This is a modern-English version of The Writings of Thomas Paine — Volume 1 (1774-1779): The American Crisis, 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.
THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE
VOLUME I.
COLLECTED AND EDITED BY MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY
1774 - 1779
CONTENTS
THE CRISIS I. (THESE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY MEN'S SOULS)
THE CRISIS III. (IN THE PROGRESS OF POLITICS)
THE CRISIS IV. (THOSE WHO EXPECT TO REAP THE BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM)
THE CRISIS. V. TO GEN. SIR WILLIAM HOWE.
THE CRISIS VI. (TO THE EARL OF CARLISLE AND GENERAL CLINTON)
THE CRISIS VII. TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.
THE CRISIS VIII. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.
THE CRISIS IX. (HAD AMERICA PURSUED HER ADVANTAGES)
THE CRISIS X. ON THE KING OF ENGLAND'S SPEECH.
THE CRISIS. XI. ON THE PRESENT STATE OF NEWS.
THE CRISIS. XII. TO THE EARL OF SHELBURNE.
THE CRISIS. XIII. THOUGHTS ON THE PEACE, AND PROBABLE ADVANTAGES
CONTENTS
THE CRISIS I. (THESE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY MEN'S SOULS)
THE CRISIS III. (IN THE PROGRESS OF POLITICS)
THE CRISIS IV. (THOSE WHO EXPECT TO REAP THE BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM)
THE CRISIS. V. TO GEN. SIR WILLIAM HOWE.
THE CRISIS VI. (TO THE EARL OF CARLISLE AND GENERAL CLINTON)
THE CRISIS VII. TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.
THE CRISIS VIII. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.
THE CRISIS IX. (HAD AMERICA PURSUED HER ADVANTAGES)
THE CRISIS X. ON THE KING OF ENGLAND'S SPEECH.
THE CRISIS. XI. ON THE PRESENT STATE OF NEWS.
THE CRISIS. XII. TO THE EARL OF SHELBURNE.
THE CRISIS. XIII. THOUGHTS ON THE PEACE, AND PROBABLE ADVANTAGES
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, possibly recalling that several political pamphlets were published in London from 1775 to 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 mistakenly attributed to Paine, which has led to ongoing confusion. This publisher was D. I. Eaton, who included an essay from the London publication as the first number of Paine's "Crisis." However, his introductory note states: "Since the printing of this book, the publisher has been informed that No. 1, or the first Crisis in this publication, is not one of the thirteen that Paine wrote, but a letter written before those." Unfortunately, this correction is vague enough to leave some people with the impression that Paine wrote the mentioned letter, even though it’s not part of his "Crisis"; especially since Eaton's editor incorrectly added the signature "C. S.," hinting at "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 events at Lexington. It certainly was not written by Paine. It apologizes on behalf of the Americans for having, on April 19, at Lexington, launched "an attack upon the King's troops from behind walls and lurking holes." The writer asks: "Have not the Americans been pushed to this frenzy? Isn’t it common for an enemy to take every advantage?" Paine, who was in America during the Lexington incident, would have quickly denounced Gage's claims as lies, but the information known to everyone in America was not available to the London writer at that time. The English "Crisis" clearly shows it was written in London. It didn’t take inspiration from Paine, nor did he take anything from it, except for possibly its title, which is too obvious to warrant discussion. I am convinced that the title was inspired by the English publication because Paine adopted its pattern by introducing a "Crisis Extraordinary." His work consists of thirteen pieces along with a "Crisis Extraordinary" and a "Supernumerary Crisis." In some modern collections, all these writings have been serially numbered, with an additional short newspaper article included, totaling sixteen pieces. However, Paine in his Will refers to the count as thirteen, perhaps wanting to stick to the number of the American Colonies, just like he did with the thirteen ribs of his iron bridge. Therefore, his count is followed in this volume, with the numbers printed in order, even though other writings were included 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 begins with the famous line, "These are the times that try men's souls." The last "Crisis" appeared on April 19, 1783, the eighth anniversary of the first gun fired in the war at Lexington, and starts with the words, "The times that tried men's souls are over." The significant impact of Paine's ongoing publications has been recognized by Washington and Franklin, every leader of the American Revolution, resolutions passed by Congress, and 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, at the Commander’s request, was read to groups of his discouraged and suffering soldiers. Its opening sentence became the rallying cry for the movement on Trenton just days after its publication, and it is believed to have inspired much of the courage that led to that victory, which, while not large in scale, had a substantial 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 spirits. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, back away from serving their country; but those who stand firm now deserve the love and gratitude of both men and women. Tyranny, like hell, isn't easily defeated; yet we have this comfort: the harder the struggle, the more glorious the victory. What we get too easily, we value too little: it's only the cost that gives everything its worth. Heaven knows how to set a proper price for its treasures; and it would be very strange if something as precious as FREEDOM weren’t highly valued. Britain, with an army to enforce its oppression, has claimed that it has the right (not just to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that way isn't slavery, then what exists on earth can be called slavery. Even the thought 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's independence was declared too soon or delayed too long is not something I want to argue about right now; in my simple opinion, if it had happened eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We didn’t make proper use of last winter, and we couldn’t have while we were still dependent. However, if there was a fault, it was entirely ours; we have no one to blame but ourselves. But not much is lost yet. Everything Howe has been doing this past month is more of a destruction than a true conquest, which the spirit of the Jerseys a year ago would have quickly pushed back against, and with time and a bit of determination, we will recover soon.
* The present winter is worth an age, if rightly employed; but, if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the evil; and there is no punishment that man does not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.
* This winter is worth a lifetime if used wisely; but if wasted or ignored, the whole country will suffer the consequences; and there is no punishment that anyone doesn’t deserve, no matter who they are or where they’re from, if they are responsible for 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 living, but I've always believed, and still believe, that God won't let a people face military destruction or be left to suffer alone if they've truly and repeatedly tried to avoid the horrors of war by all reasonable means possible. I also don't have so much disbelief in me to think that He has abandoned control of the world and left us to the mercy of evil forces; and since I don't believe that, I can't understand how the king of Britain can look to heaven for help against us. A common murderer, a thief, or a burglar has just as much right to do that as he does.
'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 how quickly a panic can spread through a country. Every nation and era has experienced them. Britain has quaked with fear at the news of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the 15th century, the entire English army, after pillaging France, was driven back like men frozen with fear, all due to a few broken forces gathered and led by a woman, Joan of Arc. If only heaven could inspire some brave woman from Jersey to rally her fellow countrymen and save her sisters from destruction and violation! Yet, panics can sometimes be useful; they can do as much good as harm. They never last long; the mind quickly moves past them, gaining a stronger resolve than before. But their unique advantage is that they serve as tests of sincerity and hypocrisy, exposing things and people that might otherwise remain hidden. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors as an imagined ghost would on a private murderer. They reveal the hidden thoughts of individuals and put them on public display. Many disguised loyalists have recently shown their true colors, and they will regret the day Howe arrived on the Delaware.
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.
While I was with the troops at Fort Lee and marched with them to the edge of Pennsylvania, I became familiar with many details that those living far away know little or nothing about. Our situation there was very cramped, being a narrow piece of land between the North River and the Hackensack. Our force was small, not even a quarter of what Howe could bring against us. We had no army nearby that could relieve the garrison if we had decided to fortify ourselves and defend it. Our ammunition, light artillery, and most of our supplies had been moved out, fearing that Howe would try to invade New Jersey; in that case, Fort Lee wouldn’t have been useful to us. Anyone thinking about it, whether in the army or not, knows that these types of field forts are only for temporary use and only last as long as the enemy focuses their force on the specific target those forts are meant to protect. That was our situation at Fort Lee 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, immediately ordered everyone to arm themselves and sent a message to General Washington in the town of Hackensack, which was six miles away by the ferry. Our first priority was to secure the bridge over the Hackensack, which was about six miles from us and three from them. General Washington arrived in about 45 minutes and marched at the head of the troops toward the bridge, where I had expected we would have a confrontation; however, they chose not to challenge us, and most of our troops crossed the bridge, while the rest went over the ferry, except for some who crossed at a mill on a small creek between the bridge and the ferry and made their way through some marshy ground to the town of Hackensack and crossed the river there. We were able to take as much baggage as the wagons could hold; the rest was lost. The main goal was to evacuate the garrison and march them on until we could be reinforced by the New Jersey or Pennsylvania militia, allowing us to make a stand. We stayed four days in Newark, gathered our outposts along with some of the New Jersey militia, and marched out twice to confront the enemy, even though our numbers were significantly smaller. In my opinion, Howe made a major mistake in not sending a force from Staten Island through Amboy, which would have allowed him to capture all our supplies at Brunswick and blocked our march into Pennsylvania; but if we believe that the power of evil is limited, we must also believe that their actions are under some divine 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 attempt 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 worn out and stressed, often without rest, shelter, or supplies—the unavoidable toll of a long retreat—handled it with bravery and military spirit. Their hopes all focused on one thing: that the country would rally and help them push the enemy back. Voltaire noted that King William never appeared at his best except in tough situations and during action; the same can be said about General Washington, as this description suits him well. There’s a natural strength in some people that can’t be shaken by minor issues, but when it is, it reveals a deep well of courage; I consider it one of those public blessings we don’t immediately recognize that God has granted him steady health and a mind that can even thrive under pressure.
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 thoughts on our situation; I’ll start by asking this question: Why have the enemy left the New England states and made these central ones the battleground? The answer is simple: New England isn’t filled with Tories, but we are. I’ve been careful in calling out these people, using countless arguments to show them the risk they pose, but we can’t sacrifice everything for their foolishness or their deceit. We’ve reached a point where either they or we have to change our opinions, or one of us must fall. And what exactly is a Tory? Good grief! What are they? I wouldn’t hesitate to go into battle with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories if they tried to take up arms. Every Tory is a coward; because submissive, self-serving fear is the core of Toryism; and a person under that kind of influence, even if they’re cruel, can 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 make a permanent break between us, let’s talk this through: Your actions are a signal to the enemy, yet hardly any of you have the courage to join him. Howe is just as misled by you as the American cause is harmed by you. He expects all of you to pick up arms and rally to his side, with guns on your shoulders. Your opinions mean nothing to him unless you back him up 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 man should feel against the unfair beliefs held by the Tories. A well-known tavern owner in Amboy was standing at his door, holding a lovely child about eight or nine years old, the prettiest I had ever seen. After expressing his thoughts as openly as he thought was wise, he ended with this unfatherly statement, "Well! give me peace in my time." Not a single person on the continent doubts that a separation will eventually happen, and a caring parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it happen in my time so my child can have peace." This one thought, properly considered, should prompt every man to take action. There’s no place on earth that could be as happy as America. Its situation is far removed from the constant conflicts of the world, and it only needs to trade with them. A person can clearly differentiate between temper and principle, and I am as sure as I am that God controls the universe that America will never find happiness until it shakes off foreign rule. Wars will break out constantly until that time comes, and the continent will ultimately prevail; for even though the light of liberty may sometimes fade, the spark can never die.
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, and still doesn't. What we desired was a proper use of that force. Wisdom doesn’t come overnight, so it’s no surprise we made mistakes at the beginning. Out of excessive kindness, we hesitated to raise an army and relied on a temporary defense from a well-meaning militia. Summer has now taught us better; still, with those troops gathered, we managed to limit the enemy's advance, and thankfully, they are regrouping again. I've always thought militia were the best troops for quick efforts, but they aren't suited for a long campaign. Howe will likely try to attack this city [Philadelphia]; if he fails across the Delaware, he’s finished. If he succeeds, our cause isn’t lost. He’s risking everything on his side against just a part of ours; even if he wins, it will lead to armies from both ends of the continent marching to help their allies in the middle states, because he can't be everywhere at once. I view Howe as the Tories’ biggest enemy; he’s bringing war into their territory, which, without him and partly due to themselves, they could have avoided. If he's expelled now, I sincerely hope the terms Whig and Tory are never spoken again; but if the Tories encourage his arrival or assist him once he's here, I wish that our efforts next year will drive them from the continent, and the Congress can allocate their possessions to aid those who have suffered for doing the right thing. One successful battle next year will settle it all. America could sustain a two-year war by confiscating the property of those against us and find happiness in their removal. Don’t call this revenge; think of it as the gentle resentment of a suffering people who, wanting nothing but the good of everyone, have risked everything on a seemingly uncertain outcome. Yet it’s pointless to argue against stubbornness; eloquence may appeal to the ears, and the language of sorrow might evoke a tear, but nothing can reach a heart hardened 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.
Quitting this group of men, I turn with the genuine passion of a friend to those who have bravely stood and are still ready to stand firm: I call not only on a few, but on everyone; not just on this state or that state, but on all states: step up and help us; put your shoulders to the wheel; it's better to have too much strength than too little when such an important matter is at stake. Let it be known to future generations that in the depths 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 have gone, rally your tens of thousands; don’t offload the burden of the day onto fate, but "show your faith by your actions," so that God may bless you. It doesn’t matter where you live or what your social status is, both the problems and the blessings will reach you all. The far and the near, the urban and the rural, the rich and the poor will endure the same suffering or joy. A heart that doesn’t feel this moment is lifeless; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back when a little courage could have saved everyone and brought them happiness. I admire the person who can smile in difficult times, who can draw strength from distress, and grow brave through reflection. It’s the mark of small minds to shrink back; but he whose heart is strong, and whose conscience supports his actions, will follow his principles to the end. My reasoning is as straightforward and clear to me as a beam of light. I believe no amount of treasure could have persuaded me to support an aggressive war, as I see it as murder; but if a thief breaks into my home, burns and destroys my belongings, and threatens to kill me or those inside, or to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his will, am I supposed to just accept it? What difference does it make to me, whether the person doing it is a king or a common man; whether he is my fellow countryman or not; whether it’s done by an individual villain or an army of them? If we examine things closely, we’ll find no difference; nor can any fair reason explain why we should punish one case and forgive the other. Let them call me a rebel; I don’t care about that; but I would suffer the worst torment if I were to betray my beliefs by pledging loyalty to someone whose character is that of a drunken, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish person. I also find it horrifying to receive mercy from a being who, on the final day, will be crying out to the rocks and mountains to hide him, fleeing in terror from the orphans, the widows, and the fallen 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 express, 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 the enemy, if victorious, will show mercy. It’s pure foolishness to expect mercy from those who refuse to deliver justice, and even mercy, when conquest is the goal, is just a tactic of war; the cunning of the fox is as deadly as the violence of the wolf, and we need to be wary of both. Howe’s main goal is to scare or entice the people into laying down their arms and accepting mercy through a mix of threats and promises. The government suggested the same approach to Gage, and this is what the loyalists call making their peace—“a peace that passes all understanding,” indeed! A peace that would lead to a disaster worse than anything we’ve considered so far. You men of Pennsylvania, think about these matters! If the back counties give up their arms, they would easily fall victim to the armed Indians—something that some loyalists wouldn’t mind at all. If the home counties surrender their arms, they would risk facing the wrath of the back counties, who could punish their betrayal at will. And if any one state laid down its arms, that state would need to be protected by Howe's entire army of British and Hessian troops to shield it from the anger of the others. Mutual fear is what binds mutual love, and woe to the state that breaks that bond. Howe is inviting you to a brutal destruction disguised as mercy, and anyone who can’t see it must either be a rogue or a fool. I’m not dwelling on flights of fancy; I’m bringing reason to your attention, and in language as simple as A, B, C, I present the truth before 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 understand our situation well and can see our way out of it. While our army was gathered, Howe didn’t dare to fight; it's not a credit to him that he fled from the White Plains and waited for a sneaky chance to attack the defenseless Jerseys. But it’s a huge credit to us that, with just a small number of men, we managed a steady retreat for nearly a hundred miles, saved our ammunition, all our field guns, most of our supplies, and crossed four rivers. No one can say our retreat was hasty since it took us nearly three weeks to complete it, allowing the local people to join us. We marched back twice 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 across the country, the Jerseys would never have been plundered. Once again, we are gathered and gathering; our new army is rapidly recruiting at both ends of the continent, and we will be able to start the next campaign with sixty thousand well-armed and well-clothed men. This is our situation, and anyone who wants to know it can. With perseverance and strength, we have the prospect of a glorious outcome; with cowardice and submission, we face a sad choice of various evils—a devastated country—a depopulated city—homes without safety, and slavery without hope—our homes turned into barracks and brothels for Hessians, and a future generation to worry about, whose fathers we would doubt. Look at this picture and weep over it! And if there’s still a thoughtless fool who doesn’t believe it, let him suffer without pity.
COMMON SENSE.
Common sense.
December 23, 1776.
December 23, 1776.
THE CRISIS II. TO LORD HOWE.
"What's in the name of lord, that I should fear To bring my grievance to the public ear?" CHURCHILL.
"What's in the name of the Lord that makes me afraid To share my complaints 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. His focus is on all of humanity, and while he can't force their compliance, he can tell them what their responsibilities are. The Republic of Letters is older than monarchy and holds a much higher status in the world than the subservient court of Britain; the person who goes against reason is a true rebel, but the one who stands up for reason against tyranny 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 might wield the sword of war and call it the "last resort of kings," but in response, we can present the sword of justice and refer to it as "the best punishment for tyrants." The first can intimidate or scare for a while, leaving an oppressed people feeling weak, but reason will soon revive them and bring them back to a state of calm strength. I see that you have taken up writing and published a proclamation; I, on the other hand, have published a Crisis. As they currently stand, they are opposites; both can't thrive at the same time, and one of them has to falter. The pace of change is so fast that your work has already dropped significantly from its initial prominence and is now barely visible on the edge of the political landscape.
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, blind foolishness, and stubbornness can push people, and your lordship’s sleepy announcement proves it doesn’t even leave them when they sleep. Maybe you thought America was taking a nap too, which is why you chose to whisper your falsehood softly like Satan to Eve, so you wouldn’t wake her up. This continent, sir, is too large to be asleep all at once, and even in its slumbers, it’s too alert to not react to the unholy footsteps of an invader. You can issue your proclamations all you want, but we have learned to “respect ourselves” and look down on the insulting thug who employs you. America, out of respect for your late brother, would have willingly honored you, and it adds to her feelings of anger that Howe would be so forgetful as to raise his sword against those who paid to erect a monument for his brother. But your master has commanded, and you don’t have the nature left to refuse. Surely, something must be very corrupt about the love of monarchy if it can wear a man down to being an ingrate and make him proud to lick the dust kings have walked on. A few more years, if you survive them, will earn you the title of “an old man”: and in some moment of future reflection, you might realize the truth of Wolsey’s regret—“if I had served my God as faithfully as I have served my king, he wouldn’t have forsaken 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 ridiculous. Your friends, the Tories, announced your arrival with grand claims of your unlimited powers, but your proclamation has shown them to be wrong by revealing you as a commissioner without any authority. Even if your powers were immense, they wouldn't matter to us beyond what we choose to allow, because we have just as much right as any other nation to do what we believe is best. "The UNITED STATES of AMERICA" will sound just as grand in the world or in history as "the kingdom of Great Britain"; General Washington's reputation will shine just as brightly as Lord Howe's; and Congress has just as much right to instruct the king and Parliament in London to stop legislating as they or you have to instruct Congress. Just imagine how ridiculous such an order would be coming from us, and then, in that light-hearted spirit, turn the tables on yourself, and you'll see how your proclamation is received here. Now that I've set you up to fully recognize your folly and learn to disdain it, I present to you this quote from your own absurd proclamation: "And we (Lord Howe and General Howe) do command (and in his majesty's name, indeed) all those gathered under the names of general or provincial congresses, committees, conventions, or any other associations, by whatever name or names known and identified, to stop all such treasonable actions."
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 statement by mentioning your announcements from July 14th and September 19th. In the latter, you lowered yourself beneath the status of a private citizen. To ensure I’m not accusing you unfairly, let me explain: through a verbal invitation of yours, conveyed to Congress by General Sullivan, who was then a prisoner on parole, you expressed your wish to meet with some members of Congress as private individuals. It was not appropriate for the American Congress to take notice of a message that, at best, was a polite insult and had too much of the government's tendency to meddle with private matters; and it might have been the case if the gentlemen sent to discuss it had possessed the kind of easy grace that an English courtier is known for. However, your request was honored because decent people are generally more concerned about their civic reputation than their political one. The meeting concluded just as any reasonable person expected; for you, my lord, know as well as the writer of the Crisis that it’s impossible for the King of England to promise the repeal or even the revision of any acts of Parliament; hence, you had nothing to offer other than asking, instead of demanding, the complete surrender of the continent; and then, if that was agreed to, you promised that the people would be allowed to live. This was the result of the discussion. You told the conferees that you spent two months seeking these powers. We ask, what powers? Because as a commissioner, you have none. If you’re referring to the power of pardoning, it’s a clear indication that your master intended to sacrifice everything in his path; and that you spent two months trying to change his mind. Another sign of his brutal stubbornness! From your own account, we can clearly draw two conclusions: 1st, that you serve a monster; and 2nd, that no messenger has ever been sent on a more foolish mission than you. This straightforward language may sound harsh to someone used to the refinements of the court, but words are meant to be used, and the fault lies in deserving them, or the abuse in 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 uncalled-for and cowardly pamphlet against Congress; it definitely crossed the line of basic politeness 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 pamphlet attack on the entire Congress. You brought them together under one name and attacked them under another. But the king you serve and the cause you support give you so few chances to act like a decent person that, out of sympathy for your situation, Congress chose to overlook the insult by not responding to it.
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?
You mention in that handbill that "the Congress disavowed every purpose for reconciliation that doesn't align with their extreme 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 manage better without your fleets and armies than with them. Soon, you might have enough on your hands just trying to protect yourselves without having to deal with us. 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, sir, for you to see your mistake from every angle I can show you, and for that reason, I sometimes use humor to convey the serious points I want you to understand. But seriously, why do you refer to "their independence?" To clarify, sir, that independence belongs to us, not them. The Congress was authorized by every state on the continent to announce it to the world, and in doing so, they are not the originators but merely the messengers who proclaimed it or the office through which the people's will took legal form; and it was all they could do just to discuss submission with you under any name. But we know the men we can 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’m now addressing your proclamation from November 30th. 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. However, sneaking into a territory and trying to scare and lure the residents away from their rightful loyalty with promises that you have no intention or ability to keep is both cruel and cowardly. It’s cruel because, unless you can hold on to all the territory you’ve marched through, how are you, as stated in your proclamation, going to ensure your new followers "the enjoyment of their property?" What will happen to your newly adopted subjects or your old allies, the Tories, in Burlington, Bordentown, Trenton, Mount Holly, and several other places where you briefly held power before fleeing like a chased thief? What, I ask, will happen to those unfortunate souls? What will happen to those who switched sides from this city and state? What can you possibly tell them other than "figure it out on your own?" Or what can they expect but to roam like outcasts over the world? You might now tell them to say goodbye to America and everything that once belonged to them. Suggest they seek comfort at your master's court; there, maybe they can survive on the scraps from some lowly sycophant and find company among thousands who are 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 passing down estates to the continent; at this rate, we'll soon be able to wage a war without any cost and get rich from Lord Howe's poor decisions and the generous betrayal of the Tories. If you had stepped foot in this city, you would have given us estates we never even considered, simply by revealing traitors we were hesitant to suspect. But you might say, "These men are his majesty's most loyal subjects;" let that honor be their only reward, and may 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'm really disgusted with them now; they live in thankless comfort and focus solely on causing trouble. It feels like God has given them up to a spirit of disbelief, and they only seem open to changing when it comes to punishment. It's time to stop with the tarring, feathering, public shaming, and making them promise to behave in the future; every sensible person must feel ashamed seeing a poor guy paraded around the streets when everyone knows he's just a pawn of some main villain, pushed into his wrongdoing by false reasoning or bribed into it out of desperation. We dishonor ourselves by going after such minor characters while bigger ones get away; it’s our duty to expose them, and they deserve to be exiled from the continent forever. The number of these people isn’t as large as some think; the influence of a few has corrupted many who aren’t naturally bad. A constant flow of lies among those who rarely hear them contradicted will eventually be taken as the truth; the fault lies not with the believer but with the liar. I'm not one to declare war on everyone who doesn't seem as enthusiastic as I am: differences in personality, temperament, way of speaking, and many other factors can shape a person’s outward character, while true honesty can still exist beneath. Some guys naturally have a military mindset and can face hardships and the risk of death with a smile; others don’t; to them, no slavery is worse than the grind of military life, and no fear is greater than the threat of personal danger. What can we do? We can't change human nature, and we shouldn't punish a son just because his father raised him in a cowardly way. Still, I believe most people have more courage than they realize, and a little bit at first is enough to get started. There was a time when I thought the sound of a cannonball whistling by would scare me to death; but I’ve since faced it and found I can handle it with less distress—and I believe—with a much clearer conscience than your lordship. That same fear would likely return to me if I were in your position, because I genuinely believe your cause is wicked and detestable, and with that belief, every thoughtful person’s heart must tremble.
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.
From a concern that a good cause should not be dishonored by any division among us, I stated in my earlier paper, No. I, "If the enemy is now driven out, I sincerely wish that the names Whig and Tory would never be mentioned again;" but there are a group of people among us who are so toxic that they won't even accept good wishes meant for them. Instead of celebrating that heaven has, it seems, providentially spared this city from looting and destruction by handing a significant part of the enemy over to us with minimal bloodshed, they stubbornly pretended to disbelieve it until just an hour, or even half an hour, before the prisoners arrived; and the Quakers issued a statement, dated December 20, signed "John Pemberton," affirming their loyalty to the British government.* These individuals keep focusing on the supposed sinfulness of us taking up arms, but the king of Britain can devastate the world in blood and famine, and they, poor lost souls, have nothing to say.
* I have ever been careful of charging offences upon whole societies of men, but as the paper referred to is put forth by an unknown set of men, who claim to themselves the right of representing the whole: and while the whole Society of Quakers admit its validity by a silent acknowledgment, it is impossible that any distinction can be made by the public: and the more so, because the New York paper of the 30th of December, printed by permission of our enemies, says that "the Quakers begin to speak openly of their attachment to the British Constitution." We are certain that we have many friends among them, and wish to know them.
* I have always been cautious about blaming entire groups of people, but since the paper in question is published by an unknown group who claim to represent everyone, and since the entire Society of Quakers has accepted its legitimacy through silence, the public can't help but see no difference. This is especially true because the New York paper from December 30th, published with the approval of our opponents, states that "the Quakers are starting to openly declare 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 types of people who have been labeled Tories. I’m sure of this: not everyone who has been called a Tory actually is one, nor are all the Whigs truly Whigs; and while I won't hide the name of any genuine friend when it’s appropriate, I also won't hold back on mentioning an enemy, no matter their rank, status, or religion. Some have tried hard to portray your character positively, but since it mainly comes from 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 used similar tactics against us, but time has ultimately revealed the truth about him, and your fate may be similar. Your clear intention here is to kill, conquer, plunder, pardon, and enslave. The destruction your army has caused in the Jerseys shows as much brutality as if you openly claimed to be a ruthless prince; not even a semblance of humanity has been maintained during your troops' advance or retreat. I have never learned of any orders that were issued to stop or even discourage your soldiers from stealing wherever they went, and the only instance of fairness you’ve shown is that you treated and looted everyone equally. Anything that couldn’t be taken has been destroyed, and mahogany furniture has been intentionally burned for fuel rather than have the men tire themselves chopping wood. There was a time when the Whigs trusted in your supposed honesty, and the Tories relied on your support; those experiments have now been conducted and failed. In every town, and even every cottage, in the Jerseys where your forces have passed is a testimony against you. I don’t know how you can bear this hit to your character, but I do know that you wake up and go to sleep to the daily curses of thousands. Perhaps the suffering the Tories have endured from your so-called mercy might earn them some pity from their country, and ultimately be the best favor you could offer them.
* As some people may doubt the truth of such wanton destruction, I think it necessary to inform them that one of the people called Quakers, who lives at Trenton, gave me this information at the house of Mr. Michael Hutchinson, (one of the same profession,) who lives near Trenton ferry on the Pennsylvania side, Mr. Hutchinson being present.
* As some may question the reality of such reckless destruction, I find it important to share that a person known as a Quaker, who lives in Trenton, provided me with this information at the home of Mr. Michael Hutchinson, (who shares the same profession,) residing near the Trenton ferry on the Pennsylvania side, with Mr. Hutchinson being 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 folio belonging to Col. Rhal's battalion, seized at Trenton and now held by the council of safety for this state, the following brutal order is often repeated: "His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief orders that all residents found armed, without an officer accompanying them, shall be immediately captured and hanged." We don’t know how many you may have secretly sacrificed, and that count can only be reconciled in the afterlife. Your treatment of prisoners, aimed at coercing them to join your wicked ranks, is unmatched by anything in Europe. Yet, this is the so-called humane Lord Howe and his brother, whom the Tories and their quasi-relatives, the Quakers—at least some of them—have been praising 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 supported by bad means and bad people; and anyone who takes the time to look closely at things will find that the same spirit of oppression and wickedness, to varying degrees, runs through your entire group in both countries. Not long ago, I happened to meet someone from this city who is known for supporting your cause, and when I mentioned to him, "It seems clear to me, based on the recent turn of events, that God is clearly on our side," he replied, "We don't care about that; you can have Him if you want. As long as we have enough of the devil on our side, we'll be fine." Regardless of how casually this was said, it doesn't matter; it's still the underlying principle that guides all your actions and will inevitably deceive and ruin you in the end.
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 was ever a nation that was reckless, blind to its own interests, and determined to destroy itself, it's Britain. There are such things as national sins, and while individuals might face punishment in another life, nations can only be punished in this one. I truly believe that Britain, as a nation, is the greatest and most ungrateful sinner against God in the entire world. Blessed with all the trade she could desire and given the vast resources of her empire to help civilize both the East and the West, she has only used them to arrogantly worship her own might and exploit entire countries for her gain. Like Alexander, she has turned war into a game and caused suffering for the sake of extravagance. The suffering of India has not yet been atoned for, nor has the despair of Africa. Recently, she has added to her list of national atrocities with the brutal destruction of the Caribs in St. Vincent and responding to humble requests for "Peace, liberty, and safety" with violence. These are serious matters, and no matter what a foolish tyrant, a corrupt court, a profit-driven legislature, or a misguided populace may believe, the national ledger with the heavens will eventually be settled: every country has faced its reckoning at some point; even the mightiest empires have fallen when the balance was weighed; and Britain, like an individual seeking forgiveness, must face her day of reckoning, and the sooner it comes, the better. While I wish for it to be over, I also hope 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.
Perhaps you don't have a taste for serious topics; given your connections in England, I'd guess that's true; so I’ll move on from this part of the discussion and approach it in a way that you will relate to 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 take over America? If you couldn't do it during the summer when your army was larger than ours, or in the winter when we had no troops at all, how do you expect to succeed now? You've been outsmarted in strategy and outdone in determination; your advantages are actually working against you, showing us that we can defeat you with simple gestures: like a game of checkers, we can let you take one piece, only to capture two or three in return. And since we can always protect our corners, we can avoid a total loss. It's hard to believe you don't see that we have a clear advantage over you, because we win by holding the game to a draw, while you lose when that happens. Burgoyne should have made this clear to you; he’s been studying the odds for a long time.
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 have no other way to conquer countries than by defeating the armies that protect them: have you done this, or can you do it? If not, it would be polite for you to hold off on your proclamations for now; otherwise, you will harm more Tories with your kindness and support than you will Whigs with your weapons.
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 were to take over this city, you wouldn't know what to do with it other than to loot it. Keeping it like you do New York would just be an extra burden on you; and if your goal is a complete conquest, you’d be better off without the city than with it. Once you defeat all our armies, the cities will fall into your hands naturally; 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 fleeing in the morning. Your experience in the Jerseys should show you that you have more to do than simply get into other people's homes; and your new followers, to whom you promised all sorts of protection while leading them into guilt by pardoning them for their previous virtues, must be starting to look down on both your strength and your strategy. Your control in the Jerseys is now limited to the small area your army occupies, and your proclamation is only seen elsewhere to be laughed at. The great conquerors of the continent have shrunk to a tiny space, and the pompous forgivers of our sins have fled from those they came to forgive; and all this while they were sending ship after ship to England with daily updates. In short, you’ve handled your Jersey campaign so poorly that only the dead are true conquerors, because no one dares contest the ground with them.
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 been involved in before, you only had to deal with armies; in this case, you’re facing both an army and a whole country. In past wars, the fate of the countries was tied to their capitals; Canada fell when Quebec did, and Minorca with Port Mahon or St. Phillips; by conquering those, the victors were able to take control of the territory. This time it’s different; if you take a city here, you’ll have to lock yourselves inside and can only spend your country’s money. That’s all you’ve gained from New York; you’d gain even less from Philadelphia since it takes more troops to hold it and it’s much farther from the sea. You and the Tories would look pretty silly in this city, with a river full of ice and a town on fire; the immediate result of your takeover would be that you’d get bombarded out again, and the Tories would have to cover the damage; this will eventually be New York's 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 saved, not so much from military threats but from natural ones. It's a safe haven for women and children, and Lord Howe's main concern should be our armies. When I consider all the factors that need to be taken into account, I can’t help but laugh at your idea of conquering America. Because you come from a small country where an army could sweep through in just a few days, and where a single unit of soldiers could rout a crowd, you thought it would be the same here. It's clear that you brought with you all the limited ideas you grew up with, thinking that a proclamation in the king's name would achieve great things; however, Englishmen always seek knowledge when they travel, and I hope your lordship will return, if you come back at all, 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 might be caught off guard by unexpected events, and during that time of reflection, you might gain a temporary edge. That happened a few weeks ago, but we quickly return to our senses, gather our strength, and while you’re gearing up for victory, we hit you with a defeat. That’s how it has been, and that’s how it would be if you tried it a hundred times. If you were to occupy the places you could march over to ensure their control (because remember, you wouldn’t be able to do it any other way), your army would be like a stream of water that runs dry. By the time you stretch from New York to Virginia, you’d become just a series of drops that can’t hold together; while we, by retreating from state to state, like a river reversing course, would gain strength as you lose it and eventually be able to overwhelm you. In the meantime, the country would endure hardships, but it's a time for suffering, and we should expect that. What we fight for is worth the pain we may experience. If we can just get some bread to eat and clothing to wear, we shouldn’t just be okay with it, but grateful. We shouldn’t expect anything more, and less than that, heaven hasn’t let us go without. Anyone who would sell their birthright for a little salt is just as unworthy as the one who sold it for unsalted porridge. And anyone who would give it up for a fancy coat or a plain coat should forever be a slave in coarse cloth. What are salt, sugar, and fancy things compared to the priceless gifts of "Liberty and Safety!" Or what do a few months of inconvenience matter against the lifelong bondage of ages? The lowliest peasant in America, blessed with these beliefs, is happier than a loyalist in New York; he can enjoy his meal without complaint, and when he’s done, he can savor it with fresh air; he can hold his child’s hand and bless them without feeling the guilt of neglecting his duties as a parent.
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.
You are meant to reveal the foolishness of your false authority as a commissioner, the wrongness of your cause in general, and the impossibility of defeating us anyway. For the public, my goal is to show them their real and genuine interests, to motivate them towards their own benefit, to dispel the fears and lies spread by bad individuals and supported by weak ones, and to inspire everyone with a love for unity and a willingness to fulfill their responsibilities.
I shall submit one more case to you respecting your conquest of this country, and then proceed to new observations.
I’ll present one more example to you regarding your takeover of this country, and then move on to new insights.
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 were to immediately disperse, with each soldier going home or wherever they could feel secure, and agreeing to reassemble on a certain day in the future; it’s obvious that you would then have no army to fight against, yet you would still be just as uncertain as you are now. You would hesitate to send your troops in groups to the continent, either to disarm us or to stop us from gathering, for fear they might not come back. And while you kept them together, without any of our weapons to challenge you, you couldn’t call it a victory; you might publish an impressive article in the London Gazette or a New York paper, but when we returned at the scheduled time, you would face the same challenges you faced at the beginning.
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 foolishly believed herself to be more powerful than she really is, which has led her to claim a status in the world that she doesn't deserve. For more than a century, she has relied on foreign assistance to wage war. In Marlborough's campaigns and since then, the number of German troops and officers supporting her has been about equal to her own. Ten thousand Hessians were sent to England during the last war to protect her from a French invasion. She would have struggled in her Canadian and West Indian campaigns without America's generous support in both money and manpower. The only time she fought alone that I can remember was during the rebellion in Scotland in 1745 and 1746, where she lost two out of three battles. It was only by weakening their numbers and capturing a supply ship headed to Scotland with clothes, weapons, and money that she finally managed to defeat them. England has never been known for her land power; her officers are often seen as cowardly and more like dancing instructors than soldiers, and based on the prisoners we've taken, we believe we're superior. Recently, her strength has come from her excesses, but with her finances and credit now in decline, that support is quickly fading. As a nation, she is the poorest in Europe; if the entire kingdom and everything in it were sold off like a bankrupt estate, it would not cover her debts. Yet this irresponsible nation continues to go to war, openly aiming to make us their beasts of burden to sustain her excesses and later help her against the nations that are currently our best allies. This kind of ingratitude may suit a Tory or the uncharitable bitterness of a fallen Quaker, but no one 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 unhappy nature of the English to be satisfied with any war, whether it's justified or not, as long as they win. However, they quickly become unhappy when they face 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 natural perspective, your lordship is in a very delicate position: your entire reputation is now on the line with your accolades; if they fade, you fade with them; if they thrive, you won't be around long enough to enjoy them; and regardless, the eventual reckoning is not far off. What recently seemed like misfortunes were actually hidden blessings, and the apparent advantages on your side have turned out to benefit us. Even our loss of this city, from what we can see, might actually be a significant gain for us: the more territory you try to cover, the weaker you'll be, and the easier it will be to remove you; and our comfort in that apparent defeat would be that the estates of the Tories would serve as collateral for repairs. In short, there's no old ground we can fail on that doesn't lead to some new support rising up for us. "We have put our hands to the plow, and cursed be he who 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, declared, "That he had no doubt that the powerful force they allowed him to send to America would effectively bring the rebellious colonies under control." It hasn’t, nor can it; but it has done just enough to set the stage for its own downfall next year. You know that when you left England, the political situation was divided and chaotic, and with the position you held here, you became a key support for the court party; their success relies on yours; with just one message, you can determine their standing with the public and how their morale will fluctuate; they are in your hands like stock, and you have the inside track. Given this situation and connection, you become the unintentional tool of your own and their downfall. The king and his ministers took conquest for granted, and both their credibility hinged on proving it. To back them up in the meantime, it was necessary for you to make the most of every opportunity, and we can see from Hugh Gaine's New York paper what the London Gazette is reporting. With such a list of victories, the nation cannot expect you to ask for new resources; admitting your need for them would undermine your successes and accuse the king and his ministers of treasonous deceit. If you request what you need back home, your party will collapse; if you don’t, you will be the one to fall; asking for it now is too late, it was too early before, and unless it arrives soon, it won’t help at all. In short, the role you have to play cannot be fulfilled; and I am fully convinced that all you can do is to make the best of the forces you currently have, or a little more. Although we have significantly outperformed you in terms of strategy and bravery, as a people, we haven’t fully embraced the spirit of taking bold action; for I, who know England and the people’s mindset well, am confident that it would be easier for us to instigate a revolution there than for you to achieve victory here; a few thousand men landing in England with the expressed goal of deposing the current king, putting his ministers on trial, and installing the Duke of Gloucester in his place would certainly succeed, while you are stuck here, unaware of what’s really going on. Since I send all my papers to England, this, like Common Sense, will make its way there; and although it may alert one side, it will inform the other, and the nation as a whole, of our plan 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 paint you a picture of current events: you can draw any 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 can’t see how it would actually harm Britain. If an English merchant gets an order and is paid for it, it doesn’t matter to him who runs the country. This is my political belief. If I’ve expressed myself too passionately at any point, it’s because I have a deep, unwavering hatred for cruel people and cruel actions. I’m also against monarchy, as I think it diminishes the dignity of man; however, I never burdened others with my views until very recently, nor have I ever published a single word in England in my life. What I write is pure passion, and my pen and spirit have always been in sync. I’ve always given away my writings, only asking for the cost of printing and paper, and sometimes not even that. I’ve never chased after fame or personal gain, and my way of life, to those who know it, will back up what I say. My goal is to be of help, and if your lordship cares about humanity as much as I do, you would realize that since you can’t conquer us, you should consider finding a way to achieve peace. With God’s blessing, we will maintain our independence against the entire world; but since we wish to avoid harm ourselves, we do not want to impose it on others. I’m not overly curious about the secrets of the government, but I have a feeling that if you miss this current opportunity, it won’t be possible for us to make a separate peace with you later; for whatever treaties or alliances we enter, we will honor them faithfully; so you may be mistaken if you think you can negotiate with us at any time. A lasting independent peace is my ultimate wish and goal; to achieve that, I pray that the Americans are never defeated, and I believe that as long as they have capable leaders and are willing to follow orders, they NEVER WILL BE.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 13, 1777.
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 the course of politics, just like in everyday life, we often forget where we've been and fail to learn from our experiences as we go. We tend to focus our knowledge on the situations that create it and continue on our quest for new ideas and improvements. However, just as it can be nice and sometimes beneficial to reflect on even the earliest stages of our lives and follow the twists and turns we've made, we can also gain numerous insights by pausing during our political journey to review the intricate maze of 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.
We can honestly say that people have never aged so quickly! We've packed the events of an entire era into just a few months, and we've rushed through so many experiences that, without the time to reflect, we've inevitably squandered knowledge as we went along, leaving behind nearly as much as we carried with us. But the path still holds plenty of valuable insights, and before we completely overlook them, it will be worth our while to pause and gather them up.
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 person were completely without memory, they wouldn’t be able to form any accurate opinion; everything around them would feel chaotic. They’d have to ask everyone about their own history, and since they wouldn’t know how the world operated while they were away, they wouldn’t know how it should progress when they returned. Similarly, although to a lesser extent, being overly inattentive to past events can slow us down and confuse our judgment in everything. On the other hand, by comparing the past with the present, we often grasp the true nature of both and gain insight with minimal effort. It’s like a backward march that allows us to revisit time, observing the movements and meanings of things as we return. Some events, at the moment they happen, feel like puzzles, and just as every riddle has an answer, those puzzling events will eventually reveal their outcomes, which are the true solutions. A significant amount of time can pass between them, and unless we keep our observations connected, their harmony might go unnoticed. The problem is that, partly due to the urgent need to address immediate issues and partly because of our own impatience, we often rush to decipher the meaning of everything as it unfolds, which prevents us from truly understanding it. This approach not only creates new challenges for ourselves but also complicates Providence's good intentions.
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 pointing out this issue broadly, because as it stands, it doesn't seem directed at any specific group of people; however, if it were refined a bit more, it could easily apply to the Tories with impressive accuracy. These individuals are known for making quick judgments based on isolated facts. The smallest setback on our side, or the slightest edge for the enemy, has led them to decide the outcome of an entire campaign. With this rash thinking, they have turned a retreat into a loss; mistook leadership for mistakes; while every minor advantage intentionally given to the enemy, whether to weaken their power by splitting it, complicate their plans by increasing their aims, or to secure a stronger position by giving up a lesser one, has been quickly blown up into a victory. Thus, by combining bad strategies with bad principles, they have often supported the cause they meant to damage, and harmed what they intended 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 the campaign will start before this issue goes to print. The enemy has been sitting idle for a while, keeping the war going with just proclamations. While they continue to delay, our strength grows, and if they decide to act now, it shows they aren't getting any reinforcements; so, in either scenario, the advantage will be ours. Like a wounded whale, they just need time and space to perish; and even though it might be risky to stay close to them in their last moments, every hour reduces their time and diminishes their power to cause harm. If anything happens while this issue is being printed, it will give me something to write about in the final pages. Right now, I’m tired of waiting, and since neither the enemy nor the political situation has brought anything new, I’m left with general matters, without any striking or specific focus. This issue will therefore be more about 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 things that deserve our full attention. Anyone who doubts the first is a hopeless coward, and anyone who intentionally disrupts the second is a traitor. Their identities are clearly defined, 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 when it rejected the British Parliament's right "to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." The Declaration is incredibly powerful in its wording and represents the highest claim of arbitrary power that any group of people or country has ever made over another. Taxation was simply a way of putting that claimed right into action; when that failed, they turned to arms as a way to establish both the right and its practice, or to serve a worse purpose, which will be discussed later in this number. To cover the costs of an army and benefit from their own injustice, the colonies were declared by another law to be in a state of actual rebellion, which meant 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 them; second, they stopped using taxable goods and protested against the practice of taxation. When those efforts failed, they defended their property by force as soon as it was attacked. In response to the declaration of rebellion and lack of protection, they published their Declaration of Independence and asserted their 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, briefly speaking, are the different stages of the conflict; and the parts are so closely and necessarily linked with each other that they cannot be separated. A person, to put it simply, must either be a Whig or a Tory as a whole. His feelings, as an individual, might be hurt; his compassion, as a Christian, might be stirred; but his political beliefs must align with one side or the other in every situation. He can’t be a Whig in one instance and a Tory in another. If he claims he is against the united independence of the continent, then he is, for all practical purposes, against it in every other aspect; because that idea encompasses everything. He might as well say that Britain was justified in labeling us rebels, justified in taxing us, and justified in claiming her "right to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." It doesn’t matter what neutral ground he might try to create for himself to avoid taking a side, because the conflict at no stage has provided any such ground; either we or Britain are completely right or completely wrong throughout the whole matter.
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 on the verge of losing everything, has now put all her losses on one bet and is playing a desperate game for it all. If she wins, she takes my life; she gains the continent as property forfeited by rebels; the right to tax those who remain as subjugated subjects; and the power to enslave them. The single roll that determines this unprecedented event is whether we uphold our independence or she crushes it. This is getting straight to the point. Here is the standard to judge people by. Anyone who does not support the independent states of America to the same extent that their religious and political beliefs allow them to support the government of any other country they consider themselves a part of is, in the American sense, a TORY; and the moment they try to put their Tory beliefs into action, they become a TRAITOR. The first can only be identified by a general test, and the law has already set provisions 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 unreasonable and unwise to let people who would tear down our independence have any role in our laws, whether as voters or representatives. The strength and integrity of our public institutions are crucial to supporting our independence. Would Britain, even in peacetime, let an election be influenced by those who claim they are not her subjects, or allow them to sit in Parliament? Absolutely 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 don’t care about conscience or principle; they’re motivated solely by greed. Some of the biggest fortunes in the country, on the Whig side, are riding on the outcome of our current actions. And should discontent only bring security? What could be more tempting to a greedy person than the hope of protecting their wealth? Even if the plan is completely foolish, as long as he thinks that by not doing anything seriously wrong against America on one side, and by privately criticizing independence as a way to appease the enemy on the other side, he’s playing it safe between both; as long as this situation continues, cunning and greed will identify it, and there will be no shortage of people willing to adopt this most contemptible 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 dirty reason behind their discontent, only make things worse by trying to hide behind a facade of hypocrisy. In other words, they would rather be seen as Tories for some sort of principle than as Tories with no principles at all. However, until they can provide a legitimate reason—whether it's natural, political, or moral—for their objections to independence, we are not obligated to acknowledge them as true Tories, but instead must consider them as the insincere 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 demonstrate that the enemy can't conquer America, that all we need is patience and perseverance, and with those qualities, our success, as far as anyone can predict, seems as inevitable as fate. However, many among us, swayed by others, have repeatedly abandoned the principles they once believed in as we’ve moved forward. It is the unfortunate fate of many good people to live among those who are disaffected. Therefore, to strengthen the convictions of some and help recover the beliefs of others, I will attempt, in a page or two, to revisit some key principles supporting independence. It is much more pleasant to prevent wrongdoing than to punish it, and even though our tempers might feel satisfied by anger, or our national budget relieved by seized properties, peace and friendship are still the best state a country can enjoy.
The principal arguments in support of independence may be comprehended under the four following heads.
The main arguments for independence can be understood under the following four points.
1st, The natural right of the continent to independence. 2d, Her interest in being independent. 3d, The necessity,—and 4th, The moral advantages arising therefrom.
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 natural right of the continent to independence is a point that has never been challenged. It’s not even open for debate. To deny this right would be to go against nature itself: and the best response to such an argument would be, "The fool has said in his heart 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 the previous point. At the start of the conflict, America, through its own efforts and without the knowledge of European powers, had achieved a level of greatness in trade and population that Britain didn't want it to surpass, fearing it would become too strong to control. Britain began to look at this country with the same greedy and anxious gaze as a selfish guardian who had profited from his ward's estate for twenty years, now seeing him reaching adulthood. America owes as much to Britain for its growth as the ward owes the guardian for turning 21. It's true that America prospered under British rule, but there’s every reason to believe that if it had been independent from the start, free to create its own laws and manage its own trade, it would have been far better off by now. The reality is this: the first settlers in the various colonies were left to fend for themselves, without any support from European governments. But as tyranny and persecution in the old world drove more people to the new world, and through their hard work and determination they became significant, they also became a source of profit for greedy European eyes. In their early stages, no matter how promising, they couldn’t resist an armed invader trying to assert control over them. In this context, Britain found it worthwhile to claim them, and the continent accepted that claim. Ultimately, it didn’t matter much who their ruler was; due to the power struggles and ambitions of different European nations, they had to acknowledge someone until they gained enough strength to claim their own rights. Britain might have been as suitable a ruler as any other, and being under the Dutch might not have been worse. The hopes of benefiting from trade without excessive oppression would have applied equally under any ruler, leading to similar outcomes for the colonies. The argument for protection was also a sham because, to make that protection feel necessary, Britain had to create enemies through its own conflicts. Quite a deal!
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 one simple question: Is it in a man's interest to remain a boy his whole life? The answer to one will be the answer to both. America has been a constant scene of legislative conflict from the first king's representative to the last, which was inevitably rooted in the natural clash of interests between the old country and the new. A governor sent from England, or receiving his authority from there, should never have been seen as anything other than a classy commissioned spy, whose private job was collecting information, and whose public job was a form of civilized oppression. In the first role, he was to monitor the feelings, opinions, and attitudes of the people, the growth of trade, and the accumulation of private wealth; and in the second, to suppress any acts of the assemblies, no matter how beneficial to the people, that didn’t directly or indirectly increase the power or profits of 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, up to now, couldn't really be called a free country, because its 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 just 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 extremely important for a trading country because its main source of wealth relies on it. No country can thrive as it could if its commerce is controlled, restricted, and limited by the laws and rules of another nation. The continent has endured these issues, and many more, while under British rule. By gaining independence, we resolve all these problems at once—end the cycle of unanswered petitions and pointless protests—connect with Europe—engage with the world—live in harmony with everyone—and trade wherever we can 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 obvious and crucial that the continent risked being ruined every day we waited. There was good reason to think that Britain would try to turn it into a European issue and, rather than lose everything, would break it apart like Poland, selling off its pieces to the highest bidder. When Genoa failed to regain Corsica, they sold it to the French, and such deals have been common in the old world. At that time, we had no ambassador in any part of Europe to counteract their dealings, which meant they had free rein in every foreign court with no pushback from us. We didn’t even find out about the treaty for the Hessians until it was signed and the troops were ready to leave. If we had been independent earlier, we could have possibly stopped Britain from acquiring them. We had no credibility abroad because of our rebellious dependency. Our ships couldn’t claim protection in foreign ports because we didn’t give them a valid reason to do so. Calling ourselves subjects while simultaneously fighting against the power we acknowledged set a dangerous precedent 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 armed resistance either. All of Europe was interested in keeping us down as rebels, and most of Europe was invested in supporting us as independent states. At home, our situation was even worse: our currency had no real backing, and its collapse would have devastated both Whigs and Tories. We had no law other than a kind of tempered passion, no civil authority other than a well-meaning mob, and no protection except for the temporary loyalty of individuals to one another. If independence had been delayed a few more months, this continent would have been thrown into total chaos: some would have violently supported it while others opposed it, leading to a general breakdown where the wealthy would have lost everything and the poor would have been destroyed. Every Tory owes their present safety to independence; it was through that—only through that—that we got out of a dangerous limbo and became an organized society.
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 eventually have led to one. The growing significance of trade, the complicated nature of laws, and the confused state of European politics would have made it clear to the continent that remaining subordinate was not feasible. After careful consideration, it must be acknowledged that Britain was too protective of America to govern it fairly; too uninformed about it to govern it effectively; and too far away 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 all thoughtful people are the moral benefits of independence: war and destruction have become the norm in the old world; and America could not, and cannot, be governed by Britain without sharing in its guilt and becoming part of its grim trade in death. The spirit of dueling, magnified on a national level, defines European wars. They often have little motivation beyond pride or any goal other than fame. Both the victors and the vanquished usually suffer, with the key difference being that one returns home with honors, while the other does not. It’s the natural tendency of the English to fight over trivial matters if they perceive them as insults; and America, without the right to question why, had to support every conflict and accept the consequences. It’s a disturbing situation to be in, where one country must be dragged into all the wars of another, regardless of whether the actions are justified or not, or whether they agree or not; yet this has always been, and will always be, the inevitable outcome of the relationship. Surely the Quakers abandoned their own principles when, in their recent Testimony, they referred to this connection—with all its military and miserable attachments—as "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 spent nearly fifty years out of every hundred at war with various powers for centuries. America should seriously consider avoiding involvement in Europe's bloody conflicts. Our situation offers us a way to stay out of their schemes, and the current strong union of the states holds promise for eliminating the need for warfare in one part of the world; however, the current leaders of the Quakers have such irreligious politics that, for reasons they barely understand, they would cut off all hope for such a blessing by binding this continent to Britain, like Hector tied to the chariot wheel of Achilles, to be dragged through the endless suffering 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?
From this perspective, the situation is upsetting for anyone with a sense of humanity. By being under British rule, we turned most of Europe into our enemies, and they viewed us the same way, leading to inevitable conflict. By becoming our own masters and free from foreign control, we can count Europe as our allies and look forward to a future of lasting peace among ourselves. Those who supported British rule over these colonies could only frame their arguments based on the hope of European peace; the moment Britain entered into war, any supposed benefits for us disappeared, leaving us to merely hope we wouldn’t be destroyed. Is this a desirable state for a young nation?
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 fortunes right after Braddock's defeat in the last war, this city and province would have faced the terrible misfortune of being British subjects. A similar situation could happen again; America, under British rule, would always be a battleground and a 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 a worthy goal for a peaceful person; if free trade everywhere can attract the attention of a business-minded person; if the rise or fall of millions in currency can impact our interests; if completely owning land, free from Britain’s claims over it, is important for landowners; and if the right to make our own laws, without interference from royal or government agents, is something we should value as free individuals—then everyone has a stake in supporting independence; and may anyone who supports it not be pushed away from this blessing and live without sympathy under the shameful burden 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 have been entertained by stories of ancient wonders; we have read 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 suffered—the fairness of their cause—the burden of their oppression and oppressors—the stakes involved—along with all the outcomes of a defeat or a victory—have, in moments of empathy, captured our hearts and tied them to their fate: but where is the power that ever waged war on those who petition? Or where is the conflict that put the world at stake 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 might not be wise enough to fully take advantage of our independence, but it is clearly offered to us with all the qualities of greatness and goodness, deserving of the one who bestowed it. I look beyond our current struggles to a time of peace, when we will have the power to set an example of tranquility for the whole world. If the Quakers were truly committed to the peaceful principles they claim to uphold, they would be the first to support independence, even if they disagreed with the methods, because by separating ourselves from the corrupt cities, we have a unique opportunity to put their beloved principle of peace into practice by establishing governments that can exist without war. Oh! You fallen, submissive people, controlled by priests and Pemberton! What more can we say about you than that a religious Quaker is a valuable person, while a political Quaker is nothing more than 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 reviewed some of the main points in favor of independence, I now ask the reader to travel back with me to the time when it first became a public idea and to look at the progress it has made among different groups of people. I intend to start at the outbreak of hostilities on April 19, 1775. Before this event, the continent seemed to see the dispute as a kind of legal battle over rights, a case between the old country and the new; it felt the same kind of horror as if witnessing an oppressive plaintiff, leading a group of thugs, storm into the court while the case was being heard and attack the judge, the jury, the defendant, and his lawyer. Perhaps no other country has experienced such a powerful and swift upheaval before, and it may never again. Compassion for the victims, mixed with anger at the violence and heightened by fears of facing the same fate, made the Lexington incident a matter for the entire continent. Every part of it felt the shock, and all resonated together. A shared sense of sentiment spread: those who believed deeply in Whiggish principles—the right and necessity not just to oppose but to completely reject the crown’s power as soon as it became a real danger (though theoretically it always was)—took the first step toward independence; meanwhile, another group of Whigs, equally strong in principle but less optimistic about taking action, rallied behind the former group, their divide being minimal. Many moderate individuals, whose main flaw at the time was having a more favorable view of Britain than it warranted, realized their mistake and abandoned that view, publicly declaring themselves loyal Whigs. The Tories, seeing the seriousness of the situation, either withdrew into silence or contented themselves with criticizing General Gage; not a single supporter stepped forward to defend the actions of that day; it struck everyone with equal severity, evoked the same reaction from all, and created widespread disgust. From this point, we can mark 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 happened during this significant time and compare them with one another, you'll come to a conclusion that seems to have been overlooked. I mean a clear plan from the king and his government to push America towards rebellion so they could use it as an excuse to take control of the entire continent as the direct property of the crown. 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 went unanswered by the British king at this time. The motion known as Lord North's motion, dated February 20, 1775, arrived in America at the end of March. This motion was to be presented by the various governors to the assembly of each province, and the first assembly that considered it was the Pennsylvania assembly in May. Given this accurate account, I then ask: why did hostilities begin between the passing of the resolution in the House of Commons on February 20 and the assemblies meeting to discuss it? Although that motion was disreputable and significant, there is reason to believe that the king and his supporters feared the colonies would agree to it, so to counteract that possibility, they stirred up hostilities in the meantime. They had no doubt at that moment that they could conquer America quickly, and what they stood to gain from such a conquest was far greater than anything they could hope to achieve through taxation or compromise. They seemed determined to prevent any chance of dialogue, fearing that America might reject their ambitious plans if they even listened to the king's terms. On one side, they refused to acknowledge the continent’s petition, and on the other, they ensured that the continent wouldn't hear from 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 decision made on February 20th and the orders to start hostilities were both orchestrated by the same individual or group, and not the latter by General Gage, as had been mistakenly believed at first, is clear from an excerpt of a letter he sent to the administration, which was read along with other documents in the House of Commons. In this letter, he informs his superiors, "Although their idea of having him disarm certain counties was correct, it required him to be in control of the region to be able to carry it out." This was before the hostilities began and therefore before the February 20th decision 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 a plan to provoke the Americans not to accept it. Lord North provided one reason himself: he hoped to create a divide among them. This was basically an invitation for them to reject it; if the threat of military action didn’t stir them enough, the insult of such a declaration might do the trick. However, by passing the motion and then having it rejected in America, it allowed them, in their malicious political strategy, to showcase the colonies to foreign powers as disobedient and rebellious. They had reached out to those powers to prevent supplying the continent with arms and ammunition, so they needed to incite those powers against us by giving a false respectable reason. By causing division, they aimed to weaken the States and confuse America’s supporters in England. But the main scheme, which has characterized their actions throughout, was to push the colonies into a situation they could later label as rebellion. Under that guise, they could stamp out any future complaints, petitions, and protests by taking everything at once. They had already plundered one part of the world until there was nothing left to gain; their greed demanded new conquests, and through tea from the East India Company, they hoped to shift their exploitation from that region to this one. Every intended conflict had its excuse, and the same brutal greed that destroyed the source country followed the plant 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 up universally, eventually. The start of the conflict, occurring in early April, was, without a doubt, the worst time to choose: Congress was set to meet on May 10, and the distress the country felt from this unprecedented outrage gave a strength to that assembly that nothing else could have provided. It also suppressed all lesser arguments, uniting them through a necessary bond, without giving them the chance to argue over trivial matters. The suffering also softened the entire population, making them more adaptable, which laid the essential groundwork for unity, order, and governance—something that, at any other moment, might have just caused irritation and then faded into the background unnoticed and unacknowledged. But Providence, who knows best how to time both her misfortunes and her immediate blessings, chose this moment, and who would dare to argue against 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 inclined to bombard the authorities with requests while their earlier ones were still ignored. Still, Congress approved another petition, which I’ll only note was overly submissive, as it relied solely on what it referred to as the crown's prerogative, even though the issue at hand was undeniably constitutional. But even this flattering petition wasn’t as appealing as cash, and therefore, it didn’t show enough gratitude to the tyrant and his administration. Everything indicates that the British government was determined to have nothing to do with America other than to fully conquer her. They were confident of their success, and the battlefield was the only venue for negotiations. I’m sure there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, in America who now wonder why they ever thought differently. Yet, the mistake of that time was one of civility; however, it worked against our current well-being in the same way that a polite view of the devil would hinder 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 concept that was rare and almost nonexistent, even by the end of 1775; all our politics were based on the hope of reconciliation—a hope that, while widespread in America, had never crossed the minds or hearts of the British court. Their aim was conquest and confiscation. Good heavens! How much thanks does America owe to Britain? What a huge debt to the tool that, with its contradictory emptiness, sits on the throne! Only the worst mix of wickedness and the highest degree of foolishness could have created a circumstance that led to a separation. The Congress in 1774 tried to address independence with an ineffective solution by banning the importation of goods, and the next Congress made things even worse by continuing that approach. If America had truly been committed to independence, as Britain claimed, she should have increased her imports and limited her exports. This one fact is enough to clear America in front of any international jury of having a plan for independence; a claim that, if true, would have been honorable, but is so blatantly false that it clearly demonstrates either the astounding 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, like the first, got no response; it was hardly even acknowledged as received. The British court was so set on their wrongdoing that they wouldn’t even try to hide it, and in their obsession with conquest, they overlooked the essential tactics needed to achieve it. They could have divided, distracted, and used a thousand tricks against 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 last insult sparked a new drive for independence. Those who understood the king's stubbornness and the self-serving, reckless nature of the court predicted the outcome of the petition as soon as it was sent from America; since the people involved were known, their actions were easy to anticipate. As politicians, we shouldn't base our hopes so much on the reasonableness of what we’re asking for, but rather on the reasonableness of the person we’re asking it from: 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 option for compromise seemed to quickly disappear, people began to seriously consider the situation. Stripped of the false hopes that had surrounded them for so long, their reasoning became open to thoughtful discussion. Yet still, the majority hesitated; they were taken aback by the idea of independence, without realizing that our initial decision to take up arms was an even greater novelty, and that all other nations had undergone their own struggles for independence before us. They also questioned whether the continent could support this independence, failing to recognize that it took the same strength to achieve a compromise through force as it did to win independence. If one was obtainable, so was the other; because to achieve either, it was necessary for us to be strong enough to resist British control, and it was unreasonable to think that, given the power to be our own masters, we would willingly become subservient. Their caution at this moment was completely misplaced; if they could defend their property and maintain their rights through arms, they were therefore capable of defending and supporting their independence. As these individuals recognized the necessity and validity of this course of action, they honestly and openly embraced it, and their actions since have brought them respect and solidified their reputations. Mistakes in opinion have this unique advantage: the leading argument for the opposing view can be reached at any time by a sudden flash of thought. It often happens in emotional disputes that a striking event or a strong reason that comes to mind quickly can achieve in an instant what neither debate nor example could accomplish over many years.
* In this state of political suspense the pamphlet Common Sense made its appearance, and the success it met with does not become me to mention. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Samuel and John Adams, were severally spoken of as the supposed author. I had not, at that time, the pleasure either of personally knowing or being known to the two last gentlemen. The favor of Dr. Franklin's friendship I possessed in England, and my introduction to this part of the world was through his patronage. I happened, when a school-boy, to pick up a pleasing natural history of Virginia, and my inclination from that day of seeing the western side of the Atlantic never left me. In October, 1775, Dr. Franklin proposed giving me such materials as were in his hands, towards completing a history of the present transactions, and seemed desirous of having the first volume out the next Spring. I had then formed the outlines of Common Sense, and finished nearly the first part; and as I supposed the doctor's design in getting out a history was to open the new year with a new system, I expected to surprise him with a production on that subject, much earlier than he thought of; and without informing him what I was doing, got it ready for the press as fast as I conveniently could, and sent him the first pamphlet that was printed off.
* In this time of political tension, the pamphlet Common Sense was published, and I won’t go into its success. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Samuel Adams, and John Adams were all considered possible authors. At that time, I didn’t have the pleasure of knowing either of the last two gentlemen personally. I had the friendship of Dr. Franklin while I was in England, and my introduction to this part of the world was thanks to his support. As a schoolboy, I came across an interesting natural history of Virginia, and from that day on, my desire to see the western side of the Atlantic never faded. In October 1775, Dr. Franklin offered to give me materials he had to help complete a history of current events and seemed eager to have the first volume out by the following spring. By then, I had outlined Common Sense and nearly finished the first part. I thought the doctor’s plan for the history was to introduce a new system at the start of the new year, so I aimed to surprise him with my work on that topic much sooner than he expected. Without letting him know what I was up to, I prepared it for publication as quickly as I could and sent him the first printed pamphlet.
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, given the limited space I have, to outline the progress that independence has made on the minds of different social classes, along with the various reasons that motivated them. For some, it stemmed from a deep hatred for the king of England and his government, who they viewed as a bunch of savages and brutes. These individuals, driven by the pain of their wounded spirits, were inclined to place their trust in hope and fate, daringly defying authority. For others, it was a growing realization that the British government's plan was to create, stir up, and escalate a conflict for the sake of seizing wealth. People in this category moved towards independence as they saw more evidence confirming their beliefs. A third group believed it was in America's best interest, both domestically and internationally, to be self-governing, and they supported independence gradually as they recognized America's capacity to uphold it. 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, loyalists.
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 related reasons, is highlighted in a skillfully delivered speech to the grand jury for the district of Charleston by the Hon. William Henry Drayton, chief justice of South Carolina, [April 23, 1776]. In my opinion, this speech, along with the address from the New York convention, are among the top 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 independence hasn’t been as widely supported as it should be are fear and laziness, while the reasons it’s been opposed include greed, outright villainy, and a desire for personal power. There’s no true Tory in America who acts out of conscience; there’s some hidden flaw in the character of anyone, man or woman, who can tolerate the brutality, extravagance, and corruption of the British court and the abuses of their army here. A woman’s virtue must be very weak if she can even suggest any positive feelings toward them. It’s noteworthy that the entire community of prostitutes in New York were Tories, and the plans to support the Tory cause in this city, which have landed several in jail and one hanged, were organized and carried out in common brothels, with the help of the people 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 immorality and selfishness is a perfect topic for satire, but when that satire is based on reality, it hits hard like a diamond. If a Quaker picks up a gun to defend his rights, property, and the honor of his home, he gets kicked out of the meeting. Yet, the current king of England, who seduced and kept the sister of their community, is honored and supported with repeated endorsements. Meanwhile, the well-meaning guy from whom she was taken (who is now in this city) continues to serve his rival, almost as if he's proud to be cheated on 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 wide range of people and situations, so anyone who wishes us well can be of some help. There are individuals who have a strong dislike for fighting yet are willing to risk every penny for the cause or to support those who are better suited for defending it. Nature has designed people for different roles in life: if everyone were a soldier, we'd all starve and be without clothes, and if there were no soldiers, we’d all be enslaved. Disloyalty to independence is a sign of a Tory, while loyalty to it marks a Whig; the various contributions of the Whigs, from those who generously give everything to those who can only offer their good wishes, all aim toward the same goal, even if they differ in merit and ability. The broader we make our circle, the more we will work together cohesively, and the stronger we will become. All we need to exclude is disloyalty, and once that’s out, we should accept from each other the roles we’re best suited to fill. A narrow political outlook, much like a narrow religious belief, only serves to sour attitudes and create conflict among people.
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 is for independence and who isn't? Those in favor will support it, while the others will see the reasonableness of paying the costs; those who oppose it or try to betray it should expect the harsh consequences of jail and execution. There’s a false kind of generosity that, while seemingly inclusive, is just as damaging to society as the lack of genuine generosity. A loose approach to justice, wrongly called moderation, can undermine public virtue and encourage societal issues. If the recent committee of safety had addressed the last statement from the Quakers and acted against those involved, they might have prevented the treasonous schemes that followed. Allowing even one criminal to go unpunished encourages others to act, either hoping to get away with it too or believing we are too afraid to punish them. It’s been surprising that no action was taken regarding the inflammatory publication from the Quakers on November 20th; a document clearly aimed at inciting rebellion and treason and encouraging the enemy, who was just a day’s march from our city, to take action. I present the reader with a memorial that was brought before the board of safety shortly after the statement appeared. Every member I spoke to expressed strong outrage at the twisted principles and actions of the Quaker group and wished the board would take action; nevertheless, it was allowed to pass without notice, leading to more acts of treason, increasing danger for our cause, and shame for our state.
To the honorable the Council of Safety of the State of Pennsylvania.
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, aware of the justness of the cause this continent is involved in, and motivated by a strong desire 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 openly express our openness to everyone; with the understanding that those who don’t deserve it should strive to earn it. We believe in the fundamental principles of universal freedom of conscience, and we see it as our responsibility to protect that sacred right for others, just as we defend it for ourselves; for we choose not to judge the moral correctness of beliefs, but leave the entire matter 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 others because of their religion; our common bond is that we are all citizens and members of one community. In this spirit of togetherness, we extend a hand of friendship to everyone. However, we would consider ourselves unworthy members of the free and independent States of America if we casually allowed or ignored any treasonous acts, whether public or private, that threaten the peace and safety of our nation. We don’t care about the offenders' status or their religious beliefs; that’s not our concern. Our role is simply 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 document, dated November 20th and signed 'John Pemberton,' who we believe is a resident of this city, has recently been circulated, and a copy of it is included here. If the authors and publishers of that document had seen it as their responsibility to encourage the youth and others in their community to patiently endure these tough times and to humbly await the outcome from above, they would have shown a Christian spirit, and we would have remained silent. However, the anger and political hostility with which they deliver their message and the insults they hurl at anyone who doesn't agree with them make it clear what kind of spirit motivated their publication. It is shameful for the pure cause of truth that people can play with words of the utmost importance, treating them as if religion is merely a matter of strategy. We know of no case where the Quakers have been forced to take up arms or do anything that might compromise their conscience; therefore, their advice to 'resist and refuse to comply with the arbitrary orders and rules of men' seems like a false alarm and is only meant to win favor with our enemies, especially when they appear ready to invade this State, or, even worse, to undermine our defense, 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 emotions—in how we deal with them. We realize that our cause has been harmed by two mistakes: first, showing too much leniency to traitorous individuals in some instances, and second, reacting to them with only passion in others. Moving forward, we will reject 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 wishes of its people, directed and authorized the Continental Congress to publish a formal Declaration of Independence from the oppressive king and Parliament of Great Britain. We view anyone who doesn’t contribute in some way to support this as an enemy. Furthermore, we believe that the offense becomes even more egregious when those individuals, under the guise of religion, attempt—whether through writing, speaking, or other means—to undermine, overturn, or discredit 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 newspaper, signed 'John Pemberton,' have loudly urged their friends and connections to 'stand against or reject' compliance with any 'instructions or rules' that may be issued, which they believe are not supported by (what they refer to as) 'that great Constitution under which they and others have long enjoyed peace and stability.' If this isn't treason, then we don't know what truly deserves that label."
"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 shocking that people who constantly preach 'peace, peace' can be so eager to live under and support a government they describe as 'happy,' when that government is most pleased during a war that has brought destruction and famine to India, slavery to Africa, and has encouraged Native Americans and Black people to attack the free people of America. We consider it a disgrace for this state to tolerate or overlook such obvious hypocrisy. However, since we don’t want to harm anyone when we can be safe without doing so, we hope these people will find peace for themselves and us by moving to another part of King George III's territories, allowing us to live without interference from each other; because we firmly believe that those who don’t deserve to be here shouldn’t have a place among us."
"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 ask the Council of Safety to consider the document signed 'John Pemberton,' and if they find it to have a dangerous or treasonous nature, to detain the signer and anyone else involved until a trial can determine their level of guilt and punishment. In this process, we hope that the judges, whoever they are, will focus solely on the nature of the offense and not be influenced by the individual’s status, connections, 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.
The most nitpicky critic can't claim that the previous points include even a hint of persecution. The free spirit that the American cause is built on refuses to be tainted by such filth and leaves it as trash meant only for narrow-minded, suspicious people to wallow in. Suspicion and persecution grow from the same rotten soil and thrive together. If the Quakers had focused on their faith and their affairs, they could have navigated this conflict with ease and no one would have bothered them. Their common saying is, "Our principles are peace." To which the reply could be, your actions say otherwise; no group has ever had their behavior contradict their doctrine as clearly as the current Quakers do. They've cleverly transformed into a different kind of people than they used to be, yet they manage to convince one another that nothing's changed; like outdated unmarried women, they are blind to the damage time has done to them, mistakenly thinking that wrinkles are just dimples, believing themselves to still be attractive, and wondering why the world doesn't appreciate 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 principles didn't harm the public, people wouldn't care. But since both the intent and effects target a cause that matters to the entire community, it's no longer just an issue for the meeting but a criminal matter that falls under the jurisdiction of either the specific State where it happens or the continent as a whole. Any efforts to maintain the authority of the king and Parliament of Great Britain over America are considered treason against every State; therefore, no one can forgive or protect someone from punishment for offending everyone.
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, negotiations, settling things, and all sorts of nonsense, their good king and government were indulging in the satisfaction of bringing America to complete submission and reassuring each other of their certainty in conquering 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, disobedient, and unmanageable from the very beginning, right from their early settlements; and I am increasingly convinced that this group will never return to their responsibilities and the subordinate relationship they have with this country until they are brought to total, effective submission; no concessions from us, no leniency, no patience will do anything but fuel their arrogance."
* Steward of the king's household.
* 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 struggle for power; the decisions have been made, and the only question left to answer is how we can fight this war most effectively and finish it quickly, to achieve the unconditional surrender that the noble Earl with the white staff" (meaning Lord Talbot) "has articulated so well. I have no doubt that the strategies we are currently following will end the war within a single campaign. If it drags on any longer, we can expect some foreign power to step in and exploit our internal issues and civil unrest."
* Formerly General Townsend, at Quebec, and late lord-lieutenant of Ireland.
* Formerly General Townsend, in Quebec, and most 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 just want to say that lenient measures have only led to more insults; the more we gave in, the more America raised her demands, and the more disrespectful she has become. For this reason, I now support the most effective and decisive actions; I believe we have no other choice but to either give up America for good or finally decide to force her to recognize the legislative authority of this country. I stand by the principle of unconditional submission."
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 the government never intended to reach an agreement with America, but rather aimed for complete, unconditional conquest. The role of the Tories was to lie outright in order to catch the continent off guard and to create division and discontent among the Whigs they could influence. In short, their goal was to maintain a distraction here so that the forces sent from England could succeed in "one campaign." They and the government were, through different strategies, working together. The Tories in England shouted, "No reconciliation, no accommodation," to secure a larger military force, while those in America were calling solely for "reconciliation and accommodation" so that the sent forces could achieve victory 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 is not conquered. The whole job is still ahead, and we have much less strength to tackle it. Their situation is both pitiful and tragic: out of money, out of morale, and out of hope. A country equipped with weapons and ammunition like America is now, with three million people and three thousand miles away from the closest enemy that can approach, can afford to look them in the face 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 travel to 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 going up the North River, he secures a retreat for his army through Canada, but the ships have to return the same way they came if they come back at all. Since our army would be behind them, the safety of their 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 being stranded. The idea that he can cut off communication between the eastern and southern states using the North River is unrealistic. He can't do it with his ships because no ship can anchor for long in any river close to the shore; a single cannon shot would send a first-rate vessel fleeing from such a position. This was clearly demonstrated last October at Forts Washington and Lee, where just one cannon on each side of the river forced two frigates to cut and be towed away in less than an hour. He can't cut it off with his army either because the various posts they would need to occupy would spread them too thin and expose them to being easily picked off by ours like small stones on a riverbank. Even if he could, what's the point? With his whole force stationed out as sentries over the water, they would be harmlessly occupied, and the moment they march into the countryside, communication would reopen.
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 do that, the more he will use his power to intimidate women and vulnerable people to achieve through their fears what he can't achieve on his own. His attempts to move towards Philadelphia show his weakness; no general who felt capable of taking the field and attacking his opponent would think about moving his army into a city during the summer. This constant shifting of the battlefield, without achieving anything, reveals a lack of strength and bravery, making him look contemptible to anyone who can think clearly and firmly. According to several reports from New York, it seems their army, both officers and soldiers, has given up on the idea of conquering America; they are now focused on the loot. They believe Philadelphia is full of resources, and since they think they'll gain more by robbing a town than by fighting an army, it's likely they're moving towards this city. We are no longer fighting against an army of soldiers, but against a group of thieves who prefer to loot rather than fight, and who have no hope of victory except through 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 think they can score a huge haul and trigger another widespread panic by making a sudden move and taking over this city. But unless they can get out as easily as they get in, or gain full control of the river to move their loot, they might end up stuck with stolen goods. They haven't succeeded anywhere they've faced opposition, except at Fort Washington. They were soundly defeated at Charleston. They fled from Ticonderoga. In each skirmish at Kingsbridge and the White Plains, they had to retreat, and as soon as we turned our forces against them in the Jerseys, they did the same, while those who didn’t run 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 constantly adjust our internal systems to the realities of our times is so evidently clear that no valid argument can be made against it. The safety of all societies relies on this, and if we ignore it, the outcome will either be widespread complacency or chaos. Supporting and protecting the good citizens of any state, while repressing and punishing the bad ones, are the main purposes for which all authority exists, and this is how it should operate. In this city, we have a strange mix of people and personalities, and the current situation requires that we publicly recognize them; it's not the number of Tories that harms us as much as not knowing who they are. People must now choose a side and accept the consequences: the Quakers, relying on their shortsighted wisdom, have unfortunately made their stance clear in their latest Testimony, and we should hold them to it. They have unwittingly excluded themselves from the larger community and can only hope to be readmitted through payment and repentance. Individuals whose political beliefs are based on greed cannot be swayed by reason, and the only way to address this kind of Toryism is through taxation. Extracting some benefit from a genuine evil is just as valuable to society as deriving it from a virtue; and when people lack the public spirit to be useful, the government should strive to make the best use of their vices. Once the dominant motivation of any individual or group is understood, managing them becomes straightforward; even those who are miserly and impervious to public virtue would become generous if a significant 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 secure their assets with the enemy by sacrificing their reputation with us; this suggests that their main motivation is greed. If you make them as fearful of losing on one side as they are on the other, you shake their Tory beliefs; make them even more afraid, and you can win them back; because their principle is to support 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 thinking about people and things together opens up a big area for speculation and gives me a chance to share some thoughts on the state of our currency, so that its support aligns with reducing discontent and boosting public spirit.
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 in order to increase its value. People are getting poorer by the very actions they take to get rich; because as the prices of goods increase, the value of the money they have saved decreases. A simple example will clarify this: suppose a man has £100 in cash and goods that can be sold today for £20; however, not satisfied with the current market price, he raises the price to £40, which forces others to raise their prices as well. It’s clear that his £100 now has the value of only £50; on the other hand, if the market prices had fallen instead, his goods would only sell for £10, but his £100 would have increased in value to £200 since it would buy the same amount of goods or support his family for the same duration. Oddly enough, he's actually £150 poorer for raising his prices than he would have been if he had lowered them. The £40 he got from selling his goods is rendered worthless by the general rise in market prices, just like the £10 would have been if prices had dropped proportionally; thus, the whole difference in gain or loss comes down to the change in value of the £100 saved, going from £50 to £200. This obsession with raising prices is much more the fault of the Tories than the Whigs; yet, the Tories (to their shame) are the most vocal and dissatisfied. Most of the Whigs are currently either in the army or engaged in public service, making them buyers instead of sellers, and since this problem originates in trade, it can’t be blamed on those who are not involved in 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 cut down the amount of money in circulation. With half the amount, we would actually be wealthier than we are now because its value would double, which would increase our desire for it. It's not about how many dollars a person has, but how far those dollars can stretch that determines if they're rich or poor. If we agree on these two points—that there’s too much money and that prices can only be effectively lowered by reducing the amount of money—the next thing to consider is how to make 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 current situation, as mentioned before, requires that we fully understand the public roles of all individuals, and the only way to determine this is through an oath or affirmation, rejecting all loyalty to the king of Great Britain, and pledging to support the independence of the United States as declared by Congress. Additionally, a tax of ten, fifteen, or twenty percent per year, collected quarterly, should be imposed on all property. These options are entirely voluntary, allowing for participation from all kinds of people. Here is the test; here is the tax. Those who take the first option demonstrate their commitment to the cause and agree to contribute their share through their best efforts, thus excusing them from the tax; while those who opt for the tax pay in money to be relieved from the first requirement, or rather, it serves as the cost for their perceived, albeit misguided, alliance with 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 one part of the advantage gained from understanding the different personalities of people. The Whigs risk everything on the outcome of their efforts, while the Tories, through their lack of loyalty, are weakening their own side; as a result, the Whigs' property is more vulnerable. Any damage their estates suffer due to the enemy's actions must be endured by them, since they’ve done everything that has been done so far, or by the Tories, who haven’t done anything and have, through their disloyalty, invited 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 need to identify clearly, house by house and square by square, who truly supports the United Independent States and who doesn't. Once the line is drawn clearly, everyone will know who to trust. It would not only be wise but also fair to raise fifty or a hundred thousand pounds, or more if needed, from the estates and properties of those loyal to the king of England who live in Philadelphia. This money would be distributed as a reward to the residents of the city and state who stand up to the enemy if they try to march this way. Additionally, we should bind the property of all those individuals to cover any damages that the property of the Whigs might incur. In the chaotic way war is conducted, we often retaliate at sea against the vessels of people in England who are more sympathetic to our cause compared to the Tories living 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 every previous publication of mine, from Common Sense to the latest Crisis, I’ve generally assumed that the Tories were more misguided than evil, and I’ve presented argument after argument, with all the understanding and patience I could muster, in order to clearly and fairly lay out the case for them, hoping to bring them back from ruin to reason. I’ve done my part for them and am now done with that belief, assuming that those who still hold onto their discontent are either a group of greedy villains willing to sacrifice the continent to save themselves, or a gang of desperate traitors hoping for a share of the loot. Additionally, there are those who rely on the crown or proprietors, who, rather than go without a bit of power, would be okay sharing it with the worst. There is no hope for such men; their obedience will only depend on the danger they face and the power exerted 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 understanding people's true characters now will protect us from their harm later; because as our enemies lose hope of winning, they'll resort to manipulation and intimidation through all the damage they can cause. But in war, we can be sure of two things: first, that cruelty from an enemy and excessive displays of power are always signs of weakness. A person who can win is typically too confident and at ease to act savagely, and someone who plans to win doesn’t flaunt their strength.
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 understand who our enemy is. While they were confident of victory, they were too proud to be respectful; but as disappointment brings them back to reality and their fears of a European war grow, they will become submissive and cunning; they can't be honest. Our response to them, no matter their state, is straightforward and clear—“As free and independent States, we are ready to make peace with you tomorrow, but we can neither listen to nor respond 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 conquer us, it shows she's neither capable of governing nor protecting us. Our current situation is such that any connection with her would be a foolish trade of a half-defeated enemy for two strong ones. Europe clearly seems to be on the brink of war, and any alliance with George the Third would bring France and Spain against us; separating from him would pull them to our side. Therefore, the only path to peace, honor, and trade is Independence.
Written this fourth year of the UNION, which God preserve.
Written in this fourth year of the UNION, may God keep it safe.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, April 19, 1777.
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 everyone else, endure the struggles of maintaining it. Yesterday's event was one of those alarms that is just enough to wake us up to our responsibilities, without being too serious to weaken our resolve. We're not defending just a small piece of land; we're fighting for a cause, and whether we beat the enemy in one battle or gradually wear them down, the results 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 led to their own decline. What they’ve gained in territory has cost them so many soldiers that their victories ultimately turned into defeats. We have always been strong during the final push, and we will continue to be as long as we do our part. Howe has been to the banks of the Delaware and was sent back with losses and disgrace; so why couldn't he be driven back from the Schuylkill again? His situation and ours are very different. He has to fight everyone, while we only have to deal with his one army, which is getting weaker with every battle. We can not only reinforce our troops but can even double our numbers; he is cut off from all supplies, and sooner or later will 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 thieves, who are fifteen hundred to two thousand men weaker today than they were yesterday, conquer America or even take over a single state? It's impossible unless we just sit back and let them do it. Another encounter like that, even though we lost ground, would further weaken the enemy and put them in a position to be completely defeated later. If our entire army could have launched the attack all at once, the results would likely have been different; however, having to guard different parts of the Brandywine creek and not knowing which road to Philadelphia the enemy would choose gave them the chance to move their main force to a spot where only part of our troops could be stationed. It should be clear to any reasonable person that it takes a much larger force to confront an enemy at multiple locations than what is needed to defeat them in just one location.
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 are genuine in defending their freedom will always feel worried about any situation that seems to work against them; it’s the natural and sincere result of all close connections, and lacking this concern is a flaw. But the sadness only lasts a moment; they quickly overcome it with renewed energy; the spark of hope, courage, and determination will soon take the place of every lesser emotion and ignite their entire heart with 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 often don’t have the clarity to explain. It’s troubling to watch an enemy move into our territory, but that’s the only place where we can defeat them, and where we’ve always beaten them whenever they’ve tried. As a disease gets closer to a crisis, it also gets closer to being cured. Danger and rescue move forward together, and it’s just the final moment when 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 do their duty when it’s not appreciated; but true public spirit shows itself the most when it’s really needed. Thank God! our army, although tired, is still intact. The attack we launched yesterday was done under many disadvantages, mainly because we weren’t sure which route the enemy would take; because of that, we couldn’t assemble all our forces in time to engage simultaneously. Our strength is still preserved; and it’s clear that Howe doesn’t consider himself better off after the fight, 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 country, you have the power, by actively improving the current situation, to turn it into a real advantage. Howe is now weaker than before, and every shot will help to weaken him further. You have more at stake than any other part of the continent: everything is on the line for you; the general cause is not the same; the enemy has targeted you for plunder and destruction: this is the promise that Howe, the leader of plunderers, has made to his army. Given these circumstances, you can save yourselves through strong resistance, but there's no hope in any other approach. I have never seen our brave general, or any part of the army, officers or men, lose heart, even when faced with situations a thousand times more challenging than this. It's only those who aren't in action who feel sluggish and down, and the best way to shake it off is to get involved and tackle the situation head-on.
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 could use a break, even if they don't lack courage. Our own interests and well-being urge us to give them all the support we can and to make the burden of the day—which is crucial for the safety of this city—as light as possible. Remember, gentlemen, we have forces both to the north and south of Philadelphia, and if we can just hold off the enemy until they arrive, this city will be saved, and the enemy will be defeated. You have too much at stake to hesitate. You shouldn’t spend even an hour thinking about this; you should act immediately. Other states have been invaded and have successfully driven the invaders away. Now it's our turn, and maybe the final blow is meant for us. When we reflect on the dangers we've been rescued from and the successes we've enjoyed, it would be wrong to be idle 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 time that will lead to your defeat. You’ve barely started this war, and the more you get involved, the more your problems will multiply. What you’re enjoying now is just a break from disaster; an invitation to ruin; something that will ultimately lead to our freedom at your cost. We understand the cause we are fighting for, and while a deep love for it may cause us to grieve for every threat against it, once the moment of concern passes, our commitment to duty returns. We are not swayed by the forced smile of an unworthy king, but by the passionate fire of true patriotism. We fight not to oppress, but to liberate a country and make space on this earth for good people to thrive. In this matter, we are confident that we are right; and we leave you with the hopeless thought of being a pawn of a miserable tyrant.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 12, 1777.
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.
To argue with someone who has given up on reason and whose beliefs involve looking down on humanity is like trying to give medicine to a corpse or trying to convert an atheist with scripture. Enjoy, sir, your lack of feeling and reflection. It’s a trait of animals. No one will envy you for these honors, in which only a savage can be your competitor and a bear 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 kindness 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 also recognize you in some way. You definitely deserve attention and a prominent spot in the list of remarkable individuals. However, it would be a shame to let you leave this world in a grand fashion and be forgotten in the tombs without explaining to future generations why. Judas is as well-known as John, yet history credits them with fame for very different reasons.
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, what inscription, where it should be placed, or how it should be decorated is a question that would stump all the experts at St. James's when they think deeply about history. We have no trouble understanding your true character, sir, but we're a bit confused about how to preserve its identity and protect it from the changes of time or misunderstanding. A statue might give a misleading expression to your likeness, or adorn it with ambiguous symbols, which could allow you to gain a reputation that doesn't truly reflect you and mislead future generations. Negative opinions or mockery could come together, or a range of incidents could alter, inflate, or diminish Sir William's reputation; and it's clear that someone who has worked so hard to stand out in his behavior would want to be just as distinctive in his departure, his monument, and his epitaph.
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 aren't enough to send someone like you to the realm of dust and ashes; even though people have different views on greatness or governance here, the grave is truly a perfect 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 ultimately exhaust himself 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 first step in planning your funeral honors, we gladly acknowledge your new rank of knighthood. The title suits you perfectly and is yours, earned more through your achievements than by design. There are knights of various sorts, from the knight of the windmill to the knight of the post. The former is your inspiration for your adventures, while the latter will help you manage your affairs. No honorary title could be more fitting! The creativity is outstanding! And your royal master has shown more brilliance in choosing this title for you than in crafting the perfect button or discussing the qualities 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 deal with you? The idea of a statue has run its course, and Sir William still doesn't have a monument. America is eager to honor you after your death and wants to do it in a way that sets you apart from all the fallen heroes of the last war. The Egyptian way of embalming isn't known today, and the art of reading hieroglyphs has faded. So, we must come up with another way to immortalize the new knight of the windmill and post. Luckily for Sir William, he isn’t burdened with very delicate ideas. He doesn’t have dreams of being wrapped up and passed around in myrrh, aloes, and cassia. Simpler scents will do, and it just so happens that America’s creativity has figured out how to preserve and even enhance bodies much more cost-effectively than the ancients. With humble tar, sir, you will be as secure as Pharaoh, and adorned with feather designs, you'll rival all the mummies of Egypt in splendor.
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 passion and intentional injustice, marked your lost honor with an "here lies," it's just an act for you to pretend to care about how others view you. What’s left of you could vanish at any moment. The sooner, the better. Because someone who outlives their reputation exists despite themselves, much like a person 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, buried and adorned, I leave you to the scrutiny of the curious, and I return to the story of your ongoing actions. Sir William's character has gone through some significant changes since he arrived in America. It is now established and clear; we have nothing to expect from your honesty or to fear from your abilities. Laziness and ineptitude play too big of a role in your makeup for you to be anything more than the star of petty misdeeds and unfinished escapades. What some people saw as moderation in you at first wasn't due to any genuine virtue on your part, but rather because of conflicting passions that kept you in a constant state of indecision. One vice often drives out another without any real quality in the person, just as opposing forces can cancel each other out.
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 were meant to embody a dignified seriousness; to show a generous spirit; to earn respect through stubborn determination in keeping order, and to consistently display such unwavering kindness that, while we saw the resolve of an enemy in you, we could still admire your sincerity as a person. You came to America with grand titles of commander and commissioner; not only to crush what you call rebellion with force but to outshine it through your exemplary behavior. Instead, you have become a supporter of cheap and dishonest schemes, an encourager of Indian brutality; and have brought in a shipment of vices far worse than those you claim to be fighting against.
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 all agree on what is right or wrong, but there are certain actions that everyone—nations and individuals alike—has labeled with the unchangeable name of meanness. Among human vices, some are so subtle that they can’t be put into action without dragging some virtue into the mix, but meanness has no associations or justifications. It arises from the leftovers and refuse of other vices, and it's so detestable that all the others conspire to reject it. Sir William, the commissioner of George the Third, has finally seen fit to give it status and lineage. He has brought this outcast to the decision-making table and named it a companion of the order of 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 meanness I'm referring to in this description is forgery. You, sir, have supported and promoted the forging and distribution of fake continental bills. In the same New York newspapers where your own proclamation under your master's authority was published, claiming to offer pardon and protection to these states, there were multiple ads for counterfeit money for sale. People who have come officially from you, under the protection of your flag, have been caught trying to sell them.
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 behavior so low in a public figure is without comparison or justification. Every nation on earth, whether allies or rivals, will come together in looking down on you. It's a destructive war against society that nothing can justify or soften—it's a step beyond pathetic wrongdoing—and reveals a deep-seated misery of spirit that combines the poisonous malice of a serpent with the spiteful incompetence 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 sentence you to the gallows regardless of your status or titles, because this action is not in line with the accepted customs of war; and if you end up in our hands, which we hope you do, it will be uncertain whether we should treat you as a military prisoner or a criminal.
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.
Besides, it’s extremely unwise and inappropriate for you, or anyone else in English service, to promote or even encourage, or turn a blind eye to the crime of forgery in any situation. The wealth of England as a nation mainly exists on paper, and most individual trade happens through the same means, that is, by exchanging notes and drafts. Therefore, more than anyone else, they should try to keep forgery out of the conversation and, if possible, avoid bringing it up again. It’s dangerous to make people comfortable with a crime they might later practice to do much greater harm to those who first taught them. Several officers in the English army have met their end at the gallows for forgery against their agents; after all, anyone who knows anything about England is aware that there’s no group of men, on the whole, more in need than English officers. They manage to maintain appearances at the expense of tailors and look put-together thanks to the effort 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.
England currently has nearly two hundred million pounds sterling in public money in paper form, with no real property backing it. In addition, there's a large circulation of bank notes, bank post bills, promissory notes, and drafts from private bankers, merchants, and tradesmen. She has the highest amount of paper currency and the least amount of gold and silver of any nation in Europe; the real coins, totaling about sixteen million sterling, are only used for change in large transactions, which are usually done in paper, or for paying in smaller amounts. Given this situation, the nation finds itself in a difficult position and feels compelled to take strict, almost extreme measures to prevent the rise and practice of forgery. Hardly a session goes by at the Old Bailey, or an execution at Tyburn, without this truth being highlighted, yet you, sir, seem oblivious to the policies that this necessity drives her to adopt, having made your entire army familiar with this crime. Since armies tend to carry over the vices from wartime into peacetime, it's likely that England will soon be plagued by forgeries, a practice that began under your command in America. You, sir, have the distinction of introducing a new vice into the military's repertoire; perhaps the reason this invention 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.
A man who is caught up in the shallow world of common vice can't rise to any higher level, and your actions in every campaign make this clear. Your military efforts have lacked any plan, purpose, or decisiveness. Can you or your backers really believe that taking Philadelphia is worth the cost or the hope of the nation that supports you? What benefits does England gain from anything you've accomplished? For them, it doesn't matter where you are, as long as you fail to achieve conquest and the cost of keeping you stays the same.
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, it seems like the outcome was against you at the end of each one; however, the last campaign is more significant for us than the first two. It's good to reflect on the dangers we've overcome and just as uplifting to think about the current challenges when a way forward finally appears. That time has come, and the long, uncertain winter of war is giving way to the happier outlook of victory and joy. 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 New York Harbor. The way the continent was saved during that dangerous time is truly remarkable! If instead of wasting your efforts at Long Island, you had sailed up the North River and landed anywhere above New York, you would have forced General Washington to fight with very unequal forces, or he would have had to quickly evacuate the city, losing almost all of his army’s supplies, or he would have surrendered due to a lack of provisions; the situation there would have naturally led to one of those 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 to defend New York were, in fact, smart and strategic; your forces were at sea, and their numbers were uncertain. Storms, illness, or various other issues could have prevented their arrival or weakened them on their journey, leaving only a few capable of starting the campaign with any real chance of success. If that had happened, the defense would have been adequate, and the city would have been saved. Cities that have been built from the ground up with immense effort and expense shouldn't be risked on the mere chance of being taken. For these reasons, the preparations to hold New York were just as sensible as the later retreat. Meanwhile, you missed the very opportunity that seemed to put victory within your reach.
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 prepare the army for the following year. Long Island, New York, Fort Washington, and Fort Lee weren't defended once your larger force was known, with no expectation that they could be held for long. They were meant to serve as a series of outposts, where your time could be wasted, your numbers diminished, and your pride satisfied by capturing 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 handed you an easy victory 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 progress through the Jerseys was unplanned; you didn't even think about it, or you wouldn't have sent a large part of your forces to Rhode Island ahead of time. America's greatest hope in 1776 was simply to avoid being defeated. There was no expectation of beating you in that campaign. Even the most fearful Loyalist admitted that if America could survive the pressure of that summer, her independence would be unquestionable. You had a significant advantage over her. You were intimidating. Your military expertise was considered comprehensive. Your fleets and troops arrived without any issues. You didn't have to wait for experience or reinforcements. All you needed to do was start, and your opportunity lay in a strong initial 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 experience for her defense; and through sheer determination, she has upheld her cause and brought her enemy to a point where she can now confront him on any terms.
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 remarkable that during the campaign of 1776, you gained no more, despite your large force, than what was given to you by agreement to evacuate, except for Fort Washington; meanwhile, every advantage we gained was through fair and tough fighting. The defeat of Sir Peter Parker was total. The capture of the Hessians at Trenton, by what was left of a retreating army that just days before you claimed to dismiss, is an example of their incredible determination that’s rarely seen. And the victory over the British troops at Princeton, achieved by a worn-out group who had been in combat the day before and marched all night without any rest, is marked by such extraordinary circumstances and superior strategy that it will always hold a place among the greatest events in history.
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 about the dark days of last winter and see America hanging by a thread, I feel a rush of joy remembering her rescue and a deep respect for the people who pulled her back from the brink. Doubting now would feel like betrayal, and forgetting those who saved us 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 their limits set. The continent started to recognize its military significance, and the winter went by smoothly 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.
No matter how confident you were when you first arrived, the events of 1776 showed you how difficult, if not impossible, conquest could be. I believe this is why you decided to delay launching the campaign of 1777. The situation at the end of last year didn’t give you any encouragement to start a discretionary war as soon as spring allowed you to go into the field. Although winning in that scenario would have brought you extra fame, the risk was too great. If you had failed, the government would have blamed you entirely, accusing you of acting without orders and criticizing both your strategy and 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 prevent any issues that could have complicated your finances and raised doubts, you smartly waited for a plan of action from England. The plan was for you to go to Philadelphia via the Chesapeake, while Burgoyne, after capturing Ticonderoga, would head 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 of the last campaign have thrived in the north. In that area, America has amazed 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 gathered in 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 sped up his downfall by allowing him to advance to Saratoga, the site of his defeat. A quick look back at the operations of the last campaign will highlight 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. These are all the accomplishments you've had this year. It’s a pretty small campaign compared to the costs incurred by England and the effort to conquer the continent. On the flip side, a large part of your northern force has been defeated by the New York militia led by General Herkemer. Fort Stanwix has bravely withstood a combined attack from both soldiers and Native Americans, and the attackers have fled. The Battle of Bennington has captured a thousand prisoners along with all their weapons, supplies, artillery, and baggage. General Burgoyne has been defeated in two battles; he, his army, and all who were with him are now ours. Ticonderoga and Fort Independence have been recaptured, and there’s not even a trace of an enemy left in any of the northern areas. Right now, we have more than eleven thousand prisoners, around sixty to seventy captured pieces of brass artillery, along with small arms, tents, supplies, etc.
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 significance of those advantages, we need to imagine the opposite scenario—picture General Gates and his troops at your mercy as prisoners, while General Burgoyne, along with his army of soldiers and mercenaries, is already allied with you in Pennsylvania. It’s a grim image that's hard to look at. It carries all the elements of horror and despair and stirs up deep feelings of gratitude by showing us the sufferings we've been so 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 admire how the accolades are spread across the continent. It’s a sign of future unity. South Carolina has had its share of suffering and glory, and the other southern states have done their part depending on the strength of the forces that attacked or disrespected them. Towards the end of the campaign in 1776, these middle states were called upon and they rose to the occasion with honor. They witnessed the nearly extinguished flame of human freedom. It was a close call between life and death, a fragile line; yet, it was the unwavering determination of Washington that prevailed and kept alive 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 changes and opportunities that the war has brought, I can't think of a single action of yours that could be called masterful. You've just been moving in and out, back and forth, round and round, as if bravery were just a military dance. The history and outline of your movements would be downright laughable if they could be accurately portrayed. They look like the efforts of a puppy chasing its tail; the goal is still just as far away, and all those spins have to be repeated.
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, we had to send some of our forces to reinforce that area, which would have otherwise been used against you. This may have delayed your defeat until the next campaign. It's a challenge to take out one army at a time. We know what we're doing, what we need to accomplish, 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 didn’t involve any major strategic moves 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 that merged about five miles below the city, and your army 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 open a route for General Burgoyne. This plan was too obvious to work: if General Washington had allowed you to control the open land above him, it’s reasonable to think that Burgoyne wouldn’t have been defeated, because in that case, you could have come to his aid. Therefore, it was important, while that significant victory was still uncertain, to trick you into a position where you could only play defense without being able to provide him help. The maneuver 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 been something unmilitary and passive about you since you crossed the Schuylkill and took over Philadelphia, all the way to the end of the campaign. You confused a trap for a victory, the likelihood of which had already been communicated to Europe, and the excitement of your triumph was diminished by our own intel 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.
Having put you in this situation, a plan for a general attack on you at Germantown was carried out on October 4th. Although the success wasn't as great as the quality of the plan, the attempt demonstrated that America was rising in strength and approaching dominance. The morning fog worked in your favor, as it always helps a pursued enemy. A few weeks later, you also planned an attack on General Washington while he was at Whitemarsh. You marched out with great show, but upon realizing he was getting ready to attack you the next morning, you wisely turned around and retreated to Philadelphia with all the haste of someone who was 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 changed the approach in Pennsylvania, and it was deemed safest for America to wait and see how the northern campaign turned out. Take it slow and steady is solid advice. 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 hit your ears, you decided to retreat. The following day, on the 19th, you pulled your tired army back to Philadelphia. This move was clearly made out of fear and openly admitted that you were afraid of another attack. It felt like hiding among women and children, wasting the best part of the campaign in costly inaction. An army in a city can never be a winning army. The situation allows only for defense. It’s just a shelter, and every military power in Europe will assume you will ultimately 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 moment you retreated was exactly when you should have fought to regain what you lost in Saratoga in Pennsylvania. The reason you didn't must be either caution or fear; the first suggests you were unable to act, while the second is self-explanatory. I'm not making any conclusions, sir, other than those that can be naturally inferred from clear 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 made Britain look quite pathetic: the attack and defense of Mud Island. For several weeks, that small, unfinished fortress held out against all the efforts of Admiral and General Howe. It was like the fable of Bender brought to life on the Delaware. Scheme after scheme, and wave after wave of force were attempted and failed. The garrison, with hardly anything to protect them except their courage, endured amidst the mud, cannon fire, and shells, and ultimately had to surrender more to the relentless passage of time and gunpowder than to the military superiority of their attackers.
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 genuinely 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 regain his senses, as feeling pain is the first sign of recovery from deep shock. His situation is dire. He has to tolerate all the insults from France and Spain without daring to acknowledge or respond to them; he even feels grateful for the slightest dodges when faced with the most respectful protests. There was a time when he wouldn’t even reply to a petition from America, and now we’ve reached a point where he can’t respond to an insult from France. The defeat of Burgoyne's army will damage his standing in Europe just as much as it does in America. In his speech, he voices his concerns about the military buildups in France and Spain, and since he only has the one army that you lead to bolster his reputation, it’s unclear when or where it will be most needed or best deployed. This partly explains why you’re so focused on keeping it out of action and harm’s way, because if you share Burgoyne's fate, which seems likely, England might 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 sought its own destruction with the eagerness and ignorance that Britain has shown. Determined to ruin a young and innocent country, she has drawn the sword that has struck her own heart, and in her pain has turned to a harmful solution. Her behavior towards America is a mix of anger and madness; she aims to govern it but lacks both dignity and integrity in her approach. If governance were merely a product or commodity, indifferent to who produced or sold it, we might as well choose her as anyone else. However, when we view governance as the source from which a country's values and morality emerge, and recognize that those in power serve as examples to uphold those principles, the notion of being governed by individuals who have committed forgery, perjury, treachery, theft, and every form of wickedness imaginable is shockingly absurd. What greater misfortune could befall a nation than being ruled by such authority, and what greater gift than being freed from it? The spirit of any man with a sense of justice would rise in defiance against them and cast them off 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 taken pleasure in 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 burn down the homes of every committee member in the country. Such a statement from someone who once held the powers of civil government is shameful. However, it reflects the feelings of a man who, driven to desperation by pain and disappointment, is slowly deteriorating into despair and illness.
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 low your king, his ministers, and his army are. They've taken wickedness to a new level where it doesn't even have a name. They've added the worst parts of previous vices to a whole new level of deceit, and they are so deeply entrenched in their lies that there's not a single honorable enemy 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 those men and those leaders, may the kind hand of Heaven protect America! And even though the struggles she faces right now are tough and serious, they are nothing compared to the burden of troubles she would experience under the rule of your king and his paid 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 in meanness that stirs a kind of resentment that never goes away, and something about cruelty that rouses the deepest agony of human hatred. Britain has embodied both of these traits to such an extent that nothing more can be added, and has lost any reputation with us that might give her even the slightest credibility. The will of God has separated us, and that decision is marked for eternity. When Britain becomes just a small dot among the nations, America will thrive as the favored nation of heaven and the ally of 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 didn’t own any land beyond her own island. The vastness of her empire has been her downfall, and instead of helping to civilize others, it has brutalized her own people. Her recent conquest of India, under Clive and his successors, was less of a conquest and more of an extermination of a population. She is the only nation that could carry out the appalling act of tying men to the mouths of loaded cannons and blowing them away. Interestingly, General Burgoyne, who reported that horrific event in the House of Commons, is now a prisoner with us, and even though he’s an enemy, I can call on him to verify the truth of it, knowing he can’t and won’t deny it. Yet Clive received praise from 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 unfortunate person who, on top of the unavoidable misfortunes of nature, intentionally adds the disasters of war. One would think there are already enough problems in the world without trying to make them worse, and that life is too short to waste it. The stories of Alexander and Charles of Sweden are tales of human evil; a good person cannot consider their actions without disgust, nor their deaths without a sense of relief. To witness the blessings of heaven ruined, the beautiful face of nature destroyed, and the finest works of creation and art brought to ruin would provoke a curse even from the most pious soul. But in this country, the situation is made worse by a new combination of touching circumstances. America was young and, compared to other nations, virtuous. Only a truly malicious person would wage war on innocence and youth; and only a people of exceptional courage could have dared to resist tyranny in such circumstances. The natives, or their ancestors, had escaped from the past oppressions of England and, like industrious 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 when, in a sad moment, you’ll look back on your miseries caused by your actions in America. Life is starting to feel heavy for you. The illusion of pleasure is fading, giving way to the harsh reality of age and sorrow. The little pride you have in serving your king won’t bring you comfort in your final moments. He will turn to the same forgotten ashes as you and have his own sins to answer for. It's not the ridiculous blessings from a bishop, nor the fake humility of a group of chaplains, nor the official process of a parliamentary act that can turn guilt into innocence or lessen your punishment. You might not want to take this seriously, but this destruction of what should be a gift, this devastation of humanity, and this spreading of harm must be answered for by the one who created and governs the world. For us, they are just current sufferings, but to him, they represent significant 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 a sin worse than all others, it's the deliberate and brutal act of war. Most other sins are limited in scope; in other words, one person's actions can't spread too widely, and many types of sins exist only in the mind without causing real harm. But the person who starts a war unleashes the full chaos of hell and wounds a nation so deeply that it can bleed to death. We’ll leave it to England and the Indians to take pride in such achievements; we have no desire for that kind of brutal honor. A higher purpose and a better spirit drive America. She has raised the sword of righteous defense; she has courageously positioned herself between Tyranny and Freedom, between a curse and a blessing, determined to eliminate the former and safeguard 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.
It’s only the purpose of war that makes it honorable. And if there has ever been a just war since the beginning of time, it’s the one that America is currently involved in. She didn’t invade your land. She didn’t hire mercenaries to destroy your towns or Native Americans to kill your people. She wanted nothing from you and owed 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 it's not just about justice, but also about the importance of this cause that fuels my seemingly enthusiastic confidence in our success. America's vast expanse makes it too valuable in the eyes of Providence to be discarded like a pearl before swine at the feet of a European island; it would matter far less if Britain sank into the sea than if America were to fail. The extraordinary series of events surrounding the discovery of this country, its settlement, its growth to its current state, and its protection during this war, leads anyone to believe that Providence has a far nobler purpose to achieve than satisfying the petty elector of Hanover or the ignorant and inconsequential 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 already enriched America with industry, experience, unity, and significance. Before this current era, it was just a chaotic collection of unconnected colonies, each vulnerable to attacks from Native Americans and invasions by any country Britain was at war with. She had nothing to call her own. Her happiness depended on chance. The upheavals in Europe could have switched her from one conqueror to another, making her the slave of all and devastated by each; because until she had the strength to become her own master, it was uncertain who she would belong to. 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 master except for God and herself. You, or your king, may call this "delusion," "rebellion," or whatever name you like. To us, it doesn’t matter at all. The outcome will shape the identity, and time will give it a name as enduring as his 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 clearly tell England that all you've gained is injuries and broken bones, while all she's gained is a loss of trade and reputation, along with rising poverty and taxes. You are now exactly where you could have been two years ago, without losing a single ship, and yet you haven't made any progress toward conquering the continent; because, as I’ve already pointed out, "an army in a city can never be a conquering army." The total of your losses since the start of the war exceeds twenty thousand men, in addition to millions of dollars, for which you have nothing in return. Our costs, though high, circulate within our own economy. Yours is a direct loss of money, and that from both ends simultaneously; first, in hiring troops from abroad, and then in paying them, since the money in both cases can't return to Britain. We are already in control of the prize, while you are only chasing it. For us, it is a true treasure; for you, it would only be a hollow victory. Our expenses will pay off with tenfold returns, while yours will leave you in perpetual 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 look back at the ground you’ve covered, and let it teach you strategy, if not integrity. You're standing on a very shaky foundation. A change in the government in England might likely put your measures under scrutiny, and could even cost you your life. Clive, despite all his victories, had a hard time getting out unscathed, and since all your efforts are marked by losses, you have less credibility and your enemies more reasons to push for your impeachment.
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 broken country by honestly showing the craziness of her actions. Just a few moments spent wisely could still keep her from political ruin. I'm not someone who wants to see Europe go up in flames, because I believe that such an event won't end the war. Right now, the conflict is only 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 have, while we’re defending what we never intend to give up. So, let’s get straight to the point: let England take care of its own affairs, and we’ll take care of ours. You govern yourselves, and we’ll govern ourselves. Then you can trade wherever you like without us bothering you, and we’ll trade wherever we want without you bothering us; we can even exchange goods that we can buy from each other better than from anyone else. Even if it were possible for you to fight this war for twenty years, you would eventually reach this conclusion, or something worse, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you’ll be.
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 other countries and the desperate measures she takes to cover them up. Her weakened state and empty treasury after three years of war with America have given a significant advantage to France and Spain. She can't compete with them anymore. But if neither advice can persuade her to think, nor hardships bring her to her senses, she will just have to continue until England's honor becomes a laughingstock, and Europe calls her the Land of Fools.
I am, Sir, with every wish for an honorable peace,
I am, Sir, wholeheartedly wishing for a respectful peace,
Your friend, enemy, and countryman, COMMON SENSE.
Your friend, foe, and fellow citizen, COMMON SENSE.
TO THE INHABITANTS OF AMERICA.
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 pleasure a man feels when he swaps bad company for good, I take my leave of Sir William and return to you. It has been almost three years since the tyranny of Britain faced its first defeat at the hands of America. This period has given rise to a new world and built a monument to the foolishness 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 compliments I’ve heard about ancient histories and events. The wisdom, governments, and sense of honor of Greece and Rome are often praised as examples to follow. Humanity has achieved very little if, at this point in time, we have to look back two or three thousand years for lessons and role models. We do ourselves a disservice by putting them on such a high pedestal. We have no valid reason to do this, nor can we explain why we feel 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 history and see people and events as they truly were, it's likely they would admire us more than we admire them. America has overcome a greater variety and combination of challenges than any other nation ever has in such a short time, and has contributed more valuable knowledge and better principles of civil government than any other period in history produced. Without America, freedom would have virtually disappeared from the entire world. England has lost its freedom through a long chain of reasoning based on flawed principles, and it is now from this country that she must learn how to fix herself and gain the wisdom to do so.
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 were deeply passionate about freedom, but they didn’t fully understand its principles. While they were set on not being slaves themselves, they used their power to enslave others. However, this remarkable time isn’t tainted by any bitter vice. To sum it up, if we consider the foundational principles of the cause, the universal benefits it aims to bring, the challenges it faced, the wisdom with which it was discussed, the courage that supported it, the strength needed to resist opposition, and the circumstances under which we embarked on it, we can rightly call it the most virtuous and notable revolution that has ever graced human history.
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 self-image is very important in private life, but essential in public life, and crucial for upholding national character. I have no intention of conceding the greatness of the United States to any Greeks or Romans from the past. We have matched the bravest in times of danger and outshone the wisest in creating 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 pleasant vantage point, let’s take a look at current affairs. The spirit of corruption is so deeply intertwined with British politics that their leaders believe everyone is motivated by the same interests. They can’t comprehend that people might endure temporary hardship out of loyalty to their rights and privileges. Their strategies are designed for the moment and are only consistent in the corruption that drives them. They’ve never had, nor do they currently have, a solid plan for conquering America by force. They don’t know how to approach it, nor do they have the power to achieve it even if they did. It’s simply not feasible because America is too vast to be fully conquered or 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 sets it apart from other types of warfare because the person leading it can’t be sure if the ground they gain is beneficial or detrimental when they first take it. In the winter of 1776, General Howe marched through New Jersey with a sense of victory, but this ultimately led to his defeat; similarly, General Burgoyne experienced the same outcome at Saratoga due to the same reasons. About two years ago, the Spaniards were defeated by the Algerians in a similar way, where their initial victories turned into a trap that led to their complete defeat. Anyone who pays attention to the circumstances and events of an invasion will see that any invader must first start winning in order to eventually be defeated.
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 I’m one of those who believe losing Philadelphia has more benefits than drawbacks. Here’s the situation: The enemy thought Philadelphia was more important to us than it actually was. We all know it had long stopped being a port; no goods had been shipped there for almost a year, and there were no established factories or shipbuilding happening there. However, since the enemy believed capturing it was possible, and they foolishly thought all of America’s spirit was centered there and would be defeated there, it’s clear that their control over it won’t achieve their goals. This must disrupt the plans they had misguidedly created, forcing them to either come up with a new strategy, for which they lack the strength, or abandon the effort altogether.
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 faced such a small army or had such a great chance for final success as we do now. The enemy is already wounded. The day is ours if we take advantage of it. The enemy is within our reach because of their situation, and their weakened strength makes them vulnerable. The British ministers can complain all they want, but our job is to defeat their armies. Let them argue if they want, but we shouldn’t let that distract us from what really matters. Here, right now, is our mission to complete and our happiness to secure. What we need to do is as clear as day, and the path to achieving it is straightforward. This doesn’t need much explaining, but to make it completely clear, let me provide an example 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 the northern army under General Gates had teamed up with General Washington’s forces at Whitemarsh, it would have led to a major battle. If, in that battle, we had managed to kill or capture around nine to ten thousand soldiers, along with the same amount of artillery, weapons, supplies, etc., that we’ve seized in the north, and forced General Howe to retreat with the remnants of his army, the same number he commands now, to seek refuge in Philadelphia, we would have definitely considered ourselves the greatest heroes in the world. As soon as the weather allowed, we would have gathered the entire continent’s forces to lay siege to the city because it takes a much larger force to besiege an enemy in a town than to defeat them in open combat. The situation now is practically the same as if the scenario I just outlined had unfolded. We have killed and captured between nine and ten thousand, all their supplies are with us, and, as a result of that victory, General Howe has sought shelter in Philadelphia. He, or his insignificant ally Galloway, may come up with any excuses they like, but there’s no valid reason for them to go into winter quarters so early, on October 19th, other than fearing defeat if they stay out or realizing they can’t safely remain in the field. I don't see how America benefits from chasing the enemy from one state to another. It’s a hollow victory and completely unworthy of a nation determined to win. No state can feel secure while the enemy is in a position to move around the continent. Howe can’t conquer where we don’t have an army in place to oppose him, so any movements he makes are cowardly and turn Britain into just a common thief. If he retreats from Philadelphia, he’ll be looked down upon; if he stays, he might be trapped and starved out, and if he tries to advance into the country, he could end up facing his own Saratoga. He has a choice of unpleasant options, while we have chances. If he moves early, it’s not just a sign but clear proof that he expects no reinforcements, and if he delays, it shows he’s either waiting for a strategy to follow or the means to execute it, or both; in which case our strength will grow faster than his. Thus, in any scenario, we can't go wrong if we just keep pushing 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 situation in Pennsylvania deserves the attention of all the other states. Its military strength shouldn't just be measured by its population. People from all nations, backgrounds, professions, and interests are here. There are dedicated Whigs, like sparks in the ocean, unextinguished and undeterred amidst discouragement and disillusionment. Here you’ll find others who are losing everything yet remain cheerful, drawing strength and resilience from the ruins of their own properties. Meanwhile, some are lurking in the shadows, many are trying to profit from the current situation, and numerous individuals are switching between Whig and Tory, adapting to 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 persistence that the Whigs in this state have been able to keep up appearances and achieve what they have. We need help, and the sooner it arrives, the more effective it will be. The affected state, whichever it is, will always feel an extra strain and struggle to maintain its civil power with enough authority; this challenge will increase or decrease based on how much support 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 a lot of moves at the start of this campaign to distract and divert the attention of the various States from what’s actually important. We can expect to hear about false alarms and fabricated expeditions here and there—south, east, and north—all aimed at preventing us from coming together as a strong force. The weaker the enemy is, the more tricks like this they will use. Their survival depends on it, because once America’s strength is united, it can easily overpower their current army. Therefore, it’s essential for us to focus entirely on this main objective, because the moment General Howe’s main force is defeated, all the lesser alarms across the continent will fade away like shadows following 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 none at all, is to gather a powerful army that the enemy can’t compete with. By failing to do this, we extend the war and increase both the suffering and costs involved. Just imagine how prosperous and happy America could be if she put in the effort to defeat Howe like she did with Burgoyne. The value of her currency would soar to millions beyond what it is now. Everyone would become wealthy, and everyone would have the chance to be happy. So why not make this happen? What’s stopping us? America is in charge of her own fate and can do as she wishes.
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 raise an army in just a few weeks that would be strong enough to defeat all the forces General Howe currently commands. Energy and determination can accomplish anything. We started the war with this kind of spirit; why not finish it with the same? Here, gentlemen, is the enemy. Here is the army. The interests and happiness of all America are focused on this nearly ruined place. Come and help us. Here are the honors; come and share them. Here are Tories; come 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 approach is doing things halfway. Being careful with small amounts while wasting large ones has ruined thousands. This spring, if we take full advantage of it, will help us overcome our challenges and save us millions. We now only have one army to deal with. No opportunity is better; no outlook more encouraging. I'll finish this paper with a few ideas for either quickly adding to the battalions or raising an extra force for a limited time, if there's an urgent need.
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 everyone is interested in is everyone’s responsibility to support. Any burden that falls equally on all people and from which everyone is meant to benefit equally aligns with the best ideas of freedom. I wish we could revive some of that virtuous ambition that first motivated America to take action. Back then, everyone was eager to do their part, and perhaps the main reason we've strayed from that is because we didn't value it properly from the beginning. Instead of managing and maintaining it with a good balance of rest and effort, we let it take its own course.
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 a state with 80,000 residents is requested 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, Let the total number of effective inhabitants be divided into hundreds; then if each of those hundreds produces four men, the total number of 3,200 will be obtained.
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 each group of a hundred men have their names recorded in a book, and let four dollars be collected from each person, with additional donations welcome from anyone who can afford to contribute more. These gifts will also be noted 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 collected amounts be given as a bonus, in addition to the $20 reward, to any four people who want to volunteer: if more than four come forward, the majority of the attendees will choose who goes; if nobody volunteers, then four out of the hundred will be selected by random draw, who will receive the amounts and must either go themselves or find others to go 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 be the case that in any community of a hundred people, there will be a number of individuals who, due to age and illness, cannot provide personal service. These individuals typically own a large portion of the property in any country, so their contribution should be to supply each person with a blanket, which can be turned into a regimental coat, jacket, and trousers, or clothing instead, as well as an additional blanket for a greatcoat, and two pairs of shoes. No matter how selective people may be about these items, in situations like this, it doesn't matter; those who live in houses can find various ways to keep warm, but it is both shameful and wrong to let a soldier in the field go without a blanket when there is one 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 isn't needed, elderly or disabled people who have property can instead contribute their money to increase the bounty; even though age will naturally excuse someone from personal service, it doesn't excuse them from their share of the cost, since the men are raised to defend property and liberty 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 been a plan that doesn’t have its critics. But that’s not enough reason to dismiss it. The right way to evaluate something is to acknowledge all the valid objections and weigh them against the benefits, conveniences, and advantages. By balancing these factors, you can uncover 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 its simplicity, speed, and low cost; however, the recruits receive a much higher bonus than what is currently offered anywhere else. This is because all the costs, excesses, and resulting delays of recruiting are eliminated or avoided. The country doesn't take on any new debt or interest; everything is settled all at once and completely finished. It essentially acts as a subscription that serves all the functions of a tax, without the expense or hassle of collection. The men are ready to go to the field as quickly as possible because it becomes the responsibility of the local residents in every area to find their share of recruits, instead of relying on a recruiting officer who, no matter how dedicated, can't always know where to look.
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 don't present this as a standard plan, and the limits of this paper won't allow for any more comments on it. I think it's an idea that has a lot of potential for improvement, and I offer it to the public as such.
COMMON SENSE.
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.
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 feelings of a Whig that is never found in the cold bitterness of a Tory. In one, emotions are simply heightened; in the other, they are tainted. The moment the former has the chance to punish, he feels a desire to forgive; but the bitter hatred of the latter knows no cure but revenge. I believe this general distinction applies in all cases and is true for both England and America.
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.
I assume your last statement will face critiques from other writers, so I’ll keep my comments to just a few points. Everything you said could have been summarized in half the length. It’s boring and pointless, just a repeat of your previous mistakes, with a few offensive additions. Your pile of pardons isn’t going to sell. No one wants to hear about them—even people aren’t interested anymore. They’ve become completely useless and aren’t suitable 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 policies and kindness of Great Britain have so far prevented extreme war, when it could hurt a people still seen as their fellow subjects, and ruin a country that will soon be a source of mutual benefit again." What you mean by "the kindness of Great Britain" is beyond my understanding. Let me ask you directly: do you see yourselves as human or as monsters? Because until that’s clear, we can’t really understand what you mean. You have already matched and, in many cases, exceeded the brutality of savages from either Indies; and if you have any more cruelty in store, it must have come directly from the original source of evil, untouched by any human influence.
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 intervention of Providence and her blessings on our efforts, and not to British kindness, we owe the limited reach of your devastation. Remember, you currently don't control a single inch of land on the continent of America. Staten Island, York Island, a small part of Long Island, and Rhode Island define your power; and even those you maintain at the cost of the West Indies. To avoid defeat or prevent your troops from deserting, you've taken refuge in secluded and secure spots; and to hide what everyone can see, you now try to pass your weakness off as an act of mercy. If you think you can succeed with such flimsy tactics, you're just novices in the political arena; you still have the basics of strategy to learn and have no understanding of the people you’re dealing with. Like drunken people, you forget that the rest of the world is watching, and that the same ignorance that blinds you to your own situation exposes you to their ridicule and disdain.
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 paragraph I quoted serves as an introduction to the following: "But when that country [America] openly aims not just to separate from us, but to tie herself and her resources to our enemies, the whole situation changes: and the question becomes how far Great Britain may, by any means necessary, undermine or make useless a connection designed for her destruction and the expansion of France. In such a scenario, the laws of self-preservation must guide Britain's actions, and if the British colonies are to become a gain for France, those laws will lead her to minimize that gain as much 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, like crazies biting at the last moment. It also shows a sneaky smallness; because, to justify a brutal conclusion, you’ve put forth a false argument. The treaty we’ve made with France is open, honorable, and generous. It’s true policy, based on solid reasoning, and not a surrender or mortgage, as you would shamefully suggest. I’ve looked at every detail and speak from direct knowledge. In France, we’ve found a caring friend and loyal ally; in Britain, we’ve found only tyranny, 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 threats you make are not something you can actually carry out; and even if you could, the consequences would come back to hurt you even more. America's sense of humanity has so far held her back from seeking revenge, and her fondness for many individuals in England—who have cared for, supported, and comforted her prisoners—has, up to now, kept her anger in check and protected the broader relationship. However, even these considerations will ultimately fade away when national interests come into play. Continued provocations will lead to a response, and strategy will validate that choice. We now intend to engage with you seriously on your own terms, and just as you treat us, 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 understand, gentlemen, that England and Scotland are much more vulnerable to destructive fires than America currently is. We live in a place with only a few towns, and our wealth comes from land and annual crops. These can only be harmed a little, and only in a very limited way. In Britain, it's different. Their wealth is mainly in cities and large towns, which are home to manufacturing and fleets of merchant ships. There isn’t a nobleman’s country estate that couldn’t be reduced to ashes by just one person. Yours might be a case in point: in short, there’s no harm that can’t be returned when it comes to fire-related destruction. The ships on the Thames could definitely be set on fire just as easily as that temporary bridge was a few years back; yet, no one was ever found out for that. The loss you would suffer from such an event, if done at the right time, is much greater than any damage you could cause. The East India House and the Bank are neither secure from this kind of destruction, and, as Dr. Price rightly points out, a fire at the Bank would bankrupt the nation. Historically, France and England haven’t made these types of destructions against each other during wartime, because the ease of retaliation made it basically foolish, as if they were destroying their own assets.
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, gentlemen, that our distance protects you, or that our creativity is lacking. We can accomplish our goals much more easily than any nation in Europe. We speak the same language, dress similarly, and behave just like you. We can travel from one part of England to another without raising suspicion; many of us know the country as well as you do, and if you foolishly provoke us, you will definitely regret the consequences. Actions like this don't need an army to carry them out. The ways to do it are clear, and the chance to act cannot be guarded against. I'm holding up a warning for your awareness, if you still have any, and “to the unfortunate people whose matters are in your hands.”* I'm not speaking with the bitterness of an enemy, but the sincerity of a friend, urging the misled people of England to be careful; otherwise, between your mistakes and theirs, they could end up suffering from the problems created for us.
* General [Sir H.] Clinton's letter to Congress.
* 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 incredibly ignorant or think we are, if you can't see where the balance of power lies. There are many other ways to retaliate, which, for several reasons, I won't mention. But know this: the moment you carry out your threat, a counterattack will follow. If you openly show yourselves to be brutal, it's time we treat you as such, and if only distress can bring you back to reason, then punishment 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 stationed in the Delaware last winter, I volunteered my services to the Pennsylvania Navy Board, which was then in Trenton, to join them or any four or five gentlemen on a mission down the river to set fire to it. Although my offer was not accepted at that time, and the action was never attempted, it's very likely that your own mistakes will lead to something far more destructive. Don't say that you weren't warned when the damage happens, and remember that we won't start it, but we do plan to retaliate. This is all I have to say about your brutal and unwise 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 are after, let them seek those honors under the banners of their rightful sovereign, and by fighting the battles of the united British Empire against our former common enemies." Surely! The combination of absurdity and madness has never been clearer than this. Your rightful sovereign, as you refer to him, may be good enough for you, who don’t dare question the true abilities of the man; but we, who assess people and things based on their actual value, won’t let our judgment be manipulated like that. Unless you want to see him criticized, you should try to keep him out of the spotlight. The less you say about him, the better. We’re done with him, and that should be answer enough. You’ve been told this many times. It’s strange that this answer needs to be repeated so often. You’re going around pleading for your king like he’s a child or a product you’re trying to sell but can’t; and even though everyone keeps saying no, you still keep trying to peddle him. But someone will eventually take him off your hands, and since we have no desire to deny you a buyer, we’re not making 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 foolishness of the paragraph I've just quoted deserves nothing more than to be laughed at and tossed aside, but the principle behind it is appalling. We are being asked to submit to a man who has tried to destroy us through every cruelty, and to join him in waging war against France, which is already fighting against 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, come up with a crazier and more wicked request? If it were possible for a people to fall into such corruption that they would deserve to be wiped out like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. This idea is a universal insult to the status that humans have in creation, and a disrespect towards the one who put them there. It suggests that humans are created without any sense of honor, and have no obligations to God or to each other.
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 the Americans are, who, after seeing their most humble petitions insultingly rejected; the harshest laws passed to torment them everywhere; an undeclared war unleashed upon them, and Native Americans and enslaved people invited to the massacre; who, after witnessing their relatives murdered, their fellow citizens starved to death in prisons, and their homes and properties destroyed and burned; who, after the most serious appeals to heaven, the most solemn swearing to avoid any government connected with you, and the most heartfelt pledges and promises to each other; and who, after seeking friendship and forming alliances with other nations, would ultimately break through all these obligations, civil and divine, by going along with your horrific and evil proposal. Should we ever be viewed as part of the human race again? Or should we be wiped from human society and become a symbol of suffering to the world? But there is something in corruption that, like a jaundiced eye, distorts the way it sees everything, staining and corrupting all it looks at; for unless you were capable of such behavior yourselves, you would never believe such a thing of us. The offer highlights your disgrace. It shows you as a nation without honor; for whom oaths and treaties are seen as trivial, and breaking them is like bursting a bubble. Respect for decency or rank could have taught you better; or pride might have inspired you, even if virtue could not. There is no further degradation of character that you can sink to; you have hit rock bottom, and the door to your dungeon is now locked.
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 may be far from being a total disaster, you’ve chosen to end it with a claim that has no basis in reality or reasoning. Since Mr. Ferguson, your secretary, is well-read and has dedicated his studies to civil society, even publishing a treatise on the topic, I direct 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 to push us into some odd idea, she's described as "the late mutual and natural enemy" of both countries. I disagree that she was ever the natural enemy of either one; such a principle doesn’t exist in nature. That phrase is a meaningless barbarism and entirely unphilosophical when applied to beings of the same species, no matter their status in the world. We understand the idea of a natural enemy when we think of the devil, since that enmity is constant, unchangeable, and unwavering. There’s no room for peace, truce, or treaty; thus, the conflict is eternal, making it natural. But when it comes to people, they can’t be arranged in the same opposition. Their disputes are accidental and ambiguously created. They switch between being friends or enemies based on changes in temperament or interests. The Creator didn’t make humans natural enemies of one another. He hasn’t established any group of beings to be so. Even wolves may fight, yet they still gather together. If any two nations are in such a way, then all nations must be, otherwise it’s not nature but custom, and the offense often starts with the accuser. England is just as much the natural enemy of France as France is of England, possibly more so. Isolated from the rest of Europe, England has developed an unsocial way of behaving and imagines in others the jealousy she feels in herself. Never satisfied for long with peace, she believes discontent is everywhere and, buoyed by her own importance, sees herself as the target of others. This phrase has been used often, and always with dishonest intent; when we consider the idea of a natural enemy, it stops us from asking other questions, hiding the true cause of the conflict within the universal concept. People are startled by the idea of a natural enemy and don’t question further. The outcry gains credibility like the alarm of a mad dog and is one of those tricks that, by appealing to common passions, secures their interest 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, will not be taken in like this. We live in a vast world and have expanded our views beyond the limits and biases of an island. We extend the hand of friendship to everyone, and we believe that the social norms in France are much more conducive to peace and negotiation than those in England. Until England becomes more civilized, it shouldn't expect to have lasting peace with any power. Its common language is crude and offensive, and children absorb insults from the very start—"The arm of Britain! The mighty arm of Britain! Britain that shakes the ground to its core and its poles! The scourge of France! The terror of the world! That rules with a nod and unleashes vengeance like a God." This language neither elevates nor diminishes a nation; it reveals a brutal nature and fuels national hostility. The entertainment on stage serves the same purpose, and almost every public display is laced with insult. Yet England is always afraid of France—terrified at the thought of being invaded, paranoid about being outsmarted in a treaty, and privately submissive even while publicly being offensive. Therefore, England should improve its manners and seek justice, and it will find that the idea of a natural enemy is just a figment 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 thought, at this point in the war, that I would see a statement that offers no useful purpose for you and just exposes you even more. It feels like you just woke up from a four-year dream and don’t know anything about what has happened in between. Is this really the time to offer pardons or revisit long-forgotten issues of charters and taxes? After all your forces have failed you, is it worth it to retreat behind arguments and persuasion? Do you really believe that, with almost half your army as prisoners and allied with France, we can be persuaded or threatened into submission by a piece of paper? But as commissioners making a hundred pounds a week each, you think you have to do something, and misfortune has led you to believe you must 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 in a few months. Since every campaign has proved our superiority, I hoped that you would eventually see what the rest of the world already does. I didn't want to upset you by repeating myself or bringing up new findings. There have been times when you hesitated in your actions, and I thought it might be better to let you be rather than interfere. You often paused as if you wanted to reflect, but your thoughts always seemed either 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 refused to respond to or even acknowledge a petition from America. That time has passed, and now she is the one asking for our acceptance. We now stand on higher ground and offer her peace; eventually, she may, perhaps in vain, seek it from us. This scenario is as likely as the previous one ever was. She can't deny our independence any more stubbornly than she once resisted repealing her laws; and if America alone could push her to acknowledge the former, joining forces with France will compel her to accept the latter. There’s something unique about stubbornness that sets it apart from other emotions; when it fails, it never recovers—it either shatters like iron or falls apart sullenly like a broken arch. Most other emotions go through phases of exhaustion and renewal, pain and healing; but stubbornness has no remedy, and the first injury is fatal. You have already started to let it go, and you will, due to the very nature of this vice, find yourselves both obligated and inclined 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 just an impenetrable darkness. You might plan and carry out some small-scale mischief, but are they worth the trouble they create for you, or will these minor problems even impact the bigger picture? Your mission to Egg Harbor will be seen from afar like an attack on a chicken coop, and it will make you look foolish in Europe. Is it really worth it to maintain an army just to help you write proclamations or to take a break in winter once a year? Taking over towns isn't true conquest; it’s just a matter of convenience, and you will eventually be trapped by it. Your withdrawal from Philadelphia was merely a lucky escape, and your next mission might not go as well.
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 confuse all the politicians in the world to understand why you stay or why you've been here for so long. You're engaged in a war where you admit you have no clear goal or hope, and even if you were to succeed, the cost wouldn't be worth it. Meanwhile, everything else in your life is falling apart, and a war in Europe is brewing against you. In this situation, it's clear and simple; a basic understanding of reason would guide your decision because if you can achieve peace with better benefits than what conquest could offer, you would have to be foolish to 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 fooled themselves, are groveling like a needy dog for a little bit of temporary help. Those guys will say whatever you want to hear. It's in their best interest to keep you entertained so you’ll stick around for their protection. They work to keep you close for that very reason; and the more you ignore their advice and stop caring about their whining, the more exaggerated their flattery will become. People like this can be found in every country, and every country will look down on them.
COMMON SENSE.
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 times in the serious business of life when entertaining people is cruel, but misleading them is devastating; and in the end, it doesn't really matter whether people mislead themselves or agree, in a kind of mutual understanding, to be misled by each other. The fact that England has been under the sway of delusion or error for a long time is evident from the unexpected and miserable situation it finds itself in now: and the influence has been so strong that no plans were ever made or even considered to protect against this misfortune, because the possibility 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 overall successful resistance of America, the defeat of Burgoyne, and a war in France were treated in Parliament as the fantasies of a dissatisfied opposition or a disturbed imagination. They were seen as topics unworthy of serious consideration, and even mentioning them brought the ministry a moment of mockery. A short-lived victory, indeed! Because everything predicted has come true, and all that was promised has failed. A long series of politics marked by a string of failures, without a single positive turn, must have something fundamentally wrong with it. It’s enough to make the most gullible start questioning things and the most stubborn start thinking. Either the resources at your disposal are inadequate, or the plans are poorly crafted; either the execution has been flawed, or the attempt itself is impossible; or, to put it more bluntly, either you are unable or fate is not on your side. For why haven’t you conquered us? Who or what has stopped you? You’ve had every opportunity you could want and have succeeded in every preparatory action. Your fleets and armies have arrived in America without any mishaps. No unusual fortune has disrupted your plans. No foreign nation has intervened until the period you had set for victory was over. The opposition, whether in or out of Parliament, did not thwart your strategies, slow down, or diminish your power. They simply predicted your downfall. Every government plan was executed as if the entire nation were in agreement. Everything that was needed was requested, and everything asked for 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 timing of your arrival was the best possible. You were then at peace with the entire world. You had access to every court in Europe without any challenge from us. You entertained us with stories of peace commissioners, and while disguised, you gathered a large army and almost caught us off guard. The force was much larger than we expected, while what we had to oppose it was outnumbered, poorly armed, and badly trained; plus, it was only organized for a short time and disbanded just months after your arrival. We had governments to set up, plans to make, an army to train, and everything essential to import or produce. Our non-importation strategy had depleted our resources, and your naval blockade cut off our supplies. We were a group of unknowns, disconnected from the political landscape, and unfamiliar with the intentions of foreign powers. Could you have hoped for a more favorable set of circumstances? Yet all of this has happened and is now behind us, as if you are left laughing. There are also events of such a unique nature that they may never happen again, unless a new world rises 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 can teach a lesson about arrogance, it's definitely the circumstances 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 in this case, she is outdone by those she claimed to look down on, and her own views come back to haunt her, making her disgrace even worse. Misfortune and experience are wasted on people if they lead to neither reflection nor change. Problems, like poisons, have their uses, and there are illnesses that no other cure can address. England has foolishly believed herself invincible, not realizing that a significant portion of her strength came from the very country she is now fighting against. Britain has often been described as having the power of the Almighty, and she has recently acted as if the entire world was created for her amusement. Her politics have instead brutalized humanity rather than civilizing it, and under the empty title of "Defender of the Faith," she has waged war against the very essence of humanity. Her atrocities in the East Indies will never be forgotten, and it's quite striking that the resources of that devastated country, brought to America, would ignite a war to punish the destroyer. The connection persists, though there's a mysterious consistency in both the crime and the punishment. The punishment runs parallel to the crime, and time and fate will showcase this perfectly.
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 feels like a valid excuse; and we can only hope that the people of England don't choose to be cruel but are simply misinformed. Their isolated location, surrounded by the sea, protects them from the horrors of war and keeps them unaware of the actions of their own armies. Because they don’t see it, they don’t feel it. They repeat the stories they hear and believe them, and since they’re used to no news other than their own, they receive it, sanitized of its brutality and tailored for the public, through the London Gazette. They are led to believe that their generals and armies are different from those of other nations and are free from rudeness or brutality. They envision them as they want them to be. They feel ashamed to think otherwise and naturally support this belief out of favor for themselves. There was a time when I held similar biases and made the same mistakes; but painful experience has taught me otherwise. I don't know how former armies behaved, but I certainly know how the current one behaves. It is low, cruel, lazy, and reckless; and if the people of America had no other reason to separate than what their army has caused, that alone would be more than enough.
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 world of politics in England is much broader than just news. People have the right to think for themselves, and even if they can't contradict what the London Gazette says, they can form whatever opinions they want about it. Unfortunately, there's been widespread ignorance across the nation regarding America. Both the government and the opposition have made mistakes. The government has always been in the wrong, while the opposition has only recently gone off track. For politics to be effective, there needs to be harmony in purpose and timing, and a flaw in either aspect can ruin everything. The government dismissed the opposition’s plans when they were still workable, and then supported them when they became unworkable. They moved from one bad decision to another, and have now completed a ridiculous cycle by trapping themselves.
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 just a few months before hostilities broke out. I found that the people were so easily led that they could be governed with just a flick of a thread. They were quick to be suspicious and perceptive, but their loyalty to Britain was stubborn, and speaking against it at that time felt like treason. They had issues with the government but respected the nation. Their grievances didn’t come with anger; their main goal was to reconcile. As bad as I thought the government was, I never imagined they would take such a rash and evil step as starting hostilities, nor did I believe the nation would support it. I viewed the conflict as a kind of legal dispute, where I thought both sides would find a way to work things out. I had no thoughts of independence or fighting. At that time, no one could’ve convinced me that I would become either a soldier or a writer. If I had any talent for either, it was buried deep inside me and might have stayed that way if the urgent circumstances hadn’t pushed me into action. I had planned my life, believed myself to be happy, and wished the same for everyone else. But when the country I had just arrived in was engulfed in chaos, it was time to take action. It was time for everyone to take action. Those who had settled long ago had something to protect; those who had just arrived had something to strive for; and the urgency and concern affected everyone equally. In a country where everyone was once an adventurer, a few years difference in when they arrived made no difference in 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 proven to be correct. What I'm referring to is "a secret and unwavering determination within the British Cabinet to annex America to the crown of England as a conquered territory." If this is accepted as the goal, then the entire course of action taken by the government, while reckless in its beginnings and disastrous in its outcomes, remains consistent and coherent throughout. It applies to every situation and resolves every challenge. However, if we consider taxes, or anything else in its place, there's no balancing the objective with the cost. Only the entire land and assets of the country could possibly serve as an equivalent to the millions spent by the government. No taxes collected in America could ever repay that amount. A revenue of two million pounds a year wouldn't even cover the principal and interest accumulated 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 this, aimed to push the Americans into what they might call a widespread rebellion. Then, by defeating them while they fought back, they hoped to gain a huge reward through general confiscation and silence them for good. The court's dependents were too many to be supported in England. The opportunities for plunder in the East Indies were gone, and the government’s excesses demanded that a new source of wealth be found, and that source could only be America, once it was conquered and stripped of its assets. They had nowhere else to turn. Every other avenue had been exhausted, and their extravagance, like a drunkard’s thirst, was desperate for new 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 have misled us by wanting property they never worked for, or they've misled you by spending a huge amount on something useless. As I've said before, the cost of obtaining taxation through force could never be justified; any sort of formal compliance from America would feel trivial compared to such a burden. It's likely that the government will eventually justify their actions through dishonesty and admit that their true intention was conquest. In that case, the people of England should seriously consider how much the nation would actually benefit from that outcome.
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 them, and people are pretty much convinced that going to war for profit isn’t worth it. If they are attacked, their country is invaded, or their lives are in danger, it’s their responsibility to defend themselves and protect what’s theirs, but in all other situations, and for any other reasons, war is shameful and horrifying. But getting 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 their trade and control will expand. But that wasn't the goal or the outcome of this war. You already had complete control over the trade before. Conquering wouldn't add anything to it; in fact, it would likely lessen it as the population and wealth decreased. Your authority over the land remained unchanged, and you had no reason to complain about any violation of agreements or established customs—commercial, political, or territorial. The country and trade were yours from the start, just as they had been a hundred years earlier. Sometimes, nations go to war to weaken their enemies or balance their power. But that was never part of your strategy. You claimed no foreign authority here, and you didn’t suspect us of claiming any either. So, what could you possibly be fighting for? What chance did you have, except to either keep the same territory you already had, but in a much worse state, or to lose, at great expense, what you could have kept without spending a dime?
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 beneficial for someone in business. Waging war against those who trade with us is like letting a bulldog loose on a customer at the shop door. Even a small amount of common sense reveals how crazy that idea is, and the same applies to the concept of war. Countries that are pirates, without trade or resources of their own to lose, can go to war with the entire world and still profit from it; but that’s not the case for Britain. During wartime, trade comes to a halt, and Britain ends up risking more of its own property than it could ever gain from others. Some government officials in parliament have pointed to the size of Britain's trade as an excuse for the scale of its losses. That’s truly terrible politics! It should have been used as a reason for avoiding war in the first place. The coast of America controls the West India trade just as effectively as the coast of Africa controls the Straits; and England cannot engage in the former without America’s consent any more than it can in the latter without a pass through 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 business standpoint, it’s clearly in the best interest of the people of England not to support it. Why it has been supported for so long, despite obvious evidence that it's not beneficial for the nation, is, to me, and should be to all reasonable people, shocking. Some might say that I live in America and write this out of self-interest. In response, I assert that my principles are universal. My loyalty extends to the whole world, not just one specific place, and if what I say is true, it doesn’t matter who or where it comes from. We’ve published the statement from your commissioners in our newspapers, and I’m sure you’ll include this in yours as well. It’s fair to help each other out.
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 wrap up this part of my speech, I want to mention one more thing where I believe the people of England have been just as mistaken: and then I'll 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 a concept in the world known as national honor, and when it’s misunderstood, it often leads to war. In a Christian and philosophical sense, humanity seems stuck at the level of individual civilization, while as nations, we still hold onto our original brutality. Peace by treaty is merely a pause in violence for a change in perspective. It’s a temporary fix for a principle that’s lacking and will always be lacking until we properly grasp the idea of national honor. As individuals, we claim to be Christians, but as nations, we act like barbarians, Romans, and others. I recall the late Admiral Saunders saying in the House of Commons during peacetime, “That the city of Madrid being in ruins is not enough compensation for the Spaniards removing the rudder of an English warship.” I don’tquestion whether this aligns with Christianity or morality; I ask if it’s decent—if it's appropriate language for a nation to use. In private life, we’d call that bullying, and a higher rank doesn’t change its nature. I believe it’s quite easy to define what national honor should mean; what is considered the best character for an individual should also be seen as the best character for a nation. Whenever a nation exceeds or falls short of that standard, it strays from the path of true 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 views on national honor seem lacking in kindness, in a broad sense of philanthropy, and in the ability to rise above the anger of common prejudice, without which humanity falls short and is akin to mere animals. To decide whom to accept or reject, she considers what country they come from, what religion they follow, and what wealth they possess. Her concept of national honor seems to be about national insults, and for her, being a great nation means not being a Christian, a philosopher, or a gentleman, but rather behaving like a bear in rudeness and devouring like a lion in ferocity. This may sound harsh and unrefined, but it’s unfortunately true.
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 only to highlight her overall character. But when it comes to America, she has shown none at all; her actions have undermined what she claimed in her title. She started with the title of parent, or mother country. The feelings that come with this term are filled with everything loving, gentle, and patient. They have a unique power of their own, and, beyond the usual attachments of common feelings, they apply with great tenderness to the first emotions of the heart. It's a political term that every mother understands and every child can recognize. It doesn't need my embellishment to shine, because only nature can do it justice.
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 your behavior towards America matched the reputation you claim? If your overall national character is rough and harsh, in this regard you are inconsistent and unnatural, and you must have very misguided ideas about national honor to think that the world can admire a lack of compassion or that national honor relies on being aggressive, rigid, or seeking 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 persuade you, as calmly as the times allow, that by fighting with us, you have jeopardized your own interests, and your national honor, when understood correctly, had no reason to push you into a war with America. If you had embraced true greatness of spirit, the most admirable trait of humanity, you would have acted in direct opposition to everything you've done, and the world would have recognized it as a noble act. Moreover, you had established a strong reputation with the help of this country during the last war. You were known and feared internationally; it would have been wise to let the world maintain that belief. It was a force that came at no cost to you. It offered you all the benefits of real power; you were more powerful through the widespread influence of that reputation than any future fleets and armies could make you. Your greatness was embedded and secured in your silence, and you should have never stirred the world, simply remaining quiet. If you had been true politicians, you would have understood all this and continued to leverage the power of a name, drawing strength and authority from your 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 for breaking the charm, you were even more foolish in how you did it. Samson only revealed the secret, but you actually cut your own hair and carelessly discarded the locks. America was the hair that held the charm that captivated the world. You should have argued with any power but her. You had nothing to lose by showing her some consideration. You could have indulged her, even if her claims weren’t justified, without putting your reputation at risk; because Europe, enchanted by your reputation, would have seen it as a sign of your generosity, and America, drunk on the favor, would have remained blissfully trapped.
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 human emotions to figure out how people might act is a political philosophy that the leaders at St. James's just don't get. They only recognize corruption as an influence and base all their predictions on past events. To them, a new situation feels like a completely new world, and while they try to find a similar case, they end up confused. Lord Mansfield's abilities can best be compared to those of a clever speaker. He gets the complexities but not the beauty of nature; by constantly looking at people through the impersonal lens of the law, he never thinks to explore the more vibrant aspects of the human mind. As for Lord North, he finds happiness in having more philosophical thought than feeling, as he endures punishment like a spinning top and actually sleeps better for it. His suffering becomes his strength, as he spins around while facing the consequences of his actions. In politics, he is a decent mathematician, but in everything else, he's basically nothing.
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 aspect that falls squarely under Lord North's role as a financier that I'm surprised he's missed: the different capabilities of the two countries to handle expenses. Oddly enough, England can't compete with America in this regard. Due to a strange twist in accounting, the English seem to confuse their poverty with wealth; they consider their national debt to be part of their national riches. It's like someone who, after mortgaging their property, adds the borrowed money to the total value of the estate to inflate their net worth, mistakenly thinking they're wealthier by going into debt. This is exactly the situation with England. At the start of this war, the government owed one hundred and thirty-five million pounds, and while those owed money can rightfully count their shares as personal assets, for the nation as a whole, it represents poverty. There are limits to public debt just as there are to private debt. Once the borrowed amount is so large that it takes the whole yearly revenue to cover the interest, further borrowing stops, much like when a person's debt interest equals their annual income, their credit runs out. This is nearly the case with England, as the interest on its current debt is at least half of its yearly revenue, meaning from the ten million collected in taxes every year, only five million can be considered its own.
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 with America was completely different; she started the war without any debt, and to fund it, she didn’t raise money through taxes or borrow at interest but created it instead. Her current situation is so opposite to yours that taxing her would make her wealthy, while it would make you poorer. Once we have reduced the amount we created, we will be debt-free and just as rich as we were at the start, and throughout this process, we won’t feel any change because the value will increase as the quantity goes down.
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.
No other country in the world was as capable of handling the costs of a war as America; not only because it wasn't in debt when it started, but also because the country is young and has endless potential for growth, with almost limitless land available. In contrast, England has reached its peak in age and development, with no unoccupied land or property left to draw from. One is like a young heir inheriting a large, improvable estate; the other is like an old man whose opportunities are behind him, with his estate mortgaged for much less than it's worth.
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 aimed to show that conquering America is not feasible. I laid out every scenario I could think of and dared to predict the outcomes. Since my conclusions were reached not through cleverness but through clear reasoning, they have all turned out to be correct. I was on the ground; I understood America's politics, its strength, and resources, and through various actions, tried my best to help and earned the friendship of Congress, the army, and the people. I believed the cause was just. I know it is just, and with that confidence, I never made my own gain or loss a priority. My goal was to ensure that the situation was clearly understood on both sides, believing I was providing a valuable service by showing one side the impossibility of being conquered and the other side the impossibility of conquering. Most of the arguments used by the government 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 plans that would lead to their defeat. They’ve approached everything from the wrong perspective. Their ignorance is surprising, and if you were in my position, you would see it. They may have your trust, but I believe they would make very poor members of Congress. I know what England is like and what America is like, and with this knowledge, I can judge the situation better than the king or any of his ministers can.
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 original. For the ones that aren’t, I’ve worked to improve them and present them in a way that's clear and impactful. I'm convinced that your defeat is as certain as fate. America is beyond your grasp. She is at least your equal on the world stage, and her independence doesn't depend on your approval, nor can it be stopped by your military. 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 imagine you had conquered America—what benefits, whether together or individually as merchants, manufacturers, or conquerors, could you have expected? This is something you never seemed to consider. Caught up in the excitement of victory and driven by the heat of battle, you failed to account for the costs or consequences. Everyone must contribute to the expenses; even the poorest among you has to bear his share, and it is both your right and your responsibility to seriously think about this. If America had been conquered, it might have been divided up as rewards for the king's favorites, but none of it would have come to you. Your taxes wouldn’t have gone down, because she wouldn't have been able to contribute anything to your relief. We have gained wealth through our own efforts, which would have ended as soon as you took control. Our paper money won’t be of any use in England, and we don't have any silver or gold. In the last war, you made many conquests, but did that reduce your taxes? On the contrary, weren't you taxed to cover the costs of those conquests, and hasn't that been the case 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 specifically address the Parliament. They seem to think they were partners in the hunt and believed they could share in the spoils, but as lawmakers, they likely would have been disappointed. This situation is entirely new, and many unforeseen challenges would have come up. The Parliament claimed a legal right over America, and the war stemmed from that assumption. However, the army is thought to belong to the crown, and if America had been defeated through their actions, the Parliament's claim would have been nullified by that victory. Ceded or conquered territories are considered outside the authority of Parliament. Taxation is applied to them through royal prerogative, not by law. This was attempted in Grenada a few years ago, and the only reason it didn’t happen was that the crown had previously given up its claim. Therefore, Parliament has been all this time backing measures to establish their authority, in which case they would have been overthrown by royal prerogative. This could have led to a new and intriguing conflict between Parliament and the crown. The crown could have argued that it conquered for itself, and that conquering for Parliament was an unprecedented concept. Parliament might have countered that America, being in rebellion and not a foreign country, could not be truly conquered but merely subdued, thus maintaining their claim by rejecting the term. The crown could have responded that regardless of how America was initially viewed, it ultimately became foreign due to a declaration of independence and a treaty with France; and that, under international law, its status fell outside Parliament's jurisdiction, which might contend that since their claim over America had never been surrendered, it could not be revoked. The crown could have insisted that while Parliament’s claim couldn’t be erased, it could still be overridden; and whether the claim was removed from the object or the object taken from the claim, the separation would occur. Since America was subdued after the treaty with France, it would, in effect, be a royal conquest, and therefore ultimately the sole possession of the king. Parliament, as the legal representatives of the people, could have challenged the term "inferior" and based their argument on the historical precedence of power, which would have introduced a series of very interesting and logical questions.
1st, What is the original fountain of power and honor in any country? 2d, Whether the prerogative does not belong to the people? 3d, Whether there is any such thing as the English constitution? 4th, Of what use is the crown to the people? 5th, Whether he who invented a crown was not an enemy to mankind? 6th, Whether it is not a shame for a man to spend a million a year and do no good for it, and whether the money might not be better applied? 7th, Whether such a man is not better dead than alive? 8th, Whether a Congress, constituted like that of America, is not the most happy and consistent form of government in the world?—With a number of others of the same import.
1st, What is the true source of power and respect in any country? 2d, Doesn't that power belong to the people? 3d, Is there really such a thing as the English constitution? 4th, What purpose does the crown serve for the people? 5th, Wasn't the person who created a crown an enemy to humanity? 6th, Is it not shameful for someone to spend a million a year without doing any good with it, and could that money not be better used? 7th, Is such a person 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 argument over the dividend might have distracted the country; because nothing is more common than to unite in winning and fighting over a reward; so it might be 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 in their claim, which is very likely, the country would also have been let down in their hopes; because the crown would have imposed taxes without Parliament, and any revenue generated would not have gone to the treasury, but into the king's personal funds. Instead of reducing taxes, it wouldn’t have even increased them, but would have merely been extra spending money for the crown. The more I think about this situation, the more I realize how blind and poorly advised my fellow countrymen are, whose decisions seem to lack insight, and whose 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 key support of the nation, which I mean the business and manufacturing sectors, I also address my remarks. It’s in your best interest to see America as an independent nation, not one that’s been conquered. If she is conquered, she is doomed; if she is doomed, she will be poor; as a result, trade will dwindle, and her credit will be questionable. If she is independent, she thrives, and from that prosperity, your profits will come. 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 acceptable; however, demand for others will rise due to the large influx of people that independence and peace will bring, and eventually, you could benefit greatly. America's commerce is completely free, and it will always remain so. She won’t give up any part of it to any nation. Not to her friends, and certainly not to her enemies; although it’s likely that your short-sighted politicians, thinking they’re pleasing you, might propose something like that at some point. Trade thrives best when it is free, and it’s a poor strategy to try to restrict it. Her agreement with France is based on the most open and generous principles, and the French, in their dealings with her, have shown themselves to be thoughtful, strategic, 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.
To the ministry, I also direct my words. You, gentlemen, have examined the downfall of your country, and it’s clear that you are unable to save her. Your efforts to recover her are as laughable as the plans that contributed to her decline. The commissioners, set to leave soon, will likely deliver this message along with my sixth edition addressed to them; in doing so, they will return with more Common Sense than they had when they arrived, and you too will have more than what you sent with them.
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 spoken to each of you individually, I’ll finish by speaking to you all together. It’s a long road that doesn’t have a bend. Sixteen years of bad behavior and misfortune is definitely long enough for any nation to endure. Assuming that war isn’t declared between France and you, I’d like to suggest a course of action that will help you get out of all your difficulties. This has been suggested before and should not be overlooked.
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 now, and Mr. Banks and Dr. Solander, on another journey around the world, were to discover her in her current state of arts, arms, numbers, and civilization. What would your response have been in that case? That will indicate what it should be now. The issues and their solutions are the same, and the correct approach to one mirrors the other. The question encompasses every possible circumstance. It simplifies politics to a straightforward consideration, and, in fact, while you’re examining your interests, the simplicity of the situation might lead you to a positive attitude. All you need to do is imagine you’ve found America, and she seems to present herself to you. As you stand in joyful admiration, the path of politics unfolds clearly before 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 create a contrast, I could easily compare what you’ve done in this situation with what you would have done in that situation, and by highlighting the differences, I could create a picture that would make you embarrassed. However, since it’s usually better to allow someone to calm down rather than confront them when they're upset, 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 take a step back into politics, it becomes clear that Britain's true interest was in proposing and supporting America's independence right after the last peace deal. The expenses Britain had incurred while defending America as its own territory should have highlighted the need to change its relationship with the country. This would have been the best way to prevent future wars and expenses, and the only way to maintain trade without the burden of sovereignty. Additionally, the title of "parent country" that Britain claimed indicated the wisdom and benefits of separation. Just as in personal life, children grow up and establish their own lives, which can enhance and protect the family's overall interest, the same approach should apply to colonies that are large enough to be self-sufficient. The same results would follow. Nothing strains the relationships between parents and children more than being too closely connected and maintaining distinctions for too long. Being overbearing doesn't work with those who have become equals in status through their own life progress—especially when they have families of their own. While they may see themselves as subjects of advice, they won't consider themselves subjects of governance. I mention this parallel not to endorse the title of "parent country," since if it belongs anywhere, it belongs to Europe as a whole, and the original settlers from England came here fleeing persecution. I only want to use the term for political reasons to 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 the strength and wealth that America achieved through her own hard work, you should have advised her to stand on her own and suggested a partnership based on shared interests. By doing so, you would have gained more real benefits and military support, including ships and manpower, at her own expense, than from any weak and bickering government you could have imposed on her. In short, if you had focused only on the internal politics of a family, you would have figured out how to govern the state. Instead of taking this straightforward and sensible approach, you got caught up in everything wild and outrageous, and by following the irrational impulses of the captain, 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.
Having explained what you should have done, I’ll now explain why it wasn’t done. The circle of the court had its own interests, which were different from and opposed to yours. Even though the independence of America and a partnership with it would have kept trade going—if not increased it—since neither side can find a better market for many goods, and despite the fact that by defending and protecting itself, it wouldn't have cost you anything, thereby reducing your national expenses and potentially lowering your taxes; the removal of so many positions from the court’s schedule went against the nation’s interests. Losing thirteen government ships, along with their resources, is a terrible blow for someone hungry for court favor. Your current king and government will lead you to ruin; it would be better to risk a revolution and call a Congress than to be led from one act of madness to despair and ultimately to destruction. America has set an example for you, and you can follow it to gain your 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 final part, a war with France. This is something no one in their right mind would recommend, and all decent people would want to avoid. Whether France will declare war on you is not something I should bring up here, even if I knew; but it would be madness for you to initiate it first. The situation has now reached a critical point, and peace is achievable if approached willingly. Regardless of what you think, France has acted fairly towards you. It would have been unfair for her to do anything else; and by accepting our offer of alliance, she formally notified you. There was nothing about her actions that was secretive or inappropriate, and while she made it clear that she would uphold her treaty, she left you to take the first offensive. America, for her part, has shown strength to the world. Unprepared and unarmed, without any formal government, she stood alone against a power that ruled over half the globe. The greatness of this act deserves respect; and even if you feel anger, you must also feel a sense of wonder and admiration.
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 wrap up my speech. It is what it is, and you’re welcome to it. I always intended to dedicate a Crisis to you when the moment felt right; when I was in the mood to write it and you were ready to read it. That moment has come, along with the chance to share it. The commissioners—poor commissioners!—have announced that "in forty days Nineveh will be destroyed," but the time has passed, and now, discontent with their God, they are going back to their own concerns. All I wish for them is that their concerns don’t fall apart around them, and that they don’t end up swallowed by 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 concluded this with a laugh, there’s something serious I need to share with the commissioners that deserves their attention. Their authority comes from an Act of Parliament, which also defines and limits their official powers. Therefore, their commission is simply a statement and appointment of those powers, or a naming and description of the people expected to carry them out. If it had included anything against or beyond the written law it is based on, it would have been treason against the crown under the English constitution, and the king could have faced impeachment. He couldn’t include in his commission what you’ve included in your proclamation; he couldn’t have authorized you to burn and destroy anything in America. You are called commissioners for restoring peace in both the act and the commission, and the methods for doing so are outlined there. Your latest proclamation is signed by you as commissioners under that act. You make Parliament responsible for its contents. Yet, within the proclamation, you include things that contradict both the spirit and the letter of the act, and that your king wouldn’t have dared to put in his commission to you. The situation in England, gentlemen, is too sensitive for you to take risks. You are accountable to Parliament for carrying out that act as it is written. You could face serious consequences for violating it, as you certainly have by exceeding its bounds. And as a friend who wants you to avoid the jaws of a lion as well as the belly of a whale, I politely suggest that you stay within 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 accountable as everyone else; even though he's a general, he's also a commissioner acting under higher authority. His primary duty is to follow the law, and his claim of being a general won’t absolve him of his responsibilities as a commissioner, because that would imply that the crown has the power to ignore an Act of Parliament. Your situation, gentlemen, is delicate and precarious, especially since England is in turmoil. Be careful! Remember the times of Charles the First! Because Laud and Stafford lost everything by relying on a hope like 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 will now point out its foolishness. Your actions contradict your intention: you threaten to destroy everything to make America a pointless alliance for France. I'm saying that the more destruction you cause (if you could actually do it), the more valuable that alliance becomes for France. You can only destroy buildings and possessions, and by doing so, you increase our demand for their materials and goods. The needs of one nation, if it has freedom and credit, naturally create wealth for the other; and since you cannot ruin the land or stop it from growing, you would boost the export of our products in payment, which would provide France with a new source of wealth. In short, if you were trying to find a way to enrich your enemies, you couldn't have come up with a better plan.
C. S.
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 last November,) in the divine providence, and in the justice of my cause, I am fully committed to pursuing the war with determination, and to making every effort to force our enemies into fair terms of peace and agreement." In response to this statement, the United States of America and the allied powers of Europe will say, if Britain wants war, she will certainly get a lot 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 start of the conflict, and each campaign, through a slow decline, has weakened your ability to win, without prompting any real reflection on your situation or your future. Like a spendthrift caught up in a constant cycle of waste, you sense the remnants of life and confuse them for a sign of recovery. New plans, like new medications, have offered fresh optimism but only prolonged the problem instead of solving it. A change of leaders, much like a change of doctors, has done nothing but sustain the flattery and provide new excuses for more excess.
"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 boldly asked at the start of every venture; and the belief that "whatever she wants is destiny" has been expressed with a sense of prophetic certainty. Even though the question has consistently been answered with disappointment, and the prediction proven wrong by misfortune, the arrogance persisted, and the list of national problems continued to grow. Eager to convince the world of her power, she viewed destruction as a pathway to greatness, believing that the glory of a nation, much like that of an [American] Indian, depended on the number of its trophies and the suffering it causes.
* Whitehead's New Year's ode for 1776. *(2) Ode at the installation of Lord North, for Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
* Whitehead's New Year's poem for 1776. *(2) Poem for the installation of Lord North as 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, swords, and poverty, as far as Britain's reach could stretch, have been unleashed with reckless cruelty along the American coast; and while you, far from the scene of suffering, had nothing to lose and very little to fear, the news reached you like an ancient story, where the passage of time dulls the reality and turns the deepest sorrows into something you can talk about casually.
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, perhaps written in vain, to the people of England. Taking advice when examples have failed or respecting guidance when warnings are mocked is like a picture of hope built on despair. But when time turns the facts you've laughed off into universal truths, and the undeniable proof of your growing losses, like the writing on the wall, brings fear to your distress, you will then, through your own suffering, learn to empathize with others.
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 victorious arrival of the united fleets in the channel and at your harbor entrance, along with Captain Paul Jones's expedition along the western and eastern coasts of England and Scotland, will make you feel like you're in a threatened country. This will teach you a more powerful lesson about the horrors of invasion and give you a clearer sense of widespread suffering than the best speeches can convey or the wildest imagination can envision.
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 have seen the costs, but not the real hardships of war. Your disappointments have come without immediate pain, and your losses were only reported to you. Like distant fire, you heard no cries; you felt no danger, you saw no chaos. To you, everything has been distant except the taxes to fund it. You didn’t know what it was like to be woken at midnight by an armed enemy in the streets. You were unfamiliar with the distressing sight of families fleeing, and the endless worries and heartaches that arose. Seeing women and children wandering in the harsh winter with the shattered remains of a well-furnished home, seeking shelter in any available space, was something you couldn’t imagine. You didn’t know what it was like to watch your belongings being chopped for fuel and your beds torn apart to be used for carrying away stolen goods. The suffering of others, like a raging stormy night, only added to your own sense of safety. You even found some pleasure in the storm, reflecting on the differences in conditions, where the sorrow of thousands only served to increase your own sense of calm pride. Yet these are just the milder pains of war, compared to the bloodshed and destruction, the suffering in a military hospital, or a city 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, by preparing for hardship, had strengthened their minds against any challenges thrown their way. They had decided to leave their homes, surrender them to devastation, and search for new places to settle instead of giving in. By becoming accustomed to suffering before it happened, they faced their share with less bitterness: 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 struggles more bearable.
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 problems become yours, and the invasion turns against the invaders, you won't have their vast wilderness to escape to, their cause to support you, or their hope to rely on. Their distress wasn't made worse by self-reflection. They didn't bring it upon themselves. In fact, they did everything possible to avoid it and even compromised their congressional values to prevent a war. The national honor or the benefits of independence were things they hadn't considered at the start of the conflict, and it was only at the very end that they decided to take action. Given these circumstances, they naturally and sincerely relied on providence. They had a legitimate claim to it, and if they had failed, 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, you brought upon yourself; in fact, if you had deliberately created problems to inherit them, you couldn’t have secured your claim more solidly. The world does not wake up with sympathy for your complaints. You felt none for others; you deserve none for yourselves. Nature doesn’t concern itself with cases like yours; instead, it looks away in disdain and leaves you to face the consequences. You can try to present your grievances to any court you want, but as far as America is concerned, no one will listen. The mindset of Europe, along with its desire to suppress arrogant ambition and hold cruelty accountable, is entirely against you; and where nature and self-interest support each other, the 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.
Put yourself in others' shoes and take on their perspectives, and you'll get a clearer understanding of the situation. If France had treated her colonies the way you have, you would have condemned her with every word of disgust; and if you had intervened to help a struggling nation like she did, the whole of Europe would have applauded you. But caught up in the heat of conflict, you fail to see things as you should and form opinions that benefit only yourself. You are puzzled that America does not unite with you to take on some of your taxes and submit completely to your demands. You're astonished that the southern European powers aren't helping you conquer a country that could ultimately turn against them, and that the northern ones aren't supporting your efforts to regain control in America, where they already benefit from the trade due to your separation. You seem shocked that Holland isn't rushing to help keep you dominant at sea while her own trade suffers because of your navigation laws, or that any country would prioritize its own interests while yours is 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 extremes of reckless passion and unfair, foolish anger have pushed you, like Pharaoh, into unbearable suffering. While the seriousness of the conflict keeps your shame alive, America's flag will take your story around the globe. The natural feelings of every reasonable person will be against you, and wherever your tale is told, you will have no excuses or comfort left. With relentless greed and an insatiable mindset, you have destroyed the world to gain power only to lose it; and while, in a frenzy of greed and ambition, the east and west are shackled in servitude, you are hastily earning destruction as the consequence 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 feel a sense of fear. The situation is much scarier there than in America. Here, the group against the continent's measures mainly consists of neutrals who don't strengthen either side. There's no one so lacking in sense and feeling as to want "unconditional submission," so no man in America could genuinely agree with you on this. Some might, out of cowardice, prefer it to the hardships and dangers of opposing it, but that same mindset prevents them from truly acting for or against us. However, England is divided into factions, each with equal determination. The principle that led to the war has split the nation. Their animosities are at a boiling point, and both sides, through a call to arms, are mobilized. No one can predict what direction a war might take if it starts with an invasion. She's not in a good position to unite her own affairs, and with no victories to seek abroad and only expenses at home, everything is at stake in a defensive battle, 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 situations where a country may find itself in a position where choosing peace or war, without considering anything else, can be politically right or wrong. When a country stands to lose nothing in a war, except for what it would inevitably lose anyway, then going to war is the right choice for that country; this was the case for America at the start of hostilities. However, when a country can gain no security from war that could not be achieved through peace, the situation changes, and this is now the case for England.
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.
The fact that America can't be conquered is something experience has proven and time has confirmed. Given this, what, I ask, is the point of the current conflict? If there's any honor in willingly heading toward self-destruction with unwavering intensity—if national suicide is seen as the ultimate form of national glory, then you may, with all the pride of a guilty happiness, perish without envy or competition. But when the chaos of war ends and the storm of present emotions gives way to calm thought, or when those who survive its wrath inherit your legacy of debt and misfortune—when the annual revenue can barely cover the interest on one debt, with no solution left for the other—very different ideas will emerge, leaving a bitter taste when you reflect on past mistakes. A mind freed from anger finds no joy in thinking about a reckless fight. The mental exhaustion that comes from behavior like yours makes it impossible to enjoy anything or feel any satisfaction in anger; and although, like a person in a seizure, you may not feel the harm of the conflict or differentiate between strength and weakness, your frailty will still match the intensity, and the pain will only increase as you start to recover.
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 which people or political system you blame for your current miserable state doesn’t matter at all to America. They have, whether they wanted to or not, helped elevate her above themselves, and she now calmly lets go of that question. The issue isn’t really who started the war but who keeps it going. It’s a fact that there are people in every country who profit from a state of war. People like this tend to emerge during troubled times, and after thriving on the chaos, they either die alongside it or, saturated with its stench, fade into the background.
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 contribute to your problems, and if they persist, they'll only make your troubles and losses worse. Some people in the minority think that America would support measures under their leadership that she wouldn't under the current cabinet. Lord Chatham would have faced the same issue if he had taken charge, and some of his followers are on the same path. Those distinctions had some basis in the early stages of the debate, but now they only prolong a war where the boundaries of the conflict are determined by military outcomes and secured by treaties, and can't be changed by minor details.
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 in the minority, waste their time arguing about a question that doesn’t involve them, specifically whether America should be independent. The only question they should actually address is whether they will support it or not. They mix up a military issue with a political one, trying to make up with a vote for what they lost in a battle. If they declare she shouldn't be independent, it will mean just as much as if they voted against a decree of fate. And if they say she should, it won’t make her any more independent than before. Questions that, once decided, can’t be acted upon only demonstrate 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.
From having long considered America your own, you assume it is governed by the same biases and beliefs that guide you. Because you’ve established a specific denomination of religion while shutting out all others, you think she must do the same. And since you’ve maintained a narrow-minded hostility toward France and Spain, you believe her alliances must lack true friendship. She used to reflect your views of the world because you taught her, but now, feeling free and having shed those biases, she thinks and acts according to a different perspective. It often happens that the more we’re taught to dislike certain people or countries, for reasons we don’t fully understand, the stronger our appreciation grows once that misconception is cleared up. It’s as if we need to make amends and readily engage in acts of friendship to compensate for that past misunderstanding. However, there might be something about the vastness of countries that, for most people, subtly expands their mindset. The spirit of someone from an island, in its natural state, seems confined by the misty boundaries of the water’s edge, viewing everything beyond primarily as sources of profit or curiosity, not friendship. Their island represents their entire world, and everything revolves around it. In contrast, those living on a continent, by looking over a larger landscape, also broaden their intellectual horizons, bringing them closer to understanding the universe. Their thoughts expand, allowing for greater openness. In short, our minds seem to be influenced by our countries as adults in the same way they are influenced by our surroundings as children, and until something frees us from that bias, we remain unaware of 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 universal sciences, whose principles are widely recognized, accepted, and applied for the common good of all nations, gain more of a philanthropic spirit than those who focus solely on national arts and advancements. Natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy broaden the mind, taking it from the local to the universal, fitting it for a greater understanding. It wasn’t Newton's status or pride in being English that defined him; it was his identity as a philosopher. The heavens freed him from the biases of his homeland, and science enlarged his spirit as infinitely as his studies.
COMMON SENSE.
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.
HAD America pursued her advantages with even half the determination she put into resisting her misfortunes, she would have already become a victorious and peaceful nation. Instead, comforted by a false sense of security, she relied on her hopes, and only hardship has driven her to take action. Whether it was cunning or genuine intent that led the enemy to seek peace at the end of last year is not important to determine; what matters is the impact 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 genuine emotions. Brave in tough times; calm in victory; relaxed when at rest; and always ready for peace in every situation; a risky calm and a heightened enthusiasm have alternated as conditions changed. Every feeling except despair has played a role; and the enemy has misjudged our strength and intentions so much that when they thought we were defeated, we emerged as victors. The vastness of the United States and its diverse resources, the universality of our cause, the quickness of our emotions, and the similarity of our views have, in every challenging moment, led to something that, with divine favor and intense pursuit, has quickly achieved the goal of a campaign. We have never strategically pursued victory; instead, we’ve seized it and bravely reversed the failures of a whole season in just one hour.
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 situation in Charleston, much like the challenges of 1776, has finally sparked a spirit and ignited a fire that perhaps no other incident could have triggered. If the enemy has spread a lie, they've foolishly roused us to action; and if they've told the truth, they've unintentionally done us a favor. We were coming back with our arms crossed after the struggles of war, thinking and relaxing to enjoy some peace. The reliance placed on Charleston put America in a state of lethargy. We viewed the work done—the conflict over—the situation settled—or that everything left unfinished would resolve itself. In this dangerous state of complacency, vulnerable to the harmful messages from the enemy, and lacking a common threat to focus our attention, we were gradually losing the passion we started with and slowly 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 year-long slumber we've been in and brings back the spirit of our earlier days, it could end up being more beneficial than the loss itself. America is always shaped by how she sees herself. Guided by feelings and acting on her own beliefs, she can choose to be either the victor or the victim.
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 about taking over towns or accidentally capturing military outposts that can bring down a country as large as this one. 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 hoping for. By splitting their forces, they make every location vulnerable to attack. This approach to warfare shows a weakness and relies more on desperation than on 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 obvious, not just in their operations but also in their plans. Charleston, which was originally just a secondary target in their attack strategy, has now become their main focus because they haven't been able to achieve success elsewhere. It would have looked cowardly in Europe if they had launched their major expedition in 1776 against a part of the continent that had no army or not enough forces to challenge them. However, after failing year after year in their attempts here, and to the east and north, they abandoned their original goal and, out of caution, have settled for whatever they can get, trying to put on a brave face to hide their shame.
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 for us to tolerate it. It's high time to end a war of frustrations that, on one side, has no real purpose, and on the other, has every motivation driven by honor, interest, safety, and happiness. If we allow them to stay much longer, we’ll become just as bad as they are. An alliance of wrongdoing will ruin us more than warfare. A nation skilled in wrongdoing knows better how to benefit from it than a young country that’s just been corrupted. We’re not a match for them when it comes to exploiting faults, nor are they for us based on the values we started out with. Our early days were our days of honor. They've defined America's character wherever the stories of her wars are told, and knowing this, we have no choice but to wisely and unitedly follow the well-trodden path. The toll of war is often as devastating to individuals as the outcome is to a nation; and it's not only essential that our forces are strong enough to win in the end, but that we also take timely actions to ensure our safety in the meantime. This upcoming campaign presents a unique opportunity that hasn’t come before, and the preparations for it are crucial, whether Charleston stands or falls. If Charleston holds, it’s merely a failure for the enemy, not a defeat. The only hope that a besieged town has is not to be conquered; forcing an enemy to lift the siege is a victory for those inside. But there needs to be a likelihood bordering on certainty to justify a garrison marching out to confront a retreat. So, if Charleston isn't captured and the enemy lifts the siege, every other part of the continent should prepare to face them; conversely, if it is taken, the same preparations are necessary to offset the loss and position ourselves to work with our allies the moment 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 are no longer fighting our battles alone, as we did in 1776. England, out of a spiteful attitude towards America, has not declared war on France or Spain, and to better pursue her interests here, she has given those countries no military targets and avoids them to trouble us. She would rather let her West Indian islands be taken over by France and her southern territories by Spain than give up on her desire for revenge. This behavior by Britain has made it clear that France should send naval and ground forces to support America on the ground. Their arrival can’t be far off, and the enemy's destruction won’t last long. Recruiting the army and securing supplies are the two most essential tasks we need to achieve, and capturing either of the enemy's divisions will bring peace and abundance 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 crisis as significant as the one we're facing now, with so much at stake, the entire country needs to come together and take action. No one should be idle if they can contribute even a little to the common good, and there shouldn’t be any negative talk that goes against it. The urgency of the situation and the weight of the outcomes leave no room for a friend's delay or an enemy's excuses. Holding back now would be incredibly foolish, and prioritizing comfort over action could cost us everything in the long run.
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 people or supplies when a serious need arises. The slow process of collecting taxes, given how extensive it is, along with their reduced value by the time they reach the treasury, has often put a strain on the government. This has been cleverly interpreted by the enemy as a general decline across the country. However, as inconvenient as this may seem at first, it can be fixed and even turned into an immediate advantage. It doesn’t really matter whether a certain number of people or a group of militia (and in this country every man is part of the militia) are required by law to bring in a recruit at their own expense or if a tax is imposed on them for that purpose, with the government hiring someone later. If there’s any difference, the first option is actually cheaper and better, because it avoids the costs that come with collecting it as a tax and gets the recruit into the field faster than the old methods of recruiting. Based on this principle, a law has been passed in this state requiring two men from each company of militia to be recruited, which will add over a thousand to the country's forces.
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 ignited 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 inspire action in the scattered sparks all over America. A country's courage can be seen in the bravery of its soldiers and the overall character of its people, but the confidence in success is best revealed through the actions of those with means. When the spirit of entrepreneurship becomes so widespread that it motivates all social classes, only then can a war be truly called 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 enterprising was significantly dampened by the actual revolt of some and the indifference of others. However, in this current situation, there is a strong commitment to the public cause from the citizens and businesses of the country. An alliance has been formed by the merchants, tradespeople, and key residents of the city [Philadelphia] to accept and support the new state currency at the value of gold and silver. This move not only brings them respect but will also benefit them by making the campaign operations more efficient and 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 been started to create a cash fund, which will be given as rewards to meet the full quota of the Pennsylvania line. The enemy has noted that everything in America has been achieved through government force; however, when they see individuals stepping up to provide 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 select few but on the solid foundation of private property 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 support, discontent will fade, and the decaying head of tyranny will perish in America. The enemy's destruction will be brief and limited, and like all their previous attempts, they will ultimately defeat themselves.
COMMON SENSE.
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. When I was writing this issue of the Crisis, some people believed that Charleston had fallen, while others were much more confident that it hadn’t. But there shouldn't be any doubt about it now. Charleston is lost, and I think it was mainly due to not having enough food supplies. Anyone who doesn’t now care about the honor of the greatest and most noble cause that a nation has ever taken on, and who doesn’t act accordingly, is no longer deserving of a peaceful life among a people committed to being free.
C. S. THE CRISIS EXTRAORDINARY ON THE SUBJECT OF TAXATION.
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 IS impossible to sit down and think seriously about the issues facing America, but the original principles that fueled her resistance, along with the passion and enthusiasm they inspired, will remain like a vivid memory of a beautiful scene. Imagining the purity of the cause, the voluntary sacrifices made to support it, and all the twists and turns of the war in its defense is both an act of giving and receiving respect. These principles deserve to be remembered, and remembering them correctly means reclaiming them. In this act of generous reflection, we benefit from what we seem to offer, and the more we share, the wealthier 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 was built was so solid that it not only embraced every fair and progressive idea that could touch people's hearts, but it also made it in everyone’s best interest to defend the country. Britain’s war was originally about greed. It was driven by selfish desires rather than noble ones. America’s fertile lands and promising beginnings were seen as sources of wealth to exploit. Britain looked at the thriving community and, ignoring the hard work that created it, longed for the rewards. Now, however, their anger has joined their greed; what began as a fight for honorable principles and the common good has become intensified by the pressing need to resist. It doesn’t take much insight into human nature to understand the consequences if America were ever to fall back under British control. Absolute power in the hands of an angry, domineering, and greedy conqueror is a terrifying force, and that country would suffer greatly under it. The labels of Whig and Tory would be lost, replaced by the all-encompassing term “rebel,” and the oppression, whatever form it took, would overwhelmingly affect everyone equally.
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 control, since she already had that; nor was it to expand trade and commerce, as she already had a monopoly and the country had accepted it. It also wasn't to quell what she might call rebellion, because there was no resistance before she started. The only motives left were greed or a plan to impose the same taxes on America that are paid in England (which, as I will show shortly, are more than eleven times heavier than what we currently pay in 1780) or, alternatively, to seize all of America's property if there was resistance and she managed to conquer it, which she was confident she could do.
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 the taxes in England and the annual cost of the current war for the country—what the total taxes are, and what it will cost us each year to defend it properly. I’ll also briefly highlight the reasons for our challenges, the benefits of taking action, and the consequences if we do or don’t prepare ourselves effectively for defense. I aim to be straightforward, honest, and genuine. There’s a widespread desire to drive the enemy out of the country, and people are complaining that the war isn’t being fought more aggressively. My goal is to present both the reasons and the solutions as quickly as possible.
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 of England (not including Scotland and Ireland) is seven million,* and the population of America is three million.
* This is taking the highest number that the people of England have been, or can be rated at.
* 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 amount of taxes in England (not including Scotland and Ireland) was, before the current war started, eleven million six hundred and forty-two thousand six hundred and fifty-three pounds sterling; which, on average, is around one pound thirteen shillings and three pence sterling per person per year, for men, women, and children. This is in addition to county taxes, taxes for supporting the poor, and a tenth of all the produce from the land for the support of the bishops and clergy.* Almost five million of this amount went each year to pay the interest on the national debt, incurred from previous wars, and the remaining six million six hundred and forty-two thousand six hundred pounds was used to cover the annual costs of government, the peacetime expenses of the army and navy, salaries for various officials, pensioners, etc.; therefore, since all the massive taxes were allocated in this way, there was nothing left to help pay for 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, like us, had only a land-based and not a naval war to manage, her revenue of eleven and a half million pounds sterling would have covered all her annual war and government expenses each year. * The following is taken from Dr. Price's state of 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.
Amount of customs in England 2,528,275 L. 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, almanacks, etc. 280,788 Duties on houses and windows 385,369 Post office, seizures, wine licences, hackney coaches, 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 Perquisites, etc. to custom-house officers, &c. supposed 250,000 Expense of collecting the salt duties in England 10 1/2 per cent. 27,000 Bounties on fish exported 18,000 Expense of collecting the duties on stamps, cards, advertisements, etc. at 5 and 1/4 per cent. 18,000 Total 11,642,653 L.
Amount of customs in England 2,528,275 L. 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, hackney coaches, 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 Perquisites, etc. to custom-house officers, etc. estimated 250,000 Expense of collecting the salt duties in England 10.5 percent. 27,000 Bounties on fish exported 18,000 Expense of collecting the duties on stamps, cards, advertisements, etc. at 5.25 percent. 18,000 Total 11,642,653 L.
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 a year to continue the war she’s currently fighting (this year she borrowed twelve million) and impose new taxes to cover the interest. Assuming the current war has cost her only fifty million pounds, the interest at five percent will be two and a half million; therefore, her current taxes must be fourteen million, which averages to at least forty shillings per person, men, women, and children, across the nation. Since this expense of fifty million was borrowed on the hopes of conquering America, and since greed was what initially pushed her to start the war, how truly miserable and tragic would the condition of this country be if she were, due to her negligence, to let an enemy with such motives and circumstances bring her into submission.
I now proceed to the revenues of America.
I will now discuss the income sources 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 have already mentioned that the population in America is three million, and based on my calculations, which I believe are quite accurate, the total cost of the war and the maintenance of the various governments could be covered by two million pounds sterling each year; that works out to about thirteen shillings and four pence per person, including men, women, and children. After the war, the cost for peacekeeping will only be about three-quarters of a million, or five shillings sterling per person. Now, putting aside all considerations of honor, principle, happiness, freedom, and reputation, and looking solely at the financial aspect, I present the following scenario:
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?
Suppose Britain were to conquer America and, as a conqueror, impose only one condition: that we pay the same percentage of our annual revenue as the people of England do. In that case, our share would be six million pounds sterling each year. Is there really any question about whether it’s better to raise two million to defend our country and govern it ourselves, and then only three quarters of a million afterward, or to pay six million to be conquered and let the enemy govern us?
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 anyone really think that conquerors would choose to put themselves in a worse situation than what they impose on the conquered? In England, the tax on rum is five shillings and one penny sterling per gallon, which is one silver dollar and fourteen cents. Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to think that after all the expenses they’ve incurred, they would let either Whig or Tory drink it for less than they do? Coffee, which is a minor item of consumption here, is heavily taxed over there, with prices between five and six shillings per pound, plus a hefty fifty-pound sterling penalty for anyone caught roasting it at home. There’s hardly a necessity in life that you can eat, drink, wear, or enjoy that isn’t taxed; even the light from the sun is allowed into their homes only by paying eighteen pence sterling per window each year. The simplest drink, small beer, can’t be bought there without a tax of nearly two cents per gallon, along with a heavy tax on the malt and another on the hops before brewing, not to mention a land tax on the land that produces them. In short, the state of that country in terms of taxation is so burdensome, the number of poor people is so high, and the extravagance and greed of the court so excessive, that if they were to conquer America, that’s when America’s troubles would really begin. It wouldn’t matter to a man whether he was Whig or Tory. The people of England and their government don’t see us in those terms. What they want is clear and steady revenue, and their methods for getting it would affect everyone the same. Their reasoning would be straightforward, as they would naturally assume that if we could sustain a war against them for five or six years, we could 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 running the current war and managing the various states can be done for two million pounds, and the setup during peacetime can be achieved for three-quarters of a million.*
* I have made the calculations in sterling, because it is a rate generally known in all the states, and because, likewise, it admits of an easy comparison between our expenses to support the war, and those of the enemy. Four silver dollars and a half is one pound sterling, and three pence over.
* I have done the math in pounds sterling, because it's a rate that's widely recognized in all the states, and because it allows for a straightforward comparison between our costs to fund the war and those of the enemy. Four and a half silver dollars is 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 are thriving and receiving plenty of attention from individuals, so I believe it makes sense for practical and economic reasons to convert the navy into cash (keeping just three or four ships) and use that money to support the army. We won’t have fewer ships; in fact, their use and the benefits we gain from them will be significantly enhanced, while saving costs. We are currently allied with a powerful naval force, from which we receive naval support. The best way to conduct the war to weaken our common enemy and maximize the benefits of the alliance is by focusing closely on 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 the cost of maintaining an army, including officers and all related expenses necessary for the country's defense, to be equivalent to the cost of forty thousand men at thirty pounds each, which totals 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.
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; our share to raise will be two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling; two hundred thousand of that will go towards funding and paying the army, as well as covering continental expenses both at home and overseas, and fifty thousand pounds will be for supporting 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 much raising that amount will cost, I’m doing 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 also one-eighth of the total population of the United States. Therefore, raising £250,000 among those 375,000 people means that, on average, each person would contribute 13 shillings and 4 pence per year, which is just over 1 shilling per month. Our share of the £750,000 for the country's government during peacetime will be £93,750, with £50,000 going towards state government expenses and £43,750 for continental costs, both at home and abroad.
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 cost will usually be five shillings per person. If England were to stop now and the war ended, her peace cost would remain as it is now, which is forty shillings per person. Therefore, our taxes needed to fund the war are as much per person as hers are now, and the only difference would be whether we'd end up paying five shillings per person or forty shillings per person at the end of the war; this is not hard to figure out. However, since we can securely defend our country for a third less than what our burden would be if it were conquered, and maintain the governments afterward for an eighth of what Britain would charge us, even if I found a miser whose heart never felt the spark of principle, that person, driven solely by the desire for money and lacking any loyalties but to personal interest, would still, out of sheer thrift, have to contribute to the defense of the country, or he would stop being a miser and become foolish. But when we consider everything that can enhance human life; when our self-interest aligns with our happiness; when all that can uplift and inspire us—when a sense of honor, reputation, and character, both at home and abroad, are intertwined not just with security but also with the growth of our wealth—there is no man in America, unless he is a hired agent, who doesn’t realize that his well-being is linked to 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 imagine that there's any other country that would go to such great lengths to conquer and enslave another like Britain has done. The costs are too high for them to handle without losing their temper; and when we think about the burden they bear, as well as their attitude, it would be foolish for us to believe they wouldn’t try to recover their losses as quickly as possible if they had America under their control again. With such high expenses, what would an empty victory mean to them? What kind of relief could they find from winning a battle without a reward? They went to war for money and revenue, and nothing less would satisfy them. It's not in the nature of greed to be content with anything else. Every emotion that influences people has its own way of working. Many of them are temporary and changeable; they can stop and vary. But greed is a constant, uniform emotion. It doesn’t lose its strength or change its target; and the reason for this is based on reality, because wealth has no rival when greed is the dominant feeling. One beauty may outshine another, making people forget the previous one: but wealth is the ultimate prize for greed, and so it cannot pursue anything new, because there isn’t another option 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 value of the current taxes and compare them to the annual expenses, but first, I’ll provide a few introductory 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 tough: the first is the significant amount of money that needs to be paid, and the second is the lack of that money available to make the payment. Even though these seem similar, they are actually different in many cases, and the challenges come from different sources.
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 set at half of a person's annual income; that tax would be impossible to pay because the property couldn’t be sacrificed. On the other hand, if a very small tax were imposed, to be collected in pearls, that tax also couldn’t be paid 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 can't come from the first factor, meaning the actual value or weight of the tax, is clear at first glance to anyone who thinks 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 is twenty million dollars, which, at seventy dollars to one pound, amounts to only sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty pounds three shillings sterling. On average, that’s just three shillings and five pence sterling per person each year for every man, woman, and child, or threepence two-fifths per person each month. This is a clear, undeniable fact that can’t be challenged, proving that the issue isn’t the weight of the tax, since it’s a small amount and far from enough to cover our share of the war expenses. The quit-rents of one penny sterling per acre on just half of the state amount to over fifty thousand pounds, which is almost equal to all this year's taxes. Since those quit-rents were never included in the taxes back then and are now no longer collected, the total amount of money raised for public service this year, not counting militia fines—which I will address later—is less than what was collected in any year before the revolution and since the last war. Essentially, the combined total of quit-rents and taxes back then was more than the current taxes alone 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 true cause of the difficulty and demonstrate that it doesn't come from the amount or value of the tax. Instead, it arises from the lack of the medium used to pay it. To further illustrate this point, I will show that if the tax of twenty million dollars were roughly four times its actual value—about two hundred fifty thousand pounds sterling, which would be our full share—it could have been raised more easily and would have been less burdensome than the current 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 the amount of money that can be set aside from trade.
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 halted, the continent ended up with two hundred million dollars, likely spread out as evenly as trade allowed. And since no more was going to be issued, price changes couldn’t increase or decrease 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 projected when they set the quotas for the different states at the end of last year, trade would have happened with nearly four times less money than it does now. As a result, the twenty million would have been raised much more easily and, when collected, would have almost quadrupled in value compared to what it is now. On the flip side, if the depreciation were to rise to ninety or one hundred for one, the amount needed for trade would exceed what’s needed at sixty or seventy for one. Even though their value would decrease, it would become more difficult to find that money for trade. Based on these facts and arguments, I argue that our struggles are not due to a lack of property, but rather a shortage of the means through which the value of property can be assessed for taxation, which is causing our difficulties. There simply isn’t enough money, and just as importantly, the people are unwilling to ensure that there is enough money available.
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 currency, I want to make a point that will seem true to everyone but is hard to explain. It's that when times were better, the money got worse, and when times were tough, the money held up better. The currency didn't decline because of any advantage gained by the enemy. The troubles of 1776 and the loss of Philadelphia in 1777 had no real impact on it, and everyone knows that the surrender of Charleston didn't change the exchange rate, which had been sixty to one for a long time before and for more than three months after. It seems like the certainty of it being ours made us careless about its value, and the mere thought of losing it made us hold on tighter, like something we were reluctant to let go of; or maybe we undervalue it for entertainment, but when threatened by the enemy, we stop and then go back to it when we can. In short, our good fortune seems to break us, while our misfortune brings us 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 parts I've already mentioned, propose some conclusions based on that, 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 have shown the average cost per person, which will cover all our war expenses and support the different governments without putting the country into 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 establishment could be for, specifically, one-eighth of what it would be if it were under British governance.
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 that the average tax per person right now is three shillings and fivepence, which is about threepence two-fifths per month. The total yearly value, in pounds, is only sixty-four thousand two hundred eighty. In comparison, our share to match the payments with expenses is two hundred fifty thousand pounds. This leaves us with a shortfall of one hundred eighty-five thousand seven hundred twenty pounds, and similar deficiencies occur in every other state based on their respective shares. This shortfall is why the army has been poorly fed, clothed, and paid. It’s also the reason for the weak state of the campaign and the threats to the country's safety. Now, if implementing a tax of thirteen and fourpence per person can solve these issues, ensure people's safety in their homes, let them manage their businesses and farms without disruption, and not only drive the enemy out but also keep them away, then if we ignore raising this amount, we’ll only invite trouble and the harm that could be avoided. So, I ask, where does wisdom, interest, and policy truly lie? Or rather, wouldn’t it be foolish to even pose the question? The tax, when shared according to what people can afford, won’t harm anyone, but an invasion from the enemy can devastate 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; the fences in the surrounding countryside are wrecked, along with the looting of furniture, supplies, and food. I doubt that half a million pounds would be enough to help those affected; and does this, I ask, even come close to the cost needed to ensure our safety? On average, the damage is at least ten pounds per person, which equals thirteen shillings and fourpence per person over the course of fifteen years. The same has happened on the frontiers, and in New Jersey, New York, and other areas where the enemy has been—Carolina and Georgia are facing the same fate.
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.
It's clear that most people don't realize that the taxes aren't enough to sustain the war. This is evident not only from people's general observations but also from several petitions submitted to the Assembly of this state, opposing Congress's recommendation from March 18th to exchange and fund the current currency at forty to one and create new money instead. The petition requested that the currency be made more valuable through taxes (referring to the current taxes) and that a portion of the taxes be used to support the army, if other support wasn't available. However, it wouldn't have been possible for such a petition to be submitted if the petitioners had understood that, rather than enough taxes being available to support them, the taxes actually fall three-fourths short of covering the annual 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’ll briefly review 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 burdens of war, the destruction caused by the enemy, and the obstacles thrown in the way of trade and commerce, a young country can quickly move past its troubles. America has already overcome many challenges that weighed heavily on her. For the first year or two of the war, we were confined to our ports, hardly daring to look toward the ocean. Now our rivers are filled with large and valuable ships, our stores are stocked with goods, and the country's produce finds a ready market at good prices. Gold and silver, which for a time seemed to have disappeared deep within the earth, have risen back into circulation, and each day brings new strength to trade, commerce, and agriculture. In a pamphlet written by Sir John Dalrymple and distributed in America in 1775, he claimed that two twenty-gun ships, or even just their tenders, stationed between Albemarle Sound and Chesapeake Bay would block American trade for 600 miles. How little did Sir John Dalrymple understand about 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 Britain was in charge, trade in this country was filled with restrictions. We were only allowed to sail to a few foreign ports. That's not the case anymore; and even though the amount of trade is only about half of what it was before the war, it clearly shows the huge benefit of open trade. The current amount under these restrictions can't sustain itself; from this, I conclude that if half the amount without the restrictions can almost stand on its own, just as well as the whole quantity could when it was restricted, then America must be in a very good position when trade opens up fully with the rest of the world. By trade, I don't just mean the work of merchants, but the entire interest and business of the country as a whole.
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.
I'm not really trying to suggest specific ways to raise money with this publication; instead, I want to highlight the need for it and the benefits we can gain. My main goal is to get people ready for the actions that I truly believe are in their best interest and their responsibility to take, which only require the power of awareness to put into motion. However, since any idea might be helpful, I'll share a rough outline and let others improve on it as they see fit.
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 decreases 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 in addition. The average rate for that 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'll have half the supply we need and 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 after another year we find ourselves needing to borrow another million due to the ongoing war, taxes will rise to seven shillings and sixpence; thus, for every million we borrow, an extra tax of sixpence per person will need to be imposed.
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 amount to be raised next year will be one million sixty thousand pounds: I propose that half of this should come from duties on imported goods and prize goods, while the other half should be collected through a tax on land and properties or other methods each state can 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 must be uniform across all states, the percentage rate or whatever other method the duty is imposed must be determined and set by Congress, and included in that form into the law of each state; and the funds generated from this must be directed 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 a tax on imports is the easiest kind of duty or tax to collect. One reason is that it can be paid at just a few locations throughout the country. It also works with the greatest efficiency and fairness, because everyone pays based on what they consume, and people generally consume in proportion to what they can afford. This means the tax aligns with what each person thinks they can manage, or in other words, everyone essentially assesses themselves and pays a bit at a time when they choose to make a purchase. Moreover, it’s a tax that people can either pay or avoid by not buying the goods; and although that choice might not change their behavior, having the option is a comforting thought. Personally, I would find it satisfying if there were a tax on all kinds of drinks during the war, because in my view, it would add to the enjoyment of society to know that when the army raises a toast, a little bit from each glass is theirs. How many times have I heard a heartfelt wish, almost with tears, saying, "Oh, that our brave soldiers in the field had some of this!" So why should we endure a pointless sympathy when there's a way to enjoy both the wish and the celebration at the same time?
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 key national strategy of imposing tariffs on imports is that it either keeps foreign trade in our hands or extracts some contribution for the country's defense from every foreigner who engages in it 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 it for the first half of the taxes, and since each state will figure out how to raise the other half, I'll focus my comments on 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 state's quota, amounting to one million sixty thousand pounds, will be one hundred thirty-three thousand two hundred fifty pounds. Half of that will be sixty-six thousand six hundred twenty-five pounds. Assuming that a quarter of Pennsylvania is populated, a tax of one bushel of wheat for every twenty acres of land would cover that amount, and all current taxes would end. In contrast, the tithes collected by bishops and clergy in England, not including other taxes, exceed half a bushel of wheat for every single acre of land, whether it's 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 first part of this paper, I talked about the militia fines but held off on discussing the details, which I'll address now. My argument is that two million pounds a year would be enough to maintain a sufficient army and cover all war and government expenses without the hassle of continuously pulling people away from their jobs, which is the most costly and least effective method. I see tax revenues as the primary focus, while fines are just secondary and incidental. The militia law was not intended to use the fines for anything other than supporting the militia, and they don’t generate any revenue for the state. However, these fines exceed all taxes combined. For example, if the muster-roll is sixty thousand men, the fines for forty thousand who don’t show up would be sixty thousand pounds, and those who do attend would give up time worth about half that amount. If all eight classes were called within the year and a third showed up, the fines for the remaining forty thousand would total about seventy-two million dollars, in addition to the fifteen shillings on every hundred pounds of property, plus a seven and a half percent collection fee in some cases, which overall would exceed two hundred and 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 prevent the country from raising enough revenue without providing an equivalent benefit, wouldn’t it be better for everyone involved to boost the revenue in the way I suggested, or in any better way if one can be found, and stop enforcing the fines? I would still maintain the militia as an organized group of men, and if there's a genuine need to call them up, I’d pay them from the state's proper revenues and increase taxes by a third or fourth percent on those who don’t participate. I can't go further into this topic, so I'll conclude with this point: fines are, of all revenue methods, the least suitable for a free society. When a person pays a tax, they understand that it serves a public need, which gives them pride in fulfilling their responsibility; however, a fine feels like a punishment for failing to meet that responsibility, so it’s paid with a sense of shame and often imposed 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 finish, which is the decision by Congress on March 18th of this year to take up 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 right; and if that measure is backed, the currency will gain a value that it won’t have without it. But that’s not all: it will provide relief to the finances until they can be properly sorted out, and it will protect the country from being immediately overtaxed under the current system. In short, support that measure, and it will support 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 long and challenging process, and along an uncharted path. The topic, in every way it could be considered, was full of complications and shrouded in confusion, yet the resources of America are so vast that all she needs is a solid system to ensure success.
COMMON SENSE.
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 emotions that drive the human mind, none is more common than curiosity. It affects everyone, sparking a desire to learn about things that are relevant to us as well as those that aren’t.
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 surpasses any attempts to enslave her and is continually growing in significance and wealth, has elevated her beyond the realm of worry, it has still kept her within the sphere of curiosity; and her desire to witness the words of a man who had boldly threatened to bring her to his knees was clearly characterized by a calm confidence that was indifferent to what he had to say. It was requested with a smile, read with amusement, and dismissed with contempt.
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 demands, even towards an enemy, it's fair to say that the speech is handled as well as the awkward situation of their affairs would allow; and although hardly anything in it is true, except the sad tale of Cornwallis, it might entertain the misguided 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 still unfortunately dragged out by the same restless ambition that first pushed our enemies to start it, and which continues to frustrate 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 misuse truth and language when people, through constant wrongdoing, have learned to disregard justice. The very person who started the war, who with the most arrogant disdain refused to respond to, or even listen to, the simplest of requests, who has encouraged his officers and army in the most brutal acts and outrageous thefts, who has incited the Indians on one side and the enslaved people on the other, calling upon every evil force for support, should now, with a false display of sympathy, deflect blame from himself and accuse another of the wrongs he has committed. This can only be matched by the depravity of the heart that uttered it.
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 more honorable than being meanly right—it's a statement I've made before, and it's just as true now. We have a certain respect for consistency, even in mistakes. We mourn when a virtue is corrupted into a vice, but the vice pretending to be a virtue is even more contemptible. Among the various roles that hypocrisy has created and that people have adopted, none is more repulsive than witnessing a stubborn disappointment contorting itself through blatant lies to present an appearance of piety it doesn’t deserve.
"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 continues, "betray the trust placed in the leader of a free people, nor adequately repay my subjects for their unwavering, dedicated, and caring loyalty to me, my family, and my government, if I agreed to give up, either for my own wish for peace or for their temporary comfort and relief, those fundamental rights and long-term interests that the future strength and security of this nation largely rely on."
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 got the nation into and continues to involve it in the most hopeless and costly of all wars should now shamelessly flatter them by calling them a free people and take pride in his wrongdoing, all while pretending to uphold their fundamental rights and long-term interests, is something that tarnishes even the essence of stubbornness. Is he afraid they'll send him to Hanover, or what is he scared of? Why has the sycophant been added to the hypocrite, and the man who claims to govern been reduced to a humble 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 lasting interests are, on which the future strength and security of England primarily depend, aren't even mentioned. They’re just words that make an impression on the ear and are only meant for their 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 isn’t it a shameful admission that England, which once claimed to be her protector, has now become her dependent? The British king and government are always emphasizing how crucial America is to England, trying to persuade the nation to continue the war: however, whatever justification there is for this belief should have been a reason not to start it in the first place. Therefore, they are undermining their current actions, because the arguments they use now directly criticize their past policies.
"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 state of things," the speech continues, "in the East Indies, and the safe arrival of the many commercial fleets from my kingdom, should have pleased you."
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 be some comfort, but it’s definitely not a reason to celebrate. Having one broken leg is better than having two, but that doesn’t bring any joy. Even if the situation in the East Indies looks good, it’s still worse than before, with no hope for improvement. But the sad tale of Cornwallis still needed to be shared, and it was important to introduce it as gently as 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 goes on, "my diligent efforts to protect the vast territories of my kingdom have not achieved results that match the fairness and integrity of my intentions."—What fairness and integrity there was in starting a war with America, the world will assess, and the unmatched brutality with which it has been carried out cannot 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 province."—And our great concern 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 effort has been spared on my part," the speech says, "to put an end to the spirit of rebellion that our enemies have managed to stir up and maintain in the colonies; and to bring back to my misguided subjects in America the happy and prosperous state they once had from properly obeying 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 expressions of misguided individuals have become so clichéd and pathetic, especially when we see them capturing entire armies at once, that the desire to avoid ridicule would lead a sensible person to stop. But the most offensive lie in this paragraph is blaming America’s success on the wrong factors. It was the relentless hard work of the settlers and their descendants, the dedication and perseverance they showed through labor and struggle, that truly caused America’s prosperity. The previous tyranny of England helped settle the land, and the integrity of those early adventurers improved it. If you ask the person who has cleared a path in the wilderness with his axe and now owns property what made him successful, he will tell you it was his hard work, the sweat on his brow, and the blessing of heaven. If Britain would just let America be, she would need nothing more. America has grown strong despite England’s ignorance and opposition, and she has the right to enjoy the wealth she has built.
"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 direct," says the speech, "that the budget for the upcoming year be presented to you. I trust in your judgment and sense of civic duty for the resources that our situation will necessitate. Among the many negative effects of continuing the current war, I genuinely regret the extra burdens it will inevitably impose 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 strange that a nation has to navigate such a maze of troubles and spend so much money to gain the insights that could come from just an hour of reflection. America's ultimate advantage over any attempts by an island to dominate it was as clearly defined in the nature of things as the future strength of a giant compared to a dwarf is evident even in their infancy. How far fate, in order to achieve goals that no human wisdom could predict, allowed these remarkable mistakes is still a mystery locked away in time and will remain so 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 this important battle we're involved in," the speech states, "I have strong confidence in the protection of divine guidance and a complete belief in the righteousness of my cause. I have no doubt that with the support of my Parliament, the bravery of my fleets and armies, and a vigorous, passionate, and united effort from my people, I will be able to bring back the blessings 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 quickest 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 fate has kept him out of her protection for seven years, he still has no doubt. Like Pharaoh at the edge of the Red Sea, he doesn’t see the plunge he’s taking and rashly pushes forward into the flood that’s 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 reasonable to assume that this part of the speech was written before the news of Cornwallis' capture arrived, as it really doesn't relate to the situation at the time it was delivered. But regardless, that doesn't affect us. Our decision is made. Our destiny is set; and America, guided by fate, is reaching maturity. All we need to do is prepare for war or peace with determination and urgency. We're too strong to back down and too honorable to offend; we're resilient in tough times and generous in success. Let's maintain the reputation we've built and set an example of unparalleled nobility for future generations. There's something about America's cause and its outcomes that has caught the attention of the entire world. The world has witnessed her bravery. Her love for freedom, her passion for defending it, the fairness of her demands, and her unwavering courage have earned her respect in Europe and allied her with the leading power in that region.
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 evidence comes up to confirm that she's right. In her dealings with her enemy, there are no hidden feelings of resentment. She holds no lingering sense of injustice. Free from ambition and unfamiliar with revenge, her journey has been guided by fate, and in every phase of the struggle, 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. Any negligence in preparation or laziness in action will just drag out the war and increase costs. If our enemies can find comfort in failure and push themselves to fight through despair, how much more should we, who are on the verge of winning 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 in the earlier part my thoughts on the various matters present in the speech, I will now share my thoughts on what it lacks.
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 about its alliances. Either Britain’s injustice is too obvious, or her situation is too dire, or maybe both, for any nearby country to come to her aid. At the start of the conflict, when she was only facing America, she hired help from Hesse and other smaller German states, and for almost three years, America—young, inexperienced, untrained, and unprepared—stood against the might of Britain, supported by twenty thousand foreign troops, and completely defeated one entire army. Remembering these events should inspire us with confidence and a sense of greatness, helping us face every remaining challenge with acceptance and positivity. What are the small struggles we face today compared to the hardships we’ve overcome? There was a time when we had no safe place to call home; when every moment was filled with alarm and danger; when our minds, tortured by anxiety, found no peace, and everything except hope and courage was leaving us.
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 are behind us. Back then, everything felt cheap compared to the fear of defeat and the pain of giving in. We didn’t waste time arguing over small matters or debating the essential and unavoidable costs of defense. Everyone shared their struggles and looked forward to 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 complacency that sneaks in when we think the worst is behind us. Right now, this risky mindset defines America’s unique crisis. What would we have given to know what our situation would be today? Yet, we don’t seem to appreciate it properly or actively take the necessary steps to protect it. We know we can’t defend ourselves without effort and cost. We have no right to expect it, nor should we wait for it to happen. As a people, our situation makes us different from everyone else in the world. We share a common commitment to the public good, and whatever responsibilities we have, they are for our own benefit and for our own sake.
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.
Misfortune and experience have now taught us to be systematic and methodical; the plans for conducting the war are now organized and orderly. The contributions from each state have been determined, and I plan to reveal what they are in a future publication, along with the importance and benefits of actively 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 mercy from Smollett's History of England, vol. xi., printed in London. It illustrates how bleak the situation of a conquered people is, 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 Hanover dynasty competed for the English throne. The Stuarts were first in line for succession, but the Hanovers proved to be more 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, arrived in Scotland, gathered a small army that never exceeded five or six thousand men, and tried to reclaim his right to the throne. The late Duke of Cumberland, the uncle of 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 offered, and those who are ruthless just because they’ve won can easily adopt any other despicable behavior.
"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 sentenced to execution. He then sent out several groups to wreak havoc on the land. One of these groups captured The Lady Mackintosh, who was taken prisoner to Inverness. They looted her home and drove away her livestock, even though her husband was serving the government at the time. Lord Lovat's castle was destroyed. French prisoners were sent to Carlisle and Penrith; Kilmarnock, Balmerino, Cromartie, and his son, The Lord Macleod, were taken by sea to London, while those of lower rank were imprisoned in various locations. The Marquis of Tullibardine, along with a brother of the Earl of Dunmore and Murray, the pretender's secretary, were captured and sent to the Tower of London, where the Earl of Traquaire had also been imprisoned on suspicion; the eldest son of Lord Lovat was held in the castle of Edinburgh. In short, all the jails in Great Britain, from the capital to the north, were filled with these unfortunate prisoners, many of whom were crammed into ship holds, where they died in dreadful conditions, lacking air and exercise. Some rebel leaders escaped on two French frigates that arrived off the coast of Lochaber around the end of April and fought against three vessels belonging to his Britannic Majesty, forcing them to retreat. Others boarded a ship on the Buchan coast and were taken to Norway, from where they traveled to Sweden. In May, the Duke of Cumberland led the army into the Highlands as far as Fort Augustus, where he set up camp and sent out detachments in all directions to hunt down the fugitives and devastate the countryside with fire and violence. The castles of Glengary and Lochiel were looted and burned; every house, cabin, or dwelling faced the same fate without exception, and all livestock and supplies were taken. Men were either shot on the mountains like wild animals or killed in cold blood without any trial; the women, after witnessing the murders of their husbands and fathers, were subjected to brutal assaults and then thrown out, naked, with their children to starve on the barren moors. One entire family was trapped in a barn and burned alive. The agents of this vengeance were so swift in carrying out their tasks that in just a few days there was not a single house, cottage, man, or beast to be seen within fifty miles; everything was left in ruins, 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 have presented you with one of the most shocking examples of cruelty ever committed, and I want you to take it in so you can fully grasp how much destruction you’ve avoided if Britain had conquered America. I also hope you can see and understand the importance, for your own safety and for the honor, interest, and happiness of the entire community, of not overlooking or delaying any necessary steps to protect the ground we are so fortunate to stand on.
TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA On the expenses, arrangements and disbursements for carrying on the war, and finishing it with honor and advantage
TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA Regarding the costs, preparations, and payments for conducting the war, and concluding it with dignity 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 suggested the need to speak to the public, I have never considered whether the topic was popular or unpopular, but whether it was right or wrong; because what is right will eventually become popular, and what is wrong, even if it mistakenly gains the attention or trend of the moment, will soon lose its ability to deceive and fall into disfavor.
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 striking example of this occurred in the case of Silas Deane; I bring this up more easily because the damage from his deceit affected the entire country, and nearly everyone thought I was wrong for standing against him. My closest friends at that time, except for Mr. [Henry] Laurens, kept their distance, and I give this acknowledgment to him with respect, especially since he isn't here to hear it. If he learns of it during his imprisonment, it should give him a positive thought.
"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 shot up like a rocket, he came crashing down like a stick," is a metaphor I used for Mr. Deane in the first piece I published about him, and he has perfectly matched that description. The credit he unjustly earned from the public, he lost in nearly no time. The illusion vanished as quickly as it fell, and he soon found himself without public support. His closer acquaintances began to doubt him and abandon him long before he left America, and upon his departure, he realized he was the subject of widespread suspicion. When he arrived in France, he tried to achieve through treason what he had failed to accomplish through deceit. His plans, schemes, and expectations of being sent to Holland to negotiate a loan had all failed. He then started slandering and accusing America of every crime that could tarnish its reputation, claiming, "That it was a ruined country; that it only intended to use France as a tool to extract as much money as possible and then abandon her to make peace with Britain." Colonel Laurens and I informed Dr. Franklin about all this and much more when we were in France, and he had not heard of it before. To cement his traitor status, he has, through letters to his country, some of which are now in the possession of Congress, used every expression and argument at his disposal to damage France's reputation and urged America to break its alliance and forfeit its independence.* So in France, he disparages America, and in his letters to America, he disparages France; he is trying to create discord between the two countries using the same underhanded tactics that caused rifts among the commissioners in Paris and turmoil in America. His life has been a fraud, and his character has been that of a scheming, plotting, subservient mercenary, capable of any disguise that served his interests. His eventual exposure has thankfully cleared up those misunderstandings and alleviated the discomfort caused by his unscrupulous behavior. Everyone now views him in the same light, for he treated both friends and enemies with the same deception and unfairness, and his name, like Arnold’s, should now be forgotten among us. Since this is the first time I've mentioned him since my return from France, I intend for it to be the last. From this digression, which I felt was necessary for several reasons, I will now proceed to the purpose of my address.
* Mr. William Marshall, of this city [Philadelphia], formerly a pilot, who had been taken at sea and carried to England, and got from thence to France, brought over letters from Mr. Deane to America, one of which was directed to "Robert Morris, Esq." Mr. Morris sent it unopened to Congress, and advised Mr. Marshall to deliver the others there, which he did. The letters were of the same purport with those which have been already published under the signature of S. Deane, to which they had frequent reference.
* Mr. William Marshall, from this city [Philadelphia], who was once a pilot, had been captured at sea and taken to England, then made his way to France. He brought letters from Mr. Deane to America, one of which was addressed to "Robert Morris, Esq." Mr. Morris sent it unopened to Congress and advised Mr. Marshall to deliver the other letters there, which he did. The letters contained the same information as those that have already been published under the signature of 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 between America and Britain as the nation's war, the people's war, or the struggle of the citizens fighting for their own rights and to protect their property. It is not just the war of Congress, the assemblies, or any government in any form. The nation, through mutual agreement, decided to stand up for their rights and preserve their independence, risking their lives and wealth; they chose their representatives, who then appointed the members of Congress, saying, "You act on our behalf, and we will back you." This is the true basis and principle of the war for America, and therefore, the only thing left to do is for everyone to fulfill their duty.
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 nearly impossible for a new country, starting a new venture, to get everything right from the beginning. She didn’t see the full scope of the struggle she was in, and there was no way to avoid the initial challenges. She thought each step she took and each decision she made would force her enemy to come to terms and end the conflict. When that didn’t happen, she was pushed into new strategies; these, like the previous ones, were based on her expectations and also failed, leaving her constantly unprepared and without a plan. The enemy was also encouraged to continue the war because of the temporary measures we put in place to keep it going. We kept expecting their resources to run out, while they were waiting for our currency to collapse; and so, with both sides watching each other closely, the hopes of both were dashed, and the naivete of those expectations only served to increase 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, in this maze of mistakes, has been at fault? Where is the person who can honestly say they share no responsibility? These were the natural, unavoidable mistakes of the time. They were the mistakes of an entire nation, which only experience could identify and time could correct. The situation in America couldn't allow for a proper system until either the paper currency was stabilized or discarded. No financial calculations could be made on a medium that was erratic without reason and inconsistent without guidelines.
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 was one mistake that could have been avoided but wasn’t; and since it’s not my habit to flatter but to serve people, I’ll say it openly. Every assembly on the continent should have always known the state of its finances and should have checked how much the actual value of taxes fell short of their stated amount during every period of devaluation. This information, which could have been easily obtained at the time, would have allowed them to keep their constituents well-informed, and this is one of the most important responsibilities of representation. They should have studied and calculated the costs of the war, each state's share, and the resulting proportion that would affect each person's property for their defense; and this would have clearly shown them that a tax of one hundred pounds could not be paid with a bushel of apples or a hundred pounds of flour, which was often the case two or three years ago. But instead of this straightforward and honest approach, they chased after fleeting popularity, losing sight of real responsibility. As a result, every state, lacking a little critical thinking or information, thought that it was covering the full costs of the war, when in fact it was falling over three-quarters short of its own share by the time the tax was collected.
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 that 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, discussing America's revenues and the annual cost of the war. My estimate for the latter, along with the civil budget of Congress and the civil budgets of the various states, was 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 (not including the civil lists of the individual states) at eight million dollars. With the extra million dollars being more than enough for the civil lists of the various states, the two estimates are very 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 contribute, and their shares are as follows, which I will introduce with the resolution itself.
"By the United States in Congress assembled. "October 30, 1781.
"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 U.S. Treasury with their share of eight million dollars for the War Department and civil expenses 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 distribute the share of the above amount to the various 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 amounts each state needs to contribute 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 needed according to the resolutions from October 30th of last year, be contributed by the states in the following proportion:"
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
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 be recommended to the various states to impose taxes to raise their share of funds for the United States, separate from those intended for their own specific use."
On these resolutions I shall offer several remarks.
On these resolutions, I have a few comments to make.
1st, On the sum itself, and the ability of the country. 2d, On the several quotas, and the nature of a union. And, 3d, On the manner of collection and expenditure.
1st, On the total amount and the capacity of the country. 2d, On the various shares and the nature of a union. And, 3d, On the way of 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 and the country's capacity. I'm aware that my own estimate is as low as it can be, and since the amount requested by Congress, based on their calculations, is very close to that, I realize it can't be lower. It also can't be achieved for that amount unless there is cash available to make purchases; even then, it can only be managed through the strictest oversight 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.
By the reports presented to the British Parliament last spring, it was evident that the expense of simply feeding their army in America was around four million pounds sterling each year, which is almost eighteen million dollars. Now, if we can feed, clothe, arm, support, and pay an army adequate for our defense for eight million, the comparison clearly indicates that the money is being well spent.
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 a debate or a conversation, to pay attention to how an army's expenses are tracked, as it will allow us to understand where any shortfalls will occur.
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 clothe them. Third, to arm and furnish them. Fourth, to provide means for removing them from place to place. And, Fifth, to pay them.
Second, to provide them with clothes. Third, to equip and supply them. Fourth, to arrange transport for them from one place to another. 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 and second are completely essential for them as individuals. The third and fourth are just as essential for them as a military force. And the fifth is what they rightfully deserve. If the total amount raised comes up short, whether due to the states' various efforts to raise it or the way it's collected, the shortfall will impact the fifth point—soldiers' pay—which would be cheating them and would bring lasting shame on us. It would tarnish the councils, the nation, and the American revolution, and someone would feel 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 greater, it would then impact the fourth issue, which is moving the army from one place to another. In this situation, the army has to either stay put where it’s useless or take whatever means of transportation it can find, like horses, carts, or wagons. This ends up harming the country. In summary, any effort to do something for less than its actual cost will ultimately lead to both a loss and a shame.
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 most costly idea ever, costing America millions for nothing. Can the country really sustain being overrun, ravaged, and ruined by an enemy? That will happen immediately where defense is lacking, and defense will always be lacking if we don't provide enough revenue. But that's only part of the problem. The second issue is that when danger arrives—partly because we didn't prepare for it—we have often had to spend twice as much to do something that could have been done initially for half the cost. But that’s not all. A third problem is that all kinds of supplies—grain, flour, animal feed, horses, carts, wagons, or whatever was immediately needed—have been taken without payment. Now, I ask, why did this happen, if not because of that extremely weak and costly belief that the country couldn’t handle it? That is, the belief that it couldn’t bear, at first, what would have saved it twice as much in the end; or, in simpler terms, that it couldn’t spend a penny to save a pound; as a result, it has ended up spending a pound for a penny. Why are there so many unpaid certificates in almost everyone’s hands if not for the stinginess of not raising enough revenue? Moreover, the belief contradicts itself; because if the whole country can’t bear it, how is it possible that a part could? Yet that has been the case: for those things have been obtained; they must be had; but the unfortunate part is that they have been acquired in a very unequal way and on expensive credit, while, if paid for in cash, they could have been bought for half the price, causing no distress to anyone.
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 we should consider: how will the army cope with the lack of food, clothing, and other essentials? A person at home can adapt in countless ways and find numerous means of comfort, convenience, or relief; however, a soldier's life doesn’t allow for any of that. Their needs can’t be met on their own; an army, while it defends a state, is also a dependent of the country and must be provided for in every aspect.
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 capability as those in America. An industrious common laborer's income here is on par with that of most tradespeople in England. Since the war started, I haven't heard of a single merchant going bankrupt, while in England, there have been countless. In America, almost every farmer lives off their own land, whereas in England, it's less than one in a hundred. In short, it seems that the poverty in that country has driven them mad, and they are determined 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 the benefits America had, it’s true that if it weren't for the necessity of taxes for our defense, we would have fallen into laziness and poverty. In fact, the wealth lost by not farming in the years 1776, '77, and '78 far exceeded the amount of tax we were paying. What is lost through neglect like this is lost forever; however, the money we pay, which stays in the country, comes back to us. It not only provides us with defense but also encourages 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 point, specifically about 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 held together only by shared interests and feelings. The entire country rushed to help Boston, making her struggle their own, sharing in her worries, and addressing her needs. Since then, the consequences of war have hit the South much harder, but during this time, the union has been reinforced by a legal agreement between the states, which has been ratified both collectively and individually. What was once a matter of choice or a duty of love is now also 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; the foundation on which it's built; and it's something so sacred in her constitution that we need to be careful with every word we say and every thought we have, so we don't harm it, even accidentally. When a large group, spread out across a continent like we are, agrees to create one central place for everyone to work together toward a specific goal, all parts must work in sync with each other, or not at all, and a halt in any one part affects the entire group, at least for a while.
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 different states have sent representatives to meet in Congress, giving that body the authority to act as their central hub, effectively representing them. They manage the war while the citizens back home focus on their local issues, internal laws, and their jobs or businesses. It's only by organizing complex issues into a methodical approach that they can be understood effectively and pursued successfully. Congress, with this power, assesses the costs and distributes them among the various regions of the country based on their different capacities. The discussion must conclude here because each state has already had its say, and the issue has been fully debated. No single state can change the outcome any more than an individual can alter a law after it has been passed. Regarding matters that directly affect the union, for which the union was intentionally created and is meant to protect, each state is to the United States what each person is to the state where they reside. This central idea is fundamental to our existence as a nation, our well-being as a people, and our safety as individuals.
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 rated a bit high or low, but it can't be by much. The experiences we've had on this matter have mostly figured out their abilities. Even in this situation, we can only appeal to the United States; no state is allowed to make changes on its own, just like our internal government doesn't allow individuals to change laws enacted by the legislature. If one state can do it, then another could do the same, and as soon as 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 unlikely that any single state can accurately judge all the reasons that might influence the collective group in deciding the quotas for the continent. The situations of the various states often change, influenced by the events of war and trade, and it will sometimes be necessary for some states to assist others, often beyond what their exact share would be at another time. However, this kind of support is just as naturally and politically part of the concept of a union as any specific assigned proportion; because we can't predict whose turn it will be to need help next, the state that leads by example is the smartest.
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.
Though when it comes to our responsibilities and mutual affection, it feels like a decline in honest and passionate feelings to let anything selfish influence how we act, there are times when our duties, feelings, and interests align, and it can be helpful to notice that connection. The United States will inherit a large amount of vacant land, and the titles to shares and portions will naturally be adjusted based on each state's relative contributions during the war, not counting any challenges that may unfortunately come from the enemy occupying a portion of land; however, since this is a matter of cold interest, I’ll move on and discuss my third point, which is about the method of collection and spending.
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 our mistake, as well as our bad luck, to mix up the affairs of each state, especially in financial matters, with those of the United States; when in fact, it would benefit us to keep them separate. The expenses of the United States for conducting the war and the expenses of each state for its own domestic government are clearly different, and mixing them up only leads to confusion and opportunities for fraud. I appreciate organization because I recognize its beauty and benefits. It’s what makes all business straightforward and clear, and without it, everything becomes complicated and difficult.
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 could that be managed, which affects every state, without a delegation from each? When a state has done its part, it has an unquestionable right to know how it has been used, and it is as much the responsibility of Congress to inform the state about this as it is the state's responsibility to provide the resources.
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 to the various states to impose taxes to raise their share of funds for the United States, separate from those they impose 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 a crucial point to pay attention to, and the distinction should be maintained throughout. They should be assessed, paid, and collected separately, and kept separate in every case. Neither the civil officers of any state nor the government of that state has 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 touch the funds that each state generates for its own use.
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 prompt every state to carefully review the expenses of its civil budget and to manage, cut down, and organize it better than it has been until now; because the funds for that purpose need to be raised separately and reported to the public individually. But while the funds of both were mixed together, the required attention was not given, and the poor soldier, who should have been prioritized, 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 benefit will be that people, by paying their taxes separately, will understand what each tax is for; and they will also know that those for the defense of the country will end with the war, or shortly after. For although, as I mentioned earlier, the war is theirs and is for the protection of their rights and property, they have the same right to know what they are paying for as they do to pay. It's the lack of understanding that often leads to dissatisfaction.
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 directive in the finance office, stating:
"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 each month, the receivers will prepare a detailed account of the money they’ve received during that month, including the names of the individuals from whom it was received, the dates, and the amounts. They will publish this account in one of the state newspapers so that every citizen can see how much of their tax money is being sent to the U.S. Treasury to support the war, as well as what funds have been available to the superintendent of finance. It is important and necessary for the people in a free country to be well-informed about the management of their affairs to the extent 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 efficiency taking shape after so many mistakes and challenges. A government or administration that operates honestly has nothing to worry about and, therefore, nothing to hide. It would be helpful to publish a monthly or quarterly report on both spending and income. Eight million dollars needs to be managed very carefully to make it work, so having a reputable management and public reports would be beneficial.
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 presented to the assembly of this state (and it’s likely the same has happened in other states) asking for lower taxes. The only way to keep taxes low is for the United States to have available cash to work with. Even though the taxes for this year will be a heavy burden and there will naturally be some challenges in paying them, the difficulty will lessen day by day as more money circulates in the country. In the end, we’ll save millions because of this. We know we have a bitter and vengeful enemy to deal with, and any expense we incur is minor compared to their relentless grip. We’ve seen the unfortunate people of Carolina hunted like birds on the mountains, and the only way we can prevent ending up in the same situation 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 manage our farms, stores, or other jobs in a calm and prosperous way; and that these priceless blessings come from the taxes we pay. Viewed this way, our taxes are essentially our insurance money; they’re what we pay to ensure our safety, and in terms of policy, they are 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 intended to share some thoughts on the five percent impost law suggested by Congress, which is meant to create a fund to pay 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 just, it really only requires honesty to implement it, so there's not much else to say about it.
COMMON SENSE.
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 ships in quick succession, at New York, from England, a mix of unrelated news has circulated through the country, sparking a wide range 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's wrong in the cabinet and councils of our enemies across the water—they've reached the end of their madness and need to change their strategies. However, it's still uncertain what this change will mean or how it aligns with our interests, happiness, and responsibilities. Based on what we've experienced so far, we have good reason to be suspicious of them in everything. I'm not addressing this publication primarily to the people of America but to the British government, whoever they might be. If they intend to pursue any negotiation, they should know in advance that the United States values honor as much as bravery, and we cannot be tempted away from our alliance any more than we can from our loyalty. Our political stance is set and not dictated by chance or circumstance, unlike our enemy’s. To predict what the British government will do, we just need to consider what they shouldn't do, and that will be their course of action. They are perpetually changing and eternally wrong; too far from America to adapt to the situation and too foolish to foresee it; planning without principle and executing without probability, their entire approach has been nothing but mistakes and disgrace. Every campaign has increased their losses, and each passing year has deepened their shame—until now, they're stuck, unable to move forward and embarrassed to retreat, leaving their politics at a standstill and their grand expectations in ruins.
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.
Could we really forgive our feelings, or forget the pain of a wounded nation—maybe, in a moment of forgetfulness, we could pause and laugh. But those scars are marked in ways that no laughter can hide, and they're of a nature that can't be repaid. Can you bring back those we lost? Can you make the grave give up the dead? Can you erase from our memories those who are gone? So don't think you can mess with our emotions through deceitful tricks, or stifle our humanity by tempting us to 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 issues, and the rest has been with me until now. Around that time, there seemed to be a willingness in the British government to stop pursuing the war, and since I believed that whenever such a decision was made, it would come with an dishonorable suggestion to America regarding France, I held back the rest of that issue to avoid exposing the shamefulness of any such suggestion. However, when the next news from England arrived, it made clear their intention to continue the war, and since the political issue I was originally considering was no longer relevant, I didn’t find it necessary to bring it up, which is why it was never published. The topic I’m referring to in the unpublished section, I will now quote, and apply it as the current situation makes appropriate or required. 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 how their passions and biases have led them to foolish and reckless extremes during this current war. Upset over the fair and honorable treaty between America and France, they believed that the only thing needed to stop its final approval was to promise, through their commissioners (Carlisle, Eden, and Johnstone), to repeal their previously offensive laws. The arrogance of this idea was as unforgivable as the approach was unwise. I'm so convinced that they have a misunderstood view of America that I wouldn't be surprised if, in their final fits of political madness, they suggest that America break its alliance with France and form one with them instead. If such a suggestion were ever made, and it has been hinted at more than once in Parliament, it would reveal a traitorous mindset and a complete disregard for honor and ethics, which would only deepen the country's corruption. I bring this up not to alert America, but to warn England to be careful not to tarnish their reputation with such loose thinking."
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.
By looking at some of the news coming out of the New York papers, it seems likely that a troubling era in British politics is starting to emerge. I hope it doesn't; because what is shameful to humanity casts a shadow over all human character, and everyone feels the impact of the wound inflicted on the whole. Britain has always aimed to divide America in one way or another. At the start of the conflict, she used every trick to prevent or sabotage the unity of the states, fully aware that if she could get them to stand alone, she could conquer them without mercy. After failing in this effort in America, she tried again in Europe; once alliances were formed, she secretly approached France to persuade her to abandon America. Even more surprisingly, she simultaneously made offers to Dr. Franklin, who was in Paris—the very court she was secretly courting—to pull America away from France. But that’s not all. On September 14, 1778, the British court, through their secretary, Lord Weymouth, approached Marquis d'Almadovar, the Spanish ambassador in London, to "ask the mediation"—those were the very words—from the court of Spain to negotiate peace with France, leaving America (which I will demonstrate later) out of the picture. Spain readily offered to mediate and suggested Madrid as the meeting place, 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 to pull France out of the war to unleash all her force and fury on America; when this plan failed, due to both Spain’s fair and open approach and France’s resolve, she rejected the mediation she had sought. I will now provide some excerpts from the justifying memo of the Spanish court, which clearly outlines Britain’s conduct and character regarding America.
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, referring to the British court's refusal to hold a meeting with commissioners from the United States, who were to be regarded 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 pretty strange and almost laughable that the court in London, which treats the colonies as independent not only in action but also in principle during the war, would hesitate to do so only in action during a truce or ceasefire. The convention of Saratoga; considering General Burgoyne as a legal prisoner to delay his trial; the exchanging and freeing of other prisoners from the colonies; sending commissioners to go directly to the Americans to ask for peace, negotiate with them, and deal with Congress; and finally, through countless other actions like these, authorized by the court in London, which have been and continue to be 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.
In addition to all the above, while the British cabinet was responding to the King of Spain as mentioned earlier, they were also trying to gain favor with the court of France through secret messengers and making substantial offers to convince France to give up the colonies and make peace with England. But it doesn’t stop there; at the same time, the English government was negotiating with Dr. Franklin, the chief diplomat from the colonies in Paris, through another specific emissary, proposing various ways to separate the colonies from France and settle issues 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 observed, it clearly follows that British politics aimed to divide the courts of Paris and Madrid by making separate suggestions and offers to each. It also sought to distance the colonies from their treaties and commitments with France, encouraging them to fight against the House of Bourbon, or more likely, to suppress them when they realized, by breaking their commitments, that they were standing alone 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: to lure them with enticing and grand promises to reach an agreement 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), loyal to the commitments he has to his nephew, the Most Christian king (the King of France), and just and fair to his own subjects, whom he must protect from the many insults they face, and full of compassion for the Americans and others suffering in the current war; he is determined to continue the fight and to make every effort he can until he secures a lasting and stable peace, with strong 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 section of State Papers, 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 here show the various efforts and schemes of the enemy to persuade France to distance herself from America and to negotiate a separate peace with England, completely ignoring America and leaving her vulnerable to a ruthless, unprincipled foe. The view that Spain has of the British cabinet’s character for deceit and treachery perfectly matches America’s opinion on the matter, so the memorial in this case reflects our own statements and language; because people, no matter how distant, who share similar thoughts will inevitably express them in similar ways.
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 see the sneaky way Britain tried to use the peace proposals through Spain's mediation. Now, I’ll move on to the second proposal involving the mediation 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 settle the groundwork for 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, at least for now, to provide references and quotes like I did with Spain's mediation, which was openly published. Therefore, what I share about this part of the situation will rely on my own credibility, assuring the public that when the complete details of the proposed Congress of Vienna come to light, 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 when this mediation was happening, the British king and government had high hopes for conquering America. The English packet that was captured along with the mail on board and taken to l'Orient, France, contained letters from Lord G. Germaine to Sir Henry Clinton, which fully conveyed the government’s plans for complete conquest. Copies of those letters were sent to Congress and published in last year’s newspapers. Colonel [John] Laurens brought back the originals, some of which are signed in the handwriting of the then-secretary, Germaine, and 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 ideals, nothing could be more disrespectful to America than the language from the British court regarding the proposed mediation. A peace with France and Spain was something they eagerly sought; however, America, as before, was to be left at their mercy, nor would they consider any suggestion for allowing a representative from the United States to join 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 clear, noble, and strong determination, and the loyalty of a good ally, would not entertain any proposals for a separate peace nor would it agree to meet at the Congress in Vienna without a representative from America. They also insisted that the independent status of the United States, as represented by this agent, needed to be clearly defined and established before any talks could begin. The reasoning from the French court regarding the various proposals from the two imperial courts that involved us is more in line with American interests than those of an ally; they supported America's cause as if they were America itself. Consequently, the second mediation, like the first, was unsuccessful. However, since then, the fortunes of the British military have reversed, and their grand expectations have been shattered. The admirable efforts to the south led by General [Nathaniel] Greene, the successful actions of the allied forces in the Chesapeake, the loss of most of their islands in the West Indies, and Minorca in the Mediterranean, Spain's persistent resistance at Gibraltar, the anticipated capture of Jamaica, the failed attempt to secure a separate peace with Holland, and the cost of a hundred million pounds, which led to these significant losses, have delivered them a stark lesson in disgraceful misfortune and have forced them to rethink 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 hopeless situation, their current decisions lack a clear direction. We’re in the chaotic months of British politics. Every day seems to bring its own turmoil, and they’re clinging to the faintest glimmer of hope. Defeated, but not humbled; condemned, but not remorseful; they act like people afraid of their fate, grasping at anything for support. From this upheaval within their political system, it's likely that the significant struggles will result in something trivial in size but monstrous in nature. They will attempt the same deceptive 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.
Sometimes we experience feelings that words just can't capture. The idea is too heavy to be fully realized, and in the agony of trying to think it through, we’re left speechless. Our emotions, trapped by their intensity, have no way out—and in the battle to express ourselves, every finger tries to speak for us. The body feels too small for the mind, and we search for ways to articulate our thoughts. This must be how America feels whenever Britain, overwhelmed by corruption, suggests that she give up her beliefs.
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 attempt like this. It implies that we’re villains; no one asks someone else to be a villain unless they think that person is inclined to be one. No one tries to seduce a genuinely honest woman. It’s the belief that she’s loose in her morals that triggers those seductive thoughts, and the person who offers that is calling her a prostitute. Our pride gets hurt by the same proposals that violate our principles; when we’re appalled by the crime, we’re also hurt by the hint 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 a thought that might help guide public opinion, I wouldn’t base my defense of the alliance solely on its benefits. Everyone is motivated by self-interest, and that doesn’t give them anything to be proud of. Instead, I want to elevate the conversation and defend it on the grounds of honor and principle. Our public affairs have thrived because of this alliance—it was wisely formed and has been honorably executed. Thanks to it, we can protect our country from being conquered and drive out those who want to destroy us. It’s clearly in our best interest to keep this alliance strong, and as long as we do, no enemy can defeat us. Experience shows us this, and the common good, separate from issues of faith and honor, compels us to maintain 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 terms of the agreement, we have been treated well and generously, receiving the same respect and attention as if we were an established nation. It's fair to help others and to receive help in return, and we want to show the world that we appreciate kindness and deserve trust. Right now, character is more important to us than self-interest. We are a young nation, just stepping onto the public stage, and the world is watching to see how we behave. We have an enemy who's waiting to damage our reputation and will go to any lengths to find something against us that might cast doubt on our actions and make our character seem despicable; because if she succeeds, as wicked as it is, the world would distance itself from us, viewing us as untrustworthy, making our mission that much harder. There’s nothing that defines a nation’s character more clearly than faithfully honoring treaties or dishonorably breaking them. Treaties are serious matters: if Britain, which seems very likely, tries to entice America into such a dishonorable act, it would deserve to face widespread disdain. This is one of those situations where we should not settle for a simple rejection from Congress, as it insults both the public and the government. It assumes that the people are not honest and can be manipulated, even if they can't be defeated by force. 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 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 the motion in the British Parliament to end offensive warfare in America, is a decent guy. We have no personal conflict with him. But he doesn't share our feelings; he isn't in our position, and that alone, without any further explanation, is enough. The British Parliament thinks they have many supporters in America, and that when all hope of winning is gone, they can pull us away from our alliance with France. Now, if I understand human nature at all, they are going to fail at this even more than in anything else they’ve attempted.
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, but also about honor and integrity; the proposal will be so obviously dishonorable that even their supporters, if they have any, will feel embarrassed by it. People are often more affected by a petty act than by a morally wrong one, and this will be such a clear admission of weakness, such a sign of submissive thinking, that the shame 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 occupy New York, Charleston, and Savannah, and their presence in those places is an offense and part of their aggressive tactics. Until we can drive them out or capture them, it would be foolish for us to entertain pointless rumors. I assume that the British government is struggling with the impossibility of continuing the war. So, they should come to a fair and open peace with France, Spain, Holland, and America, as they should. But until then, we have nothing to discuss with them.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, May 22, 1782.
COMMON SENSE. PHILADELPHIA, May 22, 1782.
A SUPERNUMERARY CRISIS TO SIR GUY CARLETON.
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.
Compassion naturally connects with misfortune, and I'm addressing this to you on behalf of even an enemy—a captain in the British army—who is now heading to the American army's headquarters and is sadly facing death for a crime he didn't commit. Such an extraordinary sentence and an execution that goes against every human feeling should never be shared without the context that led to it. Since the intended victim is still alive and his life or death is in your hands, I'll briefly outline the situation and the 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 at 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 from the provost to the waterfront, put into a boat, and brought back to the Jersey shore. There, in a brutal act that goes against the principles of all civilized nations, he was hanged from a tree and left to hang until our people found him, took him down, and buried him. The residents of the area where the murder took place sent a delegation to General Washington with a complete and verified account of what happened. Struck, as any decent person would be, by such a savage act, and determined to punish and prevent it from happening again, the General raised the issue with General Clinton, who was in command at the time. He demanded that the refugee officer who ordered and participated in the execution, named Lippencott, be handed over as a murderer; and if this request was denied, then some British officer should suffer in his place. While the demand was not outright refused, it has not been met, and, unfortunately, Captain Asgill of the Guards has drawn the short straw (not by choice, but by random selection). As I have already noted, he is on his way from Lancaster to camp, a victim of the overall wickedness of the cause he chose to support and the ingratitude of those he served.
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 men Englishmen must be, and what kind of order and discipline they maintain in their army, when right at their headquarters, and under the watch of their commander-in-chief, a prisoner can be easily taken from his confinement, and his death is treated like a game.
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 quite 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 worse crime—the horror of amusement. The British generals who have come and gone, 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 (which is the only way to describe them), they talk about British honor, British generosity, and British mercy as if those things were true; however, we who are awake and speak the same language as you, many of whom were born in the same place as you, can confidently tell the world that as far as we know, there’s no more despicable character, nor a more cowardly or barbaric enemy, than the current British one. With us, you have lost all claims to respect, and the only way to control you is to treat you like a wild animal, afraid of its handlers. But back to the main point.
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 consider anyone innocent who has helped destroy a country they didn't establish and ruin those they couldn't enslave, in this situation, Captain Asgill is not the guilty one. The villain and the victim are two separate roles here. You have the villain, and we have the victim. You reject or pretend to reject and condemn Lippincut's actions, yet you grant him refuge; by doing so, you effectively become Asgill's executioner, as if you had put the rope around his neck and sent him out of this world. Whatever your feelings may be in this complicated situation are known only to you. The fate of Asgill is buried deep in your own mind. He becomes a victim of your will or the testament to your sense of justice. Hand over the one, and you save the other; keep the one, and the other dies 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?
The situation is very clear from our perspective: an officer has been taken from his confinement and killed, and the killer is among your ranks. Your army has committed countless similar acts of cruelty, but they have often gone unpunished and avoided personal accountability. Here, the crime is undeniable and is one of those rare cases that can neither be dismissed nor excused, and it doesn't align with the norms of warfare; it could never have been imagined that such a vicious act would occur. It stands alone in the history of civilized savagery, and it reflects poorly on the British. You are responsible for ensuring the safety of the prisoners you hold. There’s no ambiguity here; they can’t be spies or suspected of being one; your safety isn't at risk, nor are your operations in jeopardy because of these men locked away in a cell. They are completely different from soldiers in the field and provide no justification for harsh punishment. But if, in addition to the bleakness of their captivity, they must also live in constant fear of death; if being imprisoned feels almost like being buried alive; and if, ultimately, the murderers are shielded, thus encouraging the crime, how are you different from [American] Indians in terms of behavior or ethics?
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 possibly know your honor or your sense of justice in any future dealings, no matter what they are, while you protect a ruthless murderer and instead sacrifice one of your own officers. If you don’t care about us, at least spare the life that you have a duty to save. Whether the punishment will be worse for the innocent person who dies in this situation or for the one who has no choice but to take action is a complicated issue. It’s up to you to prevent the pain of both. All you have to do is hand over the murderer, and this issue 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 wrongdoing, and brushing it off with silly and pointless questions just encourages it. There’s no statement you can make or promise you can give that will be believed. People want the man, not just an excuse.
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 every direction to save the life of your own officer, because he will die if you don’t deliver justice. The murder of Captain Huddy is an offense that cannot be tolerated, and there’s no guarantee that such actions or similar ones won’t happen again unless you make sure the punishment falls on yourselves. To eliminate the last security of captivity, and to take an unarmed, defenseless prisoner to a private execution for sport, is an act of cruelty that’s too much to ignore. This evil must be stopped, and the choice of who to hold accountable is up to you. But if your loyalty to the guilty outweighs your loyalty to the innocent, you’re creating a crime that will ruin your reputation. And if your king’s cause needs to be propped up this way, then please stop torturing us with the miserable claims of British honor, British generosity, and British mercy.
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, learn, sir, a moral lesson. The refugees are people whom your predecessors have taught to be wicked, to better serve their master’s purpose. To make them useful, they’ve made them despicable, and the consequences of their encouraged wrongdoing are now falling on the heads of those who supported it. They've been trained like hunting dogs to the scent of blood and nurtured in all kinds of disgraceful brutality. Their sense of right and wrong has been eroded through constant exposure to shameful acts, until, like experienced executioners, they no longer understand the value of 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 may be tough, but it's not complicated; turn in the murderer and save your officer as the first step towards 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, attributed to you in response to the Duke of Richmond's letter from July 10th, contains ideas and opinions that are quite unusual and wrapped in puzzling reasoning. I'm reaching out to you with this publication to offer a transparent and honest evaluation of it. The speech I'm referencing is 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 said that it had been mentioned elsewhere that he had been inconsistent. To clear himself of this, he insisted that he still held the same beliefs about American independence that he originally adopted. He believed, and still believes, that whenever the Parliament of Great Britain acknowledges that issue, England's glory will be lost forever. Those were his feelings on a previous occasion, and they remain unchanged at this moment. This was also the view of Lord Chatham and many other competent statesmen. However, other noble lords think differently, and since the majority of the cabinet supports them, he agreed with the measure, even though he disagreed with the reasoning; the issue will now be fully discussed in Parliament, where it will be debated openly, fairly, and impartially. The independence of America would lead to the downfall of England, and a peace superficially made with France would give that proud enemy the power to further oppress this country. He did not wish to see England's glory fade away forever; he hoped for at least a spark to remain, which might eventually lead us to a new dawn. But if independence was to be granted, if Parliament considered that measure wise, he foresaw that England would be doomed. He wished he had been sent to Congress so he could advocate for both that country and this one, using whatever abilities he had as an orator to save both from destruction, by convincing Congress that if they signed their independence, 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 linked together."
"Peace, his lordship added, was a desirable goal, but it needed to be an honorable peace, not a humiliating one imposed by France or forced by America. It's true that this kingdom wasn't doing well; it was suffering because of the war. But if we weren't wealthy, it was clear that France was struggling too. If our finances were tight, the enemy was drained of their resources. This was a great empire filled with brave men ready and willing to fight for a common cause; therefore, the language of humiliation shouldn't be the language of Great Britain. His lordship mentioned that he wasn't afraid or ashamed of those sentiments reaching America. There were many, a significant number, who felt the same way regarding that country being dependent on this one, and who, like his lordship, saw ruin and independence as interconnected."
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, regarding the speech, I point out that his lordship is completely out of touch with the thoughts and feelings of America; he has wrapped himself in a comforting illusion that anything less than independence can be accepted under his leadership. He wants to go to Congress to demonstrate the most absurd idea, which is that independence, the highest state of human existence, 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 just need to look back at those years of intense humiliation when even the simplest requests were met with the most arrogant insults, and when we were forced into unconditional submission or faced with total destruction. It doesn't matter that the government has changed because it can change again. The wrongdoing of a government reflects the entire nation; a country that can, even for a moment, think and act as England has done can never be believed or trusted again. There are situations where it is as impossible to restore a reputation as it is to bring the dead back to life. It's like a phoenix that can die only once, and from its ashes, there can be no rebirth. Some offenses are so minor that they only affect someone's mood, and can be created or resolved with a thought. But England's wrongdoing has struck at the heart of America, and nature hasn't left us in a position to say that 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 present the case for England and America before Congress, 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 bring us down for over seven years should now grovel to ask for our protection only adds the shame of disgrace to the pain of disappointment; and if England has even a tiny bit of supposed honor left, that honor must be tarnished by asking for help and completely lost by accepting even the smallest favor from America; for the criminal who owes his life to the mercy of the victim suffers more from living than from dying.
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 any difference. Honor, self-interest, and every emotion in our hearts would argue against you. We are a people who don't think the way you do, and what's equally true is that you can't feel what we feel. The situations of our two countries are incredibly different. Ours has been the battlefield; yours has remained untouched by war. We've witnessed the most wanton destruction right before our eyes, and the most outrageous cruelty has been inflicted on us. We can look around and see the remnants of burned and destroyed homes, once the proud result of hard work, and now they stand as stark reminders of British brutality. We walk over the graves of those we loved in every part of America, always remembering who was responsible for their deaths. There's hardly a village that doesn't bring back some painful memories and remind us of what we've endured and those we've lost due to Britain's inhumanity. A thousand images flood our minds that, given your situation, you can't see, accompanied by countless ideas that you can't possibly understand; therefore, your supposed logic doesn't fit, and all your expectations fade away.
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 recognize America's independence, which you mentioned will be discussed in Parliament, is quite straightforward and involves very few scenarios, so 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 end an expensive and destructive war that has no purpose, and without recognizing that, 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 the independence of America. Whereas, it would have been more accurate to leave the sun completely out of the analogy and attribute her failure to acknowledge 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 the statement is true, it’s the biggest admission of shame one could make and gives America the strongest sense of its own independent significance. Mr. Wedderburn, around 1776, expressed a similar idea—"Give up America!" he said—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.
Alas! Are the people who call themselves Englishmen of such little significance that when America is gone, or turns away from them, their light fades, and they can no longer shine, but instead stumble around in obscurity, becoming insignificant creatures? Was America really the giant in the empire, with England just a waiting dwarf? Has the situation changed so much that those who once believed we couldn't survive without them are now declaring they can't exist without us? Will they announce to the world, even from their top leaders, that America is their everything; that it’s only through her importance that they can live, breathe, and have a purpose? Will they, who once threatened to subdue us, instead bow to us and admit that without us they are not a nation? Have they become so unqualified to discuss independence that they've lost all understanding of it, calling out to the rocks and mountains of America to hide their insecurity? Or if America is lost, is it really brave to cry over it like a child mourning for a toy and invite mockery from the world with their disgraceful complaints? Surely, a more grown-up approach would be to accept it without whining; to demonstrate that England, without America, can still maintain her independence and a respectable status among other European powers. You weren't satisfied while you had her, so to mourn for her now is just 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 there might still be a way forward. What that way is, or how it could be achieved, remains unclear. There’s no hope left in using military force. After nearly eight years, spending a hundred million pounds, and losing two armies, that point is settled. Additionally, the British have lost their connection to America among those who are discontented. Every option has been explored. There’s no new opportunity for deception, and the thousands who have been devastated by staying loyal to them, now forced to leave the land they worked for and transported to cultivate the barren areas of Augustine and Nova Scotia, have extinguished any remaining hopes for assistance.
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 with after spending millions? Or what motivation is there to keep throwing good money after bad? America can sustain the war for another ten years, covering all government costs included, for less than what you spend on war and government for just one year. And I, who know both countries, can say that the people of America can handle their share of the costs much better than the people of England can. Besides, they're defending their own land and property, their own rights, freedoms, and government; if they didn't, they would deserve to lose it all, and no one would feel sorry for them. The blame would lie with them, and their punishment would be justified.
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 lead a comfortable and lazy life. They thrive on the foolishness of one nation and the riches of another; and, between their looting and their bounty, they might return home wealthy. But the situation is completely different for the hardworking farmer, the laboring tradesman, and the struggling poor in England, whose daily efforts feed, in extravagance and laziness, the army that is stealing from both them and us. Isolated from the nation that supports them and far from the government that employs them, they take care of their own interests, and there’s no one to hold them accountable.
But England will be ruined, says Lord Shelburne, if America is independent.
But England will be ruined, says Lord Shelburne, if America becomes 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 say, is England already ruined, since America is already independent: and if Lord Shelburne won’t acknowledge this, he’s just denying the very truth he’s suggesting. Moreover, making England just a puppet of America is giving us too much credit and him 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 statement is full of contradictions. To say, as Lord Shelburne has said countless times, that the war against America is disastrous, and yet to keep fighting that disastrous war to avoid disaster, doesn't make any sense. It's also hard to see how America's independence will lead to England's ruin after the war is over, yet won't impact it beforehand. America can't be more independent or a bigger enemy to England in the future than it is right now; nor can England gain fewer benefits from America than it does at present. So why would ruin come in the best-case scenario and not in the worst? And if it won't come in the worst-case scenario, 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.
That a nation could be destroyed by peace and trade, and by spending about fourteen or fifteen million less a year than before, is a new idea in politics. We've heard a lot of talk about national savings and cutting costs; but the real saving would actually be to eliminate the entire expense of a pointless, foolish, and reckless war; because, compared to that, all other cuts are just insignificant distractions.
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 is it possible that Lord Shelburne really believes that any advantage can be gained through military action, or that any benefit could justify the costs or dangers involved? Will capturing one army after another ever be enough for him, or must they all become prisoners? Does England have to keep chasing hope and falling for illusions? Sometimes people predicted our currency would fail; other times they said our army would fall apart; then entire provinces were supposed to rebel. One general said this, another said that; someone else wrote something different; Lord Chatham thought one way, and another lord thought differently. Today, 20,000 Russians and 20 Russian warships were coming; tomorrow the empress was criticized ruthlessly and indecently. Then the Emperor of Germany was supposed to be bribed with a million in cash, and the King of Prussia was expected to perform amazing feats. At one moment it was here, and the next it was there! One time this power would join the fight, then that power, as if the whole world was as crazy and foolish as Britain. And so, year after year, every flimsy chance has been seized, and every will-o'-the-wisp has led them in a new 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, yet another foolish plan is set to happen. Lord Shelburne wants to be sent to Congress, and he believes that something can be achieved.
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 entertain any proposals at all until America's independence is recognized without conditions, aren't these statements clear 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 all the insults, injuries, and outrages directed at us, would show such a low spirit that we couldn't help but look down on her for accepting it. Rather than Lord Shelburne coming here to ask for it, it would be the biggest disgrace for us to offer it. England would seem pathetic at this point in time to ask for or owe anything to America's generosity. Doesn’t the name of Englishman have enough stains on it already without adding more? Even Lucifer would refuse to reign in heaven by someone else's permission, yet an Englishman can only beg for an entry into America. Or does a land of liberty have so much appeal that being just a doorkeeper there is better than being an English minister of state?
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 thing actually be? Or, if we were to get it, what would it lead to but more shame, conflicts, and arguments? For years, the people of America have gotten used to thinking and talking openly and disrespectfully about English authority, and this attitude is so deeply ingrained that anyone holding any authority from that country and trying to use it here would be treated like a toad under a harrow. They would see him as an intruder, only tolerated due to their pity. He would be nothing more than a comedic figure in a farce; if he didn’t like it, he’d better leave. It would be a position of humiliation, belittled by our pity and looked down upon by our pride, putting England in a more shameful spot than it has ever been during the war. We think too highly of ourselves to even consider submitting to foreign authority again; and for a thousand reasons, England would be the last place in the world we’d submit to. She has betrayed us, and we know it. Her reputation is ruined, and we've witnessed her 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 enjoys stirring up trouble and fueling conflict, or she wouldn’t be considering getting involved with America now. It would be like a foolish old man embracing a bride who despises him or who has made it clear she’s disgusted with him. It’s like kissing the hand that slaps him and suggesting to start the cycle all over again. The idea is as submissive as the war is wrong, showing that the final act of the drama is as contradictory as the first.
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 gone, the only way to show 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. Also, there's something so extremely quirky, unstable, and even insincere about England's current actions that it makes her look incredibly dishonorable. On August second, General Carleton and Admiral Digby wrote to General Washington in these 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, along with indications that more peaceful measures might follow. Since then, until now, we haven’t had any direct communications with England; however, a mail has just arrived with very important information. We have been informed, sir, that negotiations for a general peace have already started in Paris, and that Mr. Grenville has full authority to negotiate with all the warring parties and is currently in Paris to carry out his duties. Additionally, sir, we have learned that His Majesty, wanting to eliminate any barriers to the peace he desperately wants to achieve, has instructed his ministers to direct Mr. Grenville to propose the independence of the Thirteen United Provinces upfront, rather than making it a condition of a broader 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 the statements in this letter, what value do the words of your king, his ministers, or Parliament have? Shouldn’t we view you as a united group of untrustworthy and deceitful people, whose promises are lies and words are misleading? What opinion can we have of you other than that you are a hopeless and reckless nation, treating your own reputation lightly and only responding to force or threats?
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 after this that Great Britain's influence will diminish as soon as she recognizes America's independence—when not doing so is just a blatant lie of the government—can only be seen as mockery and a contradiction. There were many in America who saw through this illusion and viewed it as a deceitful strategy to distract us and divert our focus from the only financial system that could honestly establish us as a sovereign and independent nation. The deception on your part might seem worth trying, 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 assurance, thinking it impossible for men 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 side rushed into the desire for revenge, while the other resorted to sneaky schemes; as a result, thanks to the wrongdoings of both, hardly anyone in America, whether they’re a Whig or a Tory, doesn’t despise or hate how Britain has acted.
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 management of Lord Shelburne, no matter his opinions, serves as a warning to us and to the world: never trust British assurances. A betrayal so infamous cannot be hidden. It's documented even in the newspapers of New York, with the names of Carleton and Digby attached. It sends a message that the king of England cannot be trusted; that deceit is the main principle of the government. It tarnishes the reputation of the House of Commons and advises everyone not to believe them. These are the outcomes that Lord Shelburne's management has caused for 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 the sake of honor, strategy, and common sense, no matter the outcome. It was the least you could do to make amends with America, and the best thing for yourselves; by achieving a general peace, you'll 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. I'm sending the manuscript copy of this letter to your lordship through our headquarters in New York, along with a recent pamphlet of mine addressed to Abbe Raynal, which will give your lordship some insight into the principles and sentiments of America.
C. S.
C.S.
THE CRISIS. XIII. THOUGHTS ON THE PEACE, AND PROBABLE ADVANTAGES
THEREOF.
THEREOF.
"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 triumphantly and joyfully accomplished.
* "These are the times that try men's souls," The Crisis No. I. published December, 1776.
* "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 peace of calm, while appealing to think about, requires a gradual calming of the senses to accept it. Even serenity can be overwhelming if it hits us too suddenly. A long and fierce storm that stops abruptly would leave us more in shock than in joy; we need some moments to collect our thoughts before we can truly enjoy the happiness of rest. There are few times when the mind is ready for sudden changes: it experiences pleasure through reflection and comparison, and those need time to work before we can appreciate new experiences fully.
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 immense significance of the object—the various uncertainties we’ve faced—the many complicated dangers we’ve experienced or avoided—the high position we’re in now, and the expansive 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 do it—to present a character previously unseen on the stage of the universe—and to have, in a way, a new creation entrusted to us, are honors that deserve deep thought and can never be valued too highly or 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 settles down and the once restless mind finds calm, let's take a look back at the events we've gone through and learn from our experiences what still needs to be achieved.
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 opportunities for happiness as this one. Its beginning in life, like the sunrise of a beautiful morning, was clear and full of promise. Its cause was righteous. Its principles were fair and progressive. Its spirit was calm and resolute. Its actions were guided by the most careful measures, and everything about it reflected honor. Not every country (perhaps none other in the world) can boast such a noble origin. Even the first settlement of America aligns with the spirit of the revolution. Rome, once the proud ruler of the world, started as a group of outlaws. Plunder and violence made it wealthy, and its domination over millions made it powerful. But America never has to feel ashamed of its beginnings or the path it took to rise to greatness.
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 remembrance of the past, if done correctly, should inspire her with the highest ambition of all: to enhance the good reputation she started with. The world has witnessed her strength during tough times; she faced numerous challenges without ever considering giving up, bravely and even proudly meeting difficulties, and becoming more determined as the challenges grew. This is all truly deserved by her, as her courage has earned her that recognition. So, let the world see that she can handle success too, and that her genuine virtue in peaceful times is just as strong as the bravest virtue 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 going back to the scenes of quiet, everyday life. Not under the cypress shade of disappointment, but to enjoy in her own land, and under her own vine, the sweetness of her hard work and the rewards of her efforts. In this situation, may she always remember that a good national reputation is just as important as independence. It has a charm that impresses the world and makes even enemies polite. It gives a dignity that often surpasses power and commands respect where showiness and extravagance 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 point of pride for the era that achieved it. This revolution has done more to illuminate the world and spread a spirit of freedom and openness among people 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.
The long-lasting effects of war are not the least of its tragedies; it disconnects the mind from those delicate emotions that usually seem so lovely. Constantly witnessing suffering dulls our sensitivity, and having to endure it makes it feel normal. Similarly, many of the moral responsibilities of society weaken, so that acting out of necessity becomes an excuse, even when it’s genuinely a wrongdoing. However, if a nation understands its true character, it will be just in defending it. No country started with a better reputation than America, and none has a greater duty to uphold 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 the benefits she has gained and the advantages to come from it, hardly needs to be mentioned. She can choose to do what she wants and live as happily as she desires. The world is in her control. She’s free from any foreign power that could monopolize her trade, complicate her laws, or limit her success. The struggle is over, a conflict that was bound to happen eventually, and maybe it couldn't have come at a better time. Instead of a tyrannical ruler, she has gained an ally whose remarkable greatness and generosity have won respect even from her adversaries.
* That the revolution began at the exact period of time best fitted to the purpose, is sufficiently proved by the event.—But the great hinge on which the whole machine turned, is the Union of the States: and this union was naturally produced by the inability of any one state to support itself against any foreign enemy without the assistance of the rest. Had the states severally been less able than they were when the war began, their united strength would not have been equal to the undertaking, and they must in all human probability have failed.—And, on the other hand, had they severally been more able, they might not have seen, or, what is more, might not have felt, the necessity of uniting: and, either by attempting to stand alone or in small confederacies, would have been separately conquered. Now, as we cannot see a time (and many years must pass away before it can arrive) when the strength of any one state, or several united, can be equal to the whole of the present United States, and as we have seen the extreme difficulty of collectively prosecuting the war to a successful issue, and preserving our national importance in the world, therefore, from the experience we have had, and the knowledge we have gained, we must, unless we make a waste of wisdom, be strongly impressed with the advantage, as well as the necessity of strengthening that happy union which had been our salvation, and without which we should have been a ruined people. While I was writing this note, I cast my eye on the pamphlet, Common Sense, from which I shall make an extract, as it exactly applies to the case. It is as follows: "I have never met with a man, either in England or America, who has not confessed it as his opinion that a separation between the countries would take place one time or other; and there is no instance in which we have shown less judgment, than in endeavoring to describe what we call the ripeness or fitness of the continent for independence. As all men allow the measure, and differ only in their opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general survey of things, and endeavor, if possible, to find out the very time. But we need not to go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for, the time has found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things prove the fact. It is not in numbers, but in a union, that our great strength lies. The continent 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."
* The revolution started right when it was meant to, and the outcome proves this. The crucial factor that everything depended on is the Unity of the States: this unity came about because no single state could defend itself against a foreign enemy without help from the others. If the states had been weaker than they were at the war's onset, their combined strength wouldn't have been enough for the task, and they likely would have failed. Conversely, if they had been stronger, they might not have recognized, or even felt, the need to unite, and by trying to act alone or in smaller alliances, they would have been defeated individually. Now, since we can't foresee a time (and many years must pass before it happens) when any one state or a few combined could match the strength of all the current United States, and since we've experienced the extreme difficulty of collectively carrying the war to a successful conclusion and maintaining our national significance in the world, we must, from what we've learned, strongly recognize both the advantage and necessity of reinforcing that fortunate union which saved us; without it, we would have been a destroyed people. While I was writing this note, I glanced at the pamphlet, Common Sense, from which I’ll quote because it perfectly relates to this situation. It says: "I have never met a person, whether in England or America, who hasn't admitted that a separation between the countries would inevitably happen at some point; and there's no instance where we've shown less judgment than when trying to determine the right moment for the continent's independence. Since everyone agrees that it’s inevitable, with only differing opinions on timing, let’s take a broad look at the situation and attempt to figure out the exact moment, if possible. But we don’t need to look far— the moment has found us. The general unity and the glorious harmony of everything prove the fact. Our great strength lies not in numbers, but in our union. The continent has reached a level of strength where no single colony can sustain itself, but when united, they can achieve what needs to be done; being more or less than this could have disastrous consequences."
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 benefits of peace, independence, and global trade, the states, both individually and together, will have the time and opportunity to manage their own affairs and ensure that no slander can tarnish their reputation. It's much easier to maintain a good character than to restore it after it's damaged, and any person who, for selfish reasons or a small-minded nature, secretly tries to harm that character creates a wound 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 have created an inheritance for future generations, let that inheritance be passed down with all the signs of a respectable transfer. The small cost involved, compared to the value of the assets, the importance of the goal, and the worth 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 truly stand out to a thoughtful, insightful person, and what makes everything else easier to manage, is the UNION OF THE STATES. Our great national identity relies on this. It is what gives us significance on the global stage and safety at home. Through this, we are, or can be, recognized as a nation; it’s the flag of the United States that keeps our ships and trade safe on the seas or in foreign ports. Our Mediterranean passes must be obtained under the same banner. All our treaties, whether for alliance, 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 own convenience, but internationally this distinction disappears. The matters of each state are local. They can only go so far as their own borders. Even if the wealth of the richest state was fully used in revenue, it wouldn’t be enough to defend against a foreign attack. In short, our national sovereignty exists only as United States. It would actually be disastrous if we claimed otherwise—it would be too costly to maintain and impossible to support. Individuals or single states can call themselves whatever they want; however, the world, especially our enemies, won't be impressed by just a name. Sovereignty must have the power to protect all the parts that make it up: as UNITED STATES, we are worthy of that title, but otherwise, we are not. Our union, well-managed and solidified, is the most cost-effective way to achieve greatness—the easiest way to gain power, and the best system of government that America can have. This is because it gathers from each state what, when alone, is insufficient, and creates a combined strength 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 a sad example of the consequences of individual sovereignty. Their fragmented situation exposes them to many plots, losses, disasters, and enemies; and the nearly impossible task of agreeing on decisions, and then putting those decisions into action, is a continuous source of trouble for them, and would be for us as well.
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 society; we have to give something up to ensure the whole is secure. In this perspective, we gain more from what we contribute than what we lose, generating a return greater than our initial investment. I always feel hurt when I hear the union, that great protector of our freedom and safety, spoken of disrespectfully. It is the most sacred aspect of America's constitution, and it should be something every person takes pride in and cherishes. Our citizenship in the United States defines our national identity. Our citizenship in any specific state is just a local distinction. By our state identity, we’re known at home; by our national identity, we’re recognized globally. Our main title is AMERICANS—our lesser title changes based 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 much as I could, I have focused on bringing people together, aligning interests, and keeping the nation united. To better support this foundational work of the revolution, I have steered clear of any profitable positions or official roles, whether in my home state or in the United States. I’ve distanced myself from all political parties and connections and even set aside private and lesser issues. When we consider the significant accomplishments we've made and recognize how important they truly are, we'll see that the petty arguments and disrespectful disputes over personal matters are just as damaging to our integrity as they are harmful to our peace.
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 the cause of America that turned me into a writer. The way it hit me and the alarming state the country seemed to be in, by trying to make an impossible and unnatural peace with those who wanted to bring her down, instead of pursuing the only path that could unite and save her—a DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE—made it impossible for me, feeling as I did, to stay quiet. And if, over the past seven years, I’ve been able to contribute in any way, I’ve also enhanced the reputation of literature by using it freely and selflessly for the greater good of humanity, proving that it’s possible to have genius without compromising one’s integrity.
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 people of the country could unite around this goal. There’s no example in the world of a population so large, so set in its ways, and facing such diverse circumstances, being so quickly and effectively influenced by a shift in politics as in the case of independence; they maintained their view, unwavering, through a series of ups and downs, until they ultimately achieved success.
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 to happier times, I’ll now step away from this topic. I have honestly followed it from start to finish, through all its twists and turns. No matter where I might be in the future, I will always feel a genuine pride in the role I played and gratitude to nature and fate for giving me the chance to be of some help to humanity.
COMMON SENSE.
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 is a publication that looks like a letter from London, dated September 30th; it discusses a topic 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 while that agreement was still in progress, a bill was introduced in the British Parliament by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Pitt, to allow and legitimize (as the situation required) the trade of the United States in British ports and territories. However, neither has been finalized. The trade agreement is either stalled or remains unfinished; and the bill in Parliament has been disregarded. Instead, a self-serving system of English politics has emerged, designed to restrict American trade by monopolizing the shipping of American goods 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 goals: one is to entice Americans to buy British goods, and the other is to encourage the British Parliament to ban U.S. citizens 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 well-written in some parts, is ridiculous. It is offensive in its attempt to win people over; and as a politician, his lordship shouldn't have allowed the two subjects to be combined. The latter mentioned includes excerpts from the pamphlet, praising Lord Sheffield for diligently trying (as the letter puts it) "to show the significant 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 the release of this pamphlet in England, trade between the United States and the West Indies using American ships has been banned; and all communication, except through British ships that are owned and operated by British subjects, has been stopped.
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 be as foolish as it wants, and England has shown this for many years. Being isolated on her island, she often forgets that other nations can hear her whispers, and in her political and trade strategies, she seems unaware that she needs other votes besides her own. America would be just as foolish as Britain if she allowed such a serious insult to her flag and such a blow to her trade freedom to happen without any consequences.
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 nation has the right to block another nation’s trade from entering its territory, provided there are no agreements against it; however, since this right applies to both sides, there is always a way to bring greed and arrogance under control.
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 decided to base his policy on is something that should, and I believe must, stir a rightful and strong sense of national pride in every American. Lord Sheffield seems to understand that by advising the British nation and Parliament to take such a significant portion of America's shipping trade for themselves, he is trying to implement a strategy that cannot succeed if the politics of the United States are properly aligned to challenge this 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, and they shouldn't be feared as such by us."
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 is this if not to tell us that, while we lack a national trade system, the British will control our commerce however they choose with their own laws and regulations? This statement reveals a reality that is too serious to ignore and too harmful not to address.
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 circumstances that led them to this discovery, none was as impactful as the unwise, unfair, and inappropriate opposition from certain individuals in a particular state against Congress's recommendations last winter for a 5% import duty. This opposition highlighted a weakness in America's national power to the British and encouraged them to try to impose restrictions on American trade, which they otherwise wouldn't have dared to attempt. No state in the union has misaligned its interests more than the one I’m referring to, since its main support comes from the carrying trade, which Britain is now trying to take away, fueled by the absence of a strong central authority in the United States to protect and secure it. Fortunately, the terms of peace were agreed upon before this opposition arose, particularly benefiting the state in question; otherwise, there’s no doubt that if the British had realized America's diminished authority at that time, just as they have since, they would have made a similar grab for the fisheries as they did with 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 so easy to support and so low-cost, capable of providing such significant benefits to the country, is criticized by those responsible for overseeing it—whose very existence as a nation relies on it. However, this may always be the case until some misfortune prompts us to be more sensible. The current situation is just a soft wake-up call for what America can expect if she doesn't protect her unity with greater care and stronger integrity. United, she is powerful, and that with the least expense possible; divided, she becomes a collection of insignificant parts, vulnerable to the whims 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 the cleverness of commerce has found a way to bypass and undermine the intentions of the British in banning trade with the West Indies. Since both countries speak the same language and understand each other's customs well, ships from one nation could, through trickery, pose as those from another. However, this would be too degrading for a sovereign nation to engage in and too immoral not to be condemned. Any illegal trade, in any form, cannot happen without violating the truth. America is now sovereign and independent and should manage its affairs with integrity. It has the same right to declare that no British vessel can enter its ports or that no British goods can be imported except on American ships, owned and crewed by American citizens, as Britain has to assert the same regarding the West Indies. Alternatively, America could impose a fee of ten, fifteen, or twenty shillings per ton (excluding other fees) on every British vessel coming from any port in the West Indies where it is not allowed to trade, with that fee remaining in place as long as the ban continues on the British 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 fight against foreign nations interfering with our trade and ensure the safety of American commerce. When we see a flag that is visually appealing and thinking about its history and significance brings us great joy, our national pride must align with our interests to protect both from harm or disrespect.
COMMON SENSE.
Common sense.
NEW YORK, December 9, 1783.
NEW YORK, December 9, 1783.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!