and solely based on one gullible person passing it to another: because, as far as historical and chronological evidence shows, the very first book in the Bible is actually over three hundred years younger than the book of Homer and roughly the same age as Aesop's Fables.
I am not contending for the morality of Homer; on the contrary, I think it a book of false glory, and tending to inspire immoral and mischievous notions of honour; and with respect to AEsop, though the moral is in general just, the fable is often cruel; and the cruelty of the fable does more injury to the heart, especially in a child, than the moral does good to the judgment.
I’m not arguing about Homer’s morality; in fact, I see it as a book of false glory that promotes immoral and harmful ideas about honor. As for Aesop, while the morals are usually right, the fables can often be cruel, and that cruelty harms the heart, especially in a child, more than the moral helps the understanding.
Having now dismissed Kings and Chronicles, I come to the next in course, the book of Ezra.
Having now finished Kings and Chronicles, I’m moving on to the next in line, the book of Ezra.
As one proof, among others I shall produce to shew the disorder in which this pretended word of God, the Bible, has been put together, and the uncertainty of who the authors were, we have only to look at the first three verses in Ezra, and the last two in 2 Chronicles; for by what kind of cutting and shuffling has it been that the first three verses in Ezra should be the last two verses in 2 Chronicles, or that the last two in 2 Chronicles should be the first three in Ezra? Either the authors did not know their own works or the compilers did not know the authors.
As one example, among others I will present to show the disarray in which this supposed word of God, the Bible, has been assembled, and the uncertainty about who the authors were, we only need to look at the first three verses in Ezra and the last two in 2 Chronicles. How is it possible that the first three verses in Ezra turned into the last two verses in 2 Chronicles, or that the last two in 2 Chronicles became the first three in Ezra? Either the authors were unaware of their own writings, or the compilers didn’t recognize the authors.
Last Two Verses of 2 Chronicles.
Last Two Verses of 2 Chronicles.
Ver. 22. Now in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word of the Lord, spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying.
Ver. 22. In the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord that was spoken through Jeremiah, the Lord inspired Cyrus, king of Persia, to issue a proclamation throughout his entire kingdom, and he also put it in writing, saying.
earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up. ***
the Lord God of heaven has given me the earth; and he has commanded me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Is there anyone among all his people? May the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up. ***
First Three Verses of Ezra.
First Three Verses of Ezra.
Ver. 1. Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord, by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying.
Ver. 1. In the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, and he issued a proclamation throughout his entire kingdom, which he also put in writing, saying.
2. Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
2. So says Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
3. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem.
3. Is there anyone among all of his people? May his God be with him, and let him go to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) that is in Jerusalem.
*** The last verse in Chronicles is broken abruptly, and ends in the middle of the phrase with the word 'up' without signifying to what place. This abrupt break, and the appearance of the same verses in different books, show as I have already said, the disorder and ignorance in which the Bible has been put together, and that the compilers of it had no authority for what they were doing, nor we any authority for believing what they have done. [NOTE I observed, as I passed along, several broken and senseless passages in the Bible, without thinking them of consequence enough to be introduced in the body of the work; such as that, 1 Samuel xiii. 1, where it is said, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men," &c. The first part of the verse, that Saul reigned one year has no sense, since it does not tell us what Saul did, nor say any thing of what happened at the end of that one year; and it is, besides, mere absurdity to say he reigned one year, when the very next phrase says he had reigned two for if he had reigned two, it was impossible not to have reigned one.
The last verse in Chronicles ends abruptly and cuts off in the middle of a sentence with the word "up," without indicating where. This sudden ending, along with the same verses appearing in different books, highlights the confusion and lack of knowledge in how the Bible was compiled. It shows that the compilers had no authority for what they were doing, nor do we have any authority to believe in what they produced. [NOTE I noted, as I went along, several incomplete and nonsensical passages in the Bible, which I didn’t think were significant enough to include in the main text; like that one, 1 Samuel xiii. 1, which says, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men," etc. The first part of the verse about Saul reigning one year makes no sense, as it doesn’t explain what Saul did or what occurred at the end of that year. Moreover, it’s absurd to say he reigned one year when the very next part states he had reigned two—if he had reigned two, then he must have reigned one.
Another instance occurs in Joshua v. where the writer tells us a story of an angel (for such the table of contents at the head of the chapter calls him) appearing unto Joshua; and the story ends abruptly, and without any conclusion. The story is as follows:—Ver. 13. "And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?" Verse 14, "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?" Verse 15, "And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standeth is holy. And Joshua did so."—And what then? nothing: for here the story ends, and the chapter too.
Another instance occurs in Joshua v., where the writer tells us a story about an angel (that's what the table of contents at the beginning of the chapter calls him) appearing to Joshua; and the story ends abruptly, without any conclusion. The story goes like this:—Verse 13. "And it happened, when Joshua was near Jericho, that he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua approached him and asked, ‘Are you for us, or for our enemies?’" Verse 14, "And he replied, ‘Neither; but I have come as the commander of the army of the Lord.’ And Joshua fell on his face to the ground and worshiped and said to him, ‘What does my Lord say to his servant?’" Verse 15, "And the commander of the Lord's army said to Joshua, ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.’ And Joshua did so."—And then what? Nothing: for here the story ends, and the chapter too.
Either this story is broken off in the middle, or it is a story told by some Jewish humourist in ridicule of Joshua's pretended mission from God, and the compilers of the Bible, not perceiving the design of the story, have told it as a serious matter. As a story of humour and ridicule it has a great deal of point; for it pompously introduces an angel in the figure of a man, with a drawn sword in his hand, before whom Joshua falls on his face to the earth, and worships (which is contrary to their second commandment;) and then, this most important embassy from heaven ends in telling Joshua to pull off his shoe. It might as well have told him to pull up his breeches.
Either this story is cut off in the middle, or it’s a tale told by some Jewish humorist poking fun at Joshua's supposed mission from God. The Bible's compilers, not realizing the intention behind the story, have presented it as a serious account. As a humorous and mocking tale, it has a lot of significance; it grandly introduces an angel in the form of a man, holding a drawn sword, before whom Joshua falls to the ground and worships (which goes against their second commandment). Then, this crucial message from heaven ends with telling Joshua to take off his shoe. It might as well have told him to pull up his pants.
It is certain, however, that the Jews did not credit every thing their leaders told them, as appears from the cavalier manner in which they speak of Moses, when he was gone into the mount. As for this Moses, say they, we wot not what is become of him. Exod. xxxii. 1.—Author.
It is clear, however, that the Jews didn’t believe everything their leaders told them, as shown by the casual way they talked about Moses when he went up the mountain. They said, “As for this Moses, we don’t know what’s happened to him.” Exod. xxxii. 1.—Author.
The only thing that has any appearance of certainty in the book of Ezra is the time in which it was written, which was immediately after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, about B.C. 536. Ezra (who, according to the Jewish commentators, is the same person as is called Esdras in the Apocrypha) was one of the persons who returned, and who, it is probable, wrote the account of that affair. Nebemiah, whose book follows next to Ezra, was another of the returned persons; and who, it is also probable, wrote the account of the same affair, in the book that bears his name. But those accounts are nothing to us, nor to any other person, unless it be to the Jews, as a part of the history of their nation; and there is just as much of the word of God in those books as there is in any of the histories of France, or Rapin's history of England, or the history of any other country.
The only thing that seems certain in the book of Ezra is the time it was written, which was right after the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity, around 536 B.C. Ezra (who, according to Jewish commentators, is the same person referred to as Esdras in the Apocrypha) was one of those who returned, and it's likely that he wrote the account of that event. Nehemiah, whose book comes right after Ezra’s, was another one of those who returned and probably wrote about the same event in the book that bears his name. However, those accounts don’t mean much to us, or to anyone else, except to the Jews, as part of their national history; and there’s just as much of the word of God in those books as there is in any history of France, Rapin's history of England, or the history of any other country.
But even in matters of historical record, neither of those writers are to be depended upon. In Ezra ii., the writer gives a list of the tribes and families, and of the precise number of souls of each, that returned from Babylon to Jerusalem; and this enrolment of the persons so returned appears to have been one of the principal objects for writing the book; but in this there is an error that destroys the intention of the undertaking.
But even when it comes to historical records, neither of those writers can be trusted. In Ezra 2, the writer lists the tribes and families, along with the exact number of people from each, who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem; this registration of those who returned seems to have been one of the main reasons for writing the book. However, there is a mistake in this that undermines the purpose of the work.
The writer begins his enrolment in the following manner (ii. 3): "The children of Parosh, two thousand one hundred seventy and four." Ver. 4, "The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two." And in this manner he proceeds through all the families; and in the 64th verse, he makes a total, and says, the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore.
The writer starts his list like this (ii. 3): "The children of Parosh, two thousand one hundred seventy-four." Ver. 4, "The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy-two." He continues in this way through all the families; then in the 64th verse, he sums it all up and states that the total congregation was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty.
But whoever will take the trouble of casting up the several particulars, will find that the total is but 29,818; so that the error is 12,542. What certainty then can there be in the Bible for any thing?
But anyone who takes the time to add up the various details will find that the total is only 29,818; meaning the mistake is 12,542. So what certainty can there be in the Bible for anything?
[Here Mr. Paine includes the long list of numbers from the Bible of all the children listed and the total thereof. This can be had directly from the Bible.]
[Here Mr. Paine includes the long list of numbers from the Bible of all the children listed and the total thereof. This can be had directly from the Bible.]
Nehemiah, in like manner, gives a list of the returned families, and of the number of each family. He begins as in Ezra, by saying (vii. 8): "The children of Parosh, two thousand three hundred and seventy-two;" and so on through all the families. (The list differs in several of the particulars from that of Ezra.) In ver. 66, Nehemiah makes a total, and says, as Ezra had said, "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore." But the particulars of this list make a total but of 31,089, so that the error here is 11,271. These writers may do well enough for Bible-makers, but not for any thing where truth and exactness is necessary.
Nehemiah, similarly, provides a list of the families that returned, along with the number from each family. He starts off like Ezra, stating (vii. 8): "The children of Parosh, two thousand three hundred and seventy-two;" and continues through all the families. (The list differs in several details from Ezra's.) In verse 66, Nehemiah gives a total, saying, just as Ezra did, "The whole congregation together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty." However, the specifics of this list only add up to 31,089, meaning there is a discrepancy of 11,271. These writers might be fine for creating the Bible, but they aren't suitable for anything where truth and accuracy are crucial.
The next book in course is the book of Esther. If Madam Esther thought it any honour to offer herself as a kept mistress to Ahasuerus, or as a rival to Queen Vashti, who had refused to come to a drunken king in the midst of a drunken company, to be made a show of, (for the account says, they had been drinking seven days, and were merry,) let Esther and Mordecai look to that, it is no business of ours, at least it is none of mine; besides which, the story has a great deal the appearance of being fabulous, and is also anonymous. I pass on to the book of Job.
The next book in our course is the book of Esther. If Esther saw it as an honor to become a kept mistress to Ahasuerus, or to compete with Queen Vashti, who had refused to go to a drunken king in the middle of a rowdy party, to be put on display (the account says they had been drinking for seven days and were having a good time), that's for Esther and Mordecai to figure out; it's not my concern, at least not mine. Furthermore, the story seems quite fanciful and is also anonymous. I’ll move on to the book of Job.
The book of Job differs in character from all the books we have hitherto passed over. Treachery and murder make no part of this book; it is the meditations of a mind strongly impressed with the vicissitudes of human life, and by turns sinking under, and struggling against the pressure. It is a highly wrought composition, between willing submission and involuntary discontent; and shows man, as he sometimes is, more disposed to be resigned than he is capable of being. Patience has but a small share in the character of the person of whom the book treats; on the contrary, his grief is often impetuous; but he still endeavours to keep a guard upon it, and seems determined, in the midst of accumulating ills, to impose upon himself the hard duty of contentment.
The book of Job is different from all the other books we've talked about so far. Betrayal and murder aren't part of this story; instead, it reflects the deep thoughts of someone who is deeply affected by the ups and downs of life, sometimes feeling overwhelmed and other times fighting back against it. It’s a well-crafted piece that balances between willing acceptance and involuntary frustration, showing how people can be more inclined to accept their fate than they are actually able to. Patience doesn’t play a big role in the character of Job; rather, his sorrow is often intense, yet he tries to control it and seems determined to force himself into a challenging state of acceptance, even in the face of daunting hardships.
I have spoken in a respectful manner of the book of Job in the former part of the 'Age of Reason,' but without knowing at that time what I have learned since; which is, that from all the evidence that can be collected, the book of Job does not belong to the Bible.
I have talked about the book of Job with respect in the earlier part of the 'Age of Reason,' but back then, I didn't know what I know now; specifically, that all the evidence I've gathered suggests the book of Job doesn't actually belong in the Bible.
I have seen the opinion of two Hebrew commentators, Abenezra and Spinoza, upon this subject; they both say that the book of Job carries no internal evidence of being an Hebrew book; that the genius of the composition, and the drama of the piece, are not Hebrew; that it has been translated from another language into Hebrew, and that the author of the book was a Gentile; that the character represented under the name of Satan (which is the first and only time this name is mentioned in the Bible) [In a later work Paine notes that in "the Bible" (by which he always means the Old Testament alone) the word Satan occurs also in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, and remarks that the action there ascribed to Satan is in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, attributed to Jehovah ("Essay on Dreams"). In these places, however, and in Ps. cix. 6, Satan means "adversary," and is so translated (A.S. version) in 2 Sam. xix. 22, and 1 Kings v. 4, xi. 25. As a proper name, with the article, Satan appears in the Old Testament only in Job and in Zech. iii. 1, 2. But the authenticity of the passage in Zechariah has been questioned, and it may be that in finding the proper name of Satan in Job alone, Paine was following some opinion met with in one of the authorities whose comments are condensed in his paragraph.—Editor.] does not correspond to any Hebrew idea; and that the two convocations which the Deity is supposed to have made of those whom the poem calls sons of God, and the familiarity which this supposed Satan is stated to have with the Deity, are in the same case.
I've looked at the views of two Hebrew commentators, Abenezra and Spinoza, on this matter; both argue that the book of Job lacks any internal signs of being a Hebrew text. They claim that the style of the writing and the overall drama do not reflect Hebrew characteristics, suggesting it was translated from another language into Hebrew, and that the author was likely a non-Jew. They also assert that the character referred to as Satan (which is the first and only time this name appears in the Bible) doesn't align with any Hebrew concept. Furthermore, the two meetings that God supposedly held with those referred to as the sons of God, along with the supposed familiarity that this character of Satan has with God, are seen in the same light.
It may also be observed, that the book shows itself to be the production of a mind cultivated in science, which the Jews, so far from being famous for, were very ignorant of. The allusions to objects of natural philosophy are frequent and strong, and are of a different cast to any thing in the books known to be Hebrew. The astronomical names, Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek and not Hebrew names, and it does not appear from any thing that is to be found in the Bible that the Jews knew any thing of astronomy, or that they studied it, they had no translation of those names into their own language, but adopted the names as they found them in the poem. [Paine's Jewish critic, David Levi, fastened on this slip ("Defence of the Old Testament," 1797, p. 152). In the original the names are Ash (Arcturus), Kesil' (Orion), Kimah' (Pleiades), though the identifications of the constellations in the A.S.V. have been questioned.—Editor.]
It can also be noted that the book reflects a mind well-versed in science, something the Jews, far from being known for, were quite ignorant of. The references to natural philosophy are frequent and substantial, differing greatly from anything found in works recognized as Hebrew. The astronomical names, Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek rather than Hebrew, and there’s no evidence in the Bible suggesting that the Jews were knowledgeable about astronomy or that they studied it; they had no translations of those names into their own language but used them as they appeared in the poem. [Paine's Jewish critic, David Levi, pointed out this inconsistency ("Defence of the Old Testament," 1797, p. 152). In the original, the names are Ash (Arcturus), Kesil' (Orion), Kimah' (Pleiades), though the identifications of the constellations in the A.S.V. have been questioned.—Editor.]
That the Jews did translate the literary productions of the Gentile nations into the Hebrew language, and mix them with their own, is not a matter of doubt; Proverbs xxxi. i, is an evidence of this: it is there said, The word of king Lemuel, the prophecy which his mother taught him. This verse stands as a preface to the proverbs that follow, and which are not the proverbs of Solomon, but of Lemuel; and this Lemuel was not one of the kings of Israel, nor of Judah, but of some other country, and consequently a Gentile. The Jews however have adopted his proverbs; and as they cannot give any account who the author of the book of Job was, nor how they came by the book, and as it differs in character from the Hebrew writings, and stands totally unconnected with every other book and chapter in the Bible before it and after it, it has all the circumstantial evidence of being originally a book of the Gentiles. [The prayer known by the name of Agur's Prayer, in Proverbs xxx.,—immediately preceding the proverbs of Lemuel,—and which is the only sensible, well-conceived, and well-expressed prayer in the Bible, has much the appearance of being a prayer taken from the Gentiles. The name of Agur occurs on no other occasion than this; and he is introduced, together with the prayer ascribed to him, in the same manner, and nearly in the same words, that Lemuel and his proverbs are introduced in the chapter that follows. The first verse says, "The words of Agur, the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy:" here the word prophecy is used with the same application it has in the following chapter of Lemuel, unconnected with anything of prediction. The prayer of Agur is in the 8th and 9th verses, "Remove far from me vanity and lies; give me neither riches nor poverty, but feed me with food convenient for me; lest I be full and deny thee and say, Who is the Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain." This has not any of the marks of being a Jewish prayer, for the Jews never prayed but when they were in trouble, and never for anything but victory, vengeance, or riches.—Author. (Prov. xxx. 1, and xxxi. 1) the word "prophecy" in these verses is translated "oracle" or "burden" (marg.) in the revised version.—The prayer of Agur was quoted by Paine in his plea for the officers of Excise, 1772.—Editor.]
That the Jews translated the writings of non-Jewish nations into Hebrew and combined them with their own is beyond doubt; Proverbs 31:1 shows this. It states, "The words of King Lemuel, the prophecy his mother taught him." This verse serves as an introduction to the proverbs that follow, which are not the proverbs of Solomon but of Lemuel; and Lemuel was not one of the kings of Israel or Judah, but from another country, making him a non-Jew. The Jews have adopted his proverbs; however, they cannot explain who the author of the book of Job was or how they acquired it, and since it differs in nature from Hebrew writings and is completely disconnected from any other book or chapter in the Bible, it has significant evidence suggesting it was originally a book of Gentiles. The prayer known as Agur's Prayer in Proverbs 30—immediately before the proverbs of Lemuel—and which is the only thoughtful, well-structured, and well-expressed prayer in the Bible, seems to have been taken from Gentiles. Agur's name only appears here, and he is presented, along with the prayer attributed to him, in a similar way and almost with the same wording as Lemuel and his proverbs in the following chapter. The first verse states, "The words of Agur, the son of Jakeh, the prophecy:" here, the term prophecy is used in the same sense it is in the next chapter about Lemuel, unrelated to any prophecy of the future. Agur's prayer is in verses 8 and 9: "Remove far from me vanity and lies; give me neither riches nor poverty, but provide me with the food I need; lest I be full and deny you and say, 'Who is the Lord?' or lest I be poor and steal and dishonor the name of my God." This does not have the characteristics of a Jewish prayer, as Jews only prayed in times of trouble and only for victory, vengeance, or wealth. —Author. (Prov. 30:1, and 31:1) The word "prophecy" in these verses is translated as "oracle" or "burden" (margin) in the revised version.—The prayer of Agur was quoted by Paine in his appeal for the officers of Excise, 1772.—Editor.
The Bible-makers, and those regulators of time, the Bible chronologists, appear to have been at a loss where to place and how to dispose of the book of Job; for it contains no one historical circumstance, nor allusion to any, that might serve to determine its place in the Bible. But it would not have answered the purpose of these men to have informed the world of their ignorance; and, therefore, they have affixed it to the aera of B.C. 1520, which is during the time the Israelites were in Egypt, and for which they have just as much authority and no more than I should have for saying it was a thousand years before that period. The probability however is, that it is older than any book in the Bible; and it is the only one that can be read without indignation or disgust.
The creators of the Bible and the ones who organized its timeline seem to have struggled with where to place the book of Job, as it lacks any historical context or reference that could clarify its position within the Bible. However, it wouldn't serve their purpose to admit their confusion to the world, so they dated it to B.C. 1520, a time when the Israelites were in Egypt, even though they have just as much authority to say that it was a thousand years earlier. The likelihood, though, is that it predates any other book in the Bible, and it's the only one that can be read without feeling anger or disgust.
We know nothing of what the ancient Gentile world (as it is called) was before the time of the Jews, whose practice has been to calumniate and blacken the character of all other nations; and it is from the Jewish accounts that we have learned to call them heathens. But, as far as we know to the contrary, they were a just and moral people, and not addicted, like the Jews, to cruelty and revenge, but of whose profession of faith we are unacquainted. It appears to have been their custom to personify both virtue and vice by statues and images, as is done now-a-days both by statuary and by painting; but it does not follow from this that they worshipped them any more than we do.—I pass on to the book of,
We know little about what the ancient Gentile world was like before the time of the Jews, who have tended to slander and tarnish the reputation of other nations. It's from Jewish writings that we've learned to label them as heathens. However, as far as we know, they were a just and moral people, unlike the Jews, who had a tendency toward cruelty and revenge, but we are unaware of their beliefs. It seems that they often represented both virtue and vice through statues and images, just like we do today with sculptures and paintings; but this doesn’t necessarily mean they worshipped them any more than we do. —I pass on to the book of,
Psalms, of which it is not necessary to make much observation. Some of them are moral, and others are very revengeful; and the greater part relates to certain local circumstances of the Jewish nation at the time they were written, with which we have nothing to do. It is, however, an error or an imposition to call them the Psalms of David; they are a collection, as song-books are now-a-days, from different song-writers, who lived at different times. The 137th Psalm could not have been written till more than 400 years after the time of David, because it is written in commemoration of an event, the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, which did not happen till that distance of time. "By the rivers of Babylon we sat down; yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows, in the midst thereof; for there they that carried us away captive required of us a song, saying, sing us one of the songs of Zion." As a man would say to an American, or to a Frenchman, or to an Englishman, sing us one of your American songs, or your French songs, or your English songs. This remark, with respect to the time this psalm was written, is of no other use than to show (among others already mentioned) the general imposition the world has been under with respect to the authors of the Bible. No regard has been paid to time, place, and circumstance; and the names of persons have been affixed to the several books which it was as impossible they should write, as that a man should walk in procession at his own funeral.
Psalms, which don't require much commentary. Some are moral, while others are quite vengeful; most relate to specific historical events of the Jewish nation when they were written, which are not relevant to us. However, it's a mistake to label them as the Psalms of David; they are a compilation, like modern songbooks, from various songwriters who lived at different times. The 137th Psalm couldn't have been written until over 400 years after David’s time because it's a reflection on an event, the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, which occurred much later. "By the rivers of Babylon we sat down; yes, we cried when we remembered Zion. We hung our harps on the willows there, for those who took us captive demanded a song, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion.’" It’s similar to how one might ask an American, a Frenchman, or an Englishman to sing one of their national songs. This observation about the timing of this psalm serves to highlight, among other points, the widespread misconception regarding the authors of the Bible. Time, place, and circumstances have often been overlooked, and names have been assigned to various books that it would have been as impossible for them to have written as for someone to attend their own funeral.
The Book of Proverbs. These, like the Psalms, are a collection, and that from authors belonging to other nations than those of the Jewish nation, as I have shewn in the observations upon the book of Job; besides which, some of the Proverbs ascribed to Solomon did not appear till two hundred and fifty years after the death of Solomon; for it is said in xxv. i, "These are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out." It was two hundred and fifty years from the time of Solomon to the time of Hezekiah. When a man is famous and his name is abroad he is made the putative father of things he never said or did; and this, most probably, has been the case with Solomon. It appears to have been the fashion of that day to make proverbs, as it is now to make jest-books, and father them upon those who never saw them. [A "Tom Paine's Jest Book" had appeared in London with little or nothing of Paine in it.—Editor.]
The Book of Proverbs. Like the Psalms, these are a collection that includes works from authors outside the Jewish nation, as I’ve shown in my notes on the book of Job. Additionally, some of the Proverbs attributed to Solomon didn’t surface until two hundred fifty years after his death; it states in xxv. i, "These are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out." It was two hundred fifty years from the time of Solomon to the time of Hezekiah. When a person becomes famous and their name is well-known, they often get credited with things they never said or did, and that’s probably true for Solomon. Back then, it seems to have been common to create proverbs, similar to how we now create joke books, and attribute them to people who never actually wrote them. [A "Tom Paine's Jest Book" had appeared in London with little or nothing of Paine in it.—Editor.]
The book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, is also ascribed to Solomon, and that with much reason, if not with truth. It is written as the solitary reflections of a worn-out debauchee, such as Solomon was, who looking back on scenes he can no longer enjoy, cries out All is Vanity! A great deal of the metaphor and of the sentiment is obscure, most probably by translation; but enough is left to show they were strongly pointed in the original. [Those that look out of the window shall be darkened, is an obscure figure in translation for loss of sight.—Author.] From what is transmitted to us of the character of Solomon, he was witty, ostentatious, dissolute, and at last melancholy. He lived fast, and died, tired of the world, at the age of fifty-eight years.
The book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, is often attributed to Solomon, and there’s good reason for that, if not complete truth. It reads like the lonely thoughts of a weary hedonist, much like Solomon was, who, looking back on experiences he can no longer enjoy, laments that everything is meaningless! A lot of the metaphors and feelings are unclear, likely due to translation, but there’s enough left to show they were very pointed in the original. [Those that look out of the window shall be darkened is a vague expression in translation for loss of sight.—Author.] From what we know about Solomon's character, he was witty, flashy, indulgent, and ultimately sad. He lived fast and died, worn out by life, at the age of fifty-eight.
Seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, are worse than none; and, however it may carry with it the appearance of heightened enjoyment, it defeats all the felicity of affection, by leaving it no point to fix upon; divided love is never happy. This was the case with Solomon; and if he could not, with all his pretensions to wisdom, discover it beforehand, he merited, unpitied, the mortification he afterwards endured. In this point of view, his preaching is unnecessary, because, to know the consequences, it is only necessary to know the cause. Seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines would have stood in place of the whole book. It was needless after this to say that all was vanity and vexation of spirit; for it is impossible to derive happiness from the company of those whom we deprive of happiness.
Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines are worse than having none; and even if it seems to promise more enjoyment, it ruins the joy of love by not giving it a single focus. Divided love is never happy. This was true for Solomon, and if he couldn’t foresee it with all his claims to wisdom, he deserved the humiliation he later faced, without sympathy. From this perspective, his preaching is pointless, because to understand the results, you only need to know the cause. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines would sum up the entire book. It was unnecessary to go on about how everything is meaningless and frustrating because it’s impossible to find happiness in the company of those we make unhappy.
To be happy in old age it is necessary that we accustom ourselves to objects that can accompany the mind all the way through life, and that we take the rest as good in their day. The mere man of pleasure is miserable in old age; and the mere drudge in business is but little better: whereas, natural philosophy, mathematical and mechanical science, are a continual source of tranquil pleasure, and in spite of the gloomy dogmas of priests, and of superstition, the study of those things is the study of the true theology; it teaches man to know and to admire the Creator, for the principles of science are in the creation, and are unchangeable, and of divine origin.
To be happy in old age, we need to get used to things that can stay with us throughout our lives and accept what comes our way. A person who only seeks pleasure ends up miserable in old age, and a person who only works hard is not much better off. On the other hand, studying natural philosophy, mathematics, and mechanical science provides a steady source of peaceful enjoyment. Despite the bleak beliefs of some religious leaders and superstitions, studying these subjects is a way to understand true theology. It helps us know and appreciate the Creator because the principles of science are found in creation, are unchanging, and come from a divine source.
Those who knew Benjamin Franklin will recollect, that his mind was ever young; his temper ever serene; science, that never grows grey, was always his mistress. He was never without an object; for when we cease to have an object we become like an invalid in an hospital waiting for death.
Those who knew Benjamin Franklin will remember that his mind was always youthful; his temperament always calm; science, which never ages, was always his passion. He never lacked a purpose; for when we have no purpose, we become like a patient in a hospital waiting for death.
Solomon's Songs, amorous and foolish enough, but which wrinkled fanaticism has called divine.—The compilers of the Bible have placed these songs after the book of Ecclesiastes; and the chronologists have affixed to them the aera of B.C. 1014, at which time Solomon, according to the same chronology, was nineteen years of age, and was then forming his seraglio of wives and concubines. The Bible-makers and the chronologists should have managed this matter a little better, and either have said nothing about the time, or chosen a time less inconsistent with the supposed divinity of those songs; for Solomon was then in the honey-moon of one thousand debaucheries.
Solomon's Songs, romantic and foolish enough, but which rigid fanaticism has labeled divine. The Bible compilers placed these songs after the book of Ecclesiastes, and the chronologists have dated them to B.C. 1014, when Solomon, according to that same timeline, was nineteen years old and just beginning to gather his harem of wives and concubines. The Bible compilers and chronologists should have handled this better, either keeping quiet about the timing or choosing a time that better aligns with the supposed divinity of those songs, since Solomon was then in the midst of countless indulgences.
It should also have occurred to them, that as he wrote, if he did write, the book of Ecclesiastes, long after these songs, and in which he exclaims that all is vanity and vexation of spirit, that he included those songs in that description. This is the more probable, because he says, or somebody for him, Ecclesiastes ii. 8, I got me men-singers, and women-singers [most probably to sing those songs], and musical instruments of all sorts; and behold (Ver. ii), "all was vanity and vexation of spirit." The compilers however have done their work but by halves; for as they have given us the songs they should have given us the tunes, that we might sing them.
It should also have crossed their minds that as he wrote, if he did write, the book of Ecclesiastes long after these songs, in which he declares that everything is meaningless and a source of frustration, he likely included those songs in that description. This is more likely because he says, or someone on his behalf, Ecclesiastes ii. 8, "I acquired male singers and female singers [most likely to perform those songs], along with all kinds of musical instruments; and look (Ver. ii), 'everything was meaningless and a source of frustration.'" However, the compilers have only done part of the job; since they provided the songs, they should have also given us the melodies, so we could sing them.
The books called the books of the Prophets fill up all the remaining part of the Bible; they are sixteen in number, beginning with Isaiah and ending with Malachi, of which I have given a list in the observations upon Chronicles. Of these sixteen prophets, all of whom except the last three lived within the time the books of Kings and Chronicles were written, two only, Isaiah and Jeremiah, are mentioned in the history of those books. I shall begin with those two, reserving, what I have to say on the general character of the men called prophets to another part of the work.
The books known as the books of the Prophets make up the rest of the Bible; there are sixteen of them, starting with Isaiah and ending with Malachi, which I’ve listed in the notes on Chronicles. Of these sixteen prophets, all but the last three lived during the time when the books of Kings and Chronicles were written. Only two of them, Isaiah and Jeremiah, are mentioned in those histories. I will start with these two, saving my remarks about the overall nature of the individuals known as prophets for another section of this work.
Whoever will take the trouble of reading the book ascribed to Isaiah, will find it one of the most wild and disorderly compositions ever put together; it has neither beginning, middle, nor end; and, except a short historical part, and a few sketches of history in the first two or three chapters, is one continued incoherent, bombastical rant, full of extravagant metaphor, without application, and destitute of meaning; a school-boy would scarcely have been excusable for writing such stuff; it is (at least in translation) that kind of composition and false taste that is properly called prose run mad.
Whoever takes the time to read the book attributed to Isaiah will find it one of the most chaotic and disorganized pieces ever created. It has no clear beginning, middle, or end; and aside from a brief historical section and a few historical sketches in the first two or three chapters, it's just a long, incoherent, exaggerated rant, packed with over-the-top metaphors that lack relevance and meaning. Even a schoolboy would hardly be excused for writing such nonsense. It is, at least in translation, the kind of writing and bad taste that could be described as prose gone insane.
The historical part begins at chapter xxxvi., and is continued to the end of chapter xxxix. It relates some matters that are said to have passed during the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah, at which time Isaiah lived. This fragment of history begins and ends abruptly; it has not the least connection with the chapter that precedes it, nor with that which follows it, nor with any other in the book. It is probable that Isaiah wrote this fragment himself, because he was an actor in the circumstances it treats of; but except this part there are scarcely two chapters that have any connection with each other. One is entitled, at the beginning of the first verse, the burden of Babylon; another, the burden of Moab; another, the burden of Damascus; another, the burden of Egypt; another, the burden of the Desert of the Sea; another, the burden of the Valley of Vision: as you would say the story of the Knight of the Burning Mountain, the story of Cinderella, or the glassen slipper, the story of the Sleeping Beauty in the Wood, etc., etc.
The historical section starts at chapter xxxvi. and continues until the end of chapter xxxix. It covers events that allegedly took place during the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah, when Isaiah was alive. This piece of history begins and ends suddenly; it has no connection to the chapter before it, the one after it, or any other chapter in the book. It’s likely that Isaiah wrote this fragment himself since he was involved in the events mentioned; however, besides this part, not many chapters are linked to each other. One is titled at the beginning of the first verse, the burden of Babylon; another, the burden of Moab; another, the burden of Damascus; another, the burden of Egypt; another, the burden of the Desert of the Sea; another, the burden of the Valley of Vision: similar to how you’d say the story of the Knight of the Burning Mountain, the story of Cinderella and her glass slipper, the story of the Sleeping Beauty in the Woods, etc.
I have already shown, in the instance of the last two verses of 2 Chronicles, and the first three in Ezra, that the compilers of the Bible mixed and confounded the writings of different authors with each other; which alone, were there no other cause, is sufficient to destroy the authenticity of an compilation, because it is more than presumptive evidence that the compilers are ignorant who the authors were. A very glaring instance of this occurs in the book ascribed to Isaiah: the latter part of the 44th chapter, and the beginning of the 45th, so far from having been written by Isaiah, could only have been written by some person who lived at least an hundred and fifty years after Isaiah was dead.
I have already demonstrated, in the case of the last two verses of 2 Chronicles and the first three in Ezra, that the compilers of the Bible mixed and confused the writings of different authors. This alone, even without other reasons, is enough to undermine the authenticity of a compilation, as it strongly suggests that the compilers were unaware of who the authors were. A very clear example of this can be found in the book attributed to Isaiah: the latter part of the 44th chapter and the beginning of the 45th could not have been written by Isaiah, but rather by someone who lived at least one hundred and fifty years after Isaiah's death.
These chapters are a compliment to Cyrus, who permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, as is stated in Ezra. The last verse of the 44th chapter, and the beginning of the 45th [Isaiah] are in the following words: "That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built; and to the temple thy foundations shall be laid: thus saith the Lord to his enointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings to open before him the two-leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee," etc.
These chapters are a tribute to Cyrus, who allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem from their Babylonian exile to rebuild the city and the temple, as mentioned in Ezra. The last verse of the 44th chapter and the beginning of the 45th [Isaiah] say: "This is what the Lord says about Cyrus: he is my shepherd, and he will fulfill all my desires; even saying to Jerusalem, you will be rebuilt; and to the temple, your foundations will be laid: this is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held to conquer nations before him, and I will loosen the belts of kings to open before him the double doors, and the gates will not be closed; I will go before you," etc.
What audacity of church and priestly ignorance it is to impose this book upon the world as the writing of Isaiah, when Isaiah, according to their own chronology, died soon after the death of Hezekiah, which was B.C. 698; and the decree of Cyrus, in favour of the Jews returning to Jerusalem, was, according to the same chronology, B.C. 536; which is a distance of time between the two of 162 years. I do not suppose that the compilers of the Bible made these books, but rather that they picked up some loose, anonymous essays, and put them together under the names of such authors as best suited their purpose. They have encouraged the imposition, which is next to inventing it; for it was impossible but they must have observed it.
What boldness of the church and priestly ignorance it is to present this book to the world as the writing of Isaiah, when Isaiah, according to their own timeline, died shortly after Hezekiah's death in 698 B.C.; and Cyrus's decree allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem was, according to the same timeline, in 536 B.C.; which means there is a gap of 162 years between the two events. I don’t think the compilers of the Bible created these books, but rather that they gathered some loose, anonymous essays and combined them under the names of authors that suited their agenda. They have facilitated this deception, which is almost as bad as inventing it; for it’s hard to believe they didn’t notice.
When we see the studied craft of the scripture-makers, in making every part of this romantic book of school-boy's eloquence bend to the monstrous idea of a Son of God, begotten by a ghost on the body of a virgin, there is no imposition we are not justified in suspecting them of. Every phrase and circumstance are marked with the barbarous hand of superstitious torture, and forced into meanings it was impossible they could have. The head of every chapter, and the top of every page, are blazoned with the names of Christ and the Church, that the unwary reader might suck in the error before he began to read.
When we look at the careful work of the writers of this romantic book filled with schoolboy eloquence, shaping every part to fit the bizarre idea of a Son of God conceived by a ghost with a virgin, we can suspect them of any kind of deception. Every phrase and detail is marked with the crude influence of superstitious manipulation, forced into meanings that it’s clear they never could have. The title of each chapter and the top of every page are plastered with the names of Christ and the Church, so that the unsuspecting reader might absorb the falsehood before they even start reading.
Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son (Isa. vii. I4), has been interpreted to mean the person called Jesus Christ, and his mother Mary, and has been echoed through christendom for more than a thousand years; and such has been the rage of this opinion, that scarcely a spot in it but has been stained with blood and marked with desolation in consequence of it. Though it is not my intention to enter into controversy on subjects of this kind, but to confine myself to show that the Bible is spurious,—and thus, by taking away the foundation, to overthrow at once the whole structure of superstition raised thereon,—I will however stop a moment to expose the fallacious application of this passage.
Look, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son (Isa. vii. 14), which has been interpreted to refer to Jesus Christ and his mother Mary, and this idea has been repeated throughout Christianity for over a thousand years. The strength of this belief has led to bloodshed and destruction all around the world. Although I don't intend to get into debates about these topics, but rather to demonstrate that the Bible is not genuine—thus tearing down the entire foundation of the superstitions built on it—I will pause briefly to point out the misleading use of this passage.
Whether Isaiah was playing a trick with Ahaz, king of Judah, to whom this passage is spoken, is no business of mine; I mean only to show the misapplication of the passage, and that it has no more reference to Christ and his mother, than it has to me and my mother. The story is simply this:
Whether Isaiah was messing with Ahaz, the king of Judah, to whom this passage is directed, is not my concern; I only want to highlight the misuse of the passage and that it relates to Christ and his mother no more than it relates to me and my mother. The story is simply this:
The king of Syria and the king of Israel (I have already mentioned that the Jews were split into two nations, one of which was called Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem, and the other Israel) made war jointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched their armies towards Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed, and the account says (Is. vii. 2), Their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
The king of Syria and the king of Israel (I've already mentioned that the Jews were divided into two nations, one called Judah, with Jerusalem as its capital, and the other Israel) joined forces to go to war against Ahaz, the king of Judah, and marched their armies toward Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people were frightened, and the account says (Is. vii. 2), Their hearts were shaken like trees in the wind.
In this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all the prophets) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to satisfy Ahaz that this should be the case, tells him to ask a sign. This, the account says, Ahaz declined doing; giving as a reason that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who is the speaker, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son;" and the 16th verse says, "And before this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest or dreadest [meaning Syria and the kingdom of Israel] shall be forsaken of both her kings." Here then was the sign, and the time limited for the completion of the assurance or promise; namely, before this child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
In this situation, Isaiah speaks to Ahaz and assures him in the name of the Lord (a common phrase among prophets) that these two kings won’t succeed against him. To reassure Ahaz, Isaiah tells him to ask for a sign. However, the account says that Ahaz refuses, saying he doesn’t want to test the Lord. In response, Isaiah, the speaker, says in verse 14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; look, a virgin will conceive and bear a son;" and verse 16 states, "And before this child knows enough to reject the bad and choose the good, the land you dread [referring to Syria and the kingdom of Israel] will be forsaken by both of her kings." So, here was the sign, and the time frame for this promise: before this child knows how to reject the bad and choose the good.
Isaiah having committed himself thus far, it became necessary to him, in order to avoid the imputation of being a false prophet, and the consequences thereof, to take measures to make this sign appear. It certainly was not a difficult thing, in any time of the world, to find a girl with child, or to make her so; and perhaps Isaiah knew of one beforehand; for I do not suppose that the prophets of that day were any more to be trusted than the priests of this: be that, however, as it may, he says in the next chapter, ver. 2, "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son."
Isaiah had committed himself to this point, and to avoid being labeled a false prophet and facing the consequences, he needed to take steps to make this sign happen. It’s never been difficult, in any time, to find a girl who is pregnant or to cause her to be; perhaps Isaiah already knew one. I doubt the prophets back then were any more trustworthy than the priests today; whatever the case, he states in the next chapter, verse 2, "And I took faithful witnesses to testify, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, and I went to the prophetess, and she became pregnant and had a son."
Here then is the whole story, foolish as it is, of this child and this virgin; and it is upon the barefaced perversion of this story that the book of Matthew, and the impudence and sordid interest of priests in later times, have founded a theory, which they call the gospel; and have applied this story to signify the person they call Jesus Christ; begotten, they say, by a ghost, whom they call holy, on the body of a woman engaged in marriage, and afterwards married, whom they call a virgin, seven hundred years after this foolish story was told; a theory which, speaking for myself, I hesitate not to believe, and to say, is as fabulous and as false as God is true. [In Is. vii. 14, it is said that the child should be called Immanuel; but this name was not given to either of the children, otherwise than as a character, which the word signifies. That of the prophetess was called Maher-shalalhash-baz, and that of Mary was called Jesus.—Author.]
Here’s the whole story, silly as it is, about this child and this virgin; and it’s on the blatant distortion of this story that the book of Matthew, along with the audacity and selfish interests of later priests, has built a theory they call the gospel; and they have applied this story to represent the person they call Jesus Christ, who they claim was conceived by a spirit they refer to as holy, within the body of a woman who was engaged and later married, whom they call a virgin—seven hundred years after this ridiculous story was first told; a theory which, speaking for myself, I do not hesitate to say is as fictional and false as God is true. [In Is. vii. 14, it mentions that the child should be called Immanuel; but this name was not given to either of the children, except as a meaning that the word conveys. The prophetess's child was called Maher-shalalhash-baz, and Mary’s child was named Jesus.—Author.]
But to show the imposition and falsehood of Isaiah we have only to attend to the sequel of this story; which, though it is passed over in silence in the book of Isaiah, is related in 2 Chronicles, xxviii; and which is, that instead of these two kings failing in their attempt against Ahaz, king of Judah, as Isaiah had pretended to foretel in the name of the Lord, they succeeded: Ahaz was defeated and destroyed; an hundred and twenty thousand of his people were slaughtered; Jerusalem was plundered, and two hundred thousand women and sons and daughters carried into captivity. Thus much for this lying prophet and imposter Isaiah, and the book of falsehoods that bears his name. I pass on to the book of Jeremiah. This prophet, as he is called, lived in the time that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, in the reign of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah; and the suspicion was strong against him that he was a traitor in the interest of Nebuchadnezzar. Every thing relating to Jeremiah shows him to have been a man of an equivocal character: in his metaphor of the potter and the clay, (ch. xviii.) he guards his prognostications in such a crafty manner as always to leave himself a door to escape by, in case the event should be contrary to what he had predicted. In the 7th and 8th verses he makes the Almighty to say, "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and destroy it, if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent me of the evil that I thought to do unto them." Here was a proviso against one side of the case: now for the other side. Verses 9 and 10, "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent me of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them." Here is a proviso against the other side; and, according to this plan of prophesying, a prophet could never be wrong, however mistaken the Almighty might be. This sort of absurd subterfuge, and this manner of speaking of the Almighty, as one would speak of a man, is consistent with nothing but the stupidity of the Bible.
But to reveal the deception and lies of Isaiah, we need only look at what happens next in the story; although it’s not mentioned in the book of Isaiah, it is described in 2 Chronicles, chapter 28. Instead of the two kings failing in their attempt against Ahaz, king of Judah, as Isaiah claimed to predict in the name of the Lord, they actually succeeded: Ahaz was defeated and destroyed; one hundred and twenty thousand of his people were killed; Jerusalem was looted, and two hundred thousand women and children were taken captive. This much for this false prophet and imposter Isaiah, and the book of lies that carries his name. Now, let's move on to the book of Jeremiah. This so-called prophet lived during the time when Nebuchadnezzar was besieging Jerusalem, in the reign of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah; and there was strong suspicion that he was a traitor working for Nebuchadnezzar. Everything related to Jeremiah indicates he was a man of questionable character: in his metaphor of the potter and the clay (chapter 18), he structures his predictions in such a cunning way that he always leaves himself a way out if things don’t go as he predicted. In verses 7 and 8, he has the Almighty say, "At the moment I speak concerning a nation, and regarding a kingdom, to uproot, tear down, and destroy it, if that nation I spoke of turns from their wickedness, I will change my mind about the disaster I intended to bring upon them." Here’s a condition for one side of the situation; now for the other side. In verses 9 and 10, "At the moment I speak concerning a nation, and regarding a kingdom, to build and plant it, if it does evil in my sight and does not listen to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good I said I would do for them." This is a condition for the other side; and following this method of prophesying, a prophet could never be wrong, no matter how mistaken the Almighty could be. This type of ridiculous evasion, and the way of speaking about the Almighty as if discussing a human being, is consistent only with the foolishness of the Bible.
As to the authenticity of the book, it is only necessary to read it in order to decide positively that, though some passages recorded therein may have been spoken by Jeremiah, he is not the author of the book. The historical parts, if they can be called by that name, are in the most confused condition; the same events are several times repeated, and that in a manner different, and sometimes in contradiction to each other; and this disorder runs even to the last chapter, where the history, upon which the greater part of the book has been employed, begins anew, and ends abruptly. The book has all the appearance of being a medley of unconnected anecdotes respecting persons and things of that time, collected together in the same rude manner as if the various and contradictory accounts that are to be found in a bundle of newspapers, respecting persons and things of the present day, were put together without date, order, or explanation. I will give two or three examples of this kind.
As for the authenticity of the book, it's enough to read it to clearly see that, while some passages may have been spoken by Jeremiah, he isn't the author of the book. The historical parts, if they can be called that, are in a very disorganized state; the same events are repeated multiple times, often in different ways and sometimes contradicting each other. This chaos continues even to the last chapter, where the history that makes up most of the book starts over and ends suddenly. The book looks like a mix of unrelated stories about people and events from that time, thrown together in a rough way as if various and contradictory articles from newspapers about current events were collected without dates, order, or explanations. I'll provide two or three examples of this.
It appears, from the account of chapter xxxvii. that the army of Nebuchadnezzer, which is called the army of the Chaldeans, had besieged Jerusalem some time; and on their hearing that the army of Pharaoh of Egypt was marching against them, they raised the siege and retreated for a time. It may here be proper to mention, in order to understand this confused history, that Nebuchadnezzar had besieged and taken Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoakim, the redecessor of Zedekiah; and that it was Nebuchadnezzar who had make Zedekiah king, or rather viceroy; and that this second siege, of which the book of Jeremiah treats, was in consequence of the revolt of Zedekiah against Nebuchadnezzar. This will in some measure account for the suspicion that affixes itself to Jeremiah of being a traitor, and in the interest of Nebuchadnezzar,—whom Jeremiah calls, xliii. 10, the servant of God.
It seems that from the account in chapter xxxvii, the army of Nebuchadnezzar, known as the army of the Chaldeans, had been surrounding Jerusalem for a while. When they learned that Pharaoh's army from Egypt was coming to fight them, they lifted the siege and pulled back temporarily. It's important to note, to clarify this complicated history, that Nebuchadnezzar had already besieged and captured Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiakim, Zedekiah's predecessor. Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah as king, or rather viceroy. The second siege discussed in the book of Jeremiah was due to Zedekiah's rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar. This somewhat explains the suspicion that surrounds Jeremiah, seen as a traitor and aligned with Nebuchadnezzar, whom Jeremiah refers to in xliii. 10 as the servant of God.
Chapter xxxvii. 11-13, says, "And it came to pass, that, when the army of the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem, for fear of Pharaoh's army, that Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem, to go (as this account states) into the land of Benjamin, to separate himself thence in the midst of the people; and when he was in the gate of Benjamin a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah... and he took Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans; then Jeremiah said, It is false; I fall not away to the Chaldeans." Jeremiah being thus stopt and accused, was, after being examined, committed to prison, on suspicion of being a traitor, where he remained, as is stated in the last verse of this chapter.
Chapter xxxvii. 11-13 says, "When the Chaldean army left Jerusalem because they were afraid of Pharaoh's army, Jeremiah went out of Jerusalem to go (as this account says) into the land of Benjamin to separate himself from the people. When he reached the Benjamin Gate, a captain named Irijah was there... and he arrested Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 'You are defecting to the Chaldeans.' Jeremiah replied, 'That's not true; I'm not defecting to the Chaldeans.' After being stopped and accused, Jeremiah was examined and then imprisoned on suspicion of being a traitor, where he stayed, as mentioned in the last verse of this chapter."
But the next chapter gives an account of the imprisonment of Jeremiah, which has no connection with this account, but ascribes his imprisonment to another circumstance, and for which we must go back to chapter xxi. It is there stated, ver. 1, that Zedekiah sent Pashur the son of Malchiah, and Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest, to Jeremiah, to enquire of him concerning Nebuchadnezzar, whose army was then before Jerusalem; and Jeremiah said to them, ver. 8, "Thus saith the Lord, Behold I set before you the way of life, and the way of death; he that abideth in this city shall die by the sword and by the famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth out and falleth to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey."
But the next chapter talks about Jeremiah's imprisonment, which isn’t related to this account but connects to a different situation, so we need to refer back to chapter xxi. It states there, in verse 1, that Zedekiah sent Pashur, the son of Malchiah, and Zephaniah, the son of Maaseiah the priest, to Jeremiah to ask him about Nebuchadnezzar, whose army was then surrounding Jerusalem. Jeremiah told them in verse 8, "This is what the Lord says: I’m setting before you the choice between life and death. Those who stay in this city will die by the sword, famine, and disease; but whoever goes out and surrenders to the Chaldeans who are besieging you will live, and their life will be like a prize for them."
This interview and conference breaks off abruptly at the end of the 10th verse of chapter xxi.; and such is the disorder of this book that we have to pass over sixteen chapters upon various subjects, in order to come at the continuation and event of this conference; and this brings us to the first verse of chapter xxxviii., as I have just mentioned. The chapter opens with saying, "Then Shaphatiah, the son of Mattan, Gedaliah the son of Pashur, and Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashur the son of Malchiah, (here are more persons mentioned than in chapter xxi.) heard the words that Jeremiah spoke unto all the people, saying, Thus saith the Lord, He that remaineth in this city, shall die by the sword, by famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth forth to the Chaldeans shall live; for he shall have his life for a prey, and shall live"; [which are the words of the conference;] therefore, (say they to Zedekiah,) "We beseech thee, let this man be put to death, for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them; for this man seeketh not the welfare of the people, but the hurt:" and at the 6th verse it is said, "Then they took Jeremiah, and put him into the dungeon of Malchiah."
This interview and conference ends abruptly at the 10th verse of chapter xxi.; and due to the disorganization of this book, we have to skip over sixteen chapters covering various topics to get back to the continuation and outcome of this conference, which leads us to the first verse of chapter xxxviii., as I just mentioned. The chapter starts with, "Then Shaphatiah, the son of Mattan, Gedaliah the son of Pashur, Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashur the son of Malchiah, (there are more people mentioned here than in chapter xxi.) heard the words that Jeremiah spoke to all the people, saying, Thus says the Lord, Those who stay in this city will die by the sword, by famine, and by plague; but anyone who goes to the Chaldeans will live; they will have their life as a prize, and they will live"; [which are the words of the conference;] therefore, (they say to Zedekiah,) "We beg you, let this man be put to death, for he is weakening the resolve of the soldiers still in this city and the resolve of all the people by saying such things to them; this man does not seek the welfare of the people, but their harm:" and at the 6th verse it says, "Then they took Jeremiah and threw him into the dungeon of Malchiah."
These two accounts are different and contradictory. The one ascribes his imprisonment to his attempt to escape out of the city; the other to his preaching and prophesying in the city; the one to his being seized by the guard at the gate; the other to his being accused before Zedekiah by the conferees. [I observed two chapters in I Samuel (xvi. and xvii.) that contradict each other with respect to David, and the manner he became acquainted with Saul; as Jeremiah xxxvii. and xxxviii. contradict each other with respect to the cause of Jeremiah's imprisonment.
These two accounts are different and contradictory. One blames his imprisonment on his attempt to escape the city; the other attributes it to his preaching and prophesying there. One says he was seized by the guard at the gate; the other claims he was accused before Zedekiah by the conferees. [I noticed two chapters in 1 Samuel (16 and 17) that contradict each other regarding David and how he became acquainted with Saul; also, Jeremiah 37 and 38 contradict each other regarding the reason for Jeremiah's imprisonment.]
In 1 Samuel, xvi., it is said, that an evil spirit of God troubled Saul, and that his servants advised him (as a remedy) "to seek out a man who was a cunning player upon the harp." And Saul said, ver. 17, "Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. Then answered one of his servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse, the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him; wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David, thy son. And (verse 21) David came to Saul, and stood before him, and he loved him greatly, and he became his armour-bearer; and when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, (verse 23) David took his harp, and played with his hand, and Saul was refreshed, and was well."
In 1 Samuel 16, it says that an evil spirit from God troubled Saul, and his servants suggested he "find someone who can play the harp well." Saul replied in verse 17, "Now find me someone who plays well and bring him to me." One of his servants answered, "I know a son of Jesse from Bethlehem who plays skillfully. He's a mighty warrior, smart, good-looking, and the Lord is with him." So Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, "Send me David, your son." In verse 21, David came to Saul, stood before him, and Saul loved him deeply; David became his armor-bearer. Whenever the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, in verse 23, David would take his harp and play it, and Saul would feel better and calm down.
But the next chapter (xvii.) gives an account, all different to this, of the manner that Saul and David became acquainted. Here it is ascribed to David's encounter with Goliah, when David was sent by his father to carry provision to his brethren in the camp. In the 55th verse of this chapter it is said, "And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine (Goliah) he said to Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling is. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with the head of the Philistine in his hand; and Saul said unto him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant, Jesse, the Betblehemite," These two accounts belie each other, because each of them supposes Saul and David not to have known each other before. This book, the Bible, is too ridiculous for criticism.—Author.]
But the next chapter (xvii.) tells a completely different story about how Saul and David met. It attributes their acquaintance to David's encounter with Goliath when David was sent by his father to deliver supplies to his brothers in the camp. In verse 55 of this chapter, it says, "And when Saul saw David going out to face the Philistine (Goliath), he asked Abner, the captain of the army, 'Abner, whose son is this young man?' And Abner replied, 'As your soul lives, O king, I don’t know.' And the king said, 'Find out whose son this stripling is.' When David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner brought him to Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand, and Saul asked him, 'Whose son are you, young man?' David answered, 'I am the son of your servant, Jesse, the Bethlehemite.' These two accounts contradict each other because each assumes that Saul and David did not know each other before. This book, the Bible, is too ridiculous for criticism.—Author.]
In the next chapter (Jer. xxxix.) we have another instance of the disordered state of this book; for notwithstanding the siege of the city by Nebuchadnezzar has been the subject of several of the preceding chapters, particularly xxxvii. and xxxviii., chapter xxxix. begins as if not a word had been said upon the subject, and as if the reader was still to be informed of every particular respecting it; for it begins with saying, ver. 1, "In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, against Jerusalem, and besieged it," etc.
In the next chapter (Jer. xxxix.), we see another example of the chaotic nature of this book. Even though the siege of the city by Nebuchadnezzar has been covered in several earlier chapters, especially xxxvii. and xxxviii., chapter xxxix. starts as if nothing has been said about it, as if the reader still needs to be told every detail. It opens with, ver. 1, "In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem and laid siege to it," etc.
But the instance in the last chapter (lii.) is still more glaring; for though the story has been told over and over again, this chapter still supposes the reader not to know anything of it, for it begins by saying, ver. i, "Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and his mother's name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah." (Ver. 4,) "And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it, and built forts against it," etc.
But the example in the last chapter (lii.) is even more obvious; because although the story has been told many times before, this chapter still assumes that the reader knows nothing about it. It starts by stating, ver. 1, "Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned for eleven years in Jerusalem, and his mother's name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah." (ver. 4) "And it happened in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came with his whole army against Jerusalem, and set up camp against it, and built forts around it," etc.
It is not possible that any one man, and more particularly Jeremiah, could have been the writer of this book. The errors are such as could not have been committed by any person sitting down to compose a work. Were I, or any other man, to write in such a disordered manner, no body would read what was written, and every body would suppose that the writer was in a state of insanity. The only way, therefore, to account for the disorder is, that the book is a medley of detached unauthenticated anecdotes, put together by some stupid book-maker, under the name of Jeremiah; because many of them refer to him, and to the circumstances of the times he lived in.
It's impossible for any one person, especially Jeremiah, to have written this book. The mistakes are too significant to have been made by someone trying to create a coherent work. If I or anyone else wrote in such a chaotic way, no one would want to read it, and everyone would think the writer was crazy. The only way to explain this disorder is that the book is a mix of unrelated, unverified stories cobbled together by some incompetent author using Jeremiah's name because many of these stories reference him and the events of his time.
Of the duplicity, and of the false predictions of Jeremiah, I shall mention two instances, and then proceed to review the remainder of the Bible.
Of the deceit and false prophecies of Jeremiah, I will mention two examples and then continue to review the rest of the Bible.
It appears from chapter xxxviii. that when Jeremiah was in prison, Zedekiah sent for him, and at this interview, which was private, Jeremiah pressed it strongly on Zedekiah to surrender himself to the enemy. "If," says he, (ver. 17,) "thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then thy soul shall live," etc. Zedekiah was apprehensive that what passed at this conference should be known; and he said to Jeremiah, (ver. 25,) "If the princes [meaning those of Judah] hear that I have talked with thee, and they come unto thee, and say unto thee, Declare unto us now what thou hast said unto the king; hide it not from us, and we will not put thee to death; and also what the king said unto thee; then thou shalt say unto them, I presented my supplication before the king that he would not cause me to return to Jonathan's house, to die there. Then came all the princes unto Jeremiah, and asked him, and "he told them according to all the words the king had commanded." Thus, this man of God, as he is called, could tell a lie, or very strongly prevaricate, when he supposed it would answer his purpose; for certainly he did not go to Zedekiah to make this supplication, neither did he make it; he went because he was sent for, and he employed that opportunity to advise Zedekiah to surrender himself to Nebuchadnezzar.
It seems from chapter xxxviii. that when Jeremiah was in prison, Zedekiah called for him, and during this private meeting, Jeremiah urged Zedekiah to surrender to the enemy. "If," he says, (ver. 17), "you definitely go out to the king of Babylon's officials, then your life will be spared," etc. Zedekiah was worried that their conversation might be discovered, and he said to Jeremiah, (ver. 25), "If the officials [referring to those of Judah] find out that I’ve spoken with you and they come to you, asking you, 'Tell us what you said to the king; don’t hide it from us, and we won’t kill you; and also what the king said to you;' then you should tell them, 'I presented my request to the king not to send me back to Jonathan's house to die there.'" Then all the officials came to Jeremiah and asked him, and he told them everything the king had instructed. Thus, this man of God, as he is known, was able to lie or significantly distort the truth when he thought it would serve his purpose; after all, he didn’t go to Zedekiah to make that request, nor did he make it; he went because he was summoned, and he used that chance to advise Zedekiah to surrender to Nebuchadnezzar.
In chapter xxxiv. 2-5, is a prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah in these words: "Thus saith the Lord, Behold I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire; and thou shalt not escape out of his hand, but thou shalt surely be taken, and delivered into his hand; and thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord; O Zedekiah, king, of Judah, thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not die by the sword, but thou shalt die in Peace; and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings that were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee, and they will lament thee, saying, Ah, Lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the Lord."
In chapter xxxiv. 2-5, there's a prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah that says: "This is what the Lord says: I will hand this city over to the king of Babylon, and he will set it on fire; you won't escape from him, but you will certainly be captured and delivered into his hands. You will see the king of Babylon face to face, and he will speak to you directly, and then you will go to Babylon. But listen to the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah, king of Judah: the Lord says you will not die by the sword, but you will die in peace; like the burials of your ancestors, the former kings who came before you, they will burn incense for you, and they will mourn for you, saying, 'Alas, Lord!' for I have declared it, says the Lord."
Now, instead of Zedekiah beholding the eyes of the king of Babylon, and speaking with him mouth to mouth, and dying in peace, and with the burning of odours, as at the funeral of his fathers, (as Jeremiah had declared the Lord himself had pronounced,) the reverse, according to chapter Iii., 10, 11 was the case; it is there said, that the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death.
Now, instead of Zedekiah seeing the king of Babylon, talking to him face-to-face, and dying peacefully surrounded by sweet scents like at the funeral of his ancestors (as Jeremiah said the Lord had declared), the opposite happened, according to chapter Iii., 10, 11. It says there that the king of Babylon killed Zedekiah's sons in front of him. Then he blinded Zedekiah, chained him up, and took him to Babylon, where he was imprisoned until the day he died.
What then can we say of these prophets, but that they are impostors and liars?
What can we say about these prophets except that they are frauds and liars?
As for Jeremiah, he experienced none of those evils. He was taken into favour by Nebuchadnezzar, who gave him in charge to the captain of the guard (xxxix, 12), "Take him (said he) and look well to him, and do him no harm; but do unto him even as he shall say unto thee." Jeremiah joined himself afterwards to Nebuchadnezzar, and went about prophesying for him against the Egyptians, who had marched to the relief of Jerusalem while it was besieged. Thus much for another of the lying prophets, and the book that bears his name.
As for Jeremiah, he didn’t face any of those troubles. He was favored by Nebuchadnezzar, who instructed the captain of the guard (xxxix, 12), "Take him and take good care of him; don’t harm him, but do exactly as he instructs you." Later, Jeremiah aligned himself with Nebuchadnezzar and started prophesying for him against the Egyptians, who had come to help Jerusalem during its siege. That's all for another one of the false prophets and the book that carries his name.
I have been the more particular in treating of the books ascribed to Isaiah and Jeremiah, because those two are spoken of in the books of Kings and Chronicles, which the others are not. The remainder of the books ascribed to the men called prophets I shall not trouble myself much about; but take them collectively into the observations I shall offer on the character of the men styled prophets.
I’ve been more specific in discussing the books attributed to Isaiah and Jeremiah because these two are mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles, unlike the others. I won’t spend too much time on the other books attributed to those called prophets; instead, I’ll consider them together in my comments on the nature of the individuals referred to as prophets.
In the former part of the 'Age of Reason,' I have said that the word prophet was the Bible-word for poet, and that the flights and metaphors of Jewish poets have been foolishly erected into what are now called prophecies. I am sufficiently justified in this opinion, not only because the books called the prophecies are written in poetical language, but because there is no word in the Bible, except it be the word prophet, that describes what we mean by a poet. I have also said, that the word signified a performer upon musical instruments, of which I have given some instances; such as that of a company of prophets, prophesying with psalteries, with tabrets, with pipes, with harps, etc., and that Saul prophesied with them, 1 Sam. x., 5. It appears from this passage, and from other parts in the book of Samuel, that the word prophet was confined to signify poetry and music; for the person who was supposed to have a visionary insight into concealed things, was not a prophet but a seer, [I know not what is the Hebrew word that corresponds to the word seer in English; but I observe it is translated into French by Le Voyant, from the verb voir to see, and which means the person who sees, or the seer.—Author.]
In the earlier part of the 'Age of Reason,' I mentioned that the word prophet was essentially the Bible's term for poet, and that the imaginative expressions and metaphors of Jewish poets have been mistakenly turned into what we now call prophecies. I stand by this view, not only because the books referred to as prophecies are written in poetic language but also because there is no term in the Bible, apart from the word prophet, that captures what we mean by a poet. I also pointed out that the word referred to someone who played musical instruments, providing examples like a group of prophets playing psalteries, tabrets, pipes, and harps, and that Saul prophesied with them, as noted in 1 Sam. x., 5. This passage and others in the book of Samuel indicate that the term prophet was specifically linked to poetry and music; for someone believed to have a visionary perception of hidden matters was called a seer, not a prophet. [I don’t know the Hebrew word that corresponds to the word seer in English; however, I note that it is translated into French as Le Voyant, from the verb voir, meaning to see, which translates to the person who sees, or the seer.—Author.]
[The Hebrew word for Seer, in 1 Samuel ix., transliterated, is chozeh, the gazer, it is translated in Is. xlvii. 13, "the stargazers."—Editor.] (i Sam, ix. 9;) and it was not till after the word seer went out of use (which most probably was when Saul banished those he called wizards) that the profession of the seer, or the art of seeing, became incorporated into the word prophet.
[The Hebrew word for Seer, in 1 Samuel ix., transliterated, is chozeh, the gazer, it is translated in Is. xlvii. 13, "the stargazers."—Editor.] (i Sam, ix. 9;) and it wasn't until after the term seer fell out of use (most likely when Saul expelled those he referred to as wizards) that the role of the seer, or the skill of seeing, became incorporated into the term prophet.
According to the modern meaning of the word prophet and prophesying, it signifies foretelling events to a great distance of time; and it became necessary to the inventors of the gospel to give it this latitude of meaning, in order to apply or to stretch what they call the prophecies of the Old Testament, to the times of the New. But according to the Old Testament, the prophesying of the seer, and afterwards of the prophet, so far as the meaning of the word "seer" was incorporated into that of prophet, had reference only to things of the time then passing, or very closely connected with it; such as the event of a battle they were going to engage in, or of a journey, or of any enterprise they were going to undertake, or of any circumstance then pending, or of any difficulty they were then in; all of which had immediate reference to themselves (as in the case already mentioned of Ahaz and Isaiah with respect to the expression, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,) and not to any distant future time. It was that kind of prophesying that corresponds to what we call fortune-telling; such as casting nativities, predicting riches, fortunate or unfortunate marriages, conjuring for lost goods, etc.; and it is the fraud of the Christian church, not that of the Jews, and the ignorance and the superstition of modern, not that of ancient times, that elevated those poetical, musical, conjuring, dreaming, strolling gentry, into the rank they have since had.
According to the modern understanding of the terms prophet and prophesying, it means predicting events far into the future. The creators of the gospel needed to broaden this definition so they could relate what they call the prophecies of the Old Testament to the times of the New Testament. However, in the Old Testament, the prophesying by the seer, and later by the prophet, was mainly focused on issues that were happening at that time or closely related to it. This included events like an upcoming battle, a journey, any project they were about to start, or any current challenges they faced—all of which directly concerned them (as illustrated by the situation between Ahaz and Isaiah regarding the saying, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son") and not any far-off future events. This type of prophesying is similar to what we now refer to as fortune-telling, which includes things like astrology, predicting wealth, lucky or unlucky marriages, searching for lost items, etc. It is the deception of the Christian church, rather than that of the Jews, along with the ignorance and superstition of modern times, not those of ancient times, that have elevated those poetic, musical, conjuring, wandering entertainers to the status they have held since then.
But, besides this general character of all the prophets, they had also a particular character. They were in parties, and they prophesied for or against, according to the party they were with; as the poetical and political writers of the present day write in defence of the party they associate with against the other.
But besides this general nature of all the prophets, they also had a specific character. They belonged to different groups and prophesied for or against a cause, depending on which group they were a part of; similar to how modern poets and political writers defend the party they align with against others.
After the Jews were divided into two nations, that of Judah and that of Israel, each party had its prophets, who abused and accused each other of being false prophets, lying prophets, impostors, etc.
After the Jews split into two nations, Judah and Israel, each group had its own prophets, who insulted and called each other false prophets, lying prophets, impostors, and more.
The prophets of the party of Judah prophesied against the prophets of the party of Israel; and those of the party of Israel against those of Judah. This party prophesying showed itself immediately on the separation under the first two rival kings, Rehoboam and Jeroboam. The prophet that cursed, or prophesied against the altar that Jeroboam had built in Bethel, was of the party of Judah, where Rehoboam was king; and he was way-laid on his return home by a prophet of the party of Israel, who said unto him (i Kings xiii.) "Art thou the man of God that came from Judah? and he said, I am." Then the prophet of the party of Israel said to him "I am a prophet also, as thou art, [signifying of Judah,] and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee unto thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water; but (says the 18th verse) he lied unto him." The event, however, according to the story, is, that the prophet of Judah never got back to Judah; for he was found dead on the road by the contrivance of the prophet of Israel, who no doubt was called a true prophet by his own party, and the prophet of Judah a lying prophet.
The prophets from Judah prophesied against the prophets from Israel, and those from Israel did the same towards Judah. This back-and-forth prophesying emerged right after the split under the first two rival kings, Rehoboam and Jeroboam. The prophet who cursed or prophesied against the altar that Jeroboam had built in Bethel came from Judah, where Rehoboam was king. On his way back home, he was confronted by a prophet from Israel, who asked him (1 Kings 13) "Are you the man of God who came from Judah?" The prophet replied, "I am." Then the prophet from Israel said, "I am also a prophet like you, [indicating he was from Judah], and an angel spoke to me from the Lord, saying, 'Bring him back with you to your house so he can eat bread and drink water;' but (as verse 18 states) he lied to him." According to the story, the prophet from Judah never made it back home; instead, he was found dead on the road because of a scheme by the prophet from Israel, who was probably considered a true prophet by his group, while the prophet from Judah was viewed as a false prophet.
In 2 Kings, iii., a story is related of prophesying or conjuring that shews, in several particulars, the character of a prophet. Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and Joram king of Israel, had for a while ceased their party animosity, and entered into an alliance; and these two, together with the king of Edom, engaged in a war against the king of Moab. After uniting and marching their armies, the story says, they were in great distress for water, upon which Jehoshaphat said, "Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may enquire of the Lord by him? and one of the servants of the king of Israel said here is Elisha. [Elisha was of the party of Judah.] And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah said, The word of the Lord is with him." The story then says, that these three kings went down to Elisha; and when Elisha [who, as I have said, was a Judahmite prophet] saw the King of Israel, he said unto him, "What have I to do with thee, get thee to the prophets of thy father and the prophets of thy mother. Nay but, said the king of Israel, the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hands of the king of Moab," (meaning because of the distress they were in for water;) upon which Elisha said, "As the Lord of hosts liveth before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, I would not look towards thee nor see thee." Here is all the venom and vulgarity of a party prophet. We are now to see the performance, or manner of prophesying.
In 2 Kings, 3, there's a story about prophecy that reveals the traits of a prophet. Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, and Joram, the king of Israel, had temporarily set aside their rivalry and formed an alliance. Together with the king of Edom, they went to war against the king of Moab. After joining forces and marching their armies, they found themselves in serious trouble due to a lack of water. Jehoshaphat then asked, "Is there a prophet of the Lord here, so we can consult Him?" One of the servants of the king of Israel replied, "Elisha is here." [Elisha was aligned with Judah.] Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, said, "The word of the Lord is with him." The story continues that the three kings went to see Elisha. When Elisha [who, as mentioned, was a prophet from Judah] saw the King of Israel, he said to him, "What do I have to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and mother." But the king of Israel replied, "The Lord has brought these three kings together to hand them over to the king of Moab," referring to their dire situation without water. In response, Elisha said, "As the Lord of hosts lives, whom I serve, if it weren't for Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, I wouldn't even look at you or acknowledge you." This captures all the bitterness and partisanship of a political prophet. Now, we are about to witness the performance or manner of prophesying.
Ver. 15. "'Bring me,' (said Elisha), 'a minstrel'; and it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him." Here is the farce of the conjurer. Now for the prophecy: "And Elisha said, [singing most probably to the tune he was playing], Thus saith the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches;" which was just telling them what every countryman could have told them without either fiddle or farce, that the way to get water was to dig for it.
Ver. 15. "'Bring me a musician,' said Elisha; and when the musician played, the hand of the Lord came upon him." Here we see the trickery of the magician. Now for the prophecy: "And Elisha said, probably singing to the tune he was playing, 'Thus says the Lord, fill this valley with ditches';" which was just stating what any farmer could have told them without any music or theatrics, that the way to get water was to dig for it.
But just like not every magician is famous for the same thing, neither were those prophets; while all of them, at least the ones I’ve mentioned, were known for lying, some stood out for their cursing. Elisha, whom I just talked about, was a leader in this type of prophecy; he was the one who cursed the forty-two children in the name of the Lord, and two she-bears came and devoured them. We should assume those children were part of Israel; but since those who curse will also lie, there’s just as much credibility to the story of Elisha’s two she-bears as there is to that of the Dragon of Wantley, who supposedly: Poor children three devoured be, That could not with him grapple; And at one sup he eat them up, As a man would eat an apple.
There was another description of men called prophets, that amused themselves with dreams and visions; but whether by night or by day we know not. These, if they were not quite harmless, were but little mischievous. Of this class are,
There was another description of men known as prophets, who entertained themselves with dreams and visions; but whether at night or during the day, we do not know. These, if they weren't entirely harmless, were only a little bit troublesome. Among this group are,
EZEKIEL and DANIEL; and the first question upon these books, as upon all the others, is, Are they genuine? that is, were they written by Ezekiel and Daniel?
EZEKIEL and DANIEL; and the first question about these books, like with all the others, is, Are they authentic? That is, were they written by Ezekiel and Daniel?
Of this there is no proof; but so far as my own opinion goes, I am more inclined to believe they were, than that they were not. My reasons for this opinion are as follows: First, Because those books do not contain internal evidence to prove they were not written by Ezekiel and Daniel, as the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc., prove they were not written by Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc.
Of this, there's no proof; but in my opinion, I'm more inclined to believe they were written by them than not. Here are my reasons for this belief: First, because those books don't have internal evidence that shows they weren't written by Ezekiel and Daniel, unlike the books attributed to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc., which do show they weren't written by Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc.
Secondly, Because they were not written till after the Babylonish captivity began; and there is good reason to believe that not any book in the bible was written before that period; at least it is proveable, from the books themselves, as I have already shown, that they were not written till after the commencement of the Jewish monarchy.
Secondly, they were not written until after the Babylonian captivity started; and there’s good reason to believe that none of the books in the Bible were written before that time. At the very least, it can be proven from the books themselves, as I’ve already shown, that they were not written until after the beginning of the Jewish monarchy.
Thirdly, Because the manner in which the books ascribed to Ezekiel and Daniel are written, agrees with the condition these men were in at the time of writing them.
Thirdly, the way the books attributed to Ezekiel and Daniel are written reflects the circumstances these men were in when they wrote them.
Had the numerous commentators and priests, who have foolishly employed or wasted their time in pretending to expound and unriddle those books, been carred into captivity, as Ezekiel and Daniel were, it would greatly have improved their intellects in comprehending the reason for this mode of writing, and have saved them the trouble of racking their invention, as they have done to no purpose; for they would have found that themselves would be obliged to write whatever they had to write, respecting their own affairs, or those of their friends, or of their country, in a concealed manner, as those men have done.
If the many commentators and priests, who have foolishly spent their time trying to explain and decipher those books, had been taken into captivity like Ezekiel and Daniel, it would have greatly improved their understanding of why this style of writing exists. It would have saved them the effort of straining their imaginations for no good reason; they would have realized that they too would need to write about their own situations, or those of their friends or their country, in a hidden way, just as those men did.
These two books differ from all the rest; for it is only these that are filled with accounts of dreams and visions: and this difference arose from the situation the writers were in as prisoners of war, or prisoners of state, in a foreign country, which obliged them to convey even the most trifling information to each other, and all their political projects or opinions, in obscure and metaphorical terms. They pretend to have dreamed dreams, and seen visions, because it was unsafe for them to speak facts or plain language. We ought, however, to suppose, that the persons to whom they wrote understood what they meant, and that it was not intended anybody else should. But these busy commentators and priests have been puzzling their wits to find out what it was not intended they should know, and with which they have nothing to do.
These two books are different from all the others; they are the only ones that are filled with stories about dreams and visions. This difference came from the situation the writers were in as prisoners of war or political prisoners in a foreign country, which forced them to share even the most minor details with each other and discuss their political plans or views in vague and metaphorical language. They claim to have dreamed and seen visions because it was unsafe for them to speak the truth or use straightforward language. However, we should assume that the people they were writing to understood what they meant and that it wasn't meant for anyone else to know. Yet, these eager commentators and priests have been racking their brains trying to figure out things they weren’t supposed to know and that have nothing to do with them.
Ezekiel and Daniel were carried prisoners to Babylon, under the first captivity, in the time of Jehoiakim, nine years before the second captivity in the time of Zedekiah. The Jews were then still numerous, and had considerable force at Jerusalem; and as it is natural to suppose that men in the situation of Ezekiel and Daniel would be meditating the recovery of their country, and their own deliverance, it is reasonable to suppose that the accounts of dreams and visions with which these books are filled, are no other than a disguised mode of correspondence to facilitate those objects: it served them as a cypher, or secret alphabet. If they are not this, they are tales, reveries, and nonsense; or at least a fanciful way of wearing off the wearisomeness of captivity; but the presumption is, they are the former.
Ezekiel and Daniel were taken as prisoners to Babylon during the first captivity, in the time of Jehoiakim, nine years before the second captivity under Zedekiah. At that time, there were still many Jews and a significant force in Jerusalem. It’s only natural to think that people like Ezekiel and Daniel would be focused on reclaiming their homeland and seeking their freedom. Therefore, it makes sense to view the dreams and visions detailed in these books as a coded means of communication to support these aims; they acted as a cipher or secret language. If they're not that, then they are just stories, daydreams, and nonsense; or at least a creative way to cope with the hardships of captivity. However, it’s likely that they serve the former purpose.
Ezekiel begins his book by speaking of a vision of cherubims, and of a wheel within a wheel, which he says he saw by the river Chebar, in the land of his captivity. Is it not reasonable to suppose that by the cherubims he meant the temple at Jerusalem, where they had figures of cherubims? and by a wheel within a wheel (which as a figure has always been understood to signify political contrivance) the project or means of recovering Jerusalem? In the latter part of his book he supposes himself transported to Jerusalem, and into the temple; and he refers back to the vision on the river Chebar, and says, (xliii- 3,) that this last vision was like the vision on the river Chebar; which indicates that those pretended dreams and visions had for their object the recovery of Jerusalem, and nothing further.
Ezekiel starts his book by describing a vision of cherubs and a wheel within a wheel, which he says he saw by the river Chebar during his captivity. Isn't it reasonable to think that by the cherubs, he was referring to the temple in Jerusalem, where there were cherub figures? And by a wheel within a wheel (which has always been understood as symbolizing political strategy), he meant the plan or means to reclaim Jerusalem? In the later part of his book, he imagines himself taken to Jerusalem and into the temple. He refers back to the vision by the river Chebar, stating (xliii-3) that this latest vision was like the one at the river Chebar, indicating that those supposed dreams and visions aimed at the recovery of Jerusalem and nothing else.
As to the romantic interpretations and applications, wild as the dreams and visions they undertake to explain, which commentators and priests have made of those books, that of converting them into things which they call prophecies, and making them bend to times and circumstances as far remote even as the present day, it shows the fraud or the extreme folly to which credulity or priestcraft can go.
Regarding the romantic interpretations and uses, as wild as the dreams and visions they try to explain, which commentators and priests have created from those books—turning them into what they call prophecies and twisting them to fit times and circumstances that reach even into today—it reveals the deception or sheer foolishness that gullibility or religious manipulation can lead to.
Scarcely anything can be more absurd than to suppose that men situated as Ezekiel and Daniel were, whose country was over-run, and in the possession of the enemy, all their friends and relations in captivity abroad, or in slavery at home, or massacred, or in continual danger of it; scarcely any thing, I say, can be more absurd than to suppose that such men should find nothing to do but that of employing their time and their thoughts about what was to happen to other nations a thousand or two thousand years after they were dead; at the same time nothing more natural than that they should meditate the recovery of Jerusalem, and their own deliverance; and that this was the sole object of all the obscure and apparently frantic writing contained in those books.
Hardly anything seems more ridiculous than thinking that men like Ezekiel and Daniel, whose country was invaded and occupied by enemies, with all their friends and family either held captive abroad, enslaved at home, massacred, or in constant danger of death, would spend their time and energy worrying about what would happen to other nations a thousand or two thousand years after they were gone. At the same time, it's completely understandable that they would be focused on the recovery of Jerusalem and their own freedom, and that this was the main point of all the obscure and seemingly crazy writings in those books.
In this sense the mode of writing used in those two books being forced by necessity, and not adopted by choice, is not irrational; but, if we are to use the books as prophecies, they are false. In Ezekiel xxix. 11., speaking of Egypt, it is said, "No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast pass through it; neither shall it be inhabited for forty years." This is what never came to pass, and consequently it is false, as all the books I have already reviewed are.—I here close this part of the subject.
In this way, the style of writing used in those two books, dictated by necessity rather than choice, isn’t unreasonable; however, if we intend to interpret the books as prophecies, they are incorrect. In Ezekiel 29:11, referring to Egypt, it states, "No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it; it will not be inhabited for forty years." This never happened, and therefore it is false, just like all the books I have previously discussed. —I will now conclude this part of the topic.
In the former part of 'The Age of Reason' I have spoken of Jonah, and of the story of him and the whale.—A fit story for ridicule, if it was written to be believed; or of laughter, if it was intended to try what credulity could swallow; for, if it could swallow Jonah and the whale it could swallow anything.
In the earlier part of 'The Age of Reason,' I talked about Jonah and his story with the whale. It’s a perfect tale for mockery if it was meant to be taken seriously, or for laughter if it was meant to see how gullible people could be; because if someone can believe in Jonah and the whale, they could believe in anything.
But, as is already shown in the observations on the book of Job and of Proverbs, it is not always certain which of the books in the Bible are originally Hebrew, or only translations from the books of the Gentiles into Hebrew; and, as the book of Jonah, so far from treating of the affairs of the Jews, says nothing upon that subject, but treats altogether of the Gentiles, it is more probable that it is a book of the Gentiles than of the Jews, [I have read in an ancient Persian poem (Saadi, I believe, but have mislaid the reference) this phrase: "And now the whale swallowed Jonah: the sun set."—Editor.] and that it has been written as a fable to expose the nonsense, and satyrize the vicious and malignant character, of a Bible-prophet, or a predicting priest.
But, as already shown in the observations on the book of Job and Proverbs, it isn’t always clear which books in the Bible were originally written in Hebrew or are simply translations from Gentile texts into Hebrew. The book of Jonah, which doesn’t address Jewish matters at all and focuses entirely on Gentiles, is more likely to be a Gentile book rather than a Jewish one. [I have read in an ancient Persian poem (I think it was by Saadi, but I’ve lost the reference) this phrase: "And now the whale swallowed Jonah: the sun set."—Editor.] It seems to have been written as a fable to highlight the nonsense and to criticize the immoral and malicious character of a biblical prophet or a predicting priest.
Jonah is represented, first as a disobedient prophet, running away from his mission, and taking shelter aboard a vessel of the Gentiles, bound from Joppa to Tarshish; as if he ignorantly supposed, by such a paltry contrivance, he could hide himself where God could not find him. The vessel is overtaken by a storm at sea; and the mariners, all of whom are Gentiles, believing it to be a judgement on account of some one on board who had committed a crime, agreed to cast lots to discover the offender; and the lot fell upon Jonah. But before this they had cast all their wares and merchandise over-board to lighten the vessel, while Jonah, like a stupid fellow, was fast asleep in the hold.
Jonah is portrayed first as a disobedient prophet who runs away from his mission and takes refuge on a ship with Gentiles sailing from Joppa to Tarshish; as if he naively thought that by such a trivial trick he could hide where God couldn’t find him. The ship is caught in a storm at sea, and the sailors, all Gentiles, believe it to be a punishment for someone on board who has done something wrong, so they decide to cast lots to find out who the guilty person is; the lot lands on Jonah. Before this, they had thrown all their cargo overboard to lighten the ship, while Jonah, like a foolish man, was sound asleep in the hold.
After the lot had designated Jonah to be the offender, they questioned him to know who and what he was? and he told them he was an Hebrew; and the story implies that he confessed himself to be guilty. But these Gentiles, instead of sacrificing him at once without pity or mercy, as a company of Bible-prophets or priests would have done by a Gentile in the same case, and as it is related Samuel had done by Agag, and Moses by the women and children, they endeavoured to save him, though at the risk of their own lives: for the account says, "Nevertheless [that is, though Jonah was a Jew and a foreigner, and the cause of all their misfortunes, and the loss of their cargo] the men rowed hard to bring the boat to land, but they could not, for the sea wrought and was tempestuous against them." Still however they were unwilling to put the fate of the lot into execution; and they cried, says the account, unto the Lord, saying, "We beseech thee, O Lord, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood; for thou, O Lord, hast done as it pleased thee." Meaning thereby, that they did not presume to judge Jonah guilty, since that he might be innocent; but that they considered the lot that had fallen upon him as a decree of God, or as it pleased God. The address of this prayer shows that the Gentiles worshipped one Supreme Being, and that they were not idolaters as the Jews represented them to be. But the storm still continuing, and the danger encreasing, they put the fate of the lot into execution, and cast Jonah in the sea; where, according to the story, a great fish swallowed him up whole and alive!
After the lot singled out Jonah as the culprit, they asked him who he was. He told them he was a Hebrew, and the story suggests he admitted his guilt. But these Gentiles, instead of sacrificing him right away without pity, as a group of Bible prophets or priests would have done to a Gentile in the same situation—like Samuel did to Agag and Moses did to the women and children—tried to save him, even at the risk of their own lives. The account says, "Nevertheless [that is, even though Jonah was a Jew and a foreigner, and the cause of all their misfortunes and the loss of their cargo] the men rowed hard to bring the boat to land, but they could not, for the sea was raging against them." Still, they were unwilling to carry out the lot's fate, and they cried out to the Lord, saying, "We beseech you, O Lord, let us not perish for this man's life, and do not hold us accountable for innocent blood; for you, O Lord, have done as it pleased you." This implies they didn’t presume Jonah was guilty since he might be innocent; they viewed the lot that fell on him as a decree from God or as what pleased God. The way they prayed indicates that the Gentiles worshiped one Supreme Being and weren't idolaters as the Jews claimed. But as the storm continued and the danger increased, they ultimately decided to carry out the lot and threw Jonah into the sea, where, according to the story, a great fish swallowed him whole and alive!
We have now to consider Jonah securely housed from the storm in the fish's belly. Here we are told that he prayed; but the prayer is a made-up prayer, taken from various parts of the Psalms, without connection or consistency, and adapted to the distress, but not at all to the condition that Jonah was in. It is such a prayer as a Gentile, who might know something of the Psalms, could copy out for him. This circumstance alone, were there no other, is sufficient to indicate that the whole is a made-up story. The prayer, however, is supposed to have answered the purpose, and the story goes on, (taking-off at the same time the cant language of a Bible-prophet,) saying, "The Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon dry land."
Now we need to look at Jonah, who is safely tucked away from the storm in the belly of the fish. Here, we're told he prayed; however, the prayer seems to be pieced together from different parts of the Psalms, lacking any real connection or flow, and is more suited to his distress than to his actual situation. It's the kind of prayer a Gentile, who might know a bit about the Psalms, could write for him. This alone, if nothing else, shows that the whole thing is a fabricated story. Nonetheless, the prayer is said to have served its purpose, and the tale continues, (also ditching the overly formal language of a Bible prophet), stating, "The Lord spoke to the fish, and it threw up Jonah onto dry land."
Jonah then received a second mission to Nineveh, with which he sets out; and we have now to consider him as a preacher. The distress he is represented to have suffered, the remembrance of his own disobedience as the cause of it, and the miraculous escape he is supposed to have had, were sufficient, one would conceive, to have impressed him with sympathy and benevolence in the execution of his mission; but, instead of this, he enters the city with denunciation and malediction in his mouth, crying, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown."
Jonah then got a second mission to Nineveh, which he set out on; and now we need to see him as a preacher. The suffering he went through, remembering his own disobedience as the reason for it, and the miraculous escape he supposedly had, should have filled him with compassion and kindness for his mission. But instead, he entered the city with curses and warnings, shouting, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh will be destroyed."
We have now to consider this supposed missionary in the last act of his mission; and here it is that the malevolent spirit of a Bible-prophet, or of a predicting priest, appears in all that blackness of character that men ascribe to the being they call the devil.
We now need to look at this alleged missionary in the final part of his mission; and this is where the wicked nature of a Bible prophet, or a fortune-telling priest, shows itself in all the darkness of character that people attribute to the entity they refer to as the devil.
Having published his predictions, he withdrew, says the story, to the east side of the city.—But for what? not to contemplate in retirement the mercy of his Creator to himself or to others, but to wait, with malignant impatience, the destruction of Nineveh. It came to pass, however, as the story relates, that the Ninevites reformed, and that God, according to the Bible phrase, repented him of the evil he had said he would do unto them, and did it not. This, saith the first verse of the last chapter, displeased Jonah exceedingly and he was very angry. His obdurate heart would rather that all Nineveh should be destroyed, and every soul, young and old, perish in its ruins, than that his prediction should not be fulfilled. To expose the character of a prophet still more, a gourd is made to grow up in the night, that promises him an agreeable shelter from the heat of the sun, in the place to which he is retired; and the next morning it dies.
Having published his predictions, he withdrew, the story goes, to the east side of the city. But why? Not to reflect in solitude on the mercy of his Creator towards himself or others, but to wait, with malicious impatience, for the destruction of Nineveh. However, as the story tells, the Ninevites changed their ways, and God, according to the Bible, regretted the harm he had said he would do to them and decided not to do it. This, as the first verse of the last chapter states, made Jonah extremely displeased, and he was very angry. His stubborn heart would rather see all of Nineveh destroyed, with every soul, young and old, perish in its ruins, than have his prediction go unfulfilled. To further illustrate the nature of a prophet, a gourd grows overnight, providing him with pleasant shade from the sun in the place where he has retreated; but the next morning, it dies.
Here the rage of the prophet becomes excessive, and he is ready to destroy himself. "It is better, said he, for me to die than to live." This brings on a supposed expostulation between the Almighty and the prophet; in which the former says, "Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And Jonah said, I do well to be angry even unto death. Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it to grow, which came up in a night, and perished in a night; and should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than threescore thousand persons, that cannot discern between their right hand and their left?"
Here, the prophet's anger becomes extreme, and he feels ready to end his own life. "I would rather die than live," he says. This leads to a supposed argument between God and the prophet, where God asks, "Are you really right to be angry about the plant?" Jonah responds, "Yes, I’m right to be angry, even to the point of death." Then the Lord says, "You cared about the plant, even though you didn’t put in any effort to grow it; it appeared overnight and died overnight. Shouldn't I care about Nineveh, that great city, where there are over sixty thousand people who don't know their right from their left?"
Here is both the winding up of the satire, and the moral of the fable. As a satire, it strikes against the character of all the Bible-prophets, and against all the indiscriminate judgements upon men, women and children, with which this lying book, the bible, is crowded; such as Noah's flood, the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the extirpation of the Canaanites, even to suckling infants, and women with child; because the same reflection 'that there are more than threescore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left,' meaning young children, applies to all their cases. It satirizes also the supposed partiality of the Creator for one nation more than for another.
Here’s the conclusion of the satire and the moral of the fable. As a satire, it targets the character of all the Biblical prophets and the sweeping judgments made against men, women, and children found throughout this misleading book, the Bible. This includes events like Noah’s flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the extermination of the Canaanites, including nursing infants and pregnant women. The same point made about “more than sixty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left,” referring to young children, applies to all these situations. It also critiques the supposed favoritism of the Creator toward one nation over another.
As a moral, it preaches against the malevolent spirit of prediction; for as certainly as a man predicts ill, he becomes inclined to wish it. The pride of having his judgment right hardens his heart, till at last he beholds with satisfaction, or sees with disappointment, the accomplishment or the failure of his predictions.—This book ends with the same kind of strong and well-directed point against prophets, prophecies and indiscriminate judgements, as the chapter that Benjamin Franklin made for the Bible, about Abraham and the stranger, ends against the intolerant spirit of religious persecutions—Thus much for the book Jonah. [The story of Abraham and the Fire-worshipper, ascribed to Franklin, is from Saadi. (See my "Sacred Anthology," p. 61.) Paine has often been called a "mere scoffer," but he seems to have been among the first to treat with dignity the book of Jonah, so especially liable to the ridicule of superficial readers, and discern in it the highest conception of Deity known to the Old Testament.—Editor.]
As a lesson, it warns against the harmful tendency to predict negative outcomes; just as surely as someone predicts bad things, they start to wish for it. The pride in being right hardens their heart until they either take satisfaction or feel disappointment in the reality of their predictions. This book concludes with a strong and well-focused critique of prophets, prophecies, and blanket judgments, similar to the chapter Benjamin Franklin contributed to the Bible about Abraham and the stranger, which criticizes the intolerant attitude behind religious persecutions. This is a summary of the book of Jonah. [The story of Abraham and the Fire-worshipper, attributed to Franklin, is from Saadi. (See my "Sacred Anthology," p. 61.) Paine has often been labeled a "mere scoffer," but he appears to have been among the first to approach the book of Jonah with respect, recognizing the profound view of God presented in it, which is often overlooked by casual readers. —Editor.]
Of the poetical parts of the Bible, that are called prophecies, I have spoken in the former part of 'The Age of Reason,' and already in this, where I have said that the word for prophet is the Bible-word for Poet, and that the flights and metaphors of those poets, many of which have become obscure by the lapse of time and the change of circumstances, have been ridiculously erected into things called prophecies, and applied to purposes the writers never thought of. When a priest quotes any of those passages, he unriddles it agreeably to his own views, and imposes that explanation upon his congregation as the meaning of the writer. The whore of Babylon has been the common whore of all the priests, and each has accused the other of keeping the strumpet; so well do they agree in their explanations.
Of the poetic parts of the Bible called prophecies, I've talked about them in the earlier part of 'The Age of Reason' and again here, where I've mentioned that the word for prophet is actually the Bible's word for poet. The flights and metaphors from those poets, many of which have become unclear over time and due to changing circumstances, have been absurdly turned into what are called prophecies and applied to purposes the writers never intended. When a priest quotes any of those passages, he interprets it according to his own beliefs and imposes that interpretation on his congregation as the writer's meaning. The whore of Babylon has been the shared scapegoat of all the priests, each accusing the others of keeping the harlot; they are so aligned in their interpretations.
There now remain only a few books, which they call books of the lesser prophets; and as I have already shown that the greater are impostors, it would be cowardice to disturb the repose of the little ones. Let them sleep, then, in the arms of their nurses, the priests, and both be forgotten together.
There are only a few books left, which they refer to as the books of the lesser prophets; and since I've already pointed out that the greater ones are frauds, it would be cowardly to disturb the peace of the lesser ones. So let's let them rest in the care of their guardians, the priests, and let them both be forgotten together.
I have now gone through the Bible, as a man would go through a wood with an axe on his shoulder, and fell trees. Here they lie; and the priests, if they can, may replant them. They may, perhaps, stick them in the ground, but they will never make them grow.—I pass on to the books of the New Testament.
I have now read through the Bible like a guy walking through a forest with an axe, cutting down trees. Here they are; and the priests, if they can, may try to plant them again. They might put them in the ground, but they'll never make them grow. — I move on to the books of the New Testament.
CHAPTER II - THE NEW TESTAMENT
THE New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.
THE New Testament, as they say, is based on the prophecies of the Old; if that’s the case, it must share the same fate as its foundation.
As it is nothing extraordinary that a woman should be with child before she was married, and that the son she might bring forth should be executed, even unjustly, I see no reason for not believing that such a woman as Mary, and such a man as Joseph, and Jesus, existed; their mere existence is a matter of indifference, about which there is no ground either to believe or to disbelieve, and which comes under the common head of, It may be so, and what then? The probability however is that there were such persons, or at least such as resembled them in part of the circumstances, because almost all romantic stories have been suggested by some actual circumstance; as the adventures of Robinson Crusoe, not a word of which is true, were suggested by the case of Alexander Selkirk.
It's not unusual for a woman to be pregnant before marriage, and for her son to be executed, even unfairly. So, I don't see any reason not to believe that someone like Mary, a man like Joseph, and Jesus really existed. Their existence is a non-issue—there's no real reason to believe or disbelieve, and it falls under the idea of, "It might be true, so what?" However, it's likely that there were real people like them, or at least similar to them in some ways, because most romantic stories are inspired by actual events—for example, the adventures of Robinson Crusoe, which are completely fictional, were inspired by the real-life story of Alexander Selkirk.
It is not then the existence or the non-existence, of the persons that I trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to be married, and while under this engagement, she is, to speak plain language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious pretence, (Luke i. 35,) that "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." Notwithstanding which, Joseph afterwards marries her, cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn rivals the ghost. This is putting the story into intelligible language, and when told in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it. [Mary, the supposed virgin, mother of Jesus, had several other children, sons and daughters. See Matt. xiii. 55, 56.—Author.]
I’m not concerned about whether the people involved exist or not; what bothers me is the story of Jesus Christ as it’s presented in the New Testament, along with the bizarre and fanciful doctrine built around it. The story, as it's told, is shockingly obscene. It describes a young woman who is engaged to be married, and while she's still engaged, she is, to be blunt, seduced by a ghost, under the outrageous claim (Luke i. 35) that "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." Despite this, Joseph later marries her and lives with her as his wife, competing with the ghost. This is putting the story in clear terms, and when presented this way, any priest should feel embarrassed to admit it. [Mary, the supposed virgin mother of Jesus, had several other children, sons and daughters. See Matt. xiii. 55, 56.—Author.]
Obscenity in matters of faith, however wrapped up, is always a token of fable and imposture; for it is necessary to our serious belief in God, that we do not connect it with stories that run, as this does, into ludicrous interpretations. This story is, upon the face of it, the same kind of story as that of Jupiter and Leda, or Jupiter and Europa, or any of the amorous adventures of Jupiter; and shews, as is already stated in the former part of 'The Age of Reason,' that the Christian faith is built upon the heathen Mythology.
Obscenity in matters of faith, no matter how it’s packaged, is always a sign of a made-up story and deceit; because for us to truly believe in God, we can’t associate Him with tales that lead to ridiculous interpretations. This story, at its core, is just like the stories of Jupiter and Leda, or Jupiter and Europa, or any of Jupiter's romantic escapades; and it shows, as mentioned earlier in 'The Age of Reason,' that the Christian faith is rooted in pagan mythology.
As the historical parts of the New Testament, so far as concerns Jesus Christ, are confined to a very short space of time, less than two years, and all within the same country, and nearly to the same spot, the discordance of time, place, and circumstance, which detects the fallacy of the books of the Old Testament, and proves them to be impositions, cannot be expected to be found here in the same abundance. The New Testament compared with the Old, is like a farce of one act, in which there is not room for very numerous violations of the unities. There are, however, some glaring contradictions, which, exclusive of the fallacy of the pretended prophecies, are sufficient to show the story of Jesus Christ to be false.
As the historical portions of the New Testament regarding Jesus Christ cover a very brief period, less than two years, and all take place in the same country and nearly the same location, the inconsistencies of time, place, and circumstances that expose the falsehood of the Old Testament cannot be expected to appear here in the same quantity. The New Testament, compared to the Old, is like a one-act play, where there's not much room for many breaches of unity. However, there are some obvious contradictions that, apart from the false claims of supposed prophecies, are enough to demonstrate that the story of Jesus Christ is untrue.
I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true. The agreement does not prove truth, but the disagreement proves falsehood positively.
I assert that it's a solid point that, first, the consistency of all parts of a story doesn't prove it's true because the parts may fit together while the whole could still be false; and second, the inconsistency among parts of a story shows that the whole can't be true. Agreement doesn't confirm truth, but disagreement definitely indicates falsehood.
The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.—The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might nevertheless be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood; and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood: and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the very first thing they say, and set out to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they say afterwards. Truth is an uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory. Either then the men called apostles were imposters, or the books ascribed to them have been written by other persons, and fathered upon them, as is the case in the Old Testament.
The story of Jesus Christ is found in the four books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first chapter of Matthew starts with a family tree of Jesus Christ, and in the third chapter of Luke, there’s also a family tree of Jesus Christ. If these two were in agreement, it wouldn’t prove the family tree to be true, as it could still be made up; however, since they contradict each other in every detail, it proves to be false. If Matthew is telling the truth, then Luke is lying, and if Luke is telling the truth, then Matthew is lying. Since there’s no reason to trust one over the other, there’s no reason to trust either. If they can’t be believed in the very first statement they make and set out to prove, they can't be trusted in anything else they say later. Truth is consistent, and if we were to accept inspiration and revelation, it wouldn’t make sense for them to be contradictory. So, either the men known as apostles were frauds, or the books attributed to them were written by other people and falsely claimed as theirs, just like in the Old Testament.
The book of Matthew gives (i. 6), a genealogy by name from David, up, through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and makes there to be twent eight generations. The book of Luke gives also a genealogy by name from Christ, through Joseph the husband of Mary, down to David, and makes there to be forty-three generations; besides which, there is only the two names of David and Joseph that are alike in the two lists.—I here insert both genealogical lists, and for the sake of perspicuity and comparison, have placed them both in the same direction, that is, from Joseph down to David.
The book of Matthew lists a genealogy starting from David, through Joseph, Mary’s husband, all the way to Christ, counting a total of twenty-eight generations. The book of Luke also provides a genealogy from Christ, through Joseph, down to David, and records a total of forty-three generations; aside from that, only the names David and Joseph are the same in both lists. Here, I include both genealogical lists, and for clarity and comparison, I have arranged them in the same order, from Joseph down to David.
Genealogy, according to Genealogy, according to Matthew. Luke. Christ Christ 2 Joseph 2 Joseph 3 Jacob 3 Heli 4 Matthan 4 Matthat 5 Eleazer 5 Levi 6 Eliud 6 Melchl 7 Achim 7 Janna 8 Sadoc 8 Joseph 9 Azor 9 Mattathias 10 Eliakim 10 Amos 11 Abiud 11 Naum 12 Zorobabel 12 Esli 13 Salathiel 13 Nagge 14 Jechonias 14 Maath 15 Josias 15 Mattathias 16 Amon 16 Semei 17 Manasses 17 Joseph 18 Ezekias 18 Juda 19 Achaz 19 Joanna 20 Joatham 20 Rhesa 21 Ozias 21 Zorobabel 22 Joram 22 Salathiel 23 Josaphat 23 Neri 24 Asa 24 Melchi 25 Abia 25 Addi 26 Roboam 26 Cosam 27 Solomon 27 Elmodam 28 David * 28 Er 29 Jose 30 Eliezer 31 Jorim 32 Matthat 33 Levi 34 Simeon 35 Juda 36 Joseph 37 Jonan 38 Eliakim 39 Melea 40 Menan 41 Mattatha 42 Nathan 43 David
[NOTE: * From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is upwards of 1080 years; and as the life-time of Christ is not included, there are but 27 full generations. To find therefore the average age of each person mentioned in the list, at the time his first son was born, it is only necessary to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 40 years for each person. As the life-time of man was then but of the same extent it is now, it is an absurdity to suppose, that 27 following generations should all be old bachelors, before they married; and the more so, when we are told that Solomon, the next in succession to David, had a house full of wives and mistresses before he was twenty-one years of age. So far from this genealogy being a solemn truth, it is not even a reasonable lie. The list of Luke gives about twenty-six years for the average age, and this is too much.—Author.]
[NOTE: * From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is over 1080 years; and since Christ's lifetime isn't included, there are only 27 full generations. To find the average age of each person in the list when their first son was born, you just need to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 40 years for each person. Given that the human lifespan was about the same then as it is now, it's ridiculous to think that 27 successive generations would all be old bachelors before marrying; especially since we know that Solomon, who followed David, had a house full of wives and mistresses before he turned twenty-one. Far from being a solemn truth, this genealogy isn't even a believable lie. Luke’s list suggests about twenty-six years for the average age, which is too high.—Author.]
Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood between them (as these two accounts show they do) in the very commencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of who, and of what he was, what authority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the strange things they tell us afterwards? If they cannot be believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when they tell us he was the son of God, begotten by a ghost; and that an angel announced this in secret to his mother? If they lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe them in the other? If his natural genealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the whole is fabulous? Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood? Is it not more safe that we stop ourselves at the plain, pure, and unmixed belief of one God, which is deism, than that we commit ourselves on an ocean of improbable, irrational, indecent, and contradictory tales?
Now, if these guys, Matthew and Luke, started off with a lie between them (as these two accounts show they did) right at the beginning of their story about Jesus Christ, and who he was and what he was, what reason (as I’ve asked before) do we have to believe the strange things they tell us later? If we can’t trust their account of his biological family tree, how can we believe them when they say he was the son of God, conceived by a ghost; and that an angel secretly told this to his mother? If they lied about one family tree, why should we trust them about the other? If his biological genealogy is made up, which it definitely is, why shouldn’t we think that his heavenly genealogy is made up too, and that everything is just a myth? Can anyone who thinks seriously risk their future happiness on the belief in a story that’s naturally impossible, goes against every decent idea, and is told by people already caught in a lie? Isn’t it safer to stick to the simple, pure, and straightforward belief in one God, which is deism, rather than to dive into a sea of unlikely, irrational, indecent, and contradictory stories?
The first question, however, upon the books of the New Testament, as upon those of the Old, is, Are they genuine? were they written by the persons to whom they are ascribed? For it is upon this ground only that the strange things related therein have been credited. Upon this point, there is no direct proof for or against; and all that this state of a case proves is doubtfulness; and doubtfulness is the opposite of belief. The state, therefore, that the books are in, proves against themselves as far as this kind of proof can go.
The first question about the books of the New Testament, just like those of the Old, is: Are they authentic? Were they written by the people they are attributed to? It's only on this basis that the unusual stories they tell have been accepted. There’s no solid evidence for or against this point, and all this situation shows is uncertainty; and uncertainty is the opposite of faith. Therefore, the condition the books are in works against them as much as this type of evidence can.
But, exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books called the Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and that they are impositions. The disordered state of the history in these four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the productions of some unconnected individuals, many years after the things they pretend to relate, each of whom made his own legend; and not the writings of men living intimately together, as the men called apostles are supposed to have done: in fine, that they have been manufactured, as the books of the Old Testament have been, by other persons than those whose names they bear.
But aside from that, the assumption is that the books known as the Evangelists, attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were not actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; instead, they are fabrications. The chaotic nature of the stories in these four books, the silence of one book on topics discussed in another, and the inconsistencies among them suggest that they were created by unrelated individuals many years after the events they claim to describe, with each author crafting his own narrative; they were not written by men who lived closely together, as the apostles are believed to have done. In short, they have been produced, much like the books of the Old Testament, by people other than those whose names appear on them.
The story of the angel announcing what the church calls the immaculate conception, is not so much as mentioned in the books ascribed to Mark, and John; and is differently related in Matthew and Luke. The former says the angel, appeared to Joseph; the latter says, it was to Mary; but either Joseph or Mary was the worst evidence that could have been thought of; for it was others that should have testified for them, and not they for themselves. Were any girl that is now with child to say, and even to swear it, that she was gotten with child by a ghost, and that an angel told her so, would she be believed? Certainly she would not. Why then are we to believe the same thing of another girl whom we never saw, told by nobody knows who, nor when, nor where? How strange and inconsistent is it, that the same circumstance that would weaken the belief even of a probable story, should be given as a motive for believing this one, that has upon the face of it every token of absolute impossibility and imposture.
The story of the angel announcing what the church calls the immaculate conception is barely mentioned in the writings attributed to Mark and John; it’s described differently in Matthew and Luke. Matthew says the angel appeared to Joseph, while Luke says it was to Mary. However, having either Joseph or Mary as witnesses is the worst evidence imaginable; it should have been others who testified for them, not the two of them for themselves. If a girl today, who is pregnant, claimed—and even swore—that she became pregnant by a ghost and that an angel told her so, would anyone believe her? Certainly not. So why should we believe the same story about another girl we’ve never seen, told by no one knows who, or when, or where? It’s odd and inconsistent that the same circumstances that would weaken belief in even a plausible story are being used as reasons to believe this one, which on its face seems absolutely impossible and fraudulent.
The story of Herod destroying all the children under two years old, belongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any. This writer tell us, that Jesus escaped this slaughter, because Joseph and Mary were warned by an angel to flee with him into Egypt; but he forgot to make provision for John [the Baptist], who was then under two years of age. John, however, who staid behind, fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and therefore the story circumstantially belies itself.
The story of Herod killing all the children under two years old only comes from the book of Matthew; none of the other gospels mention it. If this event had really happened, it would have been widely known and acknowledged by all the writers, and it would have been too significant to be left out. This writer tells us that Jesus escaped this massacre because Joseph and Mary were warned by an angel to take him to Egypt; however, he forgot to mention John [the Baptist], who was also under two years old at the time. John, who stayed behind, ended up safe just like Jesus, who fled; therefore, the account contradicts itself.
Not any two of these writers agree in reciting, exactly in the same words, the written inscription, short as it is, which they tell us was put over Christ when he was crucified; and besides this, Mark says, He was crucified at the third hour, (nine in the morning;) and John says it was the sixth hour, (twelve at noon.) [According to John, (xix. 14) the sentence was not passed till about the sixth hour (noon,) and consequently the execution could not be till the afternoon; but Mark (xv. 25) Says expressly that he was crucified at the third hour, (nine in the morning,)—Author.]
Not any two of these writers agree on stating, exactly in the same words, the written inscription, short as it is, which they say was placed above Christ when he was crucified; and in addition, Mark says he was crucified at the third hour (nine in the morning), while John claims it was the sixth hour (twelve at noon). [According to John (xix. 14), the sentence wasn’t passed until about the sixth hour (noon), so the execution couldn’t have happened until the afternoon; but Mark (xv. 25) clearly states that he was crucified at the third hour (nine in the morning) — Author.]
The inscription is thus stated in those books:
The inscription is written in those books:
Matthew—This is Jesus the king of the Jews. Mark—The king of the Jews. Luke—This is the king of the Jews. John—Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.
Matthew—This is Jesus, the king of the Jews. Mark—The king of the Jews. Luke—This is the king of the Jews. John—Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.
We may infer from these circumstances, trivial as they are, that those writers, whoever they were, and in whatever time they lived, were not present at the scene. The only one of the men called apostles who appears to have been near to the spot was Peter, and when he was accused of being one of Jesus's followers, it is said, (Matthew xxvi. 74,) "Then Peter began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man:" yet we are now called to believe the same Peter, convicted, by their own account, of perjury. For what reason, or on what authority, should we do this?
We can conclude from these circumstances, as minor as they may seem, that those writers, no matter who they were or when they lived, were not present at the event. The only one of the apostles who seems to have been nearby was Peter, and when he was accused of being a follower of Jesus, it's recorded (Matthew xxvi. 74), "Then Peter began to curse and swear, saying, I do not know the man." Yet we are now expected to believe that the same Peter, as their own account suggests, committed perjury. Why should we accept this, and on what basis?
The accounts that are given of the circumstances, that they tell us attended the crucifixion, are differently related in those four books.
The accounts of the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion are described differently in those four books.
The book ascribed to Matthew says 'there was darkness over all the land from the sixth hour unto the ninth hour—that the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom—that there was an earthquake—that the rocks rent—that the graves opened, that the bodies of many of the saints that slept arose and came out of their graves after the resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many.' Such is the account which this dashing writer of the book of Matthew gives, but in which he is not supported by the writers of the other books.
The book attributed to Matthew states, "There was darkness over all the land from noon until three in the afternoon— that the curtain of the temple was torn from the top to the bottom— that there was an earthquake— that the rocks split— that the tombs broke open, and many of the bodies of the saints who had died were raised and came out of their graves after the resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many." This is the account provided by the bold author of the book of Matthew, but the other writers of the gospels do not support him.
The writer of the book ascribed to Mark, in detailing the circumstances of the crucifixion, makes no mention of any earthquake, nor of the rocks rending, nor of the graves opening, nor of the dead men walking out. The writer of the book of Luke is silent also upon the same points. And as to the writer of the book of John, though he details all the circumstances of the crucifixion down to the burial of Christ, he says nothing about either the darkness—the veil of the temple—the earthquake—the rocks—the graves—nor the dead men.
The author of the book attributed to Mark, while describing the events of the crucifixion, does not mention any earthquake, the rocks splitting, the graves opening, or the dead rising. The author of the book of Luke is also quiet on these matters. As for the author of the book of John, even though he covers all the details of the crucifixion up to Christ's burial, he doesn't mention the darkness, the temple veil, the earthquake, the rocks, the graves, or the dead.
Now if it had been true that these things had happened, and if the writers of these books had lived at the time they did happen, and had been the persons they are said to be—namely, the four men called apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,—it was not possible for them, as true historians, even without the aid of inspiration, not to have recorded them. The things, supposing them to have been facts, were of too much notoriety not to have been known, and of too much importance not to have been told. All these supposed apostles must have been witnesses of the earthquake, if there had been any, for it was not possible for them to have been absent from it: the opening of the graves and resurrection of the dead men, and their walking about the city, is of still greater importance than the earthquake. An earthquake is always possible, and natural, and proves nothing; but this opening of the graves is supernatural, and directly in point to their doctrine, their cause, and their apostleship. Had it been true, it would have filled up whole chapters of those books, and been the chosen theme and general chorus of all the writers; but instead of this, little and trivial things, and mere prattling conversation of 'he said this and she said that' are often tediously detailed, while this most important of all, had it been true, is passed off in a slovenly manner by a single dash of the pen, and that by one writer only, and not so much as hinted at by the rest.
Now, if it were true that these events occurred, and if the authors of these books lived when they supposedly took place and were indeed the individuals they are said to be—specifically, the four men known as apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—it would have been impossible for them, as genuine historians, even without divine inspiration, not to have recorded these events. Assuming these events were factual, they were too well-known not to have been documented and too significant not to have been mentioned. All these supposed apostles would have witnessed the earthquake if it had occurred, as they could not have been absent from it. The opening of the graves and the resurrection of the dead, with them walking around the city, is even more significant than the earthquake. An earthquake is always possible, natural, and proves nothing; however, the opening of the graves is supernatural and directly relates to their teachings, their cause, and their authority as apostles. If it had been true, it would have filled entire chapters of those books and been the main theme and common refrain of all the writers; yet instead, they focus on minor details and trivial conversations of 'he said this and she said that,' often elaborately, while this most crucial event, if it were true, is casually mentioned with a single stroke of the pen and only by one writer, without even a hint from the others.
It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew should have told us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what became of them afterwards, and who it was that saw them; for he is not hardy enough to say that he saw them himself;—whether they came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints, or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses; whether they went to their former habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their property, and how they were received; whether they entered ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought actions of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether they remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of preaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and buried themselves.
It's easy to tell a lie, but it's hard to maintain it once it's out there. The author of the book of Matthew should have explained who the saints were that came back to life, where they went in the city, what happened to them afterward, and who saw them; since he wasn’t brave enough to say he witnessed them himself—whether they appeared naked and exposed, both male and female saints, or if they were fully dressed, and where they got their clothes; whether they returned to their old homes and reclaimed their wives, husbands, and belongings, and how they were received; whether they filed lawsuits to get back their possessions or took legal action against the competing intruders; whether they stayed on earth and resumed their previous jobs of preaching or working; or whether they died again or went back to their graves alive and buried themselves again.
Strange indeed, that an army of saints should retum to life, and nobody know who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and that not a word more should be said upon the subject, nor these saints have any thing to tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as we are told) had formerly prophesied of these things, they must have had a great deal to say. They could have told us everything, and we should have had posthumous prophecies, with notes and commentaries upon the first, a little better at least than we have now. Had it been Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua, and Samuel, and David, not an unconverted Jew had remained in all Jerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints of the times then present, everybody would have known them, and they would have out-preached and out-famed all the other apostles. But, instead of this, these saints are made to pop up, like Jonah's gourd in the night, for no purpose at all but to wither in the morning.—Thus much for this part of the story.
Strange indeed that an army of saints should come back to life, and no one knows who they were, nor who saw them, and that not a single word more should be said about it, nor do these saints have anything to share with us! If it had been the prophets who (as we've been told) once predicted these things, they would have had a lot to say. They could have told us everything, and we would have had posthumous prophecies, with notes and commentaries on the original texts, at least somewhat better than what we have now. If it had been Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, and David, not a single unconverted Jew would have been left in all of Jerusalem. If it had been John the Baptist and the saints of that time, everyone would have recognized them, and they would have out-preached and out-shined all the other apostles. But instead, these saints just show up, like Jonah's gourd at night, for no reason at all except to wither away in the morning. —Thus much for this part of the story.
The tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion; and in this as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were, disagree so much as to make it evident that none of them were there.
The story of the resurrection comes after the crucifixion; and in both cases, the writers, whoever they were, disagree so much that it's clear none of them were present.
The book of Matthew states, that when Christ was put in the sepulchre the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be placed over the septilchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the disciples; and that in consequence of this request the sepulchre was made sure, sealing the stone that covered the mouth, and setting a watch. But the other books say nothing about this application, nor about the sealing, nor the guard, nor the watch; and according to their accounts, there were none. Matthew, however, follows up this part of the story of the guard or the watch with a second part, that I shall notice in the conclusion, as it serves to detect the fallacy of those books.
The book of Matthew says that when Christ was placed in the tomb, the Jews asked Pilate for a guard to be put over the tomb to stop the disciples from stealing the body. As a result of this request, the tomb was secured by sealing the stone that covered the entrance and setting a guard. However, the other gospels don't mention this request, the sealing, the guard, or the watch; according to their accounts, there were none. Matthew continues this part of the story about the guard with a second part, which I will address in the conclusion, as it helps reveal the inconsistencies of those other accounts.
The book of Matthew continues its account, and says, (xxviii. 1,) that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it was dark. Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women, that came to the sepulchre; and John states that Mary Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first evidence! They all, however, appear to have known most about Mary Magdalene; she was a woman of large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture that she might be upon the stroll. [The Bishop of Llandaff, in his famous "Apology," censured Paine severely for this insinuation against Mary Magdalene, but the censure really falls on our English version, which, by a chapter-heading (Luke vii.), has unwarrantably identified her as the sinful woman who anointed Jesus, and irrevocably branded her.—Editor.]
The book of Matthew continues its story and says, (xxviii. 1,) that at the end of the Sabbath, as dawn began to break on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. Mark states it was sunrise, while John mentions it was dark. Luke notes that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and some other women came to the tomb, while John says that Mary Magdalene went alone. They don’t exactly agree on their first witnesses! However, they all seem to know a lot about Mary Magdalene; she was well-connected, and it wasn’t unreasonable to think she might be out and about. [The Bishop of Llandaff, in his well-known "Apology," criticized Paine harshly for this implication about Mary Magdalene, but the criticism really should be directed at our English translation, which, through a chapter heading (Luke vii.), has wrongly identified her as the sinful woman who anointed Jesus, permanently labeling her.—Editor.]
The book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2): "And behold there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" But the other books say nothing about any earthquake, nor about the angel rolling back the stone, and sitting upon it and, according to their account, there was no angel sitting there. Mark says the angel [Mark says "a young man," and Luke "two men."—Editor.] was within the sepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke says there were two, and they were both standing up; and John says they were both sitting down, one at the head and the other at the feet.
The book of Matthew says (ver. 2): "And look, there was a huge earthquake, because an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, rolled back the stone from the entrance, and sat on it." However, the other books don’t mention any earthquake or the angel rolling away the stone and sitting on it. According to their accounts, there was no angel sitting there. Mark states that the angel [Mark refers to "a young man," and Luke mentions "two men."—Editor.] was inside the tomb, sitting on the right side. Luke says there were two angels, and they were both standing; while John says they were both sitting down, one at the head and the other at the feet.
Matthew says, that the angel that was sitting upon the stone on the outside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was risen, and that the women went away quickly. Mark says, that the women, upon seeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it, went into the sepulchre, and that it was the angel that was sitting within on the right side, that told them so. Luke says, it was the two angels that were Standing up; and John says, it was Jesus Christ himself that told it to Mary Magdalene; and that she did not go into the sepulchre, but only stooped down and looked in.
Matthew says that the angel sitting on the stone outside the tomb told the two Marys that Christ had risen, and the women hurried away. Mark states that the women, amazed by the stone being rolled away, entered the tomb, where the angel sitting on the right side informed them. Luke mentions that there were two angels standing. John says that it was Jesus Christ himself who told Mary Magdalene, and that she didn’t enter the tomb but merely leaned down to look inside.
Now, if the writers of these four books had gone into a court of justice to prove an alibi, (for it is of the nature of an alibi that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body by supernatural means,) and had they given their evidence in the same contradictory manner as it is here given, they would have been in danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly deserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the books, that have been imposed upon the world as being given by divine inspiration, and as the unchangeable word of God.
Now, if the authors of these four books had gone into a court to prove an alibi (since that’s essentially what they’re trying to do—prove the absence of a dead body through supernatural means), and if they had presented their evidence in the same conflicting way it appears here, they would risk having their ears cut off for lying under oath, and they would justly deserve that punishment. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the books that have been forced upon the world as divinely inspired and the unchanging word of God.
The writer of the book of Matthew, after giving this account, relates a story that is not to be found in any of the other books, and which is the same I have just before alluded to. "Now," says he, [that is, after the conversation the women had had with the angel sitting upon the stone,] "behold some of the watch [meaning the watch that he had said had been placed over the sepulchre] came into the city, and shawed unto the chief priests all the things that were done; and when they were assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, that his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept; and if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying [that his disciples stole him away] is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
The writer of the book of Matthew, after sharing this account, tells a story that isn’t found in any of the other books, and which is the same one I just mentioned. "Now," he says, [referring to the conversation the women had with the angel sitting on the stone,] "take note, some of the guards [meaning the guards he mentioned had been placed over the tomb] came into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened; and when they had gathered together with the elders and held a meeting, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, 'Tell them that his disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep; and if this gets to the governor's ears, we will persuade him and keep you safe.' So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this story [that his disciples stole him away] is still commonly talked about among the Jews to this day."
The expression, until this day, is an evidence that the book ascribed to Matthew was not written by Matthew, and that it has been manufactured long after the times and things of which it pretends to treat; for the expression implies a great length of intervening time. It would be inconsistent in us to speak in this manner of any thing happening in our own time. To give, therefore, intelligible meaning to the expression, we must suppose a lapse of some generations at least, for this manner of speaking carries the mind back to ancient time.
The phrase "until this day" shows that the book attributed to Matthew wasn't actually written by him and that it was created long after the events it claims to describe; this phrase suggests a significant amount of time has passed. It would be odd for us to use such language about events happening in our own time. To make sense of this expression, we must assume that several generations have passed, as this way of speaking takes us back to ancient times.
The absurdity also of the story is worth noticing; for it shows the writer of the book of Matthew to have been an exceeding weak and foolish man. He tells a story that contradicts itself in point of possibility; for though the guard, if there were any, might be made to say that the body was taken away while they were asleep, and to give that as a reason for their not having prevented it, that same sleep must also have prevented their knowing how, and by whom, it was done; and yet they are made to say that it was the disciples who did it. Were a man to tender his evidence of something that he should say was done, and of the manner of doing it, and of the person who did it, while he was asleep, and could know nothing of the matter, such evidence could not be received: it will do well enough for Testament evidence, but not for any thing where truth is concerned.
The absurdity of the story is also worth noting because it shows that the writer of the book of Matthew was incredibly weak and foolish. He tells a story that contradicts itself in terms of what’s possible; while the guards, if there were any, might claim that the body was taken while they were asleep—explaining why they couldn’t prevent it—that same sleep would have also kept them from knowing how and by whom it was done. Yet, they are made to say that it was the disciples who took the body. If someone were to present evidence of something they claimed happened, including how it was done and who did it, all while they were asleep and had no knowledge of the event, such evidence wouldn’t be accepted: it might work for testimonial evidence, but not for anything where truth is involved.
I come now to that part of the evidence in those books, that respects the pretended appearance of Christ after this pretended resurrection.
I now turn to the evidence in those books that relates to the supposed appearance of Christ after this so-called resurrection.
The writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that was sitting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to the two Marys (xxviii. 7), "Behold Christ is gone before you into Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you." And the same writer at the next two verses (8, 9,) makes Christ himself to speak to the same purpose to these women immediately after the angel had told it to them, and that they ran quickly to tell it to the disciples; and it is said (ver. 16), "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and, when they saw him, they worshipped him."
The author of the book of Matthew explains that the angel sitting on the stone at the entrance of the tomb told the two Marys (xxviii. 7), "Look, Christ has gone ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him. I've told you." In the next two verses (8, 9), the same author has Christ speaking to these women right after the angel had given them the message, and they hurried off to share it with the disciples. It is mentioned (ver. 16), "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had instructed them to go, and when they saw him, they worshipped him."
But the writer of the book of John tells us a story very different to this; for he says (xx. 19) "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, [that is, the same day that Christ is said to have risen,] when the doors were shut, where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst of them."
But the writer of the book of John shares a very different story; he says (xx. 19) "That same evening, on the first day of the week, [the day Christ is said to have risen], when the doors were locked because the disciples were scared of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them."
According to Matthew the eleven were marching to Galilee, to meet Jesus in a mountain, by his own appointment, at the very time when, according to John, they were assembled in another place, and that not by appointment, but in secret, for fear of the Jews.
According to Matthew, the eleven were heading to Galilee to meet Jesus on a mountain he had specified, while John says they were gathered elsewhere, not by choice, but secretly because they were afraid of the Jews.
The writer of the book of Luke xxiv. 13, 33-36, contradicts that of Matthew more pointedly than John does; for he says expressly, that the meeting was in Jerusalem the evening of the same day that he (Christ) rose, and that the eleven were there.
The writer of the book of Luke xxiv. 13, 33-36, contradicts Matthew more clearly than John does; he specifically states that the meeting took place in Jerusalem on the evening of the same day that Christ rose, and that the eleven were present.
Now, it is not possible, unless we admit these supposed disciples the right of wilful lying, that the writers of these books could be any of the eleven persons called disciples; for if, according to Matthew, the eleven went into Galilee to meet Jesus in a mountain by his own appointment, on the same day that he is said to have risen, Luke and John must have been two of that eleven; yet the writer of Luke says expressly, and John implies as much, that the meeting was that same day, in a house in Jerusalem; and, on the other hand, if, according to Luke and John, the eleven were assembled in a house in Jerusalem, Matthew must have been one of that eleven; yet Matthew says the meeting was in a mountain in Galilee, and consequently the evidence given in those books destroy each other.
Now, it's not possible, unless we accept that these supposed disciples had the right to willfully lie, that the authors of these books could be any of the eleven people called disciples. If, according to Matthew, the eleven went to Galilee to meet Jesus on a mountain he specifically appointed, on the same day he is said to have risen, then Luke and John must have been among those eleven. However, the writer of Luke states clearly, and John implies the same, that the meeting happened that very day in a house in Jerusalem. On the other hand, if, according to Luke and John, the eleven were gathered in a house in Jerusalem, then Matthew must have been one of those eleven. Yet Matthew claims the meeting was on a mountain in Galilee, and therefore, the evidence presented in those books contradicts each other.
The writer of the book of Mark says nothing about any meeting in Galilee; but he says (xvi. 12) that Christ, after his resurrection, appeared in another form to two of them, as they walked into the country, and that these two told it to the residue, who would not believe them. [This belongs to the late addition to Mark, which originally ended with xvi. 8.—Editor.] Luke also tells a story, in which he keeps Christ employed the whole of the day of this pretended resurrection, until the evening, and which totally invalidates the account of going to the mountain in Galilee. He says, that two of them, without saying which two, went that same day to a village called Emmaus, three score furlongs (seven miles and a half) from Jerusalem, and that Christ in disguise went with them, and stayed with them unto the evening, and supped with them, and then vanished out of their sight, and reappeared that same evening, at the meeting of the eleven in Jerusalem.
The writer of the book of Mark doesn’t mention any meeting in Galilee; but he does say (xvi. 12) that after his resurrection, Christ appeared in a different form to two of them as they walked into the countryside, and that these two told the others, who didn’t believe them. [This part is a later addition to Mark, which originally ended with xvi. 8.—Editor.] Luke also shares a story where he has Christ active the entire day of this supposed resurrection up until the evening, which completely contradicts the account of going to the mountain in Galilee. He mentions that two of them, without specifying who, went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which is about seven and a half miles from Jerusalem, and that Christ, in disguise, went with them, stayed till evening, had supper with them, then vanished from their sight, and reappeared that same evening at the meeting of the eleven in Jerusalem.
This is the contradictory manner in which the evidence of this pretended reappearance of Christ is stated: the only point in which the writers agree, is the skulking privacy of that reappearance; for whether it was in the recess of a mountain in Galilee, or in a shut-up house in Jerusalem, it was still skulking. To what cause then are we to assign this skulking? On the one hand, it is directly repugnant to the supposed or pretended end, that of convincing the world that Christ was risen; and, on the other hand, to have asserted the publicity of it would have exposed the writers of those books to public detection; and, therefore, they have been under the necessity of making it a private affair.
This is the confusing way in which the evidence for this supposed reappearance of Christ is presented: the only thing the writers agree on is that this reappearance was secretive; whether it happened in a secluded mountain in Galilee or in a locked room in Jerusalem, it was still kept hidden. So what reason can we give for this secrecy? On one hand, it goes directly against the supposed goal of proving to the world that Christ rose from the dead; on the other hand, claiming it was public would have made the writers vulnerable to being exposed, so they had to treat it as a private matter.
As to the account of Christ being seen by more than five hundred at once, it is Paul only who says it, and not the five hundred who say it for themselves. It is, therefore, the testimony of but one man, and that too of a man, who did not, according to the same account, believe a word of the matter himself at the time it is said to have happened. His evidence, supposing him to have been the writer of Corinthians xv., where this account is given, is like that of a man who comes into a court of justice to swear that what he had sworn before was false. A man may often see reason, and he has too always the right of changing his opinion; but this liberty does not extend to matters of fact.
Regarding the claim that Christ was seen by more than five hundred people at once, it's only Paul who mentions it, not the five hundred themselves. So, it’s really just the testimony of one person, and he didn’t even believe it at the time it supposedly happened. His testimony, assuming he was the writer of Corinthians xv., where this is mentioned, is like someone coming into a courtroom to say that their previous testimony was false. A person can often see things differently, and they always have the right to change their opinions, but that freedom doesn’t apply to matters of fact.
I now come to the last scene, that of the ascension into heaven.—Here all fear of the Jews, and of every thing else, must necessarily have been out of the question: it was that which, if true, was to seal the whole; and upon which the reality of the future mission of the disciples was to rest for proof. Words, whether declarations or promises, that passed in private, either in the recess of a mountain in Galilee, or in a shut-up house in Jerusalem, even supposing them to have been spoken, could not be evidence in public; it was therefore necessary that this last scene should preclude the possibility of denial and dispute; and that it should be, as I have stated in the former part of 'The Age of Reason,' as public and as visible as the sun at noon-day; at least it ought to have been as public as the crucifixion is reported to have been.—But to come to the point.
I’m now at the final scene, the ascension into heaven. At this moment, any fear of the Jews or anything else would have been completely irrelevant. This event, if it really happened, was meant to confirm everything and would be the basis for proving the disciples’ future mission. Words—whether claims or promises—that were made privately, either on a secluded mountain in Galilee or in a locked house in Jerusalem, even if they were actually spoken, wouldn’t hold up as evidence in public. Therefore, it was essential for this last scene to eliminate any chance of denial or debate; it should have been, as I mentioned earlier in 'The Age of Reason,' as public and obvious as the sun at noon; at the very least, it should have been as public as the crucifixion is said to have been. Now, to get to the main point.
In the first place, the writer of the book of Matthew does not say a syllable about it; neither does the writer of the book of John. This being the case, is it possible to suppose that those writers, who affect to be even minute in other matters, would have been silent upon this, had it been true? The writer of the book of Mark passes it off in a careless, slovenly manner, with a single dash of the pen, as if he was tired of romancing, or ashamed of the story. So also does the writer of Luke. And even between these two, there is not an apparent agreement, as to the place where this final parting is said to have been. [The last nine verses of Mark being ungenuine, the story of the ascension rests exclusively on the words in Luke xxiv. 51, "was carried up into heaven,"—words omitted by several ancient authorities.—Editor.]
The writer of the book of Matthew doesn’t mention it at all, and neither does the writer of John. Given this, can we really believe that these authors, who tend to be quite detailed about other topics, would stay silent about this if it were true? The writer of Mark brushes it off carelessly, with a quick notation, as if he's tired of storytelling or embarrassed by the account. The same goes for the writer of Luke. Plus, there’s no clear agreement between the two about where this final departure supposedly took place. [The last nine verses of Mark are considered inauthentic, so the story of the ascension relies solely on the words in Luke xxiv. 51, "was carried up into heaven,"—words that several ancient sources have left out.—Editor.]
The book of Mark says that Christ appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, alluding to the meeting of the eleven at Jerusalem: he then states the conversation that he says passed at that meeting; and immediately after says (as a school-boy would finish a dull story,) "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." But the writer of Luke says, that the ascension was from Bethany; that he (Christ) led them out as far as Bethany, and was parted from them there, and was carried up into heaven. So also was Mahomet: and, as to Moses, the apostle Jude says, ver. 9. That 'Michael and the devil disputed about his body.' While we believe such fables as these, or either of them, we believe unworthily of the Almighty.
The book of Mark says that Christ appeared to the eleven while they were eating, referring to their gathering in Jerusalem. He then recounts the conversation he claims took place at that meeting and quickly concludes, like a student wrapping up a boring story, "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God." However, the writer of Luke states that the ascension happened from Bethany; he (Christ) led them out as far as Bethany, where he parted from them and was taken up into heaven. The same goes for Muhammad, and regarding Moses, the apostle Jude mentions in verse 9 that 'Michael and the devil argued over his body.' While we believe in such myths as these, or any of them, we do so in a way that is unworthy of the Almighty.
I have now gone through the examination of the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; and when it is considered that the whole space of time, from the crucifixion to what is called the ascension, is but a few days, apparently not more than three or four, and that all the circumstances are reported to have happened nearly about the same spot, Jerusalem, it is, I believe, impossible to find in any story upon record so many and such glaring absurdities, contradictions, and falsehoods, as are in those books. They are more numerous and striking than I had any expectation of finding, when I began this examination, and far more so than I had any idea of when I wrote the former part of 'The Age of Reason.' I had then neither Bible nor Testament to refer to, nor could I procure any. My own situation, even as to existence, was becoming every day more precarious; and as I was willing to leave something behind me upon the subject, I was obliged to be quick and concise. The quotations I then made were from memory only, but they are correct; and the opinions I have advanced in that work are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction,—that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world;—that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonourable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty;—that the only true religion is deism, by which I then meant and now mean the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues;—and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now—and so help me God.
I have now gone through the examination of the four books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and when you consider that the entire time frame from the crucifixion to what is known as the ascension is just a few days, seemingly no more than three or four, and that all the events are said to have occurred in nearly the same location, Jerusalem, I believe it’s impossible to find in any recorded story as many glaring absurdities, contradictions, and falsehoods as are in those books. They are more numerous and striking than I expected to find when I started this examination, and far more than I imagined when I wrote the earlier part of 'The Age of Reason.' At that time, I had neither the Bible nor the Testament to reference, nor could I get a hold of any. My own situation, even regarding my existence, was becoming more precarious every day; and as I wanted to leave something behind on the subject, I had to be quick and concise. The quotes I made then were from memory, but they are accurate; and the opinions I expressed in that work stem from my clear and long-held belief—that the Bible and the Testament are deceptions that have misled the world;—that the fall of man, the notion of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, his dying to appease God's wrath, and salvation through that peculiar means are all fictional tales that dishonor the wisdom and power of the Almighty;—that the only true religion is deism, which I then meant and still mean as the belief in one God and mimicking his moral character, or practicing what are called moral virtues;—and that it was based solely on this (as far as religion is concerned) that I placed all my hopes for future happiness. So I say now—and so help me God.
But to retum to the subject.—Though it is impossible, at this distance of time, to ascertain as a fact who were the writers of those four books (and this alone is sufficient to hold them in doubt, and where we doubt we do not believe) it is not difficult to ascertain negatively that they were not written by the persons to whom they are ascribed. The contradictions in those books demonstrate two things:
But let's get back to the topic. Even though it's impossible, after all this time, to know for sure who wrote those four books (and that's enough to make us question them; where there's doubt, there's no belief), it's not hard to figure out that they weren't written by the people they're credited to. The contradictions in those books show two things:
First, that the writers cannot have been eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses of the matters they relate, or they would have related them without those contradictions; and, consequently that the books have not been written by the persons called apostles, who are supposed to have been witnesses of this kind.
First, the writers cannot have been eyewitnesses or ear-witnesses of the events they describe, or they would have recounted them without those contradictions; therefore, the books were not written by the individuals called apostles, who were thought to be such witnesses.
Secondly, that the writers, whoever they were, have not acted in concerted imposition, but each writer separately and individually for himself, and without the knowledge of the other.
Secondly, the writers, whoever they were, did not work together to impose anything; each writer acted separately and individually, without the knowledge of the others.
The same evidence that applies to prove the one, applies equally to prove both cases; that is, that the books were not written by the men called apostles, and also that they are not a concerted imposition. As to inspiration, it is altogether out of the question; we may as well attempt to unite truth and falsehood, as inspiration and contradiction.
The same evidence that shows the first case is just as valid for the second; that is, the books weren't written by the individuals known as apostles, and they're not a deliberate deception either. As for inspiration, that's completely off the table; we might as well try to blend truth and lies as to combine inspiration with contradiction.
If four men are eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses to a scene, they will without any concert between them, agree as to time and place, when and where that scene happened. Their individual knowledge of the thing, each one knowing it for himself, renders concert totally unnecessary; the one will not say it was in a mountain in the country, and the other at a house in town; the one will not say it was at sunrise, and the other that it was dark. For in whatever place it was and whatever time it was, they know it equally alike.
If four men witnessed an event, they will, without any prior agreement, all agree on the time and place of that event. Their personal experiences of the situation, each knowing it for themselves, make any coordination unnecessary; one won't say it happened on a mountain in the countryside while another claims it was at a house in the city; one won't say it was at sunrise while another says it was dark. Because no matter where or when it took place, they all share the same knowledge of it.
And on the other hand, if four men concert a story, they will make their separate relations of that story agree and corroborate with each other to support the whole. That concert supplies the want of fact in the one case, as the knowledge of the fact supersedes, in the other case, the necessity of a concert. The same contradictions, therefore, that prove there has been no concert, prove also that the reporters had no knowledge of the fact, (or rather of that which they relate as a fact,) and detect also the falsehood of their reports. Those books, therefore, have neither been written by the men called apostles, nor by imposters in concert.—How then have they been written?
And on the other hand, if four men come together to create a story, they'll make their individual accounts of that story match and support each other to strengthen the whole. That collaboration fills the gap of facts in one case, just as knowing the facts eliminates the need for collaboration in the other. So, the same contradictions that show there wasn’t any collaboration also indicate that the reporters didn’t know the facts (or rather, what they claim are facts) and reveal the falsehood of their reports. Therefore, those books were neither written by the individuals called apostles nor by imposters working together. So, how were they written?
I am not one of those who are fond of believing there is much of that which is called wilful lying, or lying originally, except in the case of men setting up to be prophets, as in the Old Testament; for prophesying is lying professionally. In almost all other cases it is not difficult to discover the progress by which even simple supposition, with the aid of credulity, will in time grow into a lie, and at last be told as a fact; and whenever we can find a charitable reason for a thing of this kind, we ought not to indulge a severe one.
I'm not one of those people who believe there's a lot of intentional lying, except maybe when it comes to people claiming to be prophets, like in the Old Testament; because prophesying is basically a professional form of lying. In almost every other situation, it’s not hard to see how even a simple assumption, with a little bit of trust, can eventually turn into a lie and be presented as the truth; and whenever we can find a reasonable explanation for this kind of thing, we shouldn't jump to the harshest judgment.
The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar not many years before, and they generally have their origin in violent deaths, or in execution of innocent persons. In cases of this kind, compassion lends its aid, and benevolently stretches the story. It goes on a little and a little farther, till it becomes a most certain truth. Once start a ghost, and credulity fills up the history of its life, and assigns the cause of its appearance; one tells it one way, another another way, till there are as many stories about the ghost, and about the proprietor of the ghost, as there are about Jesus Christ in these four books.
The story of Jesus Christ appearing after his death is like a ghost story, something that timid imaginations can easily conjure up and that gullible people will believe. Similar tales were told about the assassination of Julius Caesar not long before, and these stories often stem from violent deaths or the execution of innocent people. In such cases, empathy plays a role and the narrative grows more elaborate. It keeps evolving, little by little, until it becomes a widely accepted truth. Once a ghost story starts, people's imaginations fill in the details of its existence and explain why it appears; one person tells it one way, another a different way, until there are as many versions of the ghost story and its origin as there are about Jesus Christ in these four books.
The story of the appearance of Jesus Christ is told with that strange mixture of the natural and impossible, that distinguishes legendary tale from fact. He is represented as suddenly coming in and going out when the doors are shut, and of vanishing out of sight, and appearing again, as one would conceive of an unsubstantial vision; then again he is hungry, sits down to meat, and eats his supper. But as those who tell stories of this kind never provide for all the cases, so it is here: they have told us, that when he arose he left his grave-clothes behind him; but they have forgotten to provide other clothes for him to appear in afterwards, or to tell us what he did with them when he ascended; whether he stripped all off, or went up clothes and all. In the case of Elijah, they have been careful enough to make him throw down his mantle; how it happened not to be burnt in the chariot of fire, they also have not told us; but as imagination supplies all deficiencies of this kind, we may suppose if we please that it was made of salamander's wool.
The story of Jesus Christ’s appearance is told with that strange mix of the natural and the impossible that separates legendary tales from facts. He is described as suddenly appearing and disappearing even when the doors are shut, vanishing from sight and then showing up again, like an ethereal vision; yet at times he is hungry, sits down to eat, and enjoys a meal. But, as is common with stories like this, they don’t cover all the details: they mention that when he rose, he left his burial clothes behind, but they forgot to explain what he wore afterwards or what he did with those clothes when he ascended; whether he took them all off or went up with them still on. In the case of Elijah, they made sure to have him throw down his mantle; they didn’t explain why it didn’t burn up in the chariot of fire, but since imagination fills in these blanks, we might as well assume it was made of salamander wool.
Those who are not much acquainted with ecclesiastical history, may suppose that the book called the New Testament has existed ever since the time of Jesus Christ, as they suppose that the books ascribed to Moses have existed ever since the time of Moses. But the fact is historically otherwise; there was no such book as the New Testament till more than three hundred years after the time that Christ is said to have lived.
Those who aren't very familiar with church history might think that the book known as the New Testament has been around since the time of Jesus Christ, just like they believe the books attributed to Moses have existed since Moses's time. However, the reality is different; there was no book called the New Testament until more than three hundred years after the time when Christ is said to have lived.
At what time the books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, began to appear, is altogether a matter of uncertainty. There is not the least shadow of evidence of who the persons were that wrote them, nor at what time they were written; and they might as well have been called by the names of any of the other supposed apostles as by the names they are now called. The originals are not in the possession of any Christian Church existing, any more than the two tables of stone written on, they pretend, by the finger of God, upon Mount Sinai, and given to Moses, are in the possession of the Jews. And even if they were, there is no possibility of proving the hand-writing in either case. At the time those four books were written there was no printing, and consequently there could be no publication otherwise than by written copies, which any man might make or alter at pleasure, and call them originals. Can we suppose it is consistent with the wisdom of the Almighty to commit himself and his will to man upon such precarious means as these; or that it is consistent we should pin our faith upon such uncertainties? We cannot make nor alter, nor even imitate, so much as one blade of grass that he has made, and yet we can make or alter words of God as easily as words of man. [The former part of the 'Age of Reason' has not been published two years, and there is already an expression in it that is not mine. The expression is: The book of Luke was carried by a majority of one voice only. It may be true, but it is not I that have said it. Some person who might know of that circumstance, has added it in a note at the bottom of the page of some of the editions, printed either in England or in America; and the printers, after that, have erected it into the body of the work, and made me the author of it. If this has happened within such a short space of time, notwithstanding the aid of printing, which prevents the alteration of copies individually, what may not have happened in a much greater length of time, when there was no printing, and when any man who could write could make a written copy and call it an original by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?—Author.]
When the books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John first appeared is completely uncertain. There's no evidence of who actually wrote them or when they were written; they could have just as easily been named after any other supposed apostles. No Christian Church has the original manuscripts, just like the two stone tablets that are said to have been written by the finger of God on Mount Sinai and given to Moses are not owned by the Jews. And even if they were, there's no way to prove the handwriting in either case. At the time those four books were written, there was no printing, so the only way to share them was through written copies, which anyone could create or change as they wished, and claim to be the originals. Can we really believe it makes sense for the Almighty to trust His will to such unreliable methods, or that it is reasonable for us to base our faith on such uncertainties? We can't create or change, or even imitate, a single blade of grass that He made, yet we can alter the words of God just as easily as we can change the words of man. [The earlier part of the 'Age of Reason' hasn't been out for two years, and there's already a phrase in it that isn't mine. That phrase is: The book of Luke was carried by a majority of one voice only. It might be true, but I didn’t say it. Someone who knew about that detail added it in a footnote at the bottom of some editions, printed in either England or America; and afterward, the printers incorporated it into the main text, making me its author. If this can happen in such a short time, even with printing helping keep copies accurate, what could have happened over a much longer period, when there was no printing and anyone who could write could create a copy and label it an original by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?—Author.]
[The spurious addition to Paine's work alluded to in his footnote drew on him a severe criticism from Dr. Priestley ("Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever," p. 75), yet it seems to have been Priestley himself who, in his quotation, first incorporated into Paine's text the footnote added by the editor of the American edition (1794). The American added: "Vide Moshiem's (sic) Ecc. History," which Priestley omits. In a modern American edition I notice four verbal alterations introduced into the above footnote.—Editor.]
[The false addition to Paine's work mentioned in his footnote led to harsh criticism from Dr. Priestley ("Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever," p. 75), but it appears that Priestley himself was the one who first included the editor's added footnote in Paine's text in his quotation (1794). The American edition added: "See Moshiem's Ecc. History," which Priestley left out. In a modern American edition, I notice four wording changes made to the above footnote.—Editor.]
About three hundred and fifty years after the time that Christ is said to have lived, several writings of the kind I am speaking of were scattered in the hands of divers individuals; and as the church had begun to form itself into an hierarchy, or church government, with temporal powers, it set itself about collecting them into a code, as we now see them, called 'The New Testament.' They decided by vote, as I have before said in the former part of the Age of Reason, which of those writings, out of the collection they had made, should be the word of God, and which should not. The Robbins of the Jews had decided, by vote, upon the books of the Bible before.
About three hundred and fifty years after the time that Christ is said to have lived, several writings like the ones I'm talking about were spread among various individuals. As the church started to organize itself into a hierarchy, or church government, with secular powers, it began to collect these writings into a code that we now refer to as 'The New Testament.' They voted on which of the writings from their collection would be considered the word of God and which would not, as I mentioned earlier in the Age of Reason. The Jewish rabbis had previously voted on the books of the Bible.
As the object of the church, as is the case in all national establishments of churches, was power and revenue, and terror the means it used, it is consistent to suppose that the most miraculous and wonderful of the writings they had collected stood the best chance of being voted. And as to the authenticity of the books, the vote stands in the place of it; for it can be traced no higher.
Since the church's aim, like that of all national churches, was power and profit, using fear as a tactic, it's reasonable to think that the most miraculous and incredible of the writings they gathered had the best chance of being approved. And regarding the authenticity of the books, the vote serves as a substitute for it, as it can't be traced any further up.
Disputes, however, ran high among the people then calling themselves Christians, not only as to points of doctrine, but as to the authenticity of the books. In the contest between the person called St. Augustine, and Fauste, about the year 400, the latter says, "The books called the Evangelists have been composed long after the times of the apostles, by some obscure men, who, fearing that the world would not give credit to their relation of matters of which they could not be informed, have published them under the names of the apostles; and which are so full of sottishness and discordant relations, that there is neither agreement nor connection between them."
Disputes were intense among the people who identified as Christians, not just over doctrinal issues but also over the authenticity of the texts. During the debate between a figure known as St. Augustine and Faustus around the year 400, Faustus stated, "The books known as the Gospels were written long after the apostles' time by some unknown individuals who, fearing that the world wouldn’t believe their accounts of events they couldn't verify, published them under the apostles' names. These books are so filled with foolishness and conflicting stories that there is no agreement or connection among them."
And in another place, addressing himself to the advocates of those books, as being the word of God, he says, "It is thus that your predecessors have inserted in the scriptures of our Lord many things which, though they carry his name, agree not with his doctrine." This is not surprising, since that we have often proved that these things have not been written by himself, nor by his apostles, but that for the greatest part they are founded upon tales, upon vague reports, and put together by I know not what half-Jews, with but little agreement between them; and which they have nevertheless published under the name of the apostles of our Lord, and have thus attributed to them their own errors and their lies. [I have taken these two extracts from Boulanger's Life of Paul, written in French; Boulanger has quoted them from the writings of Augustine against Fauste, to which he refers.—Author.]
And in another place, addressing the supporters of those books as the word of God, he says, "This is how your predecessors added many things to the scriptures of our Lord that, while they bear his name, don’t align with his teachings." This is not surprising, since we have often shown that these things weren't written by him or his apostles, but mostly based on stories, vague accounts, and compiled by I don't know who half-Jews, with very little consistency among them; yet they have published these under the name of the apostles of our Lord, attributing to them their own mistakes and lies. [I have taken these two extracts from Boulanger's Life of Paul, written in French; Boulanger has quoted them from the writings of Augustine against Fauste, to which he refers.—Author.]
This Bishop Faustus is usually styled "The Manichaeum," Augustine having entitled his book, Contra Frustum Manichaeum Libri xxxiii., in which nearly the whole of Faustus' very able work is quoted.—Editor.]
This Bishop Faustus is often called "The Manichaean," as Augustine named his book, Contra Frustum Manichaeum Libri xxxiii., in which almost all of Faustus' highly skilled work is referenced.—Editor.]
The reader will see by those extracts that the authenticity of the books of the New Testament was denied, and the books treated as tales, forgeries, and lies, at the time they were voted to be the word of God. But the interest of the church, with the assistance of the faggot, bore down the opposition, and at last suppressed all investigation. Miracles followed upon miracles, if we will believe them, and men were taught to say they believed whether they believed or not. But (by way of throwing in a thought) the French Revolution has excommunicated the church from the power of working miracles; she has not been able, with the assistance of all her saints, to work one miracle since the revolution began; and as she never stood in greater need than now, we may, without the aid of divination, conclude that all her former miracles are tricks and lies. [Boulanger in his life of Paul, has collected from the ecclesiastical histories, and the writings of the fathers as they are called, several matters which show the opinions that prevailed among the different sects of Christians, at the time the Testament, as we now see it, was voted to be the word of God. The following extracts are from the second chapter of that work:
The reader will see from those excerpts that the authenticity of the New Testament books was challenged, and they were treated as stories, forgeries, and lies at the time they were declared to be the word of God. However, the church's interests, along with the threat of violence, overwhelmed the opposition and eventually silenced all inquiry. Miracles followed miracles, if we choose to believe them, and people were encouraged to claim belief regardless of their true feelings. But (just to introduce a thought), the French Revolution has cut the church off from its ability to perform miracles; it hasn’t been able to produce a single miracle since the revolution started, even with the help of all its saints, and since it has never needed miracles more than now, we can, without needing any special insight, conclude that all its earlier miracles were just tricks and lies. [Boulanger, in his life of Paul, has gathered from ecclesiastical histories and writings of the so-called fathers, several points that illustrate the beliefs that were common among different Christian sects at the time the Testament, as we see it now, was affirmed to be God’s word. The following excerpts are from the second chapter of that work: ]
[The Marcionists (a Christian sect) asserted that the evangelists were filled with falsities. The Manichaeans, who formed a very numerous sect at the commencement of Christianity, rejected as false all the New Testament, and showed other writings quite different that they gave for authentic. The Corinthians, like the Marcionists, admitted not the Acts of the Apostles. The Encratites and the Sevenians adopted neither the Acts, nor the Epistles of Paul. Chrysostom, in a homily which he made upon the Acts of the Apostles, says that in his time, about the year 400, many people knew nothing either of the author or of the book. St. Irene, who lived before that time, reports that the Valentinians, like several other sects of the Christians, accused the scriptures of being filled with imperfections, errors, and contradictions. The Ebionites, or Nazarenes, who were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles of Paul, and regarded him as an impostor. They report, among other things, that he was originally a Pagan; that he came to Jerusalem, where he lived some time; and that having a mind to marry the daughter of the high priest, he had himself been circumcised; but that not being able to obtain her, he quarrelled with the Jews and wrote against circumcision, and against the observation of the Sabbath, and against all the legal ordinances.—Author.] [Much abridged from the Exam. Crit. de la Vie de St. Paul, by N.A. Boulanger, 1770.—Editor.]
[The Marcionists (a Christian sect) claimed that the evangelists were full of falsehoods. The Manichaeans, who were a large sect at the start of Christianity, dismissed the entire New Testament as false and presented other writings they claimed were authentic. The Corinthians, like the Marcionists, did not accept the Acts of the Apostles. The Encratites and the Sevenians also rejected both the Acts and Paul’s Epistles. Chrysostom, in a sermon he gave on the Acts of the Apostles, stated that in his time, around the year 400, many people were unaware of both the author and the book. St. Irene, who lived before that period, reported that the Valentinians, like several other Christian sects, criticized the scriptures for being filled with flaws, errors, and contradictions. The Ebionites, or Nazarenes, who were among the first Christians, rejected all of Paul’s Epistles and considered him a fraud. They claimed, among other things, that he was originally a Pagan; that he came to Jerusalem, where he lived for a while; and that after wanting to marry the high priest’s daughter, he got himself circumcised; but after failing to win her, he fell out with the Jews and wrote against circumcision, the Sabbath, and all the legal ordinances.—Author.] [Much abridged from the Exam. Crit. de la Vie de St. Paul, by N.A. Boulanger, 1770.—Editor.]
When we consider the lapse of more than three hundred years intervening between the time that Christ is said to have lived and the time the New Testament was formed into a book, we must see, even without the assistance of historical evidence, the exceeding uncertainty there is of its authenticity. The authenticity of the book of Homer, so far as regards the authorship, is much better established than that of the New Testament, though Homer is a thousand years the most ancient. It was only an exceeding good poet that could have written the book of Homer, and, therefore, few men only could have attempted it; and a man capable of doing it would not have thrown away his own fame by giving it to another. In like manner, there were but few that could have composed Euclid's Elements, because none but an exceeding good geometrician could have been the author of that work.
When we think about the gap of more than three hundred years between the time Christ supposedly lived and when the New Testament was compiled into a book, it's clear, even without historical evidence, how uncertain its authenticity is. The authorship of Homer's works is much more securely established than that of the New Testament, even though Homer is a thousand years older. Only an exceptional poet could have written Homer’s book, so very few people could have attempted it; anyone capable of doing so wouldn’t have wasted their own reputation by giving it to someone else. Similarly, only a handful could have created Euclid's Elements because only someone with great skill in geometry could have authored that work.
But with respect to the books of the New Testament, particularly such parts as tell us of the resurrection and ascension of Christ, any person who could tell a story of an apparition, or of a man's walking, could have made such books; for the story is most wretchedly told. The chance, therefore, of forgery in the Testament is millions to one greater than in the case of Homer or Euclid. Of the numerous priests or parsons of the present day, bishops and all, every one of them can make a sermon, or translate a scrap of Latin, especially if it has been translated a thousand times before; but is there any amongst them that can write poetry like Homer, or science like Euclid? The sum total of a parson's learning, with very few exceptions, is a, b, ab, and hic, haec, hoc; and their knowledge of science is, three times one is three; and this is more than sufficient to have enabled them, had they lived at the time, to have written all the books of the New Testament.
But regarding the books of the New Testament, especially the parts that talk about Christ's resurrection and ascension, anyone who could tell a ghost story or describe a man walking could have written those books; the storytelling is really poorly done. Therefore, the chance of forgery in the Testament is millions to one greater than that of Homer or Euclid. Nowadays, all the numerous priests, ministers, bishops, and so on can create a sermon or translate a piece of Latin, especially if it’s been translated a thousand times before; but is there any among them who can write poetry like Homer or create science like Euclid? The total knowledge of a minister, with very few exceptions, is just a, b, ab, and hic, haec, hoc; and their understanding of science is simply that three times one equals three; and that’s more than enough to have allowed them, had they lived back then, to write all the books of the New Testament.
As the opportunities of forgery were greater, so also was the inducement. A man could gain no advantage by writing under the name of Homer or Euclid; if he could write equal to them, it would be better that he wrote under his own name; if inferior, he could not succeed. Pride would prevent the former, and impossibility the latter. But with respect to such books as compose the New Testament, all the inducements were on the side of forgery. The best imagined history that could have been made, at the distance of two or three hundred years after the time, could not have passed for an original under the name of the real writer; the only chance of success lay in forgery; for the church wanted pretence for its new doctrine, and truth and talents were out of the question.
As the chances for forgery increased, so did the temptation. A person wouldn't gain anything by writing under the name of Homer or Euclid; if he could write as well as they did, it would be better to use his own name, and if he wrote worse, he wouldn't succeed. Pride would prevent the first scenario, and the second would simply be impossible. However, for books like those in the New Testament, all the motivations favored forgery. The best-crafted history created two or three hundred years later couldn't pass as original under the real author's name; the only way to succeed was through forgery because the church needed a justification for its new doctrine, and neither truth nor skill was a consideration.
But as it is not uncommon (as before observed) to relate stories of persons walking after they are dead, and of ghosts and apparitions of such as have fallen by some violent or extraordinary means; and as the people of that day were in the habit of believing such things, and of the appearance of angels, and also of devils, and of their getting into people's insides, and shaking them like a fit of an ague, and of their being cast out again as if by an emetic—(Mary Magdalene, the book of Mark tells us had brought up, or been brought to bed of seven devils;) it was nothing extraordinary that some story of this kind should get abroad of the person called Jesus Christ, and become afterwards the foundation of the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each writer told a tale as he heard it, or thereabouts, and gave to his book the name of the saint or the apostle whom tradition had given as the eye-witness. It is only upon this ground that the contradictions in those books can be accounted for; and if this be not the case, they are downright impositions, lies, and forgeries, without even the apology of credulity.
But as it’s not unusual (as mentioned earlier) to tell stories about people walking around after they’ve died, along with ghosts and apparitions of those who have died in violent or extraordinary ways; and since the people of that time believed in such things, including the appearance of angels and devils, who would get into people’s insides and shake them like a fit of fever, and then be expelled as if through a purgative—(the book of Mark tells us Mary Magdalene had been possessed by seven devils); it was not surprising that some story like this should spread about the person known as Jesus Christ and later become the basis of the four books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each writer recounted a story as he heard it, or something close, and named his book after the saint or apostle who was traditionally considered an eyewitness. It is only on this basis that the contradictions in those books can be explained; and if this isn’t the case, then they are outright deceptions, lies, and forgeries, without even the excuse of being easily misled.
That they have been written by a sort of half Jews, as the foregoing quotations mention, is discernible enough. The frequent references made to that chief assassin and impostor Moses, and to the men called prophets, establishes this point; and, on the other hand, the church has complimented the fraud, by admitting the Bible and the Testament to reply to each other. Between the Christian-Jew and the Christian-Gentile, the thing called a prophecy, and the thing prophesied of, the type and the thing typified, the sign and the thing signified, have been industriously rummaged up, and fitted together like old locks and pick-lock keys. The story foolishly enough told of Eve and the serpent, and naturally enough as to the enmity between men and serpents (for the serpent always bites about the heel, because it cannot reach higher, and the man always knocks the serpent about the head, as the most effectual way to prevent its biting;) ["It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen. iii. 15.—Author.] this foolish story, I say, has been made into a prophecy, a type, and a promise to begin with; and the lying imposition of Isaiah to Ahaz, 'That a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,' as a sign that Ahaz should conquer, when the event was that he was defeated (as already noticed in the observations on the book of Isaiah), has been perverted, and made to serve as a winder up.
That they were written by a group of half-Jews, as mentioned in the earlier quotes, is pretty obvious. The frequent references to that main assassin and fraud, Moses, and to the guys called prophets, makes this clear. On the flip side, the church has played along with the deception by allowing the Bible and the Testament to respond to each other. Between the Christian-Jew and the Christian-Gentile, the concept of prophecy, the things being prophesied, the type and what it represents, the sign and what it signifies, have been rummaged through and pieced together like mismatched locks and keys. The ridiculous story told about Eve and the serpent, which naturally explains the hostility between men and snakes (since the snake always bites the heel because it can’t reach higher, and the man always hits the snake on the head as the best way to stop it from biting); ["It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen. iii. 15.—Author.] this silly story, I say, has been turned into a prophecy, a type, and a promise from the start; and the deceitful claim of Isaiah to Ahaz, that 'a virgin shall conceive and bear a son' as a sign that Ahaz would triumph, when in reality he was defeated (as already discussed in the observations on the book of Isaiah), has been twisted to serve as a conclusion.
Jonah and the whale are also made into a sign and type. Jonah is Jesus, and the whale is the grave; for it is said, (and they have made Christ to say it of himself, Matt. xii. 40), "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." But it happens, awkwardly enough, that Christ, according to their own account, was but one day and two nights in the grave; about 36 hours instead of 72; that is, the Friday night, the Saturday, and the Saturday night; for they say he was up on the Sunday morning by sunrise, or before. But as this fits quite as well as the bite and the kick in Genesis, or the virgin and her son in Isaiah, it will pass in the lump of orthodox things.—Thus much for the historical part of the Testament and its evidences.
Jonah and the whale are also seen as symbols. Jonah represents Jesus, and the whale symbolizes the grave; as it is stated (and they've attributed this to Christ himself, Matt. xii. 40), "For just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." However, it’s somewhat awkward that, according to their own account, Christ was in the grave for only one day and two nights—around 36 hours instead of the 72 hours mentioned; specifically, Friday night, Saturday, and Saturday night; because they say he rose on Sunday morning at sunrise or before. But since this fits just as well as the bite and the kick in Genesis, or the virgin and her son in Isaiah, it will be accepted as part of orthodox beliefs. —This concludes the historical aspect of the Testament and its evidence.
Epistles of Paul—The epistles ascribed to Paul, being fourteen in number, almost fill up the remaining part of the Testament. Whether those epistles were written by the person to whom they are ascribed is a matter of no great importance, since that the writer, whoever he was, attempts to prove his doctrine by argument. He does not pretend to have been witness to any of the scenes told of the resurrection and the ascension; and he declares that he had not believed them.
Epistles of Paul—The letters attributed to Paul, totaling fourteen, almost complete the rest of the Testament. Whether these letters were actually written by the person they’re attributed to isn't very significant, since the writer, whoever they may be, tries to support their beliefs through reasoning. They don’t claim to have witnessed any of the events related to the resurrection or the ascension, and they admit to having been skeptical about them.
The story of his being struck to the ground as he was journeying to Damascus, has nothing in it miraculous or extraordinary; he escaped with life, and that is more than many others have done, who have been struck with lightning; and that he should lose his sight for three days, and be unable to eat or drink during that time, is nothing more than is common in such conditions. His companions that were with him appear not to have suffered in the same manner, for they were well enough to lead him the remainder of the journey; neither did they pretend to have seen any vision.
The story of him falling to the ground while traveling to Damascus isn’t particularly miraculous or extraordinary; he survived, which is more than many others have done when struck by lightning. The fact that he lost his sight for three days and couldn’t eat or drink during that time is nothing out of the ordinary in such situations. His companions who were with him didn’t seem to suffer the same way; they were fine enough to help him finish the journey, and they didn’t claim to have seen any vision.
The character of the person called Paul, according to the accounts given of him, has in it a great deal of violence and fanaticism; he had persecuted with as much heat as he preached afterwards; the stroke he had received had changed his thinking, without altering his constitution; and either as a Jew or a Christian he was the same zealot. Such men are never good moral evidences of any doctrine they preach. They are always in extremes, as well of action as of belief.
The character of a person named Paul, based on the accounts about him, displays a lot of aggression and fanaticism; he had persecuted with as much intensity as he later preached. The experience he went through changed his perspective, but not his nature; whether as a Jew or a Christian, he remained the same fanatic. People like him are never reliable moral examples of any doctrine they promote. They always operate in extremes, both in their actions and their beliefs.
The doctrine he sets out to prove by argument, is the resurrection of the same body: and he advances this as an evidence of immortality. But so much will men differ in their manner of thinking, and in the conclusions they draw from the same premises, that this doctrine of the resurrection of the same body, so far from being an evidence of immortality, appears to me to be an evidence against it; for if I have already died in this body, and am raised again in the same body in which I have died, it is presumptive evidence that I shall die again. That resurrection no more secures me against the repetition of dying, than an ague-fit, when past, secures me against another. To believe therefore in immortality, I must have a more elevated idea than is contained in the gloomy doctrine of the resurrection.
The argument he tries to prove is that the same body will be resurrected, and he presents this as evidence of immortality. However, people will have different ways of thinking and will come to different conclusions based on the same ideas. To me, the idea of the resurrection of the same body doesn’t support immortality; instead, it seems to argue against it. If I've already died in this body and am brought back in the same body in which I died, it suggests that I could die again. That resurrection doesn’t ensure I won’t die again, just like recovering from a fever doesn’t guarantee I won’t get sick again. To believe in immortality, I need a concept that’s more uplifting than the bleak idea of resurrection.
Besides, as a matter of choice, as well as of hope, I had rather have a better body and a more convenient form than the present. Every animal in the creation excels us in something. The winged insects, without mentioning doves or eagles, can pass over more space with greater ease in a few minutes than man can in an hour. The glide of the smallest fish, in proportion to its bulk, exceeds us in motion almost beyond comparison, and without weariness. Even the sluggish snail can ascend from the bottom of a dungeon, where man, by the want of that ability, would perish; and a spider can launch itself from the top, as a playful amusement. The personal powers of man are so limited, and his heavy frame so little constructed to extensive enjoyment, that there is nothing to induce us to wish the opinion of Paul to be true. It is too little for the magnitude of the scene, too mean for the sublimity of the subject.
Besides, when it comes to choice and hope, I would prefer to have a better body and a more convenient form than I currently do. Every animal in existence has some advantage over us. Winged insects, not to mention doves or eagles, can cover more distance with greater ease in just a few minutes than a human can in an hour. The movement of the smallest fish, relative to its size, surpasses ours almost beyond comparison and does so without getting tired. Even the slow snail can climb up from the bottom of a dungeon, a feat that would spell doom for a human lacking that ability; and a spider can drop down from above just for fun. Human capabilities are so limited, and our heavy bodies are not really designed for extensive enjoyment, that there’s nothing that makes us want to believe Paul’s opinion is correct. It’s too insignificant for the vastness of the scene and too trivial for the grandeur of the topic.
But all other arguments apart, the consciousness of existence is the only conceivable idea we can have of another life, and the continuance of that consciousness is immortality. The consciousness of existence, or the knowing that we exist, is not necessarily confined to the same form, nor to the same matter, even in this life.
But putting all other arguments aside, the awareness of our existence is the only idea we can really have of another life, and the continuation of that awareness is what we call immortality. The awareness of existence, or the realization that we are here, is not limited to the same form or the same matter, even in this life.
We have not in all cases the same form, nor in any case the same matter, that composed our bodies twenty or thirty years ago; and yet we are conscious of being the same persons. Even legs and arms, which make up almost half the human frame, are not necessary to the consciousness of existence. These may be lost or taken away and the full consciousness of existence remain; and were their place supplied by wings, or other appendages, we cannot conceive that it could alter our consciousness of existence. In short, we know not how much, or rather how little, of our composition it is, and how exquisitely fine that little is, that creates in us this consciousness of existence; and all beyond that is like the pulp of a peach, distinct and separate from the vegetative speck in the kernel.
We don't have the same physical form, nor do we have the same substance that made up our bodies twenty or thirty years ago; yet we still feel like the same people. Even our legs and arms, which make up almost half of the human body, aren't essential for our awareness of being alive. We could lose them or have them removed, and we would still fully experience our existence; if they were replaced with wings or something else, it's hard to believe that it would change our awareness of existence. In short, we have no idea how much, or rather how little, of what makes us up contributes to this sense of being alive, and everything beyond that is like the flesh of a peach, distinct and separate from the tiny vegetative speck inside the pit.
Who can say by what exceeding fine action of fine matter it is that a thought is produced in what we call the mind? and yet that thought when produced, as I now produce the thought I am writing, is capable of becoming immortal, and is the only production of man that has that capacity.
Who can explain how an amazing action of fine material creates a thought in what we refer to as the mind? Yet, once that thought is created, like the thought I'm currently writing, it can become everlasting, and it's the only creation of humanity that has that ability.
Statues of brass and marble will perish; and statues made in imitation of them are not the same statues, nor the same workmanship, any more than the copy of a picture is the same picture. But print and reprint a thought a thousand times over, and that with materials of any kind, carve it in wood, or engrave it on stone, the thought is eternally and identically the same thought in every case. It has a capacity of unimpaired existence, unaffected by change of matter, and is essentially distinct, and of a nature different from every thing else that we know of, or can conceive. If then the thing produced has in itself a capacity of being immortal, it is more than a token that the power that produced it, which is the self-same thing as consciousness of existence, can be immortal also; and that as independently of the matter it was first connected with, as the thought is of the printing or writing it first appeared in. The one idea is not more difficult to believe than the other; and we can see that one is true.
Bronze and marble statues will fade away; and statues made to look like them aren't the same statues, nor are they made the same way, just like a print of a painting isn't the same as the original. But if you print and reprint a thought a thousand times, using any materials, carve it into wood, or engrave it on stone, the thought remains eternally and identically the same in every case. It has an unchanging existence, unaffected by the materials it's made from, and is fundamentally distinct and different from everything else we know or can imagine. If the thing created has the potential to be immortal, it suggests that the power that created it, which is the same as the awareness of existence, can also be immortal; and that is independent of the matter it was first connected with, just like the thought is independent of the writing or printing it first appeared in. One idea is no harder to believe than the other; and we can see that one is true.
That the consciousness of existence is not dependent on the same form or the same matter, is demonstrated to our senses in the works of the creation, as far as our senses are capable of receiving that demonstration. A very numerous part of the animal creation preaches to us, far better than Paul, the belief of a life hereafter. Their little life resembles an earth and a heaven, a present and a future state; and comprises, if it may be so expressed, immortality in miniature.
That the awareness of existence doesn't rely on the same form or matter is shown to us through the creations around us, as much as we can perceive. A large number of animals teach us, even more effectively than Paul, the idea of an afterlife. Their brief lives reflect a world and a paradise, a present and a future, and represent, if I may put it this way, a little version of immortality.
The most beautiful parts of the creation to our eye are the winged insects, and they are not so originally. They acquire that form and that inimitable brilliancy by progressive changes. The slow and creeping caterpillar worm of to day, passes in a few days to a torpid figure, and a state resembling death; and in the next change comes forth in all the miniature magnificence of life, a splendid butterfly. No resemblance of the former creature remains; every thing is changed; all his powers are new, and life is to him another thing. We cannot conceive that the consciousness of existence is not the same in this state of the animal as before; why then must I believe that the resurrection of the same body is necessary to continue to me the consciousness of existence hereafter?
The most beautiful parts of nature to our eyes are the winged insects, but they don't start out that way. They gain that form and unique brilliance through gradual changes. The slow, crawling caterpillar of today transforms into a dormant figure that looks almost dead, and then in its next stage, it emerges in all the miniature splendor of life as a stunning butterfly. There’s no trace of the former creature left; everything has changed. All its abilities are new, and life feels completely different to it. We can't imagine that the awareness of being alive is not the same in this state as it was before; so why should I believe that the resurrection of the same body is necessary for me to continue my awareness of existence in the future?
In the former part of 'The Agee of Reason.' I have called the creation the true and only real word of God; and this instance, or this text, in the book of creation, not only shows to us that this thing may be so, but that it is so; and that the belief of a future state is a rational belief, founded upon facts visible in the creation: for it is not more difficult to believe that we shall exist hereafter in a better state and form than at present, than that a worm should become a butterfly, and quit the dunghill for the atmosphere, if we did not know it as a fact.
In the earlier part of 'The Age of Reason,' I've described creation as the true and only real word of God. This example, or this passage, in the book of creation not only shows us that this could be true but that it actually is true; and the belief in an afterlife is a rational belief based on facts we see in creation. It's no harder to believe that we will exist in a better state and form in the future than it is to believe that a worm can transform into a butterfly and rise from the dirt to the sky, if we didn't already know it to be a fact.
As to the doubtful jargon ascribed to Paul in 1 Corinthians xv., which makes part of the burial service of some Christian sectaries, it is as destitute of meaning as the tolling of a bell at the funeral; it explains nothing to the understanding, it illustrates nothing to the imagination, but leaves the reader to find any meaning if he can. "All flesh," says he, "is not the same flesh. There is one flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." And what then? nothing. A cook could have said as much. "There are also," says he, "bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial; the glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is the other." And what then? nothing. And what is the difference? nothing that he has told. "There is," says he, "one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars." And what then? nothing; except that he says that one star differeth from another star in glory, instead of distance; and he might as well have told us that the moon did not shine so bright as the sun. All this is nothing better than the jargon of a conjuror, who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told. Priests and conjurors are of the same trade.
Regarding the confusing language attributed to Paul in 1 Corinthians xv., which is part of the burial service for some Christian groups, it lacks meaning just like the tolling of a bell at a funeral; it doesn't clarify anything for the reader, nor does it paint any vivid images in the mind, leaving them to decipher any significance if they can. "Not all flesh is the same flesh," he says, "There is one kind of flesh for humans, another for animals, another for fish, and another for birds." And what does that mean? Nothing. A chef could have said the same. "There are also," he adds, "celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; the glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another." And what follows? Nothing. And what’s the distinction? Nothing that he explains. "There is," he continues, "one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars." And what’s the significance? Nothing; except he claims that one star differs from another in glory, not distance; he might as well have said the moon isn’t as bright as the sun. All of this is no better than the gibberish of a magician, who uses phrases he doesn't comprehend to baffle gullible people seeking to know their future. Priests and magicians are in the same line of work.
Sometimes Paul affects to be a naturalist, and to prove his system of resurrection from the principles of vegetation. "Thou fool" says he, "that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die." To which one might reply in his own language, and say, Thou fool, Paul, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die not; for the grain that dies in the ground never does, nor can vegetate. It is only the living grains that produce the next crop. But the metaphor, in any point of view, is no simile. It is succession, and [not] resurrection.
Sometimes Paul pretends to be a naturalist and tries to explain his idea of resurrection using principles of plant growth. “You fool,” he says, “what you sow does not come to life unless it dies.” To which one could respond in his own words, “You fool, Paul, what you sow does not come to life unless it doesn’t die; for the grain that dies in the ground never does—nor can it—grow. Only the living grains produce the next crop. But the metaphor, from any angle, is not a comparison. It’s about succession, not resurrection.”
The progress of an animal from one state of being to another, as from a worm to a butterfly, applies to the case; but this of a grain does not, and shows Paul to have been what he says of others, a fool.
The evolution of an animal from one stage to another, like from a worm to a butterfly, fits this situation; however, that of a grain does not, and reveals Paul to be what he claims others are: a fool.
Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him or not, is a matter of indifference; they are either argumentative or dogmatical; and as the argument is defective, and the dogmatical part is merely presumptive, it signifies not who wrote them. And the same may be said for the remaining parts of the Testament. It is not upon the Epistles, but upon what is called the Gospel, contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and upon the pretended prophecies, that the theory of the church, calling itself the Christian Church, is founded. The Epistles are dependant upon those, and must follow their fate; for if the story of Jesus Christ be fabulous, all reasoning founded upon it, as a supposed truth, must fall with it.
Whether or not the fourteen letters attributed to Paul were actually written by him is irrelevant; they are either argumentative or dogmatic. Since the argument is weak and the dogmatic sections are just assumptions, it doesn't matter who wrote them. The same applies to the other parts of the Testament. It's not about the Epistles, but about what is referred to as the Gospel, found in the four books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, along with the so-called prophecies, that the theory of the church, calling itself the Christian Church, is based on. The Epistles depend on those and must share their fate; for if the story of Jesus Christ is fictional, then all reasoning based on it, assumed to be true, must collapse along with it.
We know from history, that one of the principal leaders of this church, Athanasius, lived at the time the New Testament was formed; [Athanasius died, according to the Church chronology, in the year 371—Author.] and we know also, from the absurd jargon he has left us under the name of a creed, the character of the men who formed the New Testament; and we know also from the same history that the authenticity of the books of which it is composed was denied at the time. It was upon the vote of such as Athanasius that the Testament was decreed to be the word of God; and nothing can present to us a more strange idea than that of decreeing the word of God by vote. Those who rest their faith upon such authority put man in the place of God, and have no true foundation for future happiness. Credulity, however, is not a crime, but it becomes criminal by resisting conviction. It is strangling in the womb of the conscience the efforts it makes to ascertain truth. We should never force belief upon ourselves in any thing.
We know from history that one of the main leaders of this church, Athanasius, lived at the time the New Testament was created; [Athanasius died, according to the Church chronology, in the year 371—Author.] and we also see from the nonsensical jargon he left us under the name of a creed what the character of the men who formed the New Testament was like. Additionally, we know from the same history that the authenticity of the books that make it up was questioned at that time. It was based on the vote of people like Athanasius that the Testament was declared to be the word of God; and nothing seems stranger than deciding the word of God by vote. Those who place their faith in such authority put man in the position of God and lack a true foundation for future happiness. However, gullibility isn't a crime, but it becomes wrong when it goes against conviction. It suffocates the efforts of the conscience to seek out the truth. We should never force ourselves to believe anything.
I here close the subject on the Old Testament and the New. The evidence I have produced to prove them forgeries, is extracted from the books themselves, and acts, like a two-edge sword, either way. If the evidence be denied, the authenticity of the Scriptures is denied with it, for it is Scripture evidence: and if the evidence be admitted, the authenticity of the books is disproved. The contradictory impossibilities, contained in the Old Testament and the New, put them in the case of a man who swears for and against. Either evidence convicts him of perjury, and equally destroys reputation.
I’ll wrap up the discussion on the Old Testament and the New. The evidence I’ve presented to demonstrate that they are forgeries comes directly from the texts themselves and acts like a double-edged sword. If the evidence is rejected, it also challenges the authenticity of the Scriptures, since it’s scriptural evidence. Conversely, if the evidence is accepted, it undermines the authenticity of the books. The contradictory impossibilities found in both the Old Testament and the New put them in the situation of a person who swears both for and against themselves. Either piece of evidence proves them guilty of perjury and damages their reputation equally.
Should the Bible and the Testament hereafter fall, it is not that I have done it. I have done no more than extracted the evidence from the confused mass of matters with which it is mixed, and arranged that evidence in a point of light to be clearly seen and easily comprehended; and, having done this, I leave the reader to judge for himself, as I have judged for myself.
Should the Bible and the Testament ultimately fail, it's not because of my actions. I've merely taken the evidence from the chaotic mix of topics surrounding it and organized that evidence in a way that makes it clear and easy to understand; having done this, I allow the reader to form their own opinion, just as I have formed mine.
CHAPTER III - CONCLUSION
IN the former part of 'The Age of Reason' I have spoken of the three frauds, mystery, miracle, and Prophecy; and as I have seen nothing in any of the answers to that work that in the least affects what I have there said upon those subjects, I shall not encumber this Second Part with additions that are not necessary.
IN the earlier part of 'The Age of Reason,' I discussed the three deceptions: mystery, miracle, and prophecy. Since I haven't found anything in the responses to that work that even slightly challenges my points on those topics, I won’t clutter this Second Part with unnecessary additions.
I have spoken also in the same work upon what is celled revelation, and have shown the absurd misapplication of that term to the books of the Old Testament and the New; for certainly revelation is out of the question in reciting any thing of which man has been the actor or the witness. That which man has done or seen, needs no revelation to tell him he has done it, or seen it—for he knows it already—nor to enable him to tell it or to write it. It is ignorance, or imposition, to apply the term revelation in such cases; yet the Bible and Testament are classed under this fraudulent description of being all revelation.
I have also discussed in the same work what is called revelation and have pointed out the ridiculous misuse of that term regarding the books of the Old Testament and the New. Certainly, revelation doesn’t apply when recounting anything that a person has acted in or witnessed. What someone has done or seen doesn’t need a revelation to tell them they have done it or seen it—because they already know it—nor does it require a revelation to enable them to describe or write about it. It is either ignorance or deceit to use the word revelation in such contexts; yet, the Bible and Testament are categorized under this misleading label of being entirely revelation.
Revelation then, so far as the term has relation between God and man, can only be applied to something which God reveals of his will to man; but though the power of the Almighty to make such a communication is necessarily admitted, because to that power all things are possible, yet, the thing so revealed (if any thing ever was revealed, and which, by the bye, it is impossible to prove) is revelation to the person only to whom it is made. His account of it to another is not revelation; and whoever puts faith in that account, puts it in the man from whom the account comes; and that man may have been deceived, or may have dreamed it; or he may be an impostor and may lie. There is no possible criterion whereby to judge of the truth of what he tells; for even the morality of it would be no proof of revelation. In all such cases, the proper answer should be, "When it is revealed to me, I will believe it to be revelation; but it is not and cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it to be revelation before; neither is it proper that I should take the word of man as the word of God, and put man in the place of God." This is the manner in which I have spoken of revelation in the former part of The Age of Reason; and which, whilst it reverentially admits revelation as a possible thing, because, as before said, to the Almighty all things are possible, it prevents the imposition of one man upon another, and precludes the wicked use of pretended revelation.
Revelation, in terms of the relationship between God and humans, can only refer to something that God reveals about His will to people. While we must acknowledge that the Almighty has the power to make such revelations—since all things are possible for Him—the revelation itself is only for the individual to whom it is given. Their report of it to someone else isn’t considered a revelation; anyone who believes that account is placing their faith in the person who shared it, who may be mistaken, have imagined it, or even be intentionally lying. There’s no reliable way to assess the truth of their claims, as even the ethics of the information wouldn’t validate it as a revelation. In these situations, the appropriate response should be, "When it is revealed to me, I will accept it as revelation; but I’m not obligated to believe it as such beforehand. It’s not right for me to accept a person’s word as God’s word or to place a person in God's position." This is how I've discussed revelation in the earlier sections of The Age of Reason; it allows for the possibility of revelation while preventing one person from exploiting another and stopping the malicious use of false revelations.
But though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility of revelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate any thing to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are capable of receiving, otherwise than by the universal display of himself in the works of the creation, and by that repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and disposition to good ones. [A fair parallel of the then unknown aphorism of Kant: "Two things fill the soul with wonder and reverence, increasing evermore as I meditate more closely upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me." (Kritik derpraktischen Vernunfe, 1788). Kant's religious utterances at the beginning of the French Revolution brought on him a royal mandate of silence, because he had worked out from "the moral law within" a principle of human equality precisely similar to that which Paine had derived from his Quaker doctrine of the "inner light" of every man. About the same time Paine's writings were suppressed in England. Paine did not understand German, but Kant, though always independent in the formation of his opinions, was evidently well acquainted with the literature of the Revolution, in America, England, and France.—Editor.]
But while I acknowledge the possibility of revelation, I completely disbelieve that the Almighty has ever communicated anything to humanity through any form of speech, any language, or by any kind of vision, appearance, or any means our senses can perceive, other than through the universal display of Himself in the works of creation, and in the instinctive aversion we feel towards bad actions, and the inclination towards good ones. [This reflects a similar sentiment to Kant's then-unknown aphorism: "Two things fill the soul with wonder and reverence, increasing evermore as I meditate more closely upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me." (Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, 1788). Kant's religious comments during the early days of the French Revolution led to a royal mandate for silence because he derived a principle of human equality from "the moral law within," which was strikingly similar to Paine's principle based on the Quaker belief in the "inner light" in every person. Around the same time, Paine's writings faced suppression in England. While Paine did not understand German, Kant, though always independent in forming his opinions, was evidently well-versed in the literature of the Revolution in America, England, and France.—Editor.]
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most dishonourable belief against the character of the divinity, the most destructive to morality, and the peace and happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist. It is better, far better, that we admitted, if it were possible, a thousand devils to roam at large, and to preach publicly the doctrine of devils, if there were any such, than that we permitted one such impostor and monster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Bible prophets, to come with the pretended word of God in his mouth, and have credit among us.
The most despicable evil, the most horrific cruelty, and the greatest suffering that has plagued humanity all started with this thing called revelation or revealed religion. It has been the most disgraceful belief against the nature of the divine, the most damaging to morality, and to human peace and happiness, that has ever been spread since the beginning of humanity. It would be far better, in fact, if we allowed a thousand devils to roam freely and publicly preach the doctrine of devils, if such a thing existed, than to let one such fraud and monster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, or the biblical prophets come forward with a supposed word of God on their lips and gain our trust.
Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man? The lies of the Bible have been the cause of the one, and the lies of the Testament [of] the other.
Whence came all the terrible killings of entire nations of men, women, and infants that fill the Bible; and the bloody persecutions, tortures to death, and religious wars that have since left Europe in blood and ashes; where did they come from, if not from this wicked thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has communicated with man? The falsehoods of the Bible have caused one, and the falsehoods of the Testament have caused the other.
Some Christians pretend that Christianity was not established by the sword; but of what period of time do they speak? It was impossible that twelve men could begin with the sword: they had not the power; but no sooner were the professors of Christianity sufficiently powerful to employ the sword than they did so, and the stake and faggot too; and Mahomet could not do it sooner. By the same spirit that Peter cut off the ear of the high priest's servant (if the story be true) he would cut off his head, and the head of his master, had he been able. Besides this, Christianity grounds itself originally upon the [Hebrew] Bible, and the Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it—not to terrify, but to extirpate. The Jews made no converts: they butchered all. The Bible is the sire of the [New] Testament, and both are called the word of God. The Christians read both books; the ministers preach from both books; and this thing called Christianity is made up of both. It is then false to say that Christianity was not established by the sword.
Some Christians like to claim that Christianity wasn't founded through violence, but which time period are they referring to? It was impossible for just twelve men to start it with force; they didn't have the power. However, as soon as the followers of Christianity became strong enough to use violence, they did so, employing torture and execution as well. Muhammad couldn't have acted any sooner. With the same mindset that led Peter to cut off the ear of the high priest's servant (if that story is true), he would have killed him and his master if he had the opportunity. Moreover, Christianity is rooted in the [Hebrew] Bible, which was entirely established through violence—not to intimidate, but to eradicate. The Jews didn’t make converts; they killed everyone. The Bible is the source of the [New] Testament, and both are referred to as the word of God. Christians read both books, and ministers preach from them; thus, what we call Christianity is formed from both. Therefore, it's false to say that Christianity wasn't established by the sword.
The only sect that has not persecuted are the Quakers; and the only reason that can be given for it is, that they are rather Deists than Christians. They do not believe much about Jesus Christ, and they call the scriptures a dead letter. [This is an interesting and correct testimony as to the beliefs of the earlier Quakers, one of whom was Paine's father.—Editor.] Had they called them by a worse name, they had been nearer the truth.
The only group that hasn't persecuted others is the Quakers, and the only reason for this seems to be that they are more Deists than Christians. They don't believe much about Jesus Christ, and they refer to the scriptures as a dead letter. [This is an interesting and accurate account of the beliefs of the early Quakers, one of whom was Paine's father.—Editor.] If they had used a worse term, they would have been closer to the truth.
It is incumbent on every man who reverences the character of the Creator, and who wishes to lessen the catalogue of artificial miseries, and remove the cause that has sown persecutions thick among mankind, to expel all ideas of a revealed religion as a dangerous heresy, and an impious fraud. What is it that we have learned from this pretended thing called revealed religion? Nothing that is useful to man, and every thing that is dishonourable to his Maker. What is it the Bible teaches us?—repine, cruelty, and murder. What is it the Testament teaches us?—to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.
It’s essential for everyone who respects the character of the Creator and wants to reduce the list of unnecessary sufferings, as well as eliminate the reasons that have caused so much persecution among people, to reject all notions of revealed religion as a harmful heresy and an unjust deception. What have we learned from this so-called revealed religion? Nothing that benefits humanity and everything that dishonors its Maker. What does the Bible teach us?—grievance, cruelty, and murder. What does the Testament teach us?—to believe that the Almighty engaged in wrongdoing with a woman who was already pledged to be married; and believing this wrongdoing is called faith.
As to the fragments of morality that are irregularly and thinly scattered in those books, they make no part of this pretended thing, revealed religion. They are the natural dictates of conscience, and the bonds by which society is held together, and without which it cannot exist; and are nearly the same in all religions, and in all societies. The Testament teaches nothing new upon this subject, and where it attempts to exceed, it becomes mean and ridiculous. The doctrine of not retaliating injuries is much better expressed in Proverbs, which is a collection as well from the Gentiles as the Jews, than it is in the Testament. It is there said, (Xxv. 2 I) "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:" [According to what is called Christ's sermon on the mount, in the book of Matthew, where, among some other [and] good things, a great deal of this feigned morality is introduced, it is there expressly said, that the doctrine of forbearance, or of not retaliating injuries, was not any part of the doctrine of the Jews; but as this doctrine is found in "Proverbs," it must, according to that statement, have been copied from the Gentiles, from whom Christ had learned it. Those men whom Jewish and Christian idolators have abusively called heathen, had much better and clearer ideas of justice and morality than are to be found in the Old Testament, so far as it is Jewish, or in the New. The answer of Solon on the question, "Which is the most perfect popular govemment," has never been exceeded by any man since his time, as containing a maxim of political morality, "That," says he, "where the least injury done to the meanest individual, is considered as an insult on the whole constitution." Solon lived about 500 years before Christ.—Author.] but when it is said, as in the Testament, "If a man smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also," it is assassinating the dignity of forbearance, and sinking man into a spaniel.
The bits of morality that are scattered throughout those books don’t really represent what’s called revealed religion. They’re just the natural instincts of conscience and the ties that hold society together; without them, society couldn’t function. These principles are pretty much the same across all religions and cultures. The Testament doesn’t teach anything new in this area, and when it tries to go further, it comes off as petty and absurd. The idea of not retaliating against harm is expressed much better in Proverbs, which includes wisdom from both Gentiles and Jews, than it is in the Testament. It says, "If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink." According to what’s called Christ’s sermon on the mount in Matthew, which includes some other good teachings, it explicitly states that the idea of forbearance, or not retaliating against harm, wasn’t part of Jewish teachings. Since this concept is found in Proverbs, it must have been borrowed from the Gentiles, from whom Christ learned it. The people that Jewish and Christian idolaters have unfairly labeled as heathens had much better and clearer ideas of justice and morality than those found in the Old Testament, at least in its Jewish parts, or in the New Testament. Solon’s response to the question, “What is the most perfect form of popular government?” remains unmatched, containing a principle of political morality: “Where even the slightest injury to the humblest individual is seen as an insult to the entire system.” Solon lived about 500 years before Christ. But when it says in the Testament, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also," it undermines the dignity of forbearance and reduces a person to the level of a dog.
Loving, of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has besides no meaning. It is incumbent on man, as a moralist, that he does not revenge an injury; and it is equally as good in a political sense, for there is no end to retaliation; each retaliates on the other, and calls it justice: but to love in proportion to the injury, if it could be done, would be to offer a premium for a crime. Besides, the word enemies is too vague and general to be used in a moral maxim, which ought always to be clear and defined, like a proverb. If a man be the enemy of another from mistake and prejudice, as in the case of religious opinions, and sometimes in politics, that man is different to an enemy at heart with a criminal intention; and it is incumbent upon us, and it contributes also to our own tranquillity, that we put the best construction upon a thing that it will bear. But even this erroneous motive in him makes no motive for love on the other part; and to say that we can love voluntarily, and without a motive, is morally and physically impossible.
Loving your enemies is just another idea of fake morality and doesn’t really mean anything. As moral beings, we’re expected not to seek revenge for harm done to us; it's also beneficial politically, as there's never an end to revenge—the cycle just continues, with everyone justifying it as justice. However, to love someone in proportion to the harm they’ve caused would effectively reward bad behavior. Plus, the term "enemies" is too vague and broad to serve as a solid moral principle, which should be clear and well-defined, like a proverb. If one person is considered an enemy of another due to misunderstanding or bias, like in matters of religion or sometimes politics, that person is very different from someone who is an enemy with malicious intent. It’s our responsibility—and it also helps us find peace—to interpret things in the most positive light possible. But even that mistaken view from him doesn’t give a reason for love from the other side, and claiming that we can love without any reason is both morally and physically impossible.
Morality is injured by prescribing to it duties that, in the first place, are impossible to be performed, and if they could be would be productive of evil; or, as before said, be premiums for crime. The maxim of doing as we would be done unto does not include this strange doctrine of loving enemies; for no man expects to be loved himself for his crime or for his enmity.
Morality is harmed when we impose duties that are, first of all, impossible to fulfill, and even if they could be, would result in harm; or, as mentioned earlier, serve as rewards for wrongdoing. The principle of treating others as we want to be treated doesn’t cover this unusual idea of loving our enemies; because no one expects to be loved for their wrongdoings or hatred.
Those who preach this doctrine of loving their enemies, are in general the greatest persecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches. For my own part, I disown the doctrine, and consider it as a feigned or fabulous morality; yet the man does not exist that can say I have persecuted him, or any man, or any set of men, either in the American Revolution, or in the French Revolution; or that I have, in any case, returned evil for evil. But it is not incumbent on man to reward a bad action with a good one, or to return good for evil; and wherever it is done, it is a voluntary act, and not a duty. It is also absurd to suppose that such doctrine can make any part of a revealed religion. We imitate the moral character of the Creator by forbearing with each other, for he forbears with all; but this doctrine would imply that he loved man, not in proportion as he was good, but as he was bad.
Those who promote this idea of loving their enemies are usually the biggest persecutors, and their actions are consistent with that; the idea is hypocritical, and it’s only natural for hypocrisy to do the opposite of what it teaches. As for me, I reject this idea and see it as a false or fictional morality; yet there is no one who can say I've persecuted them, or anyone, or any group of people, during the American Revolution or the French Revolution; or that I've ever returned harm for harm. However, it's not the responsibility of a person to respond to a bad action with a good one, or to return good for evil; when that happens, it’s a choice, not a requirement. It's also ridiculous to think that such a belief could be part of a revealed religion. We reflect the moral character of the Creator by showing patience with each other, as He is patient with everyone; but this belief would suggest that He loved humanity not in proportion to their goodness, but rather to their badness.
If we consider the nature of our condition here, we must see there is no occasion for such a thing as revealed religion. What is it we want to know? Does not the creation, the universe we behold, preach to us the existence of an Almighty power, that governs and regulates the whole? And is not the evidence that this creation holds out to our senses infinitely stronger than any thing we can read in a book, that any imposter might make and call the word of God? As for morality, the knowledge of it exists in every man's conscience.
If we think about the nature of our situation here, we have to acknowledge that there's no need for something like revealed religion. What is it that we want to understand? Doesn't the creation, the universe we see, tell us about the existence of an Almighty power that controls and manages everything? And isn't the evidence that this creation gives us far stronger than anything we could read in a book, which any fraud could write and claim is the word of God? When it comes to morality, the awareness of it exists in every person's conscience.
Here we are. The existence of an Almighty power is sufficiently demonstrated to us, though we cannot conceive, as it is impossible we should, the nature and manner of its existence. We cannot conceive how we came here ourselves, and yet we know for a fact that we are here. We must know also, that the power that called us into being, can if he please, and when he pleases, call us to account for the manner in which we have lived here; and therefore without seeking any other motive for the belief, it is rational to believe that he will, for we know beforehand that he can. The probability or even possibility of the thing is all that we ought to know; for if we knew it as a fact, we should be the mere slaves of terror; our belief would have no merit, and our best actions no virtue.
Here we are. The existence of an all-powerful being is clearly shown to us, even though we can't fully understand how it exists, and it's impossible for us to grasp its nature. We can't even figure out how we arrived here ourselves, but we know for sure that we are here. We also have to recognize that the power that brought us to life can, whenever it wants, hold us accountable for how we've lived here; and so without looking for any other reason to believe, it makes sense to think that it will, because we know it has the ability to do so. The likelihood or even the possibility of this is all we really need to understand; because if we knew it as an undeniable fact, we would simply live in fear; our belief would lose its value, and our best actions would lack true goodness.
Deism then teaches us, without the possibility of being deceived, all that is necessary or proper to be known. The creation is the Bible of the deist. He there reads, in the hand-writing of the Creator himself, the certainty of his existence, and the immutability of his power; and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries. The probability that we may be called to account hereafter, will, to reflecting minds, have the influence of belief; for it is not our belief or disbelief that can make or unmake the fact. As this is the state we are in, and which it is proper we should be in, as free agents, it is the fool only, and not the philosopher, nor even the prudent man, that will live as if there were no God.
Deism teaches us, without any chance of being misled, everything that is necessary or appropriate to know. Creation is the deist's Bible. There, they read, in the Creator's own handwriting, the certainty of His existence and the unchanging nature of His power; all other Bibles and Testaments are seen as forgeries. The possibility that we might be held accountable later will, for thoughtful individuals, have the weight of belief; it’s not our belief or disbelief that can alter the reality. Given our current state, which is how we should exist as free agents, it’s only the fool—not the philosopher or even the wise person—who will live as if there is no God.
But the belief of a God is so weakened by being mixed with the strange fable of the Christian creed, and with the wild adventures related in the Bible, and the obscurity and obscene nonsense of the Testament, that the mind of man is bewildered as in a fog. Viewing all these things in a confused mass, he confounds fact with fable; and as he cannot believe all, he feels a disposition to reject all. But the belief of a God is a belief distinct from all other things, and ought not to be confounded with any. The notion of a Trinity of Gods has enfeebled the belief of one God. A multiplication of beliefs acts as a division of belief; and in proportion as anything is divided, it is weakened.
But the belief in God is so weakened by being mixed with the strange stories of the Christian faith, the wild adventures described in the Bible, and the confusing and inappropriate nonsense of the Testament, that the human mind becomes lost in a fog. Looking at all these things as a jumbled mess, people mix up fact and fiction; and since they can't believe everything, they tend to reject it all. However, the belief in God is separate from everything else and shouldn't be mixed up with anything. The idea of a Trinity of Gods has weakened the belief in one God. Having multiple beliefs divides belief, and as something is divided, it becomes weaker.
Religion, by such means, becomes a thing of form instead of fact; of notion instead of principle: morality is banished to make room for an imaginary thing called faith, and this faith has its origin in a supposed debauchery; a man is preached instead of a God; an execution is an object for gratitude; the preachers daub themselves with the blood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend to admire the brilliancy it gives them; they preach a humdrum sermon on the merits of the execution; then praise Jesus Christ for being executed, and condemn the Jews for doing it.
Religion, through these means, becomes something superficial instead of genuine; an idea rather than a principle. Morality is pushed aside to make way for an imaginary concept called faith, which supposedly stems from a corrupt past. People preach about a man instead of God; an execution becomes a reason for gratitude. The preachers cover themselves with blood, like a group of killers, and act like they admire the glow it gives them. They deliver a dull sermon on the merits of the execution, then praise Jesus Christ for being crucified, while blaming the Jews for it.
A man, by hearing all this nonsense lumped and preached together, confounds the God of the Creation with the imagined God of the Christians, and lives as if there were none.
A man, by hearing all this nonsense piled up and preached as one, confuses the God of Creation with the imagined God of Christians, and lives as if there were no God at all.
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.
Of all the religions that have ever been created, none is more disrespectful to God, less beneficial to people, more irrational, and more self-contradictory than Christianity. It's too ridiculous to believe, too unbelievable to convince anyone, and too inconsistent to live by, making the heart dull or only creating atheists and extremists. As a tool for power, it supports tyranny, and as a way to make money, it feeds the greed of religious leaders; but when it comes to the well-being of humanity overall, it offers nothing for this life or the next.
The only religion that has not been invented, and that has in it every evidence of divine originality, is pure and simple deism. It must have been the first and will probably be the last that man believes. But pure and simple deism does not answer the purpose of despotic governments. They cannot lay hold of religion as an engine but by mixing it with human inventions, and making their own authority a part; neither does it answer the avarice of priests, but by incorporating themselves and their functions with it, and becoming, like the government, a party in the system. It is this that forms the otherwise mysterious connection of church and state; the church human, and the state tyrannic.
The only religion that hasn’t been invented and shows every sign of divine originality is pure and simple deism. It must have been the first and will probably be the last belief for humanity. However, pure and simple deism doesn’t serve the needs of oppressive governments. They can’t use religion as a tool unless they mix it with human inventions and make their own authority a part of it; nor does it fulfill the greed of priests without incorporating themselves and their roles into it, becoming, like the government, a part of the system. This is what creates the otherwise mysterious link between church and state: the church as a human institution and the state as a tyrannical one.
Were a man impressed as fully and strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of belief; he would stand in awe of God, and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. To give this belief the full opportunity of force, it is necessary that it acts alone. This is deism.
If a man were truly and deeply convinced of the existence of God, his moral life would be guided by that belief; he would regard God and himself with reverence and would refrain from actions that he couldn't hide from either. For this belief to have its full effect, it must function independently. This is deism.
But when, according to the Christian Trinitarian scheme, one part of God is represented by a dying man, and another part, called the Holy Ghost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief can attach itself to such wild conceits. [The book called the book of Matthew, says, (iii. 16,) that the Holy Ghost descended in the shape of a dove. It might as well have said a goose; the creatures are equally harmless, and the one is as much a nonsensical lie as the other. Acts, ii. 2, 3, says, that it descended in a mighty rushing wind, in the shape of cloven tongues: perhaps it was cloven feet. Such absurd stuff is fit only for tales of witches and wizards.—Author.]
But when, according to the Christian Trinity, one part of God is depicted as a dying man and another part, known as the Holy Spirit, as a flying dove, it's hard for people to believe in such wild ideas. [The book of Matthew states, (iii. 16,) that the Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove. It could have just as easily said a goose; both creatures are harmless, and one is just as much a nonsensical lie as the other. Acts, ii. 2, 3, says it came in like a strong rushing wind, in the form of divided tongues: maybe it was divided feet. Such ridiculous tales are only suitable for stories about witches and wizards.—Author.]
It has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are calculated for mutual support. The study of theology as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.
The Christian church and all other man-made religions have aimed to keep people in the dark about the Creator, just as governments try to keep them unaware of their rights. The systems of the two are equally false and support each other. The study of theology as it exists in Christian churches amounts to nothing; it is built on nothing; it has no foundational principles; it follows no authorities; it lacks data; it can prove nothing; and it leads to no conclusions. You can't study something as a science without having the principles it’s based on, and since that’s not true for Christian theology, it ends up being the study of nothing.
Instead then of studying theology, as is now done, out of the Bible and Testament, the meanings of which books are always controverted, and the authenticity of which is disproved, it is necessary that we refer to the Bible of the creation. The principles we discover there are eternal, and of divine origin: they are the foundation of all the science that exists in the world, and must be the foundation of theology.
Instead of studying theology today from the Bible and Testament, which are often debated and whose authenticity is challenged, we should turn to the Bible of creation. The principles we find there are eternal and come from a divine source: they form the basis of all the science in the world and must also serve as the foundation for theology.
We can know God only through his works. We cannot have a conception of any one attribute, but by following some principle that leads to it. We have only a confused idea of his power, if we have not the means of comprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of his wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts. The principles of science lead to this knowledge; for the Creator of man is the Creator of science, and it is through that medium that man can see God, as it were, face to face.
We can only understand God through his actions. We can't grasp any one quality without following a principle that leads us there. We only have a vague notion of his power if we can't comprehend something of its vastness. We can't understand his wisdom without knowing the ways it operates. The principles of science guide us to this understanding, because the Creator of humanity is also the creator of science, and it's through science that we can perceive God, so to speak, directly.
Could a man be placed in a situation, and endowed with power of vision to behold at one view, and to contemplate deliberately, the structure of the universe, to mark the movements of the several planets, the cause of their varying appearances, the unerring order in which they revolve, even to the remotest comet, their connection and dependence on each other, and to know the system of laws established by the Creator, that governs and regulates the whole; he would then conceive, far beyond what any church theology can teach him, the power, the wisdom, the vastness, the munificence of the Creator. He would then see that all the knowledge man has of science, and that all the mechanical arts by which he renders his situation comfortable here, are derived from that source: his mind, exalted by the scene, and convinced by the fact, would increase in gratitude as it increased in knowledge: his religion or his worship would become united with his improvement as a man: any employment he followed that had connection with the principles of the creation,—as everything of agriculture, of science, and of the mechanical arts, has,—would teach him more of God, and of the gratitude he owes to him, than any theological Christian sermon he now hears. Great objects inspire great thoughts; great munificence excites great gratitude; but the grovelling tales and doctrines of the Bible and the Testament are fit only to excite contempt.
Could a person find themselves in a situation where they had the ability to see, all at once, and carefully consider, the structure of the universe, observing the movements of each planet, understanding the reasons behind their changing appearances, and the precise order in which they orbit, including even the farthest comet, along with their interconnectedness and dependence on one another, while grasping the system of laws established by the Creator that governs everything; they would then come to understand, much more than any religious teaching can convey, the power, wisdom, vastness, and generosity of the Creator. They would realize that all human knowledge of science and the practical skills used to improve life here stem from that source. Their mind, elevated by the experience and reassured by reality, would grow in gratitude as it expanded in knowledge: their faith or worship would become intertwined with their development as a person. Any work they engaged in that related to the principles of creation—just as everything in agriculture, science, and mechanical arts does—would reveal more about God and the gratitude owed to Him than any theological Christian sermon they currently hear. Significant subjects inspire profound thoughts; immense generosity stirs deep gratitude; however, the trivial stories and doctrines of the Bible and the Testament only provoke contempt.
Though man cannot arrive, at least in this life, at the actual scene I have described, he can demonstrate it, because he has knowledge of the principles upon which the creation is constructed. We know that the greatest works can be represented in model, and that the universe can be represented by the same means. The same principles by which we measure an inch or an acre of ground will measure to millions in extent. A circle of an inch diameter has the same geometrical properties as a circle that would circumscribe the universe. The same properties of a triangle that will demonstrate upon paper the course of a ship, will do it on the ocean; and, when applied to what are called the heavenly bodies, will ascertain to a minute the time of an eclipse, though those bodies are millions of miles distant from us. This knowledge is of divine origin; and it is from the Bible of the creation that man has learned it, and not from the stupid Bible of the church, that teaches man nothing. [The Bible-makers have undertaken to give us, in the first chapter of Genesis, an account of the creation; and in doing this they have demonstrated nothing but their ignorance. They make there to have been three days and three nights, evenings and mornings, before there was any sun; when it is the presence or absence of the sun that is the cause of day and night—and what is called his rising and setting that of morning and evening. Besides, it is a puerile and pitiful idea, to suppose the Almighty to say, "Let there be light." It is the imperative manner of speaking that a conjuror uses when he says to his cups and balls, Presto, be gone—and most probably has been taken from it, as Moses and his rod is a conjuror and his wand. Longinus calls this expression the sublime; and by the same rule the conjurer is sublime too; for the manner of speaking is expressively and grammatically the same. When authors and critics talk of the sublime, they see not how nearly it borders on the ridiculous. The sublime of the critics, like some parts of Edmund Burke's sublime and beautiful, is like a windmill just visible in a fog, which imagination might distort into a flying mountain, or an archangel, or a flock of wild geese.—Author.]
Although people can’t actually reach the scene I’ve described in this life, they can demonstrate it because they understand the principles that underlie creation. We know that the most impressive works can be represented in models, and the universe can be expressed the same way. The principles we use to measure an inch or an acre can also apply to millions of those measurements. A circle that’s one inch in diameter has the same geometric properties as a circle that outlines the entire universe. The same properties of a triangle that help us plot a ship’s course on paper will work just as well on the ocean; and when applied to what we call heavenly bodies, they can predict an eclipse’s timing down to the minute, even if those bodies are millions of miles away. This knowledge has a divine origin; it’s what we learn from the Bible of creation, not from the inferior Bible of the church, which teaches us nothing. [The Bible authors tried to give us an account of creation in the first chapter of Genesis, but all they did was show their ignorance. They claim there were three days and nights—mornings and evenings—before the sun existed, when it’s the sun’s presence or absence that causes day and night, along with what we refer to as its rising and setting. Additionally, the idea of the Almighty saying, “Let there be light,” is childish and pathetic. It resembles the way a magician instructs his cups and balls to vanish, likely drawing from that style, much like Moses and his rod also echo that image. Longinus refers to this expression as the sublime; by that standard, a magician can also be considered sublime because the way they speak is equally expressive and grammatical. When authors and critics discuss the sublime, they fail to see how close it is to the ridiculous. The critics’ take on the sublime, similar to portions of Edmund Burke's thoughts on the sublime and beautiful, is like a windmill barely visible in mist, which our imaginations might twist into a towering mountain, an archangel, or a flock of wild geese.—Author.]
All the knowledge man has of science and of machinery, by the aid of which his existence is rendered comfortable upon earth, and without which he would be scarcely distinguishable in appearance and condition from a common animal, comes from the great machine and structure of the universe. The constant and unwearied observations of our ancestors upon the movements and revolutions of the heavenly bodies, in what are supposed to have been the early ages of the world, have brought this knowledge upon earth. It is not Moses and the prophets, nor Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, that have done it. The Almighty is the great mechanic of the creation, the first philosopher, and original teacher of all science. Let us then learn to reverence our master, and not forget the labours of our ancestors.
All the knowledge we have about science and machinery, which makes our lives comfortable on Earth, and without which we would hardly differ from ordinary animals, comes from the vast machine and structure of the universe. The constant and tireless observations of our forebears regarding the movements and cycles of celestial bodies, believed to have occurred in the early ages of the world, have brought this knowledge to us. It’s not Moses and the prophets, nor Jesus Christ and his apostles who did this. The Almighty is the great creator, the first philosopher, and the original teacher of all science. So, let's learn to respect our master and remember the efforts of our ancestors.
Had we, at this day, no knowledge of machinery, and were it possible that man could have a view, as I have before described, of the structure and machinery of the universe, he would soon conceive the idea of constructing some at least of the mechanical works we now have; and the idea so conceived would progressively advance in practice. Or could a model of the universe, such as is called an orrery, be presented before him and put in motion, his mind would arrive at the same idea. Such an object and such a subject would, whilst it improved him in knowledge useful to himself as a man and a member of society, as well as entertaining, afford far better matter for impressing him with a knowledge of, and a belief in the Creator, and of the reverence and gratitude that man owes to him, than the stupid texts of the Bible and the Testament, from which, be the talents of the preacher; what they may, only stupid sermons can be preached. If man must preach, let him preach something that is edifying, and from the texts that are known to be true.
If we, today, had no understanding of machinery, and it were possible for someone to have the kind of view I've described before of the structure and machinery of the universe, that person would quickly come up with the idea of creating at least some of the mechanical works we have now; and that idea would gradually develop in practice. Or if a model of the universe, like an orrery, were presented to him and set in motion, he would arrive at the same conclusion. Such an object and topic would not only enhance his knowledge beneficial to himself as an individual and a member of society, but also provide a more meaningful way to instill a knowledge of and belief in the Creator, along with the respect and gratitude that humans owe Him, than the dull texts of the Bible and the Testament, which can only lead to uninspiring sermons, regardless of the preacher's skills. If someone must preach, let them share something that is uplifting and based on truths that are known.
The Bible of the creation is inexhaustible in texts. Every part of science, whether connected with the geometry of the universe, with the systems of animal and vegetable life, or with the properties of inanimate matter, is a text as well for devotion as for philosophy—for gratitude, as for human improvement. It will perhaps be said, that if such a revolution in the system of religion takes place, every preacher ought to be a philosopher. Most certainly, and every house of devotion a school of science.
The creation's Bible is filled with endless ideas. Every aspect of science, whether it relates to the structure of the universe, the systems of animal and plant life, or the characteristics of non-living matter, serves as material for both faith and philosophy—both gratitude and human development. It might be argued that if such a change in religious thought occurs, every preacher should be a philosopher. Absolutely, and every place of worship should also be a center of learning in science.
It has been by wandering from the immutable laws of science, and the light of reason, and setting up an invented thing called "revealed religion," that so many wild and blasphemous conceits have been formed of the Almighty. The Jews have made him the assassin of the human species, to make room for the religion of the Jews. The Christians have made him the murderer of himself, and the founder of a new religion to supersede and expel the Jewish religion. And to find pretence and admission for these things, they must have supposed his power or his wisdom imperfect, or his will changeable; and the changeableness of the will is the imperfection of the judgement. The philosopher knows that the laws of the Creator have never changed, with respect either to the principles of science, or the properties of matter. Why then is it to be supposed they have changed with respect to man?
It has been by straying from the unchanging laws of science and the clarity of reason, and establishing a made-up concept called "revealed religion," that so many outrageous and blasphemous ideas about the Almighty have emerged. The Jews have portrayed Him as a killer of the human race to create space for the Jewish religion. The Christians have depicted Him as murdering Himself and founding a new religion to replace and eliminate the Jewish faith. To justify these ideas, they must have thought His power or wisdom was flawed or His will unpredictable; and the unpredictability of the will reflects a flaw in judgment. The philosopher understands that the Creator's laws have never changed, whether in relation to the principles of science or the properties of matter. So why assume they have changed when it comes to humanity?
I here close the subject. I have shown in all the foregoing parts of this work that the Bible and Testament are impositions and forgeries; and I leave the evidence I have produced in proof of it to be refuted, if any one can do it; and I leave the ideas that are suggested in the conclusion of the work to rest on the mind of the reader; certain as I am that when opinions are free, either in matters of govemment or religion, truth will finally and powerfully prevail.
I’m wrapping up this topic. I’ve demonstrated throughout this work that the Bible and Testament are fabrications and deceits; I’ll let the evidence I’ve presented stand to be challenged, if anyone is able to do so. I also entrust the ideas suggested at the conclusion of this work to the reader's thoughts; I’m confident that when opinions are free, whether about government or religion, truth will ultimately and decisively triumph.
END OF PART II
END OF PART II
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!