<SPAN name="startofbook"></SPAN>
<h1> COMMON SENSE; </h1>
<p class="noindent center">
<span class="smcap">addressed to the</span></p>
<p class="noindent center xl">
INHABITANTS</p>
<p class="noindent center">
<span class="smcap">of</span></p>
<p class="noindent center xl">
AMERICA,</p>
<p class="noindent center">
On the following interesting
<br/></p>
<div>
<SPAN name="Contents" id="Contents"></SPAN>
<h2> SUBJECTS </h2></div>
<ol>
<li><SPAN href="#origin">
Of the Origin and Design of Government in general,<br/>
with concise Remarks on the English Constitution.</SPAN>
</li>
<li>
<SPAN href="#monarchy">
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession</SPAN>
</li>
<li>
<SPAN href="#thoughts">
Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs</SPAN>
</li>
<li>
<SPAN href="#ability">
Of the present Ability of America, with some<br/>
miscellaneous Reflections</SPAN>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p>A new edition, with several additions in the body
of the work. To which is added an
<span class="smcap"><SPAN href="#appendix">appendix</SPAN></span>;
together with an <SPAN href="#quakers">address to the people
called Quakers</SPAN>.</p>
<hr />
<p class="noindent" style="margin-left:10%;">
<span style="margin-left:-1em;">Man knows no Master save creating <span class="smcap">Heaven</span></span><br/>
<span style="margin-left:-1em;">Or those whom choice and common good ordain.</span></p>
<p class="right smcap">
Thomson.</p>
<hr />
<hr />
<p class="noindent center large">
PHILADELPHIA</p>
<p class="noindent center">
Printed and sold by W. & T. Bradford, February 14, 1776.</p>
<hr class="break" />
<p class="noindent center large">
MDCCLXXVI</p>
<p><br/></p>
<hr />
<p><br/></p>
<h1>Common Sense</h1>
<h2>By Thomas Paine</h2>
<p><br/><br/><br/><br/></p>
<div>
<SPAN name="intro" id="intro"></SPAN>
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_1" id="Page_1">1</SPAN></span>
<h2> <SPAN href="#Contents">INTRODUCTION.</SPAN> </h2></div>
<p><span class="smcap">Perhaps</span> the sentiments contained in the
following pages, are not <em>yet</em> sufficiently fashionable to
procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing
<em>wrong</em>, gives it a superficial appearance of being
<em>right</em>, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense
of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts
than reason.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_2" id="Page_2">2</SPAN></span>
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 <em>own Right</em>,
to support the Parliament in what he calls <em>Theirs</em>, and as the good
people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination,
they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of
both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_3" id="Page_3">3</SPAN></span>
In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing
which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to
individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not
the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious,
or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are
bestowed upon their conversion.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_4" id="Page_4">4</SPAN></span>
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.
Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but
universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind
are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are
interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword,
declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and
extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the
Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of
which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the</p>
<p class="right">AUTHOR</p>
<p>P.S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a
View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute
the Doctrine of Independance: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now
presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a
Performance ready for the Public being considerably past.</p>
<p>Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the
Public, as the Object for Attention is the <em>Doctrine itself</em>, not the
<em>Man</em>. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with
any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the
influence of reason and principle.</p>
<p><i>Philadelphia, February 14, 1776</i>
<br/><br/><br/></p>
<div>
<SPAN name="origin" id="origin"></SPAN>
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_5" id="Page_5">5</SPAN></span>
<h2> <SPAN href="#Contents"> OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL,<br/> WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION.</SPAN> </h2></div>
<p><span class="smcap">Some</span> 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 <em>positively</em> by uniting
our affections, the latter <em>negatively</em> by restraining our
vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates
distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_6" id="Page_6">6</SPAN></span>
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 <em>by a
government</em>, which we might expect in a country <em>without
government</em>, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we
furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the
badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of
the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear,
uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver;
but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a
part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest;
and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other
case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. <em>Wherefore</em>,
security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably
follows that whatever <em>form</em> thereof appears most likely to
ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is
preferable to all others.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_7" id="Page_7">7</SPAN></span>
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
<em>one</em> man might labour out of 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_8" id="Page_8">8</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_9" id="Page_9">9</SPAN></span>
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 <span class="smcap">Regulations</span>, and be enforced by
no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every
man, by natural right, will have a seat.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_10" id="Page_10">10</SPAN></span>
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 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 <em>elected</em> might never form to themselves an interest
separate from the <em>electors</em>, prudence will point out the
propriety of having elections often; because as the <em>elected</em>
might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the
<em>electors</em> in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be
secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves.
And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with
every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support
each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends
the <em>strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.</em></p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_11" id="Page_11">11</SPAN></span>
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 show, 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_12" id="Page_12">12</SPAN></span>
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature,
which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the
less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when
disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the
so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the
dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the
world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a
glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and
incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_13" id="Page_13">13</SPAN></span>
Absolute governments (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this
advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they
know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the
remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But
the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation
may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which
part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and
every political physician will advise a different medicine.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_14" id="Page_14">14</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_15" id="Page_15">15</SPAN></span>
<em>First.</em>—The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of
the king.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_16" id="Page_16">16</SPAN></span>
<em>Secondly.</em>—The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the
persons of the peers.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_17" id="Page_17">17</SPAN></span>
<em>Thirdly.</em>—The new republican materials, in the persons of
the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_18" id="Page_18">18</SPAN></span>
The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people;
wherefore in a <em>constitutional sense</em> they contribute nothing
towards the freedom of the state.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_19" id="Page_19">19</SPAN></span>
To say that the constitution of England is a <em>union</em> of three
powers reciprocally <em>checking</em> each other, is farcical, either
the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_20" id="Page_20">20</SPAN></span>
To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two
things:</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_21" id="Page_21">21</SPAN></span>
<em>First.</em>—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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_22" id="Page_22">22</SPAN></span>
<em>Secondly.</em>—That the commons, by being appointed for
that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than
the crown.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_23" id="Page_23">23</SPAN></span>
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!</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_24" id="Page_24">24</SPAN></span>
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of
monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet
empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.
The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a
king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts,
by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole
character to be absurd and useless.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_25" id="Page_25">25</SPAN></span>
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 a house divided against itself; and though the
expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle
and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction
that words are capable of, when applied to the description of some
thing which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be
within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and
though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind, for this
explanation includes a previous question, viz. <em>How came the king
by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to
check?</em> Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither
can any power, <em>which needs checking</em>, be from God; yet the
provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_26" id="Page_26">26</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_27" id="Page_27">27</SPAN></span>
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution
needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence
merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident,
wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door
against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish
enough to put the crown in possession of the key.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_28" id="Page_28">28</SPAN></span>
The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government by king,
lords and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than
reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some
other countries, but the <em>will</em> of the king is as much the
<em>law</em> of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference,
that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the
people under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For
the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more
subtle—not more just.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_29" id="Page_29">29</SPAN></span>
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of
modes and forms, the plain truth is, that <em>it is wholly owing to the
constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the
government</em> that the crown is not as oppressive in England as
in Turkey.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_30" id="Page_30">30</SPAN></span>
An inquiry into the <em>constitutional errors</em> in the English form
of government is at this time highly necessary, for as we are never in a
proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under
the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of
doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate
prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted
to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten
constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.
<br/><br/><br/></p>
<div>
<SPAN name="monarchy"></SPAN>
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_31" id="Page_31">31</SPAN></span>
<h2> <SPAN href="#Contents">OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION.</SPAN> </h2></div>
<p><span class="smcap">Mankind</span> 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
<em>consequence</em>, but seldom or never the <em>means</em> of riches;
and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor,
it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_32" id="Page_32">32</SPAN></span>
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 <span class="smcap">kings</span> and
<span class="smcap">subjects</span>. 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_33" id="Page_33">33</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_34" id="Page_34">34</SPAN></span>
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!</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_35" id="Page_35">35</SPAN></span>
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified
on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the
authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by
Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by
kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly
glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the
attention of countries which have their governments yet to form.
“<i>Render unto Cæsar the things which are
Cæsar’s</i>” is the scripture doctrine of courts,
yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that
time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_36" id="Page_36">36</SPAN></span>
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 administred by
a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it
was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the
Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous
homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder,
that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of
a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative
of heaven.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_37" id="Page_37">37</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_38" id="Page_38">38</SPAN></span>
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon
marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro’
the divine interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews elate
with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon,
proposed making him a king, saying, <em>Rule thou over us, thou
and thy son and thy son’s son.</em> Here was temptation in
its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one,
but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, <em>I will not rule
over you, neither shall my son rule over you.</em>
<span class="smcap">The Lord shall rule over you.</span>
Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not
<em>decline</em> the honor, but denieth their right to give it;
neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his
thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with
disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_39" id="Page_39">39</SPAN></span>
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, <i>Behold thou art old, and thy
sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all
other nations.</i> And here we cannot but observe that their motives
were bad, viz. that they might be <em>like</em> unto other nations, i.e.
the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much <em>unlike</em>
them as possible. <em>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</em>, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM.
<i>According to all the works which they have done since the day that I
brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have
forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore
hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and shew
them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e.</i>
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. <i>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</i> (this description agrees
with the present mode of impressing men) <i>and he will appoint him
captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them
to ear his ground and to reap 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</i> (this describes
the expence and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) <i>and he will
take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them
to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your feed, and of your
vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants</i> (by which
we see that bribery, corruption and favoritism are the standing vices
of kings) <i>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,</i> <span class="smcap">and the Lord will not hear
you in that day</span>. 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 <em>officially as a
king</em>, but only as a <em>man</em> after God’s own heart.
<i>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.</i> 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>I will call unto the Lord,
and he shall send thunder and rain</i> (which then was a punishment,
being in the time of wheat harvest) <i>that ye may perceive and see that
your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord,</i>
<span class="smcap">in asking you a king</span>. <i>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</i>
<span class="smcap">we have added unto our sins this evil, to ask a
king.</span> These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They
admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his
protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is
false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of
king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the public
in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of
government.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_40" id="Page_40">40</SPAN></span>
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 <em>one</em> by
<em>birth</em> could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual
preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve
<em>some</em> decent degree of honors of his cotemporaries, yet his
descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the
strongest <em>natural</em> 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
<em>ass for a lion</em>.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_41" id="Page_41">41</SPAN></span>
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 <em>our</em> head,” they could not,
without manifest injustice to their children, say “that your
children and your children’s children shall reign over <em>ours</em>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_42" id="Page_42">42</SPAN></span>
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an
honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take
off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first
rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the
principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or
pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief among
plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his
depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their
safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no
idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a
perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and
unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore,
hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take
place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complimental;
but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditional
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_43" id="Page_43">43</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_44" id="Page_44">44</SPAN></span>
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 <i>right</i>
of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first
electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings
for ever, hath no parrallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of
original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from
such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession
can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first
electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to
Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in
the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from
reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows
that original sin and hereditary succession are parellels.
Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion! Yet the most subtile sophist
cannot produce a juster simile.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_45" id="Page_45">45</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_46" id="Page_46">46</SPAN></span>
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 <em>foolish</em>, the <em>wicked</em>, and the
<em>improper</em>, 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_47" id="Page_47">47</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_48" id="Page_48">48</SPAN></span>
The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of
hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars;
and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most
barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of
England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in
that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have
been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and
nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes
against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_49" id="Page_49">49</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_50" id="Page_50">50</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_51" id="Page_51">51</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_52" id="Page_52">52</SPAN></span>
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 <em>is</em>
his business.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_53" id="Page_53">53</SPAN></span>
The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business
there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name
for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a
republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because
the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its
disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the
virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the
constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical
as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without
understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical
part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the
liberty of choosing a house of commons from out of their own body—and
it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues.
Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath
poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_54" id="Page_54">54</SPAN></span>
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.
<br/><br/><br/></p>
<div>
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_55" id="Page_55">55</SPAN></span>
<SPAN name="thoughts"></SPAN>
<h2> <SPAN href="#Contents"> THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS.</SPAN> </h2></div>
<p><span class="smcap">In</span> 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 <em>on</em>, or rather that
he will not put <em>off</em>, the true character of a man, and generously
enlarge his views beyond the present day.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_56" id="Page_56">56</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_57" id="Page_57">57</SPAN></span>
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 “<i>they will last my time.</i>” 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_58" id="Page_58">58</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_59" id="Page_59">59</SPAN></span>
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new æra for politics
is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals,
&c. prior to the nineteenth of April, <i>i.e.</i> to the commencement
of hostilities, are like the almanacks 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_60" id="Page_60">60</SPAN></span>
As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like
an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but
right, that we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and
inquire into some of the many material injuries which these colonies
sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with, and
dependant on Great-Britain. To examine that connexion and dependance,
on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to
trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependant.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_61" id="Page_61">61</SPAN></span>
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under
her former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same connexion is
necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same
effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We
may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it
is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is
to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting
more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have
flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had
any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched
herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market
while eating is the custom of Europe.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_62" id="Page_62">62</SPAN></span>
But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed us is true,
and defended the continent at our expence as well as her own is
admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz.
the sake of trade and dominion.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_63" id="Page_63">63</SPAN></span>
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 <em>interest</em>
not <em>attachment</em>; that she did not protect us from <em>our enemies</em>
on <em>our account</em>, but from <em>her enemies</em> on <em>her own
account</em>, from those who had no quarrel with us on any <em>other
account</em>, and who will always be our enemies on the <em>same
account</em>. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the
continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France
and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war
ought to warn us against connexions.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_64" id="Page_64">64</SPAN></span>
It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no
relation to each other but through the parent country, <i>i.e.</i> that
Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister
colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about
way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of
proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were,
nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as <em>Americans</em>, but as our
being the <em>subjects of Great-Britain</em>.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_65" id="Page_65">65</SPAN></span>
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 <em>parent</em> or <em>mother country</em> hath been jesuitically
adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of
gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe,
and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath
been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty
from <em>every part</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_66" id="Page_66">66</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_67" id="Page_67">67</SPAN></span>
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 <em>neighbour</em>; 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
<em>townsman</em>; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in
any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls
him <em>countryman</em>, i.e. <em>county-man</em>; but if in their
foreign excursions they should associate in France or any other part of
<em>Europe</em>, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of
<em>Englishmen</em>. And by a just parity of reasoning,
all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe,
are <em>countrymen</em>; 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_68" id="Page_68">68</SPAN></span>
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; therefore, by the same method of
reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_69" id="Page_69">69</SPAN></span>
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies,
that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is
mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the
expressions mean any thing; for this continent would never suffer
itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in
either Asia, Africa, or Europe.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_70" id="Page_70">70</SPAN></span>
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 <em>free port</em>. Her trade will always be a
protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_71" id="Page_71">71</SPAN></span>
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a single
advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great
Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived.
Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported
goods must be paid for buy them where we will.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_72" id="Page_72">72</SPAN></span>
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are
without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to
ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any
submission to, or dependance on Great-Britain, tends directly to
involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at
variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and
against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our
market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part
of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European
contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependence on
Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_73" id="Page_73">73</SPAN></span>
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, <em>because of her connection with
Britain</em>. The next war may not turn out like the last, and should
it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for
separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer
convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads
for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature
cries, <span class="smcap">’Tis time to part</span>. Even the
distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a
strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other,
was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the
continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and
the manner in which it was peopled encreases the force of it. The
reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the
Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in
future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_74" id="Page_74">74</SPAN></span>
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
<em>this government</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_75" id="Page_75">75</SPAN></span>
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 <em>cannot</em>
see; prejudiced men, who <em>will not</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_76" id="Page_76">76</SPAN></span>
It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of
sorrow; the evil is not sufficient brought to <em>their</em> doors to
make <em>them</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_77" id="Page_77">77</SPAN></span>
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of
Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “<i>Come,
come, we shall be friends again, for all this.</i>” But examine the
passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the doctrine of reconciliation
to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can
hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried
fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are
you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon
posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither
love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on
the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a
relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still
pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath
your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and
children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you
lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and
wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those
who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the
murderers, then are you unworthy of the name of husband, father,
friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you
have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_78" id="Page_78">78</SPAN></span>
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 <em>delay</em> and <em>timidity</em>. 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_79" id="Page_79">79</SPAN></span>
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things to all
examples from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer
remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain
does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this
time, compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the
continent even a year’s security. Reconciliation is <em>now</em>
a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion, and Art cannot
supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, “never can true
reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_80" id="Page_80">80</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_81" id="Page_81">81</SPAN></span>
To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we
thought so at the repeal of the stamp-act, yet a year or two undeceived
us; as well may we suppose that nations, which have been once defeated,
will never renew the quarrel.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_82" id="Page_82">82</SPAN></span>
As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this
continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and
intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a
power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they
cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three
or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five
months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to
explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and
childishness—There was a time when it was proper, and there is a
proper time for it to cease.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_83" id="Page_83">83</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_84" id="Page_84">84</SPAN></span>
I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse
the doctrine of separation and independance; I am clearly, positively,
and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this
continent to be so; that every thing short of <em>that</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_85" id="Page_85">85</SPAN></span>
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 expence of blood
and treasure we have been already put to.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_86" id="Page_86">86</SPAN></span>
The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to
the expence. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junto, is a
matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of
trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently ballanced the
repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained;
but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a
soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible
ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts,
if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a
folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I have
always considered the independancy of this continent, as an event,
which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of
the continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore,
on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth the while to have
disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we
meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an estate on a
suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is
just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than
myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775, but the moment the
event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen
tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with
the pretended title of <span class="smcap">father of his people</span>
can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with
their blood upon his soul.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_87" id="Page_87">87</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_88" id="Page_88">88</SPAN></span>
<em>First</em>. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands
of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this
continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to
liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is
he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, “<em>You shall make no
laws but what I please.</em>” And is there any inhabitant in America
so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the
<em>present constitution</em>, 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 <em>his</em> purpose. We may be as
effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to
laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called)
can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted,
to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going
forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously
petitioning.—We are already greater than the king wishes us to be,
and will he not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the
matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a
proper power to govern us? Whoever says <em>No</em> to this question is
an <em>independant</em>, for independancy means no more, than, whether
we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this
continent hath, or can have, shall tell us “<em>there shall be no laws
but such as I like.</em>”</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_89" id="Page_89">89</SPAN></span>
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, makes
quite another case. The king’s negative <em>here</em> is ten times
more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for <em>there</em>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_90" id="Page_90">90</SPAN></span>
America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics,
England consults the good of <em>this</em> country, no farther than it
answers her <em>own</em> purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads
her to suppress the growth of <em>ours</em> in every case which doth
not promote her advantage, or in the least interferes with it. A
pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand government,
considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to
friends by the alteration of a name: And in order to shew that
reconciliation <em>now</em> is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, <em>that
it would be policy in the king at this time, to repeal the acts for
the sake of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces;</em>
in order, that <span class="smcap">he may accomplish by craft and
subtilty, in the long run, what he cannot do by force and violence in
the short one.</span> Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_91" id="Page_91">91</SPAN></span>
<em>Secondly</em>. 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 dispense of their effects, and quit the continent.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_92" id="Page_92">92</SPAN></span>
But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but
independance, i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the
peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I
dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more
than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other,
the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of
Britain.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_93" id="Page_93">93</SPAN></span>
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 <em>now</em> possess is liberty,
what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having
nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general
temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will be like that
of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will care very little
about her. And a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no
government at all, and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and
pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on
paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after reconciliation?
I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking,
that they dreaded an independance, fearing that it would produce civil
wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and
that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread from a
patched up connexion than from independance. I make the sufferers case
my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property
destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of
injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or
consider myself bound thereby.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_94" id="Page_94">94</SPAN></span>
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, than such as are truly
childish and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for
superiority over another.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_95" id="Page_95">95</SPAN></span>
Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect
equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and
we may say always) in peace. Holland and Swisserland are without wars,
foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never
long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprizing ruffians
at <em>home</em>; 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 negociate the mistake.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_96" id="Page_96">96</SPAN></span>
If there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, it is
because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way
out—Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the
following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other
opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise
to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be
collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men
to improve into useful matter.</p>
<hr class="break" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_97" id="Page_97">97</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_98" id="Page_98">98</SPAN></span>
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 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a
president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a
colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which,
let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the
delegates of <em>that</em> province. In the next Congress, let a colony
be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the
president was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till
the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order
that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not
less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority.—He
that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as
this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_99" id="Page_99">99</SPAN></span>
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 <span class="smcap">Continental Conference</span> be held,
in the following manner, and for the following purpose.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_100" id="Page_100">100</SPAN></span>
A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two for each
colony. Two members from 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,
<em>knowledge</em> and <em>power</em>. The members of Congress,
Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national
concerns, will be able and useful counsellors, and the whole, being
impowered by the people, will have a truly legal authority.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_101" id="Page_101">101</SPAN></span>
The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame a
<span class="smcap">Continental Charter</span>, or Charter of the United
Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England)
fixing the number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members
of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business
and jurisdiction between them: (Always remembering, that our strength
is continental, not provincial:) Securing freedom and property to all
men, and above all things, the free exercise of religion, according to
the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is necessary for
a charter to contain. Immediately after which, the said Conference to
dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen comformable to the said
charter, to be the legislators and governors of this continent for the
time being: Whose peace and happiness, may God preserve, Amen.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_102" id="Page_102">102</SPAN></span>
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 <em>Dragonetti</em>. “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.</p>
<p class="quotation">
Dragonetti on virtue and rewards.”</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_103" id="Page_103">103</SPAN></span>
But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend,
he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal
Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in
earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the
charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of
God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that
so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America <span class="smcap">the
law is king</span>. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so
in free countries the law <em>ought</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_104" id="Page_104">104</SPAN></span>
A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously
reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become
convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a
constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it
in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and
chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello ¹ may hereafter arise,
who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the
desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the
powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent
like a deluge. Should the government of America return again into the
hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a
temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in
such a case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the
news, the fatal business might be done; and ourselves suffering like
the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that
oppose independance now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door
to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There
are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to
expel from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath
stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us, the cruelty hath a
double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.</p>
<div class="footer">
<p>¹ Thomas Anello, otherwise Massanello, a fisherman of Naples, who after
spiriting up his countrymen in the public market place, against the
oppressions of the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject,
prompted them to revolt, and in the space of a day became king.</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_105" id="Page_105">105</SPAN></span>
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?</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_106" id="Page_106">106</SPAN></span>
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 unextinguishable 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, or 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_107" id="Page_107">107</SPAN></span>
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.
<br/><br/><br/></p>
<div>
<SPAN name="ability"></SPAN>
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_108" id="Page_108">108</SPAN></span>
<h2> <SPAN href="#Contents"> OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA,<br/> WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS.</SPAN> </h2></div>
<p><span class="smcap">I have</span> 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 shewn less judgment, than in endeavouring
to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for
independance.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_109" id="Page_109">109</SPAN></span>
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 endeavour, if possible, to find out the <em>very</em> time.
But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for, the <em>time
hath found us</em>. The general concurrence, the glorious union of
all things prove the fact.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_110" id="Page_110">110</SPAN></span>
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, when 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_111" id="Page_111">111</SPAN></span>
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 lose. 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_112" id="Page_112">112</SPAN></span>
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 independant constitution of its
own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions
for the sake of getting a few vile 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 pedling politician.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_113" id="Page_113">113</SPAN></span>
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 an half sterling.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_114" id="Page_114">114</SPAN></span>
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 just. <em>See Entic’s naval
history, intro.</em> page 56.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_115" id="Page_115">115</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<table summary="Table1" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto">
<tbody>
<tr style="font-size:small;">
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th class="center">£<br/>
<span style="font-size:x-small">[pounds <br/>
sterling]</span></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>For a ship of</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>guns</td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">35,553</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:right">90</td>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">29,886</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="right">80</td>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">23,638</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="right">70</td>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">17,785</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="right">60</td>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">14,197</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="right">50</td>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">10,606</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="right">40</td>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">7,558</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="right">30</td>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">5,846</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="right">20</td>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align:center; width:40px;">=</td>
<td class="right">3,710</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_116" id="Page_116">116</SPAN></span>
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 at its greatest
glory consisted of the following ships and guns:</p>
<table summary="Table2" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto">
<tbody>
<tr style="font-size:small;">
<th>Ships.</th>
<th class="right">Guns.</th>
<th></th>
<th>Cost of one.</th>
<th>Cost of all.</th>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size:x-small;">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Cost in £ [pounds sterling]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">6</td>
<td class="right">100</td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">35,553</td>
<td class="right">213,318</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">12</td>
<td class="right">90</td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">29,886</td>
<td class="right">358,632</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">12</td>
<td class="right">80</td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">23,638</td>
<td class="right">283,656</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">43</td>
<td class="right">70</td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">17,785</td>
<td class="right">764,755</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">35</td>
<td class="right">60</td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">14,197</td>
<td class="right">496,895</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">40</td>
<td class="right">50</td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">10,606</td>
<td class="right">424,240</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">45</td>
<td class="right">40</td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">7,558</td>
<td class="right">340,110</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">58</td>
<td class="right">20</td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">3,710</td>
<td class="right">215,180</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="right">85</td>
<td class="right" style="font-size:x-small; width:100px;">Sloops, bombs<br/>
and fireships, one<br/>
with another, at</td>
<td><span style="font-size:xx-large;">}</span></td>
<td class="right">2,000</td>
<td class="right">170,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>------------</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="font-size:small;">Cost</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">3,266,786</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="font-size:small;">Remains for Guns</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">233,214</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>------------</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td class="right">3,500,000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_117" id="Page_117">117</SPAN></span>
No country on the globe is so happily situated, or 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_118" id="Page_118">118</SPAN></span>
In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors;
it is not necessary that one fourth part should be sailors. The
Terrible privateer, Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of any
ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, though her
complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and social
sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landmen 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 of
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_119" id="Page_119">119</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_120" id="Page_120">120</SPAN></span>
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 harbours for that purpose? Common sense will tell
us, that the power which hath endeavoured 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 harbours, 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?</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_121" id="Page_121">121</SPAN></span>
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 neighbourhood of the Continent,
is entirely at its mercy. </p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_122" id="Page_122">122</SPAN></span>
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 guardships 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 defense is sound policy; for when our strength
and our riches play into each other’s hand, we need fear no external
enemy.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_123" id="Page_123">123</SPAN></span>
In almost every article of defense 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, shews the insignificance of a British government, and
fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate
Continental matters.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_124" id="Page_124">124</SPAN></span>
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
dependants, 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_125" id="Page_125">125</SPAN></span>
The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being
against, is an argument in favour of independance. 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_126" id="Page_126">126</SPAN></span>
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 <em>present
time</em> is the <em>true time</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_127" id="Page_127">127</SPAN></span>
The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens
to a nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a
government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that
means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors,
instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and
then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of
government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them
afterward: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom,
and lay hold of the present opportunity—<em>To begin government
at the right end</em>.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_128" id="Page_128">128</SPAN></span>
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? </p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_129" id="Page_129">129</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_130" id="Page_130">130</SPAN></span>
In <SPAN href="#Page_101">
<ins title="Transcriber's Note: the link corresponds to the page number in this edition.">
page forty</ins></SPAN>,
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 re-mentioning 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_131" id="Page_131">131</SPAN></span>
In a <SPAN href="#Page_97">
<ins title="Transcriber's Note: the link corresponds to the page number in this edition.">
former page</ins></SPAN>
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 dishonoured a schoolboy, and after
being approved by a <em>few</em>, a <em>very few</em> without doors,
were carried into the House, and there passed <em>in behalf of the
whole colony</em>; 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_132" id="Page_132">132</SPAN></span>
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 <span class="smcap">Congress</span>, 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 <em>representation and election</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_133" id="Page_133">133</SPAN></span>
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 <em>that</em> 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. ¹</p>
<div class="footer">
<p>¹ Those who would fully understand of what great consequence a large
and equal representation is to a state, should read Burgh’s
political disquisitions.</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_134" id="Page_134">134</SPAN></span>
<span class="smcap">To Conclude</span>, 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 shew, that
nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and
determined declaration for independance. Some of which are,</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_135" id="Page_135">135</SPAN></span>
<em>First</em>.—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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_136" id="Page_136">136</SPAN></span>
<em>Secondly</em>.—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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_137" id="Page_137">137</SPAN></span>
<em>Thirdly</em>.—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 <em>their peace</em>, 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_138" id="Page_138">138</SPAN></span>
<em>Fourthly</em>.—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 connections 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_139" id="Page_139">139</SPAN></span>
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 independance, we take rank with other nations.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_140" id="Page_140">140</SPAN></span>
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 independance 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.</p>
<hr class="break" />
<div>
<br/><br/><br/>
<SPAN name="appendix"></SPAN>
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_141" id="Page_141">141</SPAN></span>
<h2> <SPAN href="#Contents">APPENDIX.</SPAN> </h2></div>
<p><span class="smcap">Since</span> 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, shew 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
Independance.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_142" id="Page_142">142</SPAN></span>
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 tranquillity
of a nation, depends greatly, on the <em>chastity</em> of what may
properly be called <span class="smcap">national manners</span>, 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 consequence of Kings; for as nature knows them <em>not</em>,
they know <em>not her</em>, and although they are beings of our <em>own</em>
creating, they know not <em>us</em>, 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_143" id="Page_143">143</SPAN></span>
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical piece,
fallaciously called, “<em>The Address of the people of</em>
<span class="smcap">England</span> <em>to the inhabitants of</em>
<span class="smcap">America</span>,” hath, perhaps, from a vain
supposition, that the people <em>here</em> 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,
<em>by whose</em> <span class="smcap">nod alone</span> <em>they
were permitted to do any thing</em>.” 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 man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and
contemptibly crawls through the world like a worm.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_144" id="Page_144">144</SPAN></span>
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 <em>now</em> 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—<span class="smcap">Ye</span>,
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_145" id="Page_145">145</SPAN></span>
First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_146" id="Page_146">146</SPAN></span>
Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,
<span class="smcap">reconciliation</span> or
<span class="smcap">independance</span>? with some occasional remarks.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_147" id="Page_147">147</SPAN></span>
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 independant of each other as France and Spain; because in
many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the
independance of this country of 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_148" id="Page_148">148</SPAN></span>
First. Because it will come to that one time or other.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_149" id="Page_149">149</SPAN></span>
Secondly. Because, the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to
accomplish.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_150" id="Page_150">150</SPAN></span>
I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies,
with silently remarking, the specious 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 <em>now</em>, the Continent would have been
more able to have shaken off the dependance. To which I reply, that
our military ability, <em>at this time</em>, 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_151" id="Page_151">151</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_152" id="Page_152">152</SPAN></span>
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 intirely) 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 extention 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_153" id="Page_153">153</SPAN></span>
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without
burthen to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen,
and in time, will wholly support the yearly expence 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_154" id="Page_154">154</SPAN></span>
I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the easiest and most
practicable plan, <span class="smcap">reconciliation</span> or
<span class="smcap">independance</span>; with some occasional
remarks.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_155" id="Page_155">155</SPAN></span>
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his
argument, and on that ground, I answer <em>generally—That</em>
<span class="smcap">independance</span> <em>being a</em>
<span class="smcap">single simple line</span>, <em>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.</em></p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_156" id="Page_156">156</SPAN></span>
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is
capable of reflexion. 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
endeavouring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation
without law; wisdom without a plan; constitution without a name; and,
what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independance 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 seeing 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
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_157" id="Page_157">157</SPAN></span>
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 <em>Reconciliation</em> nor <em>Independance</em>
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 in 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_158" id="Page_158">158</SPAN></span>
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 <em>all</em> is <em>already</em> gone, and of the
soldier, who hath quitted <em>all</em> for the defence of his country.
If their ill judged moderation be suited to their own private situations
<em>only</em>, regardless of others, the event will convince them, that
“they are reckoning without their Host.”</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_159" id="Page_159">159</SPAN></span>
Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three: To which I
answer, the request is not <em>now</em> in the power of Britain to
comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should
be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a
corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another
parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation,
on the pretence, of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted;
and in that case, Where is our redress?—No going to law with nations;
cannon are the barristers of Crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but
of war, decides the suit. To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is
not sufficient, that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that
our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state; Our burnt and
destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private losses made good, our
public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall
be millions worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a
request, had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart
and soul of the Continent—but now it is too late, “The
Rubicon is passed.”</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_160" id="Page_160">160</SPAN></span>
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 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
independancy of America, should have been considered, as dating its
æra from, and published by, <em>the first musket that was
fired against her</em>. 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_161" id="Page_161">161</SPAN></span>
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 independancy may hereafter be effected; and that
<em>one</em> of those <em>three</em>, 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 independancy 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 Reflexion is
awful—and in this point of view, How trifling, how ridiculous,
do the little, paltry cavellings, of a few weak or interested men
appear, when weighed against the business of a world.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_162" id="Page_162">162</SPAN></span>
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an
Independance 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
Independance, which men should rather privately think of, than be
publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be
independant 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. <em>Wherefore</em>, if they have not virtue enough to be
<span class="smcap">Whigs</span>, they ought to have prudence enough
to wish for Independance.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_163" id="Page_163">163</SPAN></span>
In short, Independance is the only <span class="smcap">Bond</span> that
can tye 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 <em>now</em> try the
alternative, by <em>independantly</em> redressing them ourselves, and
then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part
in England, will be still with us; because, peace <em>with</em> trade,
is preferable to war <em>without</em> it. And if this offer be not
accepted, other courts may be applied to.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_164" id="Page_164">164</SPAN></span>
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 favour of it are too numerous to be
opposed. <span class="smcap">Wherefore</span>, instead of gazing at
each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity; let each of us, hold
out to his neighbour the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing
a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every
former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let
none other be heard among us, than those of <em>a good citizen, an open
and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the</em>
<span class="smcap">rights</span> <em>of</em>
<span class="smcap">mankind</span> <em>and of the</em> FREE AND
INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.</p>
<hr class="break" />
<div>
<SPAN name="quakers"></SPAN></div>
<p style="margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_165" id="Page_165">165</SPAN></span>
<em>To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called
Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing the late
piece, entitled</em> “<span class="smcap">The Ancient Testimony
and Principles</span> of the People called <span class="smcap">Quakers</span>
renewed, with Respect to the <span class="smcap">King</span> and
<span class="smcap">Government</span>, and touching the
<span class="smcap">Commotions</span> now prevailing in these and other
parts of <span class="smcap">America</span> addressed to the
<span class="smcap">People in General</span>.”</p>
<hr class="break" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_166" id="Page_166">166</SPAN></span>
The Writer of this, is one of those few, who never dishonours 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_167" id="Page_167">167</SPAN></span>
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 this 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 can have any claim or title to
<em>Political Representation</em>.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_168" id="Page_168">168</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_169" id="Page_169">169</SPAN></span>
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 the religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this
ground, as men labouring to establish an Independant Constitution of
our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and aim. <em>Our
plan is peace for ever.</em> 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 burthens of the present
day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavour, to
separate and dissolve a connexion 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_170" id="Page_170">170</SPAN></span>
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 character 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, 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 <em>Bigot</em> in the place
of the <em>Christian</em>.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_171" id="Page_171">171</SPAN></span>
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, <em>for they likewise bear</em>
<span class="smcap">arms</span>. 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 piratically ravaging our coasts,
and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under
<span class="smcap">him</span> whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the
honest soul of <em>Barclay</em> ¹ ye would preach repentance to
<em>your</em> king; Ye would tell the Royal Wretch 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 <em>spare none</em>. Say not that ye are persecuted,
neither endeavour 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 <em>Quakers</em>, but because ye
pretend to <em>be</em> and are <span class="smcap">not</span> Quakers.</p>
<div class="footer">
<p style="margin:1em; text-indent:-1em;">
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_172" id="Page_172">172</SPAN></span>
¹“Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity; thou knowest what
it is to be banished thy native country, to be over-ruled as well as to
rule, and set upon the throne; and being <em>oppressed</em> thou hast
reason to know how <em>hateful</em> the <em>oppressor</em> 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.”</p>
<p class="quotation">
—Barclay’s address to Charles II.</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_173" id="Page_173">173</SPAN></span>
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, <em>the act of bearing arms</em>, and that
by the <em>people</em> 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_174" id="Page_174">174</SPAN></span>
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 desirous of supporting) do <em>not</em>
please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_175" id="Page_175">175</SPAN></span>
I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which
all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_176" id="Page_176">176</SPAN></span>
“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 of 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 godliness and honesty; <em>under the government
which God is pleased to set over us.</em>”—If these are
<em>really</em> 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 <em>that event</em>
as the divine will towards you. <em>Wherefore</em>, what occasion is
there for your <em>political testimony</em> 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 practise what ye
believe.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_177" id="Page_177">177</SPAN></span>
The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the
quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government <em>which
is set over him</em>. 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. <span class="smcap">Oliver Cromwell</span> thanks you.
<span class="smcap">Charles</span>, 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 dispersion of the Jews, though foretold by our Saviour, 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 ye can produce divine authority, to prove, that
the Almighty who hath created and placed this <em>new</em> world,
at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from
every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being
independant of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain, unless I
say, ye can shew this, how can ye on the ground of your principles,
justify the exciting and stirring up the people “firmly to unite in the
<em>abhorrence</em> of all such <em>writings</em>, and <em>measures</em>,
as evidence a desire and design to break off the <em>happy</em> connexion
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 of 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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_178" id="Page_178">178</SPAN></span>
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 <em>set up</em>
nor to <em>put down</em>, neither to <em>make</em> nor to <em>unmake</em>,
but to have nothing to <em>do</em> with them. Wherefore, your testimony
in whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgement, and
for many other reasons had better have been let alone than published.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_179" id="Page_179">179</SPAN></span>
First, Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all religion
whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party in
political disputes.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_180" id="Page_180">180</SPAN></span>
Secondly, Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow
the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and
approvers thereof.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_181" id="Page_181">181</SPAN></span>
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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_182" id="Page_182">182</SPAN></span>
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, <em>may be
disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of</em>
<span class="smcap">America</span>.
<br/><br/><br/></p>
<p class="finis">
F I N I S.</p>
<hr />
<div>
<br/><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_183" id="Page_183">183</SPAN></span>
<br/><br/><br/>
<h2><SPAN href="#Contents">On Common Sense</SPAN></h2></div>
<blockquote>
<p>“No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and familiarity of style,
in perspicuity of expression, happiness of elucidation, and in simple
and unassuming language.”</p>
<p class="right noindent">
<em>Thomas Jefferson</em></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“A pamphlet called ‘Commonsense’ makes a great noise.
One of the vilest things that ever was published to the world. Full of
false representations, lies, calumny, and treason, whose principles are
to subvert all Kingly Governments and erect an Independent
Republic.”</p>
<p class="right noindent">
<em>Nicholas Cresswell</em> </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“I dreaded the effect so popular a pamphlet might have
among the people, and determined to do all in my Power to counteract
the effect of it.” </p>
<p class="right noindent">
<em>John Adams</em> </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Its effects were sudden and extensive upon the American mind.
It was read by public men.” </p>
<p class="right noindent">
<em>Dr. Benjamin Rush</em> </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Have you read the pamphlet <i>Common Sense</i>? I never saw such a
masterful performance.… In short, I own myself convinced, by the
arguments, of the necessity of separation.” </p>
<p class="right noindent">
<em>General Charles Lee</em> </p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br/><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_184" id="Page_184">184</SPAN></span>
<br/><br/><br/>
<h2> <SPAN href="#Contents">Transcriber's Notes</SPAN></h2></div>
<p>This production of the Bradford edition of Common Sense retains the
original characteristics of the document—the author's use of
capitalization (large and small), spelling, and italics. </p>
<p>The page numbers of this version of the book were my invention, for
ease in reading the HTML document. The page numbers can more accurately
be called paragraph numbers. They match the paragraph numbers in
the edited text of ‘Common Sense’ from the National
Humanities Center.</p>
<p>In one case, the text refers to page forty (see our
<SPAN href="#Page_130">Page 130</SPAN>). We provided a link to the appropriate
part of our document but retained the page number specified by Paine.
Our page numbers are not carried over to the Kindle, E-PUB, and text
documents produced by Project Gutenberg.</p>
<p>The section "On Common Sense," containing quotes about Common Sense,
have been added by this transcriber. </p>
<SPAN name="endofbook"></SPAN>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />