The Personal Choice Library presents:
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
|
Abstract
Published anonymously by
Thomas Paine in January of 1776, Common Sense was an instant
best-seller, both in the colonies and in Europe. It went
through several editions in Philadelphia, and was republished
in all parts of United America. Because of it, Paine became
internationally famous.
"A Covenanted People" called Common Sense "by far the most
influential tract of the American Revolution....it remains one
of the most brilliant pamphlets ever written in the English
language."
Paine's political pamphlet brought the rising revolutionary
sentiment into sharp focus by placing blame for the suffering
of the colonies directly on the reigning British monarch,
George III.
First and foremost, Common Sense advocated an immediate
declaration of independence, postulating a special moral
obligation of America to the rest of the world. Not long after
publication, the spirit of Paine's argument found resonance in
the American Declaration of Independence.
Written at the outset of the
Revolution, Common Sense became the leaven for the ferment of
the times. |
It stirred the colonists to
strengthen their resolve, resulting in the first successful
anticolonial action in modern history.
Little did Paine realize that his
writings would set fire to a movement that had seldom if ever
been worked out in the Old World: sovereignty of the people
and written constitutions, together with effective checks and
balances in government.
Paine has been described as a professional radical and a
revolutionary propagandist without peer. Born in England, he
was dismissed as an excise officer while lobbying for higher
wages. Impressed by Paine, Benjamin Franklin sponsored Paine's
emigration to America in 1774.
In Philadelphia Paine became a journalist and essayist,
contributing articles on all subjects to The Pennsylvania
Magazine. After the publication of Common Sense, Paine
continued to inspire and encourage the patriots during the
Revolutionary War with a series of pamphlets entitled The
American Crisis. Eventually, Paine went on to write The Rights
of Man and The Age of Reason.
But, it all started with Common Sense, the writing that
sparked an American Revolution.
From
USHistory.org |
Introduction to the Third Edition
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following
pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour;
a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial
appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts
than reason. As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means
of calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might
never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the
inquiry) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his OWN RIGHT, to
support the Parliament in what he calls THEIRS, and as the good people of
this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an
undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally
to reject the usurpation of either. In the following sheets, the author
hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves.
Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The
wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose
sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless
too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America is
in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and
will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the
principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of
which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with
Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind,
and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the
Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of
which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the AUTHOR.
P. S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a View
of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute the
Doctrine of Independence: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now
presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a Performance
ready for the Public being considerably past. Who the Author of this
Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for
Attention is the DOCTRINE ITSELF, not the MAN. Yet it may not be
unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no
sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and
principle.
Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
OF THE
ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL.
WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION
SOME writers have so confounded society with
government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas
they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is
produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former
promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter
negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the
other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best
state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for
when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which
we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is
heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!
Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of
kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the
impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would
need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary
to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection
of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in
every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least.
Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it
unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to
ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is
preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of
government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some
sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then
represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this
state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand
motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to
his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is
soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn
requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable
dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the
common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled
his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed;
hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different
want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be
death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him
from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to
perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly
arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would
supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary
while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but
heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in
proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which
bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their
duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the
necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of
moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of
which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It
is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of
Regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In
this first parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise,
and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too
inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when
their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns
few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting
to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from
the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which
those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the
whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing,
it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and
that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will
be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending
its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an
interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety
of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means
return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few
months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent
reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent
interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the
community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on
this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of
government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered
necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too
is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security. And
however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound;
however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our
understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is
right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which
no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any thing is, the less
liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered;
and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted
constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times
in which it was erected is granted. When the world was overrun with
tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is
imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it
seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this
advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know
the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and
are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution
of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years
together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some
will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will
advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet
if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English
constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient
tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.
First.- The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.
Secondly.- The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the
peers. Thirdly.- The new republican materials, in the persons of the
commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people;
wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the
freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers
reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no
meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things.
First.- That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or
in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of
monarchy. Secondly.- That the commons, by being appointed for that
purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the
king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to
check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again
supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to
be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy;
it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to
act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king
shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know
it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, unnaturally opposing and
destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king, say
they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf of the
king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the
distinctions of an house divided against itself; and though the
expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and
ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that
words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which
either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass
of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the
ear, they cannot inform the mind, for this explanation includes a previous
question, viz. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to
trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of
a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God;
yet the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to
exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will
not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for as the
greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a
machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in
the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the
others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the
rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their
endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have
its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs
not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from
being the giver of places pensions is self evident, wherefore, though we
have and wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we
at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession
of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen, in favor of their own government by king,
lords, and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than
reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other
countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in
Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding
directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the most
formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the
First, hath only made kings more subtle not- more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favor of modes
and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution
of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the
crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of
government is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a
proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the
influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing
it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And
as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge
of a wife, so any prepossession in favor of a rotten constitution of
government will disable us from discerning a good one.
OF MONARCHY
AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
MANKIND being originally equals in the order of
creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent
circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure
be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh,
ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the
consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice
will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him
too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater distinction
for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that
is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are
the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but
how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and
distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether
they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology,
there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it
is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without
a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the
monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark; for
the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something
in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish
royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens,
from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most
prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of
idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the
Christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their
living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm,
who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on
the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority
of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the
prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All
anti-monarchial parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in
monarchial governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of
countries which have their governments yet to form. Render unto Caesar the
things which are Caesar's is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet it is
no support of monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were
without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the
creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till
then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the
Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and
the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to
acknowledge any being under that title but the Lords of Hosts. And when a
man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the
persons of kings he need not wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of
his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously
invades the prerogative of heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which
a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that
transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched
against them with a small army, and victory, through the divine
interposition, decided in his favor. The Jews elate with success, and
attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king,
saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son's son. Here was
temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary
one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over
you, neither shall my son rule over you, THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU.
Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honor but
denieth their right to give it; neither doth be compliment them with
invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a
prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper sovereign, the King
of Heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the
same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of
the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that
laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted
with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to
Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now
make us a king to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot
but observe that their motives were bad, viz., that they might be like
unto other nations, i.e., the Heathen, whereas their true glory laid in
being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel
when they said, give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the
Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people
in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they
have rejected me, THEN I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM.
According to all the works which have done since the day; wherewith they
brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have
forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now
therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them
and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e., not
of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth,
whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great
distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in
fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that
asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the king
that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for
himself for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run
before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of
impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and
captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to read his
harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his
chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries and to be
cooks and to be bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as
the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive
yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will
take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his
officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption,
and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth
of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men
and your asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of
your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day
because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT
HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy;
neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since,
either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the
high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king,
but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless the People refused
to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king
over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge
us, and go out before us and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason
with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but
all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried
out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall sent thunder and rain (which
then was a punishment, being the time of wheat harvest) that ye may
perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the
sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord,
and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly
feared the Lord and Samuel And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for
thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO
OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct
and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty
hath here entered his protest against monarchial government is true, or
the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there
is as much of kingcraft, as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from
the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the
Popery of government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and
as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second,
claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity.
For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to
set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and
though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his
contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit
them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right
in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so
frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than
were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power
to give away the right of posterity, and though they might say, "We choose
you for our head," they could not, without manifest injustice to their
children, say, "that your children and your children's children shall
reign over ours for ever." Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural
compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the
government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their private
sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is
one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed;
many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful
part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an
honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off
the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, that
we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian
of some restless gang, whose savage manners of preeminence in subtlety
obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in
power, and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless
to purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could
have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a
perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and
unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary
succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter
of claim, but as something casual or complemental; but as few or no
records were extant in those days, and traditionary history stuffed with
fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump
up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram
hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders
which threatened, or seemed to threaten on the decease of a leader and the
choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very
orderly) induced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which
means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was
submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.
England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but
groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones, yet no man in his senses
can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable
one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing
himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain
terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in
it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of
hereditary right, if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them
promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy
their humility, nor disturb their devotion.
Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first? The
question admits but of three answers, viz., either by lot, by election, or
by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a
precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by
lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from
that transaction there was any intention it ever should. If the first king
of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for
the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken
away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a
king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of
scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will
of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no
other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all
sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all
mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our
innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as
both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it
unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are
parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most subtle
sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that
William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The
plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear
looking into.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession
which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would
have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish,
the wicked; and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men
who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow
insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned
by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the
world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true
interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most
ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is
subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency,
acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to
betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn
out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In
both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can
tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.
The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favor of
hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and
were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced
falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns
the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted
kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including the
Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions.
Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys
the very foundation it seems to stand on.
The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York and
Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched
battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and
Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner
to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation,
when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry
was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly
from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are
seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward
recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest
side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely
extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were united.
Including a period of 67 years, viz., from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom
only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which
the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that (in some
countries they have none) and after sauntering away their lives without
pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the
scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle round. In
absolute monarchies the whole weight of business civil and military, lies
on the king; the children of Israel in their request for a king, urged
this plea "that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our
battles." But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general, as
in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.
The nearer any government approaches to a republic, the less business
there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for
the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but
in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt
influence If the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so
effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house
of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government
of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall
out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and
not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen
glory in, viz., the liberty of choosing a house of commons from out of
their own body- and it is easy to see that when the republican virtue
fails, slavery ensues. My is the constitution of England sickly, but
because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the
commons?
In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away
places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it
together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed
eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the
bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of
God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.
OF
THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLECTIONS
I HAVE never met with a man, either in England or
America, who hath not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the
countries, would take place one time or other. And there is no instance in
which we have shown less judgment, than in endeavoring to describe, what
we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for independence.
As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their
opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general
survey of things and endeavor if possible, to find out the very time. But
we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for the time hath found
us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things prove the
fact.
It is not in numbers but in unity, that our great
strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force
of all the world. The Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of
armed and disciplined men of any power under Heaven; and is just arrived
at that pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to support
itself, and the whole, who united can accomplish the matter, and either
more, or, less than this, might be fatal in its effects. Our land force is
already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot be insensible, that
Britain would never suffer an American man of war to be built while the
continent remained in her hands. Wherefore we should be no forwarder an
hundred years hence in that branch, than we are now; but the truth is, we
should be less so, because the timber of the country is every day
diminishing, and that which will remain at last, will be far off and
difficult to procure.
Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her
sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more
sea port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to
loose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants, that
no man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and the
necessities of an army create a new trade. Debts we have none; and
whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento
of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of
government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any
price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few
we acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the
charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is
leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which
they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honor, and
is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician.
The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard
if the work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a debt. A
national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no interest, is in no
case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of one
hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of four
millions interest. And as a compensation for her debt, she has a large
navy; America is without a debt, and without a navy; yet for the twentieth
part of the English national debt, could have a navy as large again. The
navy of England is not worth, at this time, more than three millions and a
half sterling.
The first and second editions of this pamphlet were
published without the following calculations, which are now given as a
proof that the above estimation of the navy is a just one. (See Entick's
naval history, intro. page 56.)
The charge of building a ship of each rate, and
furnishing her with masts, yards, sails and rigging, together with a
proportion of eight months boatswain's and carpenter's sea-stores, as
calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the navy, is as follows:
| For a ship of 100 guns |
£35,553 |
| 90 |
£29,886 |
| 80 |
£23,638 |
| 70 |
£17,785 |
| 60 |
£14,197 |
| 50 |
£10,606 |
| 40 |
£7,558 |
| 30 |
£5,846 |
| 20 |
£3,710 |
And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or
cost rather, of the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it
was as its greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns:
| Ships |
Guns |
Cost of one |
Cost of all |
| 6 |
100 |
£35,533 |
£213,318 |
| 12 |
90 |
£29,886 |
£358,632 |
| 12 |
80 |
£23,638 |
£283,656 |
| 43 |
70 |
£17,785 |
£746,755 |
| 35 |
60 |
£14,197 |
£496,895 |
| 40 |
50 |
£10,606 |
£424,240 |
| 45 |
40 |
£7,758 |
£344,110 |
| 58 |
20 |
£3,710 |
£215,180 |
85 Sloops, bombs,
and fireships, one another |
£2,000 |
£170,000 |
| |
|
| Cost |
£3,266,786 |
| Remains for guns |
£229,214 |
| Total |
£3,500,000 |
No country on the globe is so happily situated, so
internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and
cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas
the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war to the
Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the materials they
use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it
being the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money we can
lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than it cost. And is that nice
point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let
us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our
paper currency with ready gold and silver.
In point of manning a fleet, people in general run
into great errors; it is not necessary that one-fourth part should be
sailors. The privateer Terrible, Captain Death, stood the hottest
engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board,
though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and
social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landsmen
in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more capable to
begin on maritime matters than now, while our timber is standing, our
fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men
of war of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New
England, and why not the same now? Ship building is America's greatest
pride, and in which, she will in time excel the whole world. The great
empires of the east are mostly inland, and consequently excluded from the
possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of barbarism; and no
power in Europe, hath either such an extent or coast, or such an internal
supply of materials. Where nature hath given the one, she has withheld the
other; to America only hath she been liberal of both. The vast empire of
Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forests,
her tar, iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce.
In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet?
We are not the little people now, which we were sixty years ago; at that
time we might have trusted our property in the streets, or fields rather;
and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The
case now is altered, and our methods of defence ought to improve with our
increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come
up the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under instant
contribution, for what sum he pleased; and the same might have happened to
other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen
guns, might have robbed the whole Continent, and carried off half a
million of money. These are circumstances which demand our attention, and
point out the necessity of naval protection.
Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it
up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that
she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense will
tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all
others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the
pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance,
be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted
into our harbors, I would ask, how is she to protect us? A navy three or
four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies,
none at all. Wherefore, if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do
it for ourselves? Why do it for another.
The English list of ships of war is long and
formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for
service, numbers of them not in being; yet their names are pompously
continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a
fifth part, of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one
station at one time. The East, and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and
other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon
her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have contracted
a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as if we
should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason,
supposed that we must have one as large; which not being instantly
practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised tories to
discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth than
this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of
Britain, she would be by far an over match for her; because, as we neither
have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on
our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the
advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over,
before they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to
refit and recruit. And although Britain by her fleet, hath a check over
our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West
Indies, which, by laying in the neighborhood of the Continent, is entirely
at its mercy.
Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval
force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a
constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and
employ in their service, ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty, or
fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the
merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guard ships on
constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without burdening
ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of suffering
their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the
sinews of commerce and defence is sound policy; for when our strength and
our riches, play into each other's hand, we need fear no external enemy.
In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp
flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is
superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the
world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are
every day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our
inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore,
what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we can
expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of
America again, this Continent will not be worth living in. Jealousies will
be always arising; insurrections will be constantly happening; and who
will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his life to reduce his own
countrymen to a foreign obedience? The difference between Pennsylvania and
Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of
a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental
authority can regulate Continental matters.
Another reason why the present time is preferable to
all others, is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet
unoccupied, which instead of being lavished by the king on his worthless
dependents, may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the
present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under
heaven hath such an advantage as this.
The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called,
so far from being against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are
sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is
a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the
smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far exceeded
the moderns: and the reason is evident, for trade being the consequence of
population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to anything
else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military
defence. And history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest
achievements were always accomplished in the non-age of a nation. With the
increase of commerce England hath lost its spirit. The city of London,
notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with the
patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they
to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly
power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.
Youth is the seed-time of good habits, as well in
nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to
form the Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast
variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population,
would create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able
might scorn each other's assistance: and while the proud and foolish
gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would lament that the union
had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is the true time
for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the
friendship which is formed in misfortune, are, of all others, the most
lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these
characters: we are young, and we have been distressed; but our concord
hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to
glory in.
The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time,
which never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself
into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that
means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead
of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of
government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be
formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterwards: but from the
errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present
opportunity- to begin government at the right end.
When William the Conqueror subdued England he gave
them law at the point of the sword; and until we consent that the seat of
government in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall
be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat
us in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom? where our
property?
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable
duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof,
and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let
a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle,
which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part with, and
he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the
companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself I
fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty,
that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords
a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of
thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and
on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us,
to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called
their Christian names.
Earlier in this work, I threw out a few thoughts on
the propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer
hints, not plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of rementioning
the subject, by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond of
solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right of
every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or property, A
firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends.
In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity
of a large and equal representation; and there is no political matter
which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small
number of representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the
representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased.
As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the Associators
petition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania; twenty-eight
members only were present, all the Bucks County members, being eight,
voted against it, and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this
whole province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger it
is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house
made in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over the delegates
of that province, ought to warn the people at large, how they trust power
out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the Delegates were put
together, which in point of sense and business would have dishonored a
school-boy, and after being approved by a few, a very few without doors,
were carried into the house, and there passed in behalf of the whole
colony; whereas, did the whole colony know, with what ill-will that House
hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a
moment to think them unworthy of such a trust.
Immediate necessity makes many things convenient,
which if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are
different things. When the calamities of America required a consultation,
there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint
persons from the several Houses of Assembly for that purpose and the
wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved this continent from
ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall never be without a
Congress, every well-wisher to good order, must own, that the mode for
choosing members of that body, deserves consideration. And I put it as a
question to those, who make a study of mankind, whether representation and
election is not too great a power for one and the same body of men to
possess? When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that
virtue is not hereditary.
It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent
maxims, and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr.
Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the petition of the
New York Assembly with contempt, because that House, he said, consisted
but of twenty-six members, which trifling number, he argued, could not
with decency be put for the whole. We thank him for his involuntary
honesty.*
*Those who would fully understand of what great
consequence a large and equal representation is to a state, should read
Burgh's political Disquisitions.
To conclude: However strange it may appear to some,
or however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong
and striking reasons may be given, to show, that nothing can settle our
affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for
independence. Some of which are:
First. It is the custom of nations, when any two are
at war, for some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as
mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace: but while America
calls herself the subject of Great Britain, no power, however well
disposed she may be, can offer her mediation. Wherefore, in our present
state we may quarrel on for ever.
Secondly. It is unreasonable to suppose, that France
or Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only to make use
of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and
strengthening the connection between Britain and America; because, those
powers would be sufferers by the consequences.
Thirdly. While we profess ourselves the subjects of
Britain, we must, in the eye of foreign nations, be considered as rebels.
The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to be in arms
under the name of subjects; we on the spot, can solve the paradox: but to
unite resistance and subjection, requires an idea much too refined for
common understanding.
Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and
despatched to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured,
and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress;
declaring, at the same time, that not being able, any longer to live
happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had
been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connection with her; at
the same time assuring all such courts of our peaceable disposition
towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them. Such a
memorial would produce more good effects to this Continent, than if a ship
were freighted with petitions to Britain.
Under our present denomination of British subjects
we can neither be received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts is
against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with
other nations.
These proceedings may at first appear strange and
difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already passed over,
will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an
independence is declared, the continent will feel itself like a man who
continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows
it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually
haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.
SINCE the publication of the first edition of this
pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the king's
speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy
directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth,
at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The
bloody-mindedness of the one, show the necessity of pursuing the doctrine
of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the speech instead of
terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of independence.
Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive
they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree
of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this maxim
be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king's speech, as being a
piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a general
execration both by the congress and the people. Yet as the domestic
tranquility of a nation, depends greatly on the chastity of what may
properly be called national manners, it is often better, to pass some
things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods of
dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on that guardian of our
peace and safety. And perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent
delicacy, that the king's speech, hath not before now, suffered a public
execution. The speech if it may be called one, is nothing better than a
wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the
existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up
human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this general massacre of
mankind, is one of the privileges, and the certain consequences of kings;
for as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they are
beings of our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of
their creators. The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not
calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by
it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no
loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He,
who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a
savage than the king of Britain.
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining
jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, The address of the people of
ENGLAND to the inhabitants of America, hath, perhaps from a vain
supposition, that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp and
description of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his part) the real
character of the present one: "But," says this writer, "if you are
inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not complain
of," (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the repeal of the Stamp Act)
"it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that prince, by whose NOD
ALONE they were permitted to do anything." This is toryism with a witness!
Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear, and
digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality an apostate
from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered- as one, who hath,
not only given up the proper dignity of a man, but sunk himself beneath
the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawl through the world like a worm.
However, it matters very little now, what the king
of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every
moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his
feet; and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty,
procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of
America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young family,
whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be granting away her
property, to support a power who is become a reproach to the names of men
and Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a
nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as ye, who
are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish to
preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye
must in secret wish a separation But leaving the moral part to private
reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following
heads:
First. That it is the interest of America to be
separated from Britain. Secondly. Which is the easiest and most
practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? with some occasional
remarks.
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it
proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men
on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet
publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in
a state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped and
fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material
eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the
progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of other
nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be capable of
arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the legislative powers in her
own hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do her no
good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter,
which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the
conquest of America, by which England is to be benefited, and that would
in a great measure continue, were the countries as independent of each
other as France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a
better market. But it is the independence of this country on Britain or
any other which is now the main and only object worthy of contention, and
which, like all other truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer
and stronger every day.
First. Because it will come to that one time or
other. Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to
accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself both in public and
private companies, with silently remarking the spacious errors of those
who speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the
following seems the most general, viz., that had this rupture happened
forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the Continent would have been
more able to have shaken off the dependance. To which I reply, that our
military ability at this time, arises from the experience gained in the
last war, and which in forty or fifty years time, would have been totally
extinct. The Continent, would not, by that time, have had a General, or
even a military officer left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would
have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this
single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the
present time is preferable to all others: The argument turns thus- at the
conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and
forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience;
wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point between
the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a
proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time is the
present time.
The reader will pardon this digression, as it does
not properly come under the head I first set out with, and to which I
again return by the following position, viz.:
Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she
to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, (which as matters
are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive
ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have or may contract.
The value of the back lands which some of the provinces are clandestinely
deprived of, by the unjust extension of the limits of Canada, valued only
at five pounds sterling per hundred acres, amount to upwards of
twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one
penny sterling per acre, to two millions yearly.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may
be sunk, without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will
always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expense of
government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that the
lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the execution
of which, the Congress for the time being, will be the continental
trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the
earliest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? with
some occasional remarks.
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily
beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally- That
INDEPENDENCE being a SINGLE SIMPLE LINE, contained within ourselves; and
reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in
which, a treacherous capricious court is to interfere, gives the answer
without a doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to
every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government,
without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by
courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which
is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is
endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, legislation without
law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is
strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending for dependance. The
instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who
can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the
present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at
random, and feeling no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy
or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason;
wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The
tories dared not to have assembled offensively, had they known that their
lives, by that act were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of
distinction should be drawn, between English soldiers taken in battle, and
inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the
latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible
feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to
dissensions. The Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something
is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall
fall into a state, in which, neither reconciliation nor independence will
be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old
game of dividing the continent, and there are not wanting among us
printers, who will be busy spreading specious falsehoods. The artful and
hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in two of the New York
papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men who
want either judgment or honesty. It is easy getting into holes and corners
and talking of reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how
difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the
Continent divide thereon. Do they take within their view, all the various
orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are
to be considered therein. Do they put themselves in the place of the
sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who hath quitted
all for the defence of his country. If their ill judged moderation be
suited to their own private situations only, regardless of others, the
event will convince them, that "they are reckoning without their Host."
Put us, says some, on the footing we were in the
year 1763: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of
Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and
even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is
such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another
parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on
the pretence of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted; and in
that case, Where is our redress? No going to law with nations; cannon are
the barristers of crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of war,
decides the suit. To be on the footing of 1763, it is not sufficient, that
the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances,
likewise, be put on the same state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired
or built up, our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted
for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we
were at that enviable period. Such a request had it been complied with a
year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the continent- but now it
is too late, "the Rubicon is passed."
Besides the taking up arms, merely to enforce the
repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and
as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience
thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the ways and means;
for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away on such trifles. It
is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons; the
destruction of our property by an armed force; the invasion of our country
by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: And
the instant, in which such a mode of defence became necessary, all
subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the independency of
America should have been considered, as dating its area from, and
published by, the first musket that was fired against her. This line is a
line of consistency; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition;
but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the
authors.
I shall conclude these remarks, with the following
timely and well intended hints, We ought to reflect, that there are three
different ways by which an independency may hereafter be effected; and
that one of those three, will one day or other, be the fate of America,
viz. By the legal voice of the people in congress; by a military power; or
by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the
multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is
not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independency be brought
about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every
encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the
face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again.
A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of
Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men
perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion
of freedom from the event of a few months. The reflection is awful- and in
this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry
cavillings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against
the business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting
period, and an independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we
must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow
and prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure, without either
inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be given in support of
Independence, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly
told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be independent
or not, but, anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable
basis, and uneasy rather that it is not yet began upon. Every day
convinces us of its necessity. Even the tories (if such beings yet remain
among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous to promote it; for,
as the appointment of committees at first, protected them from popular
rage, so, a wise and well established form of government, will be the only
certain means of continuing it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have
not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish
for independence.
In short, independence is the only bond that can tie
and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be
legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel
enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain;
for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be
less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than
with those, whom she denominates, "rebellious subjects," for terms of
accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for
conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have,
without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress
of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by independently
redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The
mercantile and reasonable part of England will be still with us; because,
peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be
not accepted, other courts may be applied to.
On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer
hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions
of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot
be refuted, or, that the party in favor of it are too numerous to be
opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or
doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty
hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of
oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. Let the
names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us,
than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous
supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES
OF AMERICA.
To the Representatives of the Religious Society of
the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in
publishing a late piece, entitled "THE ANCIENT TESTIMONY and PRINCIPLES of
the people called QUAKERS renewed with respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT,
and Touching the COMMOTIONS now prevailing in these and other parts of
AMERICA, addressed to the PEOPLE IN GENERAL."
THE writer of this is one of those few, who never
dishonors religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination
whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score
of religion. Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to you
as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling in matters, which the
professed quietude of your Principles instruct you not to meddle with.
As you have, without a proper authority for so
doing, put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so,
the writer of this, in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is
under the necessity, of putting himself in the place of all those who
approve the very writings and principles, against which your testimony is
directed: And he hath chosen their singular situation, in order that you
might discover in him, that presumption of character which you cannot see
in yourselves. For neither he nor you have any claim or title to Political
Representation.
When men have departed from the right way, it is no
wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in
which ye have managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body
of men) is not your proper walk; for however well adapted it might appear
to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely
together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.
The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make
four) we give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you,
because the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is
the natural, as well as the religious wish of all denominations of men.
And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an Independent
Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and
aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with Britain,
and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act
consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and
uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of the present day.
We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to separate
and dissolve a connection which hath already filled our land with blood;
and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future
mischiefs to both countries.
We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither
from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and
armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own
vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the
violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the characters of
highwaymen and housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the
civil law; are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the
sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter.
Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every
part of the continent, and with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet
made its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye mistake not
the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness of soul,
religion; nor put the bigot in the place of the Christian.
O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged
principles! If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be
more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable
defence.
Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and
mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince the
world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they
likewise bear ARMS. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at
St. James's, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the admirals and
captains who are practically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering
miscreants who are acting in authority under HIM whom ye profess to serve.
Had ye the honest soul of Barclay* ye would preach repentance to your
king; Ye would tell the royal tyrant of his sins, and warn him of eternal
ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the injured and
the insulted only, but like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare
none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavor to make us the
authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we
testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are
Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT Quakers.
*"Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity; thou
knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to be overruled as
well as to rule, and set upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast
reason to know now hateful the oppressor is both to God and man. If after
all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord
with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress,
and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy
condemnation. Against which snare, as well as the temptation of those who
may or do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and
prevalent remedy will be, to apply thyself to that light of Christ which
shineth in thy conscience and which neither can, nor will flatter thee,
nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins."- Barclay's Address to Charles
II.
Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some
part of your Testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin was
reduced to, and comprehended in the act of bearing arms, and that by the
people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience,
because the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And it is
exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended
scruples; because we see them made by the same men, who, in the very
instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are
nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an
appetite as keen as Death.
The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in
the third page of your testimony, that, "when a man's ways please the
Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him;" is very
unwisely chosen on your part; because it amounts to a proof, that the
king's ways (whom ye are so desirous of supporting) do not please the
Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.
I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony,
and that, for which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz:
"It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since
we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our
consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and
governments, is God's peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to
himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance
therein; nor to be busy-bodies above our station, much less to plot and
contrive the ruin, or overturn any of them, but to pray for the king, and
safety of our nation, and good of all men: that we may live a peaceable
and quiet life, in all goodliness and honesty; under the government which
God is pleased to set over us." If these are really your principles why do
ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God's work,
to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with
patience and humility, for the event of all public measures, and to
receive that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what
occasion is there for your political Testimony if you fully believe what
it contains? And the very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not
believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to practice what ye
believe.
The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency
to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every
government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting down
of kings and governments is God's peculiar prerogative, he most certainly
will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself leads
you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to kings
as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died not by
the hands of man; and should the present proud imitator of him, come to
the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the Testimony, are
bound by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact. Kings are not
taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments brought about
by any other means than such as are common and human; and such as we are
now using. Even the dispersing of the Jews, though foretold by our Savior,
was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one side,
ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in
silence; and unless you can produce divine authority, to prove, that the
Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at the greatest
distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the
old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the
corrupt and abandoned court of Britain; unless I say, ye can show this,
how can ye, on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and
stirring up of the people "firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such
writings, and measures, as evidence a desire and design to break off the
happy connection we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom of Great
Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king, and those
who are lawfully placed in authority under him." What a slap in the face
is here! the men, who, in the very paragraph before, have quietly and
passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and
governments, into the hands of God, are now recalling their principles,
and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the
conclusion, which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the
doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the
absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could only have been
made by those, whose understandings were darkened by the narrow and crabby
spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are not to be considered as
the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional and fractional part
thereof.
Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which
I call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge
of fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; "That the setting up
and putting down of kings," most certainly mean, the making him a king,
who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is already one. And pray
what hath this to do in the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to
put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with
them. Wherefore your testimony in whatever light it is viewed serves only
to dishonor your judgment, and for many other reasons had better have been
let alone than published.
First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach
of religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a
party in political disputes. Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men,
numbers of whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being
concerned therein and approvers thereof. Thirdly. Because it hath a
tendency to undo that continental harmony and friendship which yourselves
by your late liberal and charitable donations hath lent a hand to
establish; and the preservation of which, is of the utmost consequence to
us all.
And here, without anger or resentment I bid you
farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and Christians, ye may always
fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be,
in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example
which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be
disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.
-THE
END-
Source: Common Sense, by
Thomas Paine, printed by W. and T. Bradford, Philadelphia, 1791.
|
