                                      1776

                                  COMMON SENSE

                                by Thomas Paine

                               February 14, 1776

INTRODUCTION

  INTRODUCTION



  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 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 is 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 a country desolate with fire and sword,

declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and

extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the

concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling;

of which class, regardless of party censure, is



                                                  THE AUTHOR.



Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.

  OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL. WITH CONCISE

REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION



  SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave

little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only

different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our

wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our

happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter

negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,

the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a

punisher.

  Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its

best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable

one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a

government, which we might expect in a country without government, our

calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by

which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost

innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers

of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and

irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not

being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his

property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he

is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case

advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security

being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows

that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us,

with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all

others.

  In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of

government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some

sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will

then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world.

In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought.

A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man

is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual

solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of

another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united

would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a

wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life

without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he

could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in

the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want

call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death,

for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him

from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be

said to perish than to die.

  Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our

newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of

which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and

government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each

other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will

unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first

difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common

cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each

other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of

establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral

virtue.

  Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the

branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on

public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will

have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by no other

penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man,

by natural right will have a seat.

  But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase

likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will

render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion

as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near,

and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the

convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be

managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are

supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who

appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole

body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing,

it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives,

and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended

to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts,

each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might

never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors,

prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often;

because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with

the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to

the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a

rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish

a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually

and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning

name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of

the governed.

  Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode

rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the

world; here too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom

and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our

ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or

interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of

reason will say, it is right.

  I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature,

which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any thing is,

the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when

disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on

the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the

dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted. When the

world was overrun with tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious

rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and

incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily

demonstrated.

  Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this

advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer,

they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise

the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures.

But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the

nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in

which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another,

and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

  I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing

prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component

parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base

remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new

republican materials.

  First.- The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the

king.

  Secondly.- The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of

the peers.

  Thirdly.- The new republican materials, in the persons of the

commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

  The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people;

wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards

the freedom of the state.

  To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers

reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have

no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

  To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two

things.

  First.- That the king is not to be trusted without being looked

after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the

natural disease of monarchy.

  Secondly.- That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose,

are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.

  But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to

check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the

king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their

other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those

whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

  There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of

monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet

empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.

The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a

king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different

parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole

character to be absurd and useless.

  Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king,

say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf

of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all

the distinctions of an house divided against itself; and though the

expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle

and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction

that words are capable of, when applied to the description of

something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to

be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and

though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind, for this

explanation includes a previous question, viz. How came the king by

a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to

check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither

can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision,

which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist.

  But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or

will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for

as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the

wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to

know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that

will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or,

as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as

they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first

moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed

is supplied by time.

  That the crown is this overbearing part in the English

constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole

consequence merely from being the giver of places pensions is self

evident, wherefore, though we have and wise enough to shut and lock

a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been

foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key.

  The prejudice of Englishmen, in favor of their own government by

king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from national pride

than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some

other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of the

land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of

proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under

the most formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of

Charles the First, hath only made kings more subtle not- more just.

  Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favor of

modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the

constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the

government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in

Turkey.

  An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of

government is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in

a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under

the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of

doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate

prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is

unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favor

of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning

a good one.

  OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION



  MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the

equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance;

the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be

accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh,

ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often

the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though

avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it

generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

  But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly

natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the

distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the

distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but

how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and

distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and

whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

  In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture

chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there

were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into

confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this

last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe.

Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the

first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away

when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

  Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the

Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was

the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the

promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their

deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan by

doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of

sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor

is crumbling into dust!

  As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be

justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended

on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as

declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of

government by kings. All anti-monarchial parts of scripture have

been very smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments, but they

undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their

governments yet to form. Render unto Caesar the things which are

Caesar's is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of

monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were without a

king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

  Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the

creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king.

Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases,

where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered

by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it

was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the

Lords of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous

homage which is paid to the persons of kings he need not wonder, that

the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form

of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.

  Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews,

for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of

that transaction is worth attending to.

  The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon

marched against them with a small army, and victory, through the

divine interposition, decided in his favor. The Jews elate with

success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed

making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy

son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom

only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul

replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you,

THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit;

Gideon doth not decline the honor but denieth their right to give

it; neither doth be compliment them with invented declarations of

his thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with

disaffection to their proper sovereign, the King of Heaven.

  About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again

into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the

idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly

unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of

Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they

came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold

thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king

to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot but observe

that their motives were bad, viz., that they might be like unto

other nations, i.e., the Heathen, whereas their true glory laid in

being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel

when they said, give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the

Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the

people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected

thee, but they have rejected me, THEN I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM.

According to all the works which have done since the day; wherewith

they brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith

they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto

thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest

solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the king that shall

reign over them, i.e., not of any particular king, but the general

manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying

after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference

of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the

words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he

said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over

you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his

chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his

chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of

impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and

captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to read

his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of

his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries

and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the expense and

luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your

fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to

his servants; and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your

vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which

we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices

of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your

maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put

them to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye

shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of

your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU

IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither

do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either

sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high

encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king,

but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless the People

refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will

have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our

king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.

Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before

them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully

bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he

shall sent thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being the

time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your

wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN

ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent

thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the

Lord and Samuel And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy

servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO

OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are

direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the

Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchial government

is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to

believe that there is as much of kingcraft, as priestcraft in

withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For

monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.

  To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession;

and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the

second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition

on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth

could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to

all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent

degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be

far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural

proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature

disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into

ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.

  Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors

than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could

have no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they

might say, "We choose you for our head," they could not, without

manifest injustice to their children, say, "that your children and

your children's children shall reign over ours for ever." Because such

an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next

succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most

wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary

right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once

established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others

from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the

plunder of the rest.

  This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had

an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we

take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first

rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the

principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners of

preeminence in subtlety obtained him the title of chief among

plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his

depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless to purchase their

safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no

idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a

perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and

unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore,

hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take

place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complemental;

but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditionary

history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a

few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently

timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of

the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to

threaten on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for

elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at

first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened,

as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a

convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.

  England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs,

but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones, yet no man in

his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a

very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti,

and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the

natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It

certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend

much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are

any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass

and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor

disturb their devotion.

  Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first?

The question admits but of three answers, viz., either by lot, by

election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it

establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary

succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary,

neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention

it ever should. If the first king of any country was by election, that

likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the

right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first

electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings

for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine

of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam;

and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary

succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in

the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were

subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our

innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as

both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it

unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are

parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most

subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile.

  As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and

that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be

contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English

monarchy will not bear looking into.

  But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary

succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and

wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a

door to the foolish, the wicked; and the improper, it hath in it the

nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign,

and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of

mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world

they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they

have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when

they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and

unfit of any throughout the dominions.

  Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne

is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the

regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity

and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune

happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the

last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a

prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the

follies either of age or infancy.

  The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favor of

hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars;

and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most

barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of

England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned

in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there

have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and

nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes

against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.

  The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of

York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years.

Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought

between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in

his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war

and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are

the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison

to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign

land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry

in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed

him. The parliament always following the strongest side.

  This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not

entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families

were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz., from 1422 to 1489.

  In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that

kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of

government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood

will attend it.

  If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that (in

some countries they have none) and after sauntering away their lives

without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw

from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle

round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business civil and

military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request

for a king, urged this plea "that he may judge us, and go out before

us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is neither a

judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know

what is his business.

  The nearer any government approaches to a republic, the less

business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a

proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith

calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the

name, because the corrupt influence If the crown, by having all the

places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power,

and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican

part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly

as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names

without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the

monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory

in, viz., the liberty of choosing a house of commons from out of their

own body- and it is easy to see that when the republican virtue fails,

slavery ensues. My is the constitution of England sickly, but

because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath

engrossed the commons?

  In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give

away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set

it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be

allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped

into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in

the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

  THOUGHTS OF THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS



 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. 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 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 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 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 the 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 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 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 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,

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 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 subtlety, in the long run, wha he cannot do by

force ans 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 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 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 three hundred ninety. 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* 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.



*Thomas Anello, otherwise Massenello, a fisherman of Naples, who after

spiriting up his countrymen in the public market place, against the

oppression of the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject,

prompted them to revolt, and in the space of a day became king.



  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 mankind.

  OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS

REFLECTIONS



  I HAVE never met with a man, either in England or America, who

hath not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the

countries, would take place one time or other. And there is no

instance in which we have shown less judgment, than in endeavoring

to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent

for independence.

  As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion of

the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general survey

of things and endeavor if possible, to find out the very time. But

we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for the time hath

found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things

prove the fact.

  It is not in numbers but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet

our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the

world. The Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of armed and

disciplined men of any power under Heaven; and is just arrived at that

pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to support

itself, and the whole, who united can accomplish the matter, and

either more, or, less than this, might be fatal in its effects. Our

land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot

be insensible, that Britain would never suffer an American man of

war to be built while the continent remained in her hands. Wherefore

we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in that branch,

than we are now; but the truth is, we should be less so, because the

timber of the country is every day diminishing, and that which will

remain at last, will be far off and difficult to procure.

  Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under

the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more sea port

towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to loose. Our

present numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants, that no

man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and the

necessities of an army create a new trade. Debts we have none; and

whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious

memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled

form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the

purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the

sake of getting a few we acts repealed, and routing the present

ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the

utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a

debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a

thought is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic

of a narrow heart and a peddling politician.

  The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work

be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a debt. A

national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no interest, is in

no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of

one hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of

four millions interest. And as a compensation for her debt, she has

a large navy; America is without a debt, and without a navy; yet for

the twentieth part of the English national debt, could have a navy

as large again. The navy of England is not worth, at this time, more

than three millions and a half sterling.

  The first and second editions of this pamphlet were published

without the following calculations, which are now given as a proof

that the above estimation of the navy is a just one. (See Entick's

naval history, intro. page 56.)

  The charge of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing her

with masts, yards, sails and rigging, together with a proportion of

eight months boatswain's and carpenter's sea-stores, as calculated

by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the navy, is as follows:



       For a ship of 100 guns          L35,553

                      90                29,886

                      80                23,638

                      70                17,785

                      60                14,197

                      50                10,606

                      40                 7,558

                      30                 5,846

                      20                 3,710



  And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather, of

the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was as its

greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns:



   Ships        Guns       Cost of one      Cost of all

      6         100          L35,533          L213,318

     12          90           29,886           358,632

     12          80           23,638           283,656

     43          70           17,785           746,755

     35          60           14,197           496,895

     40          50           10,606           424,240

     45          40            7,758           344,110

     58          20            3,710           215,180

     85 Sloops, bombs, and

        and fireships, one

        another,               2,000           170,000

                                             ---------

                                Cost         3,266,786

                    Remains for guns           229,214

                                             ---------

                               Total         3,500,000





  No country on the globe is so happily situated, so internally

capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and

cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing.

Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of

war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the

materials they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an

article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this country.

It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth

more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy, in which

commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not,

we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready

gold and silver.

  In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great

errors; it is not necessary that one-fourth part should be sailors.

The privateer Terrible, Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of

any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, though her

complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and social

sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landsmen in

the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more capable

to begin on maritime matters than now, while our timber is standing,

our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of

employ. Men of war of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years

ago in New England, and why not the same now? Ship building is

America's greatest pride, and in which, she will in time excel the

whole world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and

consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is

in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe, hath either such an

extent or coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature

hath given the one, she has withheld the other; to America only hath

she been liberal of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out

from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and

cordage are only articles of commerce.

  In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are not the

little people now, which we were sixty years ago; at that time we

might have trusted our property in the streets, or fields rather;

and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The

case now is altered, and our methods of defence ought to improve

with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago,

might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia

under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased; and the same

might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig

of fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the whole Continent,

and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which

demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.

  Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it up with Britain,

she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that she shall

keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense will tell

us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all

others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected

under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and

brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships

are not to be admitted into our harbors, I would ask, how is she to

protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little

use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all. Wherefore, if we must

hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it

for another?

  The English list of ships of war is long and formidable, but not a

tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service, numbers of

them not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the

list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part, of

such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one

time. The East, and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other

parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon

her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have

contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have

talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once,

and for that reason, supposed that we must have one as large; which

not being instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of

disguised tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be

farther from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part

of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an over match for

her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion,

our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we should,

in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had

three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack

us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And

although Britain by her fleet, hath a check over our trade to

Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West Indies,

which, by laying in the neighborhood of the Continent, is entirely

at its mercy.

  Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of

peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant navy.

If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in

their service, ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty

guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the

merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guard ships on

constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without

burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in

England, of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting

in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defence is sound

policy; for when our strength and our riches, play into each other's

hand, we need fear no external enemy.

  In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes even

to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is superior to

that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world.

Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every

day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our

inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore,

what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we

can expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government

of America again, this Continent will not be worth living in.

Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be constantly

happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his

life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The

difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some

unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a British government, and

fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate

Continental matters.

  Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others, is,

that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet unoccupied,

which instead of being lavished by the king on his worthless

dependents, may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the

present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation

under heaven hath such an advantage as this.

  The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being

against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are

sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united.

It is a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is

peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the

ancients far exceeded the moderns: and the reason is evident, for

trade being the consequence of population, men become too much

absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the

spirit, both of patriotism and military defence. And history

sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always

accomplished in the non-age of a nation. With the increase of commerce

England hath lost its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding

its numbers, submits to continued insults with the patience of a

coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to

venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly

power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.

  Youth is the seed-time of good habits, as well in nations as in

individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the

Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast variety

of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would

create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able

might scorn each other's assistance: and while the proud and foolish

gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would lament that the

union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is the

true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in

infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune, are, of all

others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is

marked with both these characters: we are young, and we have been

distressed; but our concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a

memorable area for posterity to glory in.

  The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never

happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into a

government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that

means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors,

instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and

then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of

government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute

them afterwards: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn

wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity- to begin government

at the right end.

  When William the Conqueror subdued England he gave them law at the

point of the sword; and until we consent that the seat of government

in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in

danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us

in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom? where our

property?

  As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all

government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I

know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a

man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of

principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to

part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head.

Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good

society. For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is

the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of

religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our

Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our

religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this

liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be

like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called

their Christian names.

  Earlier in this work, I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety

of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not

plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of rementioning the

subject, by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond of

solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right

of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or

property, A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends.

  In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and

equal representation; and there is no political matter which more

deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small

number of representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of

the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is

increased. As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the

Associators petition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania;

twenty-eight members only were present, all the Bucks County

members, being eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester

members done the same, this whole province had been governed by two

counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The

unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their last

sitting, to gain an undue authority over the delegates of that

province, ought to warn the people at large, how they trust power

out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the Delegates were

put together, which in point of sense and business would have

dishonored a school-boy, and after being approved by a few, a very few

without doors, were carried into the house, and there passed in behalf

of the whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know, with what

ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures,

they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a

trust.

  Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued

would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different

things. When the calamities of America required a consultation,

there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint

persons from the several Houses of Assembly for that purpose and the

wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved this continent

from ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall never be

without a Congress, every well-wisher to good order, must own, that

the mode for choosing members of that body, deserves consideration.

And I put it as a question to those, who make a study of mankind,

whether representation and election is not too great a power for one

and the same body of men to possess? When we are planning for

posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.

  It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims, and

are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr. Cornwall

(one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the petition of the New

York Assembly with contempt, because that House, he said, consisted

but of twenty-six members, which trifling number, he argued, could not

with decency be put for the whole. We thank him for his involuntary

honesty.*



*Those who would fully understand of what great consequence a large

and equal representation is to a state, should read Burgh's

political Disquisitions.



  To conclude: However strange it may appear to some, or however

unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong and

striking reasons may be given, to show, that nothing can settle our

affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for

independence. Some of which are:

  First. It is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for

some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as

mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace: but while

America calls herself the subject of Great Britain, no power,

however well disposed she may be, can offer her mediation.

Wherefore, in our present state we may quarrel on for ever.

  Secondly. It is unreasonable to suppose, that France or Spain will

give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only to make use of that

assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and

strengthening the connection between Britain and America; because,

those powers would be sufferers by the consequences.

  Thirdly. While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain, we

must, in the eye of foreign nations, be considered as rebels. The

precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to be in

arms under the name of subjects; we on the spot, can solve the

paradox: but to unite resistance and subjection, requires an idea much

too refined for common understanding.

  Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched to

foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured, and the

peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress; declaring,

at the same time, that not being able, any longer to live happily or

safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had been

driven to the necessity of breaking off all connection with her; at

the same time assuring all such courts of our peaceable disposition

towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them. Such

a memorial would produce more good effects to this Continent, than

if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.

  Under our present denomination of British subjects we can neither be

received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts is against us, and

will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other

nations.

  These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult; but,

like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a

little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an

independence is declared, the continent will feel itself like a man

who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day,

yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over,

and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.

APPENDIX

  APPENDIX



  SINCE the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or

rather, on the same day on which it came out, the king's speech made

its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the

birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth, at a

more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The

bloody-mindedness of the one, show the necessity of pursuing the

doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the speech

instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of

independence.

  Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise,

have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of

countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this

maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king's speech, as

being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a

general execration both by the congress and the people. Yet as the

domestic tranquility of a nation, depends greatly on the chastity of

what may properly be called national manners, it is often better, to

pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such

new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on

that guardian of our peace and safety. And perhaps, it is chiefly

owing to this prudent delicacy, that the king's speech, hath not

before now, suffered a public execution. The speech if it may be

called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against

the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a

formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride

of tyrants. But this general massacre of mankind, is one of the

privileges, and the certain consequences of kings; for as nature knows

them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of our own

creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their creators.

The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not

calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived

by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at

no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that

He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is

less a savage than the king of Britain.

  Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical

piece, fallaciously called, The address of the people of ENGLAND to

the inhabitants of America, hath, perhaps from a vain supposition,

that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp and description

of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his part) the real

character of the present one: "But," says this writer, "if you are

inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not

complain of," (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the repeal of

the Stamp Act) "it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that

prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were permitted to do anything." This

is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And

he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his

claim to rationality an apostate from the order of manhood; and

ought to be considered- as one, who hath, not only given up the proper

dignity of a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and

contemptibly crawl through the world like a worm.

  However, it matters very little now, what the king of England either

says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human

obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by

a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty,

procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of

America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young

family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be

granting away her property, to support a power who is become a

reproach to the names of men and Christians. Ye, whose office it is to

watch over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or

denomination ye are of, as well as ye, who are more immediately the

guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native

country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret

wish a separation But leaving the moral part to private reflection,

I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following heads:

  First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from

Britain.

  Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,

reconciliation or independence? with some occasional remarks.

  In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the

opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this

continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly

known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in a

state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped

and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any

material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and

although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the

history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what

she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have,

the legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time,

proudly coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it;

and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin

if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by

which England is to be benefited, and that would in a great measure

continue, were the countries as independent of each other as France

and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a better

market. But it is the independence of this country on Britain or any

other which is now the main and only object worthy of contention,

and which, like all other truths discovered by necessity, will

appear clearer and stronger every day.

  First. Because it will come to that one time or other.

  Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it will be

to accomplish.

  I have frequently amused myself both in public and private

companies, with silently remarking the spacious errors of those who

speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the

following seems the most general, viz., that had this rupture happened

forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the Continent would have

been more able to have shaken off the dependance. To which I reply,

that our military ability at this time, arises from the experience

gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years time,

would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by that

time, have had a General, or even a military officer left; and we,

or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial

matters as the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely

attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is

preferable to all others: The argument turns thus- at the conclusion

of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and forty or

fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience;

wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point

between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former

remains, and a proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that

point of time is the present time.

  The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come

under the head I first set out with, and to which I again return by

the following position, viz.:

  Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain the

governing and sovereign power of America, (which as matters are now

circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive

ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have or may

contract. The value of the back lands which some of the provinces

are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extension of the limits

of Canada, valued only at five pounds sterling per hundred acres,

amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania currency;

and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions

yearly.

  It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk,

without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always

lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expense of

government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that the

lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the

execution of which, the Congress for the time being, will be the

continental trustees.

  I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the earliest and

most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? with some

occasional remarks.

  He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his

argument, and on that ground, I answer generally- That INDEPENDENCE

being a SINGLE SIMPLE LINE, contained within ourselves; and

reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in

which, a treacherous capricious court is to interfere, gives the

answer without a doubt.

  The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is

capable of reflection. Without law, without government, without any

other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by

courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment,

which is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret

enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is,

legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without

a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence

contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the

case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The

property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things.

The mind of the multitude is left at random, and feeling no fixed

object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts.

Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore,

every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The tories

dared not to have assembled offensively, had they known that their

lives, by that act were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line

of distinction should be drawn, between English soldiers taken in

battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are

prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty the

other his head.

  Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of

our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The

Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not

done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall

into a state, in which, neither reconciliation nor independence will

be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at

their old game of dividing the continent, and there are not wanting

among us printers, who will be busy spreading specious falsehoods. The

artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in

two of the New York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence

that there are men who want either judgment or honesty.

  It is easy getting into holes and corners and talking of

reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how difficult

the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent

divide thereon. Do they take within their view, all the various orders

of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are to

be considered therein. Do they put themselves in the place of the

sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who hath

quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill judged

moderation be suited to their own private situations only,

regardless of others, the event will convince them, that "they are

reckoning without their Host."

  Put us, says some, on the footing we were in the year 1763: To which

I answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply

with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should

be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a

corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another

parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the

obligation, on the pretence of its being violently obtained, or

unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress? No going

to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of crowns; and the

sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the

footing of 1763, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on

the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the

same state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our

private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence)

discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that

enviable period. Such a request had it been complied with a year

ago, would have won the heart and soul of the continent- but now it is

too late, "the Rubicon is passed."

  Besides the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a

pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as

repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce

obedience thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the

ways and means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast

away on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and

threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed

force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which

conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: And the instant, in which

such a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain

ought to have ceased; and the independency of America should have been

considered, as dating its area from, and published by, the first

musket that was fired against her. This line is a line of consistency;

neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by

a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the authors.

  I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well

intended hints, We ought to reflect, that there are three different

ways by which an independency may hereafter be effected; and that

one of those three, will one day or other, be the fate of America,

viz. By the legal voice of the people in congress; by a military

power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are

citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I

have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual.

Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means,

we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form

the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have

it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to

the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The

birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men perhaps as

numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of

freedom from the event of a few months. The reflection is awful- and

in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little,

paltry cavillings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when

weighed against the business of a world.

  Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and

an independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we must

charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose

narrow and prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure,

without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be

given in support of Independence, which men should rather privately

think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating

whether we shall be independent or not, but, anxious to accomplish

it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it

is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even

the tories (if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be

the most solicitous to promote it; for, as the appointment of

committees at first, protected them from popular rage, so, a wise

and well established form of government, will be the only certain

means of continuing it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have not

virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to

wish for independence.

  In short, independence is the only bond that can tie and keep us

together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally

shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy.

We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain;

for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be

less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace,

than with those, whom she denominates, "rebellious subjects," for

terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to

hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war.

As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to

obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by

independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the

trade. The mercantile and reasonable part of England will be still

with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it.

And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to.

  On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been

made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this

pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be

refuted, or, that the party in favor of it are too numerous to be

opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or

doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the

hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an

act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former

dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none

other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and

resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and

of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.

  EPISTLE TO QUAKERS



  To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called

Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing a

late piece, entitled "THE ANCIENT TESTIMONY and PRINCIPLES of the

people called QUAKERS renewed with respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT,

and Touching the COMMOTIONS now prevailing in these and other parts of

AMERICA, addressed to the PEOPLE IN GENERAL."



  THE writer of this is one of those few, who never dishonors religion

either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever.

To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score of

religion. Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to

you as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling in matters,

which the professed quietude of your Principles instruct you not to

meddle with.

  As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves

in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of this,

in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the

necessity, of putting himself in the place of all those who approve

the very writings and principles, against which your testimony is

directed: And he hath chosen their singular situation, in order that

you might discover in him, that presumption of character which you

cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you have any claim or

title to Political Representation.

  When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they

stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have

managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is

not your proper walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you,

it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together,

and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.

  The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give

you credit for, and expect the same civility from you, because the

love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the

natural, as well as the religious wish of all denominations of men.

And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an Independent

Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and

aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with

Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We

act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and

uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of the present

day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to

separate and dissolve a connection which hath already filled our

land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be

the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both countries.

  We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor

passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies,

nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines

are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the

violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the characters

of highwaymen and housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves

in the civil law; are obliged to punish them by the military one,

and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now,

applied the halter. Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted

sufferers in all and every part of the continent, and with a degree of

tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your bosoms.

But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your

Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put the bigot in

the place of the Christian.

  O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles! If the

bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all

the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence.

  Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make

a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince the world

thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they

likewise bear ARMS. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it

at St. James's, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the

admirals and captains who are practically ravaging our coasts, and

to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under

HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay* ye

would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the royal tyrant

of his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your

partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but like

faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye

are persecuted, neither endeavor to make us the authors of that

reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify

unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are

Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT Quakers.



*"Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity; thou knowest what it

is to be banished thy native country, to be overruled as well as to

rule, and set upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast reason to

know now hateful the oppressor is both to God and man. If after all

these warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord

with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy

distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely

great will be thy condemnation. Against which snare, as well as the

temptation of those who may or do feed thee, and prompt thee to

evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will be, to apply

thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience and

which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at

ease in thy sins."- Barclay's Address to Charles II.



  Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your

Testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin was

reduced to, and comprehended in the act of bearing arms, and that by

the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for

conscience, because the general tenor of your actions wants

uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to

many of your pretended scruples; because we see them made by the

same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against

the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a

step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.

  The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of

your testimony, that, "when a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh

even his enemies to be at peace with him;" is very unwisely chosen

on your part; because it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways

(whom ye are so desirous of supporting) do not please the Lord,

otherwise, his reign would be in peace.

  I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for

which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz:

  "It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were

called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our

consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down

kings and governments, is God's peculiar prerogative; for causes

best known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any

hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy-bodies above our

station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn any of

them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good

of all men: that we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all

goodliness and honesty; under the government which God is pleased to

set over us." If these are really your principles why do ye not

abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God's work,

to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait

with patience and humility, for the event of all public measures,

and to receive that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore,

what occasion is there for your political Testimony if you fully

believe what it contains? And the very publishing it proves, that

either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough

to practice what ye believe.

  The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the

quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government which is

set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and

governments is God's peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will

not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself leads you

to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to kings

as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died not

by the hands of man; and should the present proud imitator of him,

come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the

Testimony, are bound by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact.

Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in

governments brought about by any other means than such as are common

and human; and such as we are now using. Even the dispersing of the

Jews, though foretold by our Savior, was effected by arms.

Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one side, ye ought not to

be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in silence; and unless

you can produce divine authority, to prove, that the Almighty who hath

created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance it could

possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth,

nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and

abandoned court of Britain; unless I say, ye can show this, how can

ye, on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and

stirring up of the people "firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all

such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire and design to

break off the happy connection we have hitherto enjoyed, with the

kingdom of Great Britain, and our just and necessary subordination

to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in authority under

him." What a slap in the face is here! the men, who, in the very

paragraph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering,

altering, and disposal of kings and governments, into the hands of

God, are now recalling their principles, and putting in for a share of

the business. Is it possible, that the conclusion, which is here

justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The

inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great

not to be laughed at; and such as could only have been made by

those, whose understandings were darkened by the narrow and crabby

spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are not to be

considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional

and fractional part thereof.

  Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no

man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of

fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; "That the setting up

and putting down of kings," most certainly mean, the making him a

king, who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is already

one. And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We neither

mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but

to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore your testimony in

whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgment, and

for many other reasons had better have been let alone than published.

  First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of religion

whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party

in political disputes.

  Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow

the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and

approvers thereof.

  Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental harmony

and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and charitable

donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of

which, is of the utmost consequence to us all.

  And here, without anger or resentment I bid you farewell.

Sincerely wishing, that as men and Christians, ye may always fully and

uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your

turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which

ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be

disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.





                                 -THE END-

.

