#5
in our series by Thomas Paine
Copyright
laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check the laws for your
country before redistributing these files!!!
Please
take a look at the important information in this header.
We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an
electronic path open for the next readers.
Please
do not remove this.
This
should be the first thing seen when anyone opens the book.
Do not change or edit it without written permission.
The words are carefully chosen to provide users with the information
they need about what they can legally do with the texts.
**Welcome
To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**Etexts
Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*****These
Etexts Are Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
Information
on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and further information is
included below, including for donations.
The
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501©(3)
organization
with EIN [Employee Identification Number] 64-6221541
Title: Common
Sense
Author: Thomas
Paine
Release
Date: February, 2003 [Etext
#3755]
[Yes,
we are about one year ahead of schedule]
[The
actual date this file first posted = 8/21/01]
Edition: 10a
Language:
English
The
Project Gutenberg Etext of Common Sense
by
Thomas Paine
******This
file should be named comsn10a.txt or comsn10a.zip******
Corrected
EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, comsn11a.txt
VERSIONS
based on separate sources get new LETTER, comsn10b.txt
Produced
by Norman M. Wolcott.
Project
Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions, all of which are
in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a copyright notice is
included. Therefore, we usually
do NOT keep any of these books in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
We
are now trying to release all our books one year in advance of the official
release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to send us error messages even years after the
official publication date.
Please
note neither this listing nor its contents are final til midnight of the last
day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion,
comment and editing by those who wish to do so.
Most
people start at our sites at:
Those
of you who want to download any Etext before announcement can surf to them as
follows, and just download by date; this is also a good way to get them
instantly upon announcement, as the indexes our cataloguers produce obviously
take a while after an announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg
Newsletter.
http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03
or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03
Or /etext02,
01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
Just search by
the first five letters of the filename you want, as it appears in our
Newsletters.
Information
about Project Gutenberg (one page)
We
produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.
The time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours to
get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright searched and
analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.
This projected audience is one hundred million readers.
If our value per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we
produce $2 million dollars per hour this year as we release fifty new Etext
files per month, or 500 more Etexts in 2000 for a total of 3000+ If they reach
just 1-2% of the world’s population then the total should reach over 300
billion Etexts given away by year’s end.
The
Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext Files by December
31, 2001. [10,000 x 100,000,000 =
1 Trillion] This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
At
our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third of that goal by
the end of 2001, or about 4,000 Etexts unless we manage to get some real
funding.
The
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created to secure a
future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.
As
of July 12, 2001 contributions are only being solicited from people in:
Arkansas,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
We
have filed in about 45 states now, but these are the only ones that have
responded.
As
the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be made
and fund raising will begin in the additional states. Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
In
answer to various questions we have received on this:
We
are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally request donations
in all 50 states. If your state
is not listed and you would like to know if we have added it since the list
you have, just ask.
While
we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are not yet
registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting donations from donors
in these states who approach us with an offer to donate.
International
donations are accepted,
but
we don’t know ANYTHING about how
to
make them tax-deductible, or
even
if they CAN be made deductible,
and
don’t have the staff to handle it
even
if there are ways.
All
donations should be made to:
Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB
113
1739
University Ave.
Oxford,
MS 38655-4109
The
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501©(3) organization with
EIN [Employee Identification Number] 64-6221541, and has been approved as a
501©(3) organization by the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Donations are tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.
As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
We
need your donations more than ever!
You
can get up to date donation information at:
http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
If
you can’t reach Project Gutenberg,
you
can always email directly to:
Michael
S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
hart@pobox.com
forwards to hart@prairienet.org and
archive.org if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if it
bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . .
Prof.
Hart will answer or forward your message.
We
would prefer to send you information by email.
Example
command-line FTP session:
ftp
ftp.ibiblio.org
login:
anonymous
password:
your@login
cd
pub/docs/books/gutenberg
cd
etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext02, etc.
dir [to see files] get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
GET GUTINDEX.?? [to get a year’s listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99]
GET
GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]
**The
Legal Small Print**
(Three
Pages)
***START**THE
SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START*** Why is this “Small Print!”
statement here? You know:
lawyers. They tell us you might
sue us if there is something wrong with your copy of this etext, even if you
got it for free from someone other than us, and even if what’s wrong is not
our fault. So, among other
things, this “Small Print!” statement disclaims most of our liability to
you. It also tells you how you may distribute copies of this etext
if you want to.
BEFORE!
YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
By
using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, you indicate
that you understand, agree to and accept this “Small Print!” statement.
If you do not, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid
for this etext by sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the
person you got it from. If you
received this etext on a physical medium (such as a disk), you must return it
with your request.
This
PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts, is a “public
domain” work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart through the Project
Gutenberg Association (the “Project”).
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States
copyright on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special
rules, set forth below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
under the “PROJECT GUTENBERG” trademark.
Please
do not use the “PROJECT GUTENBERG” trademark to market any commercial
products without permission.
To
create these etexts, the Project expends considerable efforts to identify,
transcribe and proofread public domain works.
Despite these efforts, the Project’s etexts and any medium they may
be on may contain “Defects”. Among
other things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other etext medium, a computer
virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
But
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described below, [1] Michael Hart
and the Foundation (and any other party you may receive this etext from as a
PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all liability to you for damages, costs
and expenses, including legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL
DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If
you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you
paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time
to the person you received it from. If
you received it
on
a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such
person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy.
If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.
THIS
ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU “AS-IS”.
NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Some
states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or the exclusion or
limitation of consequential damages, so the above disclaimers and exclusions
may not apply to you, and you may have other legal rights.
You
will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation, and its trustees and
agents, and any volunteers associated with the production and distribution of
Project Gutenberg-tm texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following that you do or cause: [1]
distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification, or addition to the
etext, or [3] any Defect.
You
may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by disk, book or any
other medium if you either delete this “Small Print!” and all other
references to Project Gutenberg, or:
[1]
Only give exact copies of it. Among
other things, this requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the etext
or this “small print!” statement. You
may however, if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable binary,
compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, including any form resulting from
conversion by word processing or hypertext software, but only so long as EITHER:
[*]
The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
does
not contain characters other than those
intended
by the author of the work, although tilde
(~),
asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
be
used to convey punctuation intended by the
author,
and additional characters may be used to
indicate
hypertext links; OR
[*]
The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
no
expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent form by the program that
displays the etext (as is the case, for instance, with most word processors);
[*]
You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
no
additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the etext in its original plain
ASCII form (or in EBCDIC or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2]
Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
“Small
Print!” statement.
[3]
Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
gross
profits you derive calculated using the method you already use to calculate
your applicable taxes. If you don’t
derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties
are payable to “Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation” the 60 days
following each date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) your
annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return.
Please contact us beforehand to let us know your plans and to work out
the details.
Project
Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of public domain and licensed
works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form.
The
Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time, public domain
materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
Money
should be paid to the:
“Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
If
you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software
or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
[Portions
of this header are copyright © 2001 by Michael S. Hart and may be reprinted
only when these Etexts are free of all fees.] [Project Gutenberg is a
TradeMark and may not be used in any sales of Project Gutenberg Etexts or
other materials be they hardware or software or any other related product
without express permission.]
*END
THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.07/27/01*END*
Produced
by Norman M. Wolcott.
[Redactor’s Note: Reprinted from the “The Writings of
Thomas Paine Volume I” (1894 - 1896). The author’s notes are preceded by
a “*”.]
VOLUME
I.
1774
- 1779
Table
of Contents
I.
OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL, WITH CONCISE
REMARKS
ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION
II.
OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
III.
THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS
IV.
OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS
REFLEXIONS
PERHAPS
the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently
fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a
thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at
first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides.
Time makes more converts than reason.
As
a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right
of it in question (and in Matters too which might never have been thought of,
had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the King of
England hath undertaken in his OWN RIGHT, to support the Parliament in what he
calls THEIRS, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed
by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the
pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either.
In
the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is
personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make
no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet;
and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of
themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion.
The
cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many
circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and
through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the
Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying of a Country
desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all
Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is
the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of
which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is
P.
S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a View of
taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute the Doctrine of
Independance: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now presumed that none
will, the Time needful for getting such a Performance ready for the Public
being considerably past.
Who
the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the
Object for Attention is the DOCTRINE ITSELF, not the MAN. Yet it may not be
unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort
of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.
Philadelphia,
February 14, 1776.
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
wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our
affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages
intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a
punisher.
Society
in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a
necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or
are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a
country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we
furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of
lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of
paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly
obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he
finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for
the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence
which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least.
WHEREFORE, security being the true design and end of government, it
unanswerably follows that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure
it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all
others.
In
order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let
us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the
earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling
of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society
will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the
strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for
perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of
another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able
to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but ONE man might
labour out 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.
This
necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived
emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessing 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 continues increasing, it will become
necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest
of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to
divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number;
and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from
the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often;
because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the
general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public
will be secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves.
And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every
part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other,
and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the STRENGTH OF
GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.
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 over run with tyranny the least remove
therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to
convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily
demonstrated.
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, by 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 some thing which either cannot exist, or is too
incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of
sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind,
for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. HOW CAME THE KING BY A
POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such
a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH
NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes,
supposes such a power to exist.
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 and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been
wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same
time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key.
The
prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government by king, lords and
commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals
are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but the WILL of
the king is as much the LAW of the land in Britain as in France, with this
difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed
to the people under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the
fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle—not more just.
Wherefore,
laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms,
the plain truth is, that IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE,
AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as
oppressive in England as in Turkey.
An
inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form of government is at
this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing
justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading
partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain
fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a
prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in
favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning
a good one.
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 monarchical 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-monarchical
parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical
governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have
their governments yet to form. “RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE
CAESAR’S” is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of
monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in
a state of vassalage to the Romans.
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 Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the
idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder,
that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of
government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.
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 favour. The Jews elate with success, and attributing it to the
generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, RULE THOU OVER US,
THOU AND THY SON AND THY SON’S SON. Here was temptation in its fullest
extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of
his soul replied, I WILL NOT RULE OVER YOU, NEITHER SHALL MY SON RULE OVER
YOU. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon
doth not DECLINE the honor, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth
he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the
positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper
Sovereign, the King of heaven.
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, THAT I SHOULD NOT
REIGN OVER THEM. ACCORDING TO ALL THE WORKS WHICH THEY HAVE DONE SINCE THE DAY
THAT I BROUGHT THEM UP OUT OF EGYPT, EVEN UNTO THIS DAY; WHEREWITH THEY HAVE
FORSAKEN ME AND SERVED OTHER GODS; SO DO THEY ALSO UNTO THEE. NOW THEREFORE
HEARKEN UNTO THEIR VOICE, HOWBEIT, PROTEST SOLEMNLY UNTO THEM AND SHEW THEM
THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER THEM, I. E.
not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the
earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great
distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion.
AND SAMUEL TOLD ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD UNTO THE PEOPLE, THAT ASKED OF HIM A
KING. AND HE SAID, THIS SHALL BE THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER
YOU; HE WILL TAKE YOUR SONS AND APPOINT THEM FOR HIMSELF, FOR HIS CHARIOTS,
AND TO BE HIS HORSEMEN, AND SOME SHALL RUN BEFORE HIS CHARIOTS (this
description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) AND HE WILL
APPOINT HIM CAPTAINS OVER THOUSANDS AND CAPTAINS OVER FIFTIES, AND WILL SET
THEM TO EAR HIS GROUND AND TO READ HIS HARVEST, AND TO MAKE HIS INSTRUMENTS OF
WAR, AND INSTRUMENTS OF HIS CHARIOTS; AND HE WILL TAKE YOUR DAUGHTERS TO BE
CONFECTIONARIES, AND TO BE COOKS AND TO BE BAKERS (this describes the expence
and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE YOUR FIELDS
AND YOUR OLIVE YARDS, EVEN THE BEST OF THEM, AND GIVE THEM TO HIS SERVANTS;
AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR FEED, AND OF YOUR VINEYARDS, AND GIVE THEM
TO HIS OFFICERS AND TO HIS SERVANTS (by which we see that bribery, corruption,
and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF
YOUR MEN SERVANTS, AND YOUR MAID SERVANTS, AND YOUR GOODLIEST YOUNG MEN AND
YOUR ASSES, AND PUT THEM TO HIS WORK; AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR
SHEEP, AND YE SHALL BE HIS SERVANTS, AND YE SHALL CRY OUT IN THAT DAY BECAUSE
OF YOUR KING WHICH YE SHALL HAVE CHOSEN, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN
THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the
characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the
title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of
David takes no notice of him OFFICIALLY AS A KING, but only as a MAN after God’s
own heart. NEVERTHELESS THE PEOPLE REFUSED TO OBEY THE VOICE OF SAMUEL, AND
THEY SAID, NAY, BUT WE WILL HAVE A KING OVER US, THAT WE MAY BE LIKE ALL THE
NATIONS, AND THAT OUR KING MAY JUDGE US, AND GO OUT BEFORE US, AND FIGHT OUR
BATTLES. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set
before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully
bent on their folly, he cried out, I WILL CALL UNTO THE LORD, AND HE SHALL
SEND THUNDER AND RAIN (which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat
harvest) THAT YE MAY PERCEIVE AND SEE THAT YOUR WICKEDNESS IS GREAT WHICH YE
HAVE DONE IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, IN ASKING YOU A KING. SO SAMUEL CALLED
UNTO THE LORD, AND THE LORD SENT THUNDER AND RAIN THAT DAY, AND ALL THE PEOPLE
GREATLY FEARED THE LORD AND SAMUEL. AND ALL THE PEOPLE SAID UNTO SAMUEL, PRAY
FOR THY SERVANTS UNTO THE LORD THY GOD THAT WE DIE NOT, FOR WE HAVE ADDED UNTO
OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and
positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here
entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture
is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of
king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the public in
Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.
To
the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the
first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a
matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men
being originally equals, no ONE by BIRTH could have a right to set up his own
family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself
might deserve SOME decent degree of honors of his cotemporaries, yet his
descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest
NATURAL proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature
disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule
by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION.
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 or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title
of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his
depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their safety by
frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving
hereditary right to his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of
themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained principles they
professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of
monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or
complimental; but as few or no records were extant in those days, and
traditionary history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of
a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed,
Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps
the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a
leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be
very orderly) induced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which
means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted
to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.
England,
since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a
much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his senses can say that their
claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard
landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England
against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally
original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to
spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are any so
weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and
welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.
Yet
I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first?
The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by
election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes
a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by
lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that
transaction there was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any
country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next;
for to say, that the RIGHT of all future generations is taken away, by the act
of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of
kings for ever, hath no parrallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of
original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from
such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can
derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all
men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the
other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and our
authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former
state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary
succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion! Yet the most subtile 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 favour of hereditary
succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this
true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever
imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty
kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the
conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less
than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for
peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand
on.
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 of the crown, by having
all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power,
and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the
constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that
of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it
is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England
which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons
from out of their own body—and it is easy to see that when republican virtue
fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because
monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?
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
LAST MY TIME.” Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in
the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future
generations with detestation.
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 era for politics is struck;
a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to
the nineteenth of April, I. E. to the commencement of hostilities, are like
the almanacks of the last year; which, though proper then, are superceded 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 connexion and dependance, on the principles of nature and common
sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to
expect, if dependant.
I
have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her
former connexion with Great Britain, that the same connexion is necessary
towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing
can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that
because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that
the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next
twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly,
that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no
European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath
enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market
while eating is the custom of Europe.
But
she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and
defended the continent at our expence as well as her own is admitted, and she
would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and
dominion.
Alas,
we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to
superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without
considering, that her motive was INTEREST not ATTACHMENT; that she did not
protect us from OUR ENEMIES on OUR ACCOUNT, but from HER ENEMIES on HER OWN
ACCOUNT, from those who had no quarrel with us on any OTHER ACCOUNT, and who
will always be our enemies on the SAME ACCOUNT. Let Britain wave her
pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and
we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The
miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connexions.
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 round-about way of
proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving
enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever
will be our enemies as AMERICANS, but as our being the SUBJECTS OF GREAT
BRITAIN.
But
Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct.
Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their
families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it
happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase PARENT or MOTHER
COUNTRY hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a
low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of
our minds. Europe, and not
England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum
for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from EVERY PART of
Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but
from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the
same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their
descendants still.
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 NEIGHBOUR; if he meet him but a few miles
from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name
of TOWNSMAN; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any other, he
forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him COUNTRYMAN; i.
e. COUNTY-MAN; but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in
France or any other part of EUROPE, their local remembrance would be enlarged
into that of ENGLISHMEN. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans
meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are COUNTRYMEN; for
England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in
the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and
county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds.
Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English
descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied
to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.
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 any thing; for this continent would never
suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in
either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
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 shew, a single advantage
that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat
the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its
price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for buy
them where we will.
But
the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are without
number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us
to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependance on Great
Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and
quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our
friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe
is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part
of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European
contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependance on Britain, she
is made the make-weight in the scale on 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 last, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be
wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a
safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads
for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘TIS
TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and
America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over
the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the
continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which
it was peopled encreases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the
discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary
to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship
nor safety.
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 offences of Britain, and,
still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “COME, COME, WE SHALL BE
FRIENDS AGAIN, FOR ALL THIS.” But examine the passions and feelings of
mankind, Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and
then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the
power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all
these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin
upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love
nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of
present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched
than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I
ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your
face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to
live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the
ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of
those who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers,
then you are unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and
whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward,
and the spirit of a sycophant.
This
is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings
and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be
incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities
of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but
to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately
some fixed object. It is not in
the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer
herself by DELAY and TIMIDITY. The present winter is worth an age if rightly
employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the
misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he
who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season
so precious and useful.
It
is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things to all examples from
former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject to any
external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost
stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of
separation, which can promise the continent even a year’s security.
Reconciliation is NOW a falacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion,
and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, “never can
true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”
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 noting 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 may we
suppose that nations, which have been once defeated, will never renew the
quarrel.
As
to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent
justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be
managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from
us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot
govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a
petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained
requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon
as folly and childishness—There was a time when it was proper, and there is
a proper time for it to cease.
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 independance; I am clearly, positively, and
conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be
so; that every thing short of THAT is mere patchwork, that it can afford no
lasting felicity,--that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking
back at a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered
this continent the glory of the earth.
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 North, or the whole detestable junto, is a matter
unworthy the millions we have expended. A
temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have
sufficiently ballanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such
repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every
man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a
contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the
acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a
folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I have always
considered the independancy of this continent, as an event, which sooner or
later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to
maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of
hostilities, it was not worth the while to have disputed a matter, which time
would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it
is like wasting an estate on a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a
tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for
reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775,
but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the
hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch,
that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE, can unfeelingly hear of
their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.
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 shewn
himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for
arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies,
“YOU SHALL MAKE NO LAWS BUT WHAT I PLEASE.” And is there any inhabitant in
America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the
PRESENT CONSTITUTION, that this continent can make no laws but what the king
gives it leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that
(considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but
such as suit HIS purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of
laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After
matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole
power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble
as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be
perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. We are already greater
than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavour to make us
less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our
prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says NO to this question is
an INDEPENDANT, for independancy means no more, than, whether we shall make
our own laws, or, whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or
can have, shall tell us, “THERE SHALL BE NO LAWS BUT SUCH AS I LIKE.”
But
the king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make no
laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something
very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall
say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this
or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of
reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only
answer, that England being the King’s residence, and America not so, 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 interferes with it.
A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand government,
considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to friends by
the alteration of a name: And in order to shew that reconciliation NOW is a
dangerous doctrine, I affirm, THAT IT WOULD BE POLICY IN THE KING AT THIS
TIME, TO REPEAL THE ACTS FOR THE SAKE OF REINSTATING HIMSELF IN THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE PROVINCES; in order that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTILITY, 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 independance, i. e. a
continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and
preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation
with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will 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 an independance, fearing that it would produce civil wars. It is but
seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case here;
for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connexion than from
independance. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I
driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances
ruined, that as a 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 head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on
any other grounds, that such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. 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 Swisserland are without wars, foreign or domestic:
Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself
is a temptation to enterprizing ruffians at HOME; and that degree of pride and
insolence ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with
foreign powers, in instances, where a republican government, by being formed
on more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.
If
there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, it is because no plan
is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out—Wherefore, as an opening into
that business, I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly
affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be
the means of giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of
individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and
able men to improve into useful matter.
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 least 390. Each
Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the
delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by
lot, after which, let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from
out of the delegates of THAT province. In the next Congress, let a colony be
taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president
was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen
shall have had their proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into
a law but what is satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of the
Congress to be called a majority. He that will promote discord, under a
government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.
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 impowered 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 comformable to the said charter, to be the
legislators and governors of this continent for the time being: Whose peace
and happiness, may God preserve, Amen.
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 Brute of Britain. Yet
that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be
solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed
on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which
the world may know, that so far as we approve as 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
infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool
deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an
interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some, [*1] Massanello
may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect
together the desperate and discontented, and by assuming to themselves the
powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a
deluge. Should the government of America return again into the hands of
Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a temptation for some
desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief can
Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be done;
and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the
Conqueror. Ye that oppose independance now, ye know not what ye do; ye are
opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government.
There are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to
expel from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred
up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us, the cruelty hath a double guilt, it
is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.
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 whic