|
|
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 in tolerable 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 Wear, 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 (tho' the disgrace of human nature)
have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the
people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering
springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a
variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England
is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for
years together without being able to discover in which part
the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and
every political physician will advise a different medicine.
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.
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,
thro' 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 Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in
being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing
displeased Samuel when they said, give us a king to judge us;
and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto
Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they
say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have
rejected me, THE 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 confectioneries 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 king-craft, as priest-craft in withholding
the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For
monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.
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, I 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 an 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.
IN the following pages I offer nothing more than
simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no
other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he
will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer
his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that
he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true
character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond
the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle
between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in
the controversy, from different motives, and with various
designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of
debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the
contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the
continent hath accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho' an
able minister was not without his faults) that on his being
attacked in the house of commons, on the score, that his
measures were only of a temporary kind, replied, 'they will
fast my time.' Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess
the colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors
will be remembered by future generations with detestation.
The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not
the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but
of a continent of at least one eighth part of the habitable
globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age;
posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be
more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the
proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union,
faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name
engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young
oak; The wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read
it in full grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new area
for politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen.
All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of
April, i. e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the
almanacs of the last year; which, though proper then, are
superseded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the
advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in
one and the same point, viz. a union with Great Britain; the
only difference between the parties was the method of
effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship;
but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and
the second hath withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation,
which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us
as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the
contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of the
many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and
always will sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on
Great Britain. To examine that connection and dependance, on
the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have
to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if
dependant.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath
flourished under her former connection with Great Britain,
that the same connection is necessary towards her future
happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can
be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well
assert, that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is
never to have meat; or that the first twenty years of our
lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even
this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly,
that America would have flourished as much, and probably much
more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The
commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the
necessaries of life, and will always have a market while
eating is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed
us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well
as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey
from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices and
made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the
protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her
motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect
us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on
her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any
other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same
account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or
the continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at
peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The
miseries of Hanover last war Ought to warn us against
connections .
It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the
colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent
country, i. e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on
for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this
is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relation ship,
but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship,
if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps
ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the
subjects of Great Britain.
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more
shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young;
nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the
assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not
to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase Parent or mother
country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his
parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair
bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not
England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath
been the asylum for the persecuted lovers off civil and
religious liberty from every Part of Europe. Hither have they
fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the
cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that
the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home
pursues their descendants still.
In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the
narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of
England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim
brotherhood with every European christian, and triumph in the
generosity of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we
surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our
acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England
divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his
fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases
will be common) and distinguish him by the name of neighbor;
if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow
idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of townsman; if
he travels out of the county, and meet him in any other, he
forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him
countryman; i. e. countyman; but if in their foreign
excursions they should associate in France or any other part
of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that
of Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning, all
Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the
globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or
Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places
on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and
county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for
continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of
this province, are of English descent. Therefore I reprobate
the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England
only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.
But admitting that we were all of English descent, what
does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy,
extinguishes every other name and title: And to say that
reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king
of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a
Frenchman, and half the peers of England are descendants from
the same country; wherefore by the same method of reasoning,
England ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and
the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to
the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is
uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this
continent would never suffer itself to be drained of
inhabitants to support the British arms in either Asia,
Africa, or Europe.
Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at
defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended
to,will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe;
because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a
free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her
barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to
show, a single advantage that this continent can reap, by
being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge,
not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its
price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be
paid for buy them where we will.
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that
connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind I at
large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the
alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependance on Great
Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European
wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who
would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have
neither anger nor complaint As Europe is our market for trade,
we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It
is the true interest of America to steer clear of European
contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependance
on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of
British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at
peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any
foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of
her connection with Britain. The next war may not turn out
like the Past, and should it not, the advocates for
reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then,
because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than
a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for
separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of
nature cries, 'TIS TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which
the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and
natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other,
was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the
continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the
manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it. The
reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if
the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the
persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither
friendship nor safety.
The authority of Great Britain over this continent, is a
form of government, which sooner or later must have an end:
And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking
forward, under the painful and positive conviction, that what
he calls the present constitution' is merely temporary. As
parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is
not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may
bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as
we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do
the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In
order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take
our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years
farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect,
which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our
sight.
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence,
yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the
doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the
following descriptions. Interested men, who are not to be
trusted; weak men who cannot see; prejudiced men who will not
see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of
the European world than it deserves; and this last class by an
ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities
to this continent than all the other three.
It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the
scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to their
doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all
American property is possessed. But let our imaginations
transport us for a few moments to Boston, that seat of
wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to
renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants
of that unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were in
ease and affluence, have now no other alternative than to stay
and starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of
their friends if they continue within the city, and plundered
by the soldiery if they leave it. In their present condition
they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a
general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to the
fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the
offenses of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt
to call out, 'Come we shall be friends again for all this.'
But examine the passions and feelings of mankind. Bring the
doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and
then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honor, and
faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword
into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only
deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon
posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can
neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and
being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in
a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the
first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over,
then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath you property been
destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children
destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you
lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the
ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you
not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still
shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name
of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your
rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the
spirit of a sycophant.
This is not infaming or exaggerating matters, but trying
them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies,
and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the
social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I
mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking
revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers,
that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not
in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if
she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present
winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or
neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune;
and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be
he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of
sacrificing a season so precious and useful.
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of
things, to all examples from the former ages, to suppose, that
this continent can longer remain subject to any external
power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The
utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time compass a
plan short of separation, which can promise the continent even
a year's security. Reconciliation is was a fallacious dream.
Nature hath deserted the connection, and Art cannot supply her
place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, 'never can true
reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so
deep.'
Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our
prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to
convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms
obstinacy in Kings more than repeated petitioning and nothing
hath contributed more than that very measure to make the Kings
of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore
since nothing but blows will do, for God's sake, let us come
to a final separation, and not leave the next generation to be
cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning names of parent
and child.
To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and
visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp-act, yet a
year or two undeceived us; as well me we may suppose that
nations, which have been once defeated, will never renew the
quarrel.
As to government matters, it is not in the powers of
Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will
soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any
tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from
us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us,
they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four
thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five
months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six
more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as
folly and childishness. There was a time when it was proper,
and there is a proper time for it to cease.
Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the
proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but
there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be
perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature
made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as
England and America, with respect to each Other, reverses the
common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different
systems: England to Europe, America to itself.
I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment
to espouse the doctrine of separation and independence; I am
clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is
the true interest of this continent to be so; that every thing
short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting
felicity, that it is leaving the sword to our children, and
shrinking back at a time, when, a little more, a little
farther, would have rendered this continent the glory of the
earth.
As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination
towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be
obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways
equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have been
already put to.
The object contended for, ought always to bear some just
proportion to the expense. The removal of N--, or the whole
detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have
expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience,
which would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the
acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the
whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a
soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a
contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the
repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just
estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker Hill price
for law, as for land. As I have always considered the
independency of this continent, as an event, which sooner or
later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the
continent to maturity, the event could not be far off.
Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not
worth the while to have disputed a matter, which time would
have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest;
otherwise, it is like wasting an estate of a suit at law, to
regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is just
expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than
myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775 (Massacre at
Lexington), but the moment the event of that day was made
known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of ___
for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended
title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE can unfeelingly hear of their
slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his
soul.
But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be
the event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for
several reasons.
First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands
of the king, he will have a negative over the whole
legislation of this continent. And as he hath shown himself
such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a
thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man
to say to these colonies, 'You shall make no laws but what I
please.' And is there any inhabitants in America so ignorant,
as not to know, that according to what is called the present
constitution, that this continent can make no laws but what
the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as
not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will
suffer no Law to be made here, but such as suit his purpose.
We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in
America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England.
After matters are make up (as it is called) can there be any
doubt but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to
keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of
going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually
quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. We are already
greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not
hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring the matter to one
point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper
power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an
independent, for independency means no more, than, whether we
shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest
enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us 'there
shall be now laws but such as I like.'
But the king you will say has a negative in England; the
people there can make no laws without his consent. in point of
right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that
a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to
several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I
forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place
I decline this sort of reply, tho' I will never cease to
expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that England
being the king's residence, and America not so, make quite
another case. The king's negative here is ten times more
dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he
will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England
into as strong a state of defence as possible, and in america
he would never suffer such a bill to be passed.
America is only a secondary object in the system of British
politics. England consults the good of this country, no
farther than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore, her own
interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every
case which doth not promote her advantage, or in the least
interfere with it. A pretty state we should soon be in under
such a second-hand government, considering what has happened!
Men do not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of
a name: And in order to show that reconciliation now is a
dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the
kingdom at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of
reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in
order, that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTILTY, IN THE
LONG RUN, WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT
ONE. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
Secondly. That as even the best terms, which we can expect
to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient,
or a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no
longer than till the colonies come of age, so the general face
and state of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and
unpromising. Emigrants of property will not choose to come to
a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and
who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and
disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay
hold of the interval, to dispose of their effects, and quit
the continent.
But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing
but independence, i. e. a continental form of government, can
keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from
civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain
now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by
a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be
far more fatal than all the malice of Britain.
Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity;
(thousands more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those men
have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All
they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed is
sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose,
they disdain submission. Besides, the general temper of the
colonies, towards a British government, will be like that of a
youth, who is nearly out of his time, they will care very
little about her. And a government which cannot preserve the
peace, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our
money for nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do,
whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult
break out the very day after reconciliation? I have heard some
men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that
they dreaded independence, fearing that it would produce civil
wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times
more to dread from a patched up connection than from
independence. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest,
that were I driven from house and home, my property destroyed,
and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of
injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation,
or consider myself bound thereby.
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order
and obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to
make every reasonable person easy and happy on that bead. No
man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any other
grounds, that such as are truly childish and ridiculous, that
one colony will be striving for superiority over another.
Where there are no distinctions there can be no
superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The
republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace.
Holland and Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic:
Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest;
the crown itself is a temptation to enterprising ruffians at
home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on
regal authority swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in
instances where a republican government, by being formed on
more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.
If there is any true cause of fear respecting independence
it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their
way out. Wherefore, as an opening into that business I offer
the following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that
I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be
the means of giving rise to something better. Could the
straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would
frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve to
useful matter.
LET the assemblies be annual, with a President only.
The representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic,
and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress.
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten,
convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of
delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least
thirty. The whole number in Congress will be at least 90. Each
Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following
method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from
the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which let the whole
Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the
delegates of that province. I the next Congress, let a colony
be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from
which the president was taken in the former Congress, and so
proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their
proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law
but what is satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of
the Congress to be called a majority. He that will promote
discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would
join Lucifer in his revolt.
But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what
manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most
agreeable and consistent, that it should come from some
intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that
is between the Congress and the people, let a CONTINENTAL
CONFERENCE be held, in the following manner, and for the
following purpose.
A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two for
each colony. Two members for each house of assembly, or
Provincial convention; and five representatives of the people
at large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each
province, for, and in behalf of the whole province, by as many
qualified voters as shall think proper to attend from all
parts of the province for that purpose; or, if more
convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or three
of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus
assembled, will be united, the two grand principles of
business, knowledge and power. The members of Congress,
Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in
national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors, and
the whole, being empowered by the people will have a truly
legal authority.
The conferring members being met, let their business be to
frame a CONTINENTAL CHARTER, or Charter of the United
Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of
England) fixing the number and manner of choosing members of
Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and
drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them:
(Always remembering, that our strength is continental, not
provincial.) Securing freedom and property to all men, and
above all things the free exercise of religion, according to
the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is
necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which,
the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be
chosen conformable to the said charter, to be the legislators
and governors of this continent for the time being: Whose
peace and happiness, may God preserve, Amen.
Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or
some similar purpose, I offer them the following extracts from
that wise observer on governments Dragonetti. 'The science'
says he,
'of the politician consists in fixing the true point of
happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude
of ages, who should discover a mode of government that
contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the
least national expense.' Dragonetti on Virtue and Rewards.
But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you
Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind
like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be
defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set
apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth
placed on the divine law, the word of God;let a crown be
placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we
approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as
in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries
the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But
lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the
conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among
the people whose right it is.
A government of our own is our natural right: And when a
man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs,
he will become convinced, that it is in finitely wiser and
safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate
manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an
interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some
Massenello (note-CmnSns-1) may hereafter arise, who laying
hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the
desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves
the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the
continent like a deluge. Should the government of America
return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering
situation of things, will be a temptation for some desperate
adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief
can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news the fatal
business might be done, and ourselves suffering like the
wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye
that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are
opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat
of government. There are thousands and tens of thousands; who
would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that
barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians
and Negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guilt, it
is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.
To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids
us to have faith, and our affections wounded through a
thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and folly.
Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us
and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the
relationship expires, the affection will increase, or that we
shall agree better, when we have ten times more and greater
concerns to quarrel over than ever?
Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye
restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to
prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile
Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people
of England are presenting addresses against us. There are
injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be
nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher
of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of
Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these
inextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are
the guardians of his image in our hearts. They distinguish us
from the herd of common animals. The social compact would
dissolve, and justice be extirpated the earth, of have only a
casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection.
The robber and the murderer, would often escape unpunished,
did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us
into justice.
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the
tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old
world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted
round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her.
Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her
warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in
time an asylum for mind.
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 Entic'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.
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 27,785
746,755 35 60 14,197 496,895 40 50 10,606 424,240 45 40 7,558
340,110 58 20 3,710 215,180 85 Sloops, bombs, and fireships,
one with another, at 2,000 170,000 Cost 3,266,786 Remains for
guns, 233,214 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 Terrible privateer, Captain Death, stood the
hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty
sailors on board, though her complement of men was upwards of
two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct
a sufficient number of active land-men 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 80 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
any thing 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
afterward: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn
wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity To begin
government at the right end.
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 indispensible 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.
In page fifty-four, 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
(note-CmnSns-2).
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 MATTERS, 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 J--n D--e, 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.
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 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 on in sixty
three: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power
of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if
it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable
question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court
to be kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even
the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the
pretence of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted;
and in that case, Where is our redress? No going to law with
nations; cannon are the barristers of crowns; and the sword,
not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the
footing of sixty-three, it is not sufficient, that the laws
only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances,
likewise, be put on the same state; our burnt and destroyed
towns repaired or built up, our private losses made good, our
public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise,
we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable
period. Such a request had it been complied with a year ago,
would have won the heart and soul of the Continent but now it
is too late, 'The Rubicon is passed.'
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 cavellings, 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
(note-CmnSns-3) ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye
would tell the Royal king 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.
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.
|
|
