Common Sense

Capítulo 1

MDCCLXXVI

Common Sense

By Thomas Paine

INTRODUCTION.

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet

sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit

of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of

being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of

custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than

reason.

As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of

calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might

never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated

into the inquiry) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his

own Right, to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs, and as

the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the

combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the

pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either.

In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every

thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as

censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the

worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose

sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves

unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion.

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.

Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but

universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind

are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are

interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword,

declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and

extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the

Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling;

of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the

AUTHOR

P.S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a

View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to

refute the Doctrine of Independance: As no Answer hath yet appeared,

it is now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such

a Performance ready for the Public being considerably past.

Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the

Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the

Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected

with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private,

but the influence of reason and principle.

Philadelphia, February 14, 1776

OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL,

WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION.

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

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

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

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

happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter

negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,

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

punisher.

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

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

intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same

miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without

government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish

the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge

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

the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear,

uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver;

but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a

part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest;

and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every

other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least.

Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it

unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely

to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is

preferable to all others.

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

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

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

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

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

thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength

of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for

perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and

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

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

wilderness, but one man might labour out 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.

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

arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which,

would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government

unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as

nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably

happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties

of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they

will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and

this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some

form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

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

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

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

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

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

by natural right, will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase

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

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

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

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

the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to

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

supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those who

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

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

it will become necessary to augment the number of the

representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony

may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into

convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the

elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the

electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections

often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix

again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their

fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflexion of

not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange

will establish a common interest with every part of the community,

they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this

(not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of

government, and the happiness of the governed.

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

rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the

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

and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a

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

and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily

demonstrated.

Absolute governments (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this

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

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

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

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

nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover

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

another, and every political physician will advise a different

medicine.

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

yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of

the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains

of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican

materials.

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

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

the peers.

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

commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

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

wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards

the freedom of the state.

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

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

no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

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

things:

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

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

natural disease of monarchy.

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

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

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

check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the

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

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

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

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of

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

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

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

king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different

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

whole character to be absurd and useless.

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

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

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

hath all the distinctions of 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. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to

trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the

gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking,

be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes,

supposes such a power to exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is supplied by time.

That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution

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

merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident,

wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door

against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish

enough to put the crown in possession of the key.

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

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

than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in

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

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

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

under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the

fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle--not

more just.

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour

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

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

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

Turkey.

An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of

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

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

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

capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any

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

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

favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from

discerning a good one.

OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION.

Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the

equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance;

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

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

sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the

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

avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it

generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly

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

distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female are the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe.

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

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

away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the

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

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

promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their

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

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

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

is crumbling into dust!

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

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

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

as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves

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

been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they

undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their

governments yet to form. "Render unto Cæsar the things which are

Cæsar's" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support

of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a

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

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

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

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

where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic 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.

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

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

that transaction is worth attending to.

The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon

marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro' the

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

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

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

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

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

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

over you. The Lord shall rule over you. Words need not be more

explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right

to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented

declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet

charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King

of heaven.

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

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

customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but

so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons,

who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an

abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old,

and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us

like all other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their

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

i.e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much

unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they

said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord,

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

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

they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According

to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought

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

forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now

therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto

them and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them,

i.e. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings

of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And

notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners,

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

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

This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he

will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots,

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

description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he

will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties,

and will set them to ear his ground and to 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 (this describes the expence and luxury as well as the

oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive

yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he

will take the tenth of your feed, and of your vineyards, and give

them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that

bribery, corruption and favoritism are the standing vices of kings)

and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid

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

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

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

king which ye shall have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you in

that day. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do

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

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

high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a

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

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

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

and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our

battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he

set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and

seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call

unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was a

punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive

and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the

sight of the Lord, in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the

Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the

people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said

unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die

not, for we have added unto our sins this evil, to ask a king. These

portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no

equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his

protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is

false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much

of king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from

the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is

the Popery of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear,

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

king the plunder of the rest.

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

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

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

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

than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage

manners or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief

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

depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their

safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no

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

perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and

unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore,

hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take

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

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

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

groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his

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

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

and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the

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

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

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

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

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

disturb their devotion.

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

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

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

establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary

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

neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention

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

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

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

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

of kings for ever, hath no parrallel in or out of scripture but the

doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men

lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no

other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all

sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one

all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty;

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

last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and

privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary

succession are parellels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion!

Yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.

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

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

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

monarchy will not bear looking into.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and

unfit of any throughout the dominions.

Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne

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

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

and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune

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

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

a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the

follies either of age or infancy.

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

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

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

most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history

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

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

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

wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace,

it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to

stand on.

The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York

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

Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought

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

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

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

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

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

foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom

lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward

recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the

strongest side.

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

entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families

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

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

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

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

will attend it.

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

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

without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw

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

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

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

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

out before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is

neither a judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled

to know what is his business.

The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business

there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name

for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a

republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name,

because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places

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

eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in

the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as

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

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

monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen

glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing 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?

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

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

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

be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and

worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to

society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that

ever lived.

THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain

arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to

settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of

prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings

to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he

will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously

enlarge his views beyond the present day.

Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between

England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the

controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but

all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms,

as the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice

of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.

It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho' an able

minister was not without his faults) that on his being attacked in

the house of commons, on the score, that his measures were only of a

temporary kind, replied "they will last my time." Should a thought

so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present contest,

the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with

detestation.

The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the

affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a

continent--of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis

not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually

involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to

the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of

continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be

like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a

young oak; the wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read

it in full grown characters.

By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new æra for

politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans,

proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April, i.e. to the

commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacks of the last year;

which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now. Whatever

was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then,

terminated in one and the same point, viz. a union with Great-

Britain; the only difference between the parties was the method of

effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it

hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath

withdrawn her influence.

As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which,

like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it

is but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the

argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which

these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected

with, and dependant on Great-Britain. To examine that connexion and

dependance, on the principles of nature and common sense, to see

what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect,

if dependant.

I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished

under her former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same

connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always

have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind

of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived

upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty

years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But

even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that

America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had

no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by

which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and

will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

But she has protected us, say some. That she 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.

Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made

large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of

Great-Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not

attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our

account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had

no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our

enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the

continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and we should

be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The

miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connexions.

It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no

relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e. that

Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister

colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about

way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way

of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never

were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our

being the subjects of Great-Britain.

But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame

upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages

make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true,

turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly

so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically

adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design

of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds.

Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new

world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and

religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled,

not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of

the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny

which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants

still.

In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits

of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry

our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every

European christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.

It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the

force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the

world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will

naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their

interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the

name of neighbour; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he

drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of

townsman; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any other,

he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him

countryman, i.e. county-man; but if in their foreign excursions they

should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local

remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just

parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other

quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany,

or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on

the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do

on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds.

Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of

English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or

mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish,

narrow and ungenerous.

But admitting, that we were all of English descent, what does it

amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes

every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation is our

duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present

line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the Peers of

England are descendants from the same country; therefore, by the

same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.

Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the

colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world.

But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither

do the expressions mean any thing; for this continent would never

suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British

arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.

Besides what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our

plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the

peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of

all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a

protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from

invaders.

I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a

single advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected

with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage

is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe,

and our imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will.

But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection,

are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to

ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any

submission to, or dependance on Great-Britain, tends directly to

involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at

variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and

against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our

market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any

part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of

European contentions, which she never can do, while by her

dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of

British politics.

Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and

whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the

trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with

Britain. The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it

not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for

separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer

convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural

pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of

nature cries, 'Tis time to part. Even the distance at which the

Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural

proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the

design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was

discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it

was peopled encreases the force of it. The reformation was preceded

by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to

open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should

afford neither friendship nor safety.

The authority of Great-Britain over this continent, is a form of

government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious

mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the painful

and positive conviction, that what he calls "the present

constitution" is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy,

knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure

any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method

of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we

ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and

pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we

should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few

years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect,

which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.

Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am

inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of

reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions.

Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who cannot see;

prejudiced men, who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men,

who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this

last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more

calamities to this continent, than all the other three.

It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of

sorrow; the evil is not sufficient brought to their doors to make

them feel the precariousness with which all American property is

possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for a few moments

to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and

instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no

trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but a few

months ago were in ease and affluence, have now, no other

alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered

by the fire of their friends if they continue within the city, and

plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their present

condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in

a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to the fury

of both armies.

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of

Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come,

come, we shall be friends again, for all this." But examine the

passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the doctrine of

reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me,

whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the

power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot

do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your

delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with

Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and

unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience,

will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the

first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then

I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed

before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to

lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by

their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you

have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you

have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then 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.

This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by

those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without

which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of

life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror

for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal

and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed

object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer

America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The

present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or

neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and

there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who,

or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a

season so precious and useful.

It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things to all

examples from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can

longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in

Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot,

at this time, compass a plan short of separation, which can promise

the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is now a

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."

Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have

been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that

nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in Kings more than

repeated petitioning--and nothing hath contributed more than that

very measure to make the Kings of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark

and Sweden. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God's

sake, let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next

generation to be cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning names

of parent and child.

To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we

thought so at the repeal of the stamp-act, yet a year or two

undeceived us; as well may we suppose that nations, which have been

once defeated, will never renew the quarrel.

As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do

this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty,

and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of

convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of

us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be

always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a

petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when

obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few

years be looked upon as folly and childishness--There was a time

when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper

objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is

something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually

governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite

larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with

respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is

evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America

to itself.

I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to

espouse the doctrine of separation and independance; I am clearly,

positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true

interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of that

is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,--that it

is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time,

when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered this

continent the glory of the earth.

As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a

compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy

the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expence of

blood and treasure we have been already put to.

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 father of his people can unfeelingly hear of their

slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.

But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be the event?

I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for several reasons.

First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the

king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this

continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to

liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or

is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, "You shall make no

laws but what I please." And is there any inhabitant in America so

ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the

present constitution, that this continent can make no laws but what

the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to

see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to

be made here, but such as suit his purpose. We may be as effectually

enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws

made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called)

can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be

exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible?

Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually

quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning.--We are already greater

than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavour

to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who

is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever

says No to this question is an independant, for independancy means

no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the

king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall

tell us "there shall be no laws but such as I like."

But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people

there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and

good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of

twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions

of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act

of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply,

though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only

answer, that England being the King's residence, and America not so,

makes quite another case. The king's negative here is ten times more

dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he will

scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as

strong a state of defence as possible, and in America he would never

suffer such a bill to be passed.

America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics,

England consults the good of this country, no farther than it

answers her own purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads her to

suppress the growth of ours in every case which doth not promote her

advantage, or in the least interferes with it. A pretty state we

should soon be in under such a second-hand government, considering

what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to friends by the

alteration of a name: And in order to shew that reconciliation now

is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the

king at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of reinstating

himself in the government of the provinces; in order, that he may

accomplish by craft and subtilty, in the long run, what he cannot do

by force and violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are

nearly related.

Secondly. That as even the best terms, which we can expect to obtain,

can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of

government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the

colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things, in

the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants of

property will not choose to come to a country whose form of

government hangs but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on

the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the present

inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispense of their

effects, and quit the continent.

But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but

independance, i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the

peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I

dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more

than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or

other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the

malice of Britain.

Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more

will probably suffer the same fate) Those men have other feelings

than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty,

what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having

nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general

temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will be like

that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will care very

little about her. And a government which cannot preserve the peace,

is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money for

nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will

be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day

after reconciliation?

I have heard some men say, many of whom I

believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded 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.

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.

Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect

equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and

we may say always) in peace. Holland and Swisserland are without

wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are

never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprizing

ruffians at home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever

attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign

powers, in instances, where a republican government, by being formed

on more natural principles, would negociate the mistake.

If there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, it is

because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out--

Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the following

hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other

opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving

rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of

individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for

wise and able men to improve into useful matter.

Let the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The

representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and

subject to the authority of a Continental Congress.

Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient

districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to

Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number

in Congress will be 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 that province. In the next Congress, let a

colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from

which the president was taken in the former Congress, and so

proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper

rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is

satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of the Congress to

be called a majority.--He that will promote discord, under a

government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in

his revolt.

But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what manner,

this business must first arise, and as it seems most agreeable and

consistent that it should come from some intermediate body between

the governed and the governors, that is, between the Congress and

the people, let a Continental Conference be held, in the following

manner, and for the following purpose.

A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two for each

colony. Two members 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, knowledge and power. The members of Congress,

Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national

concerns, will be able and useful counsellors, and the whole, being

impowered by the people, will have a truly legal authority.

The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame a

Continental Charter, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering

to what is called the Magna Charta of England) fixing the number and

manner of choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with

their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and

jurisdiction between them: (Always remembering, that our strength is

continental, not provincial:) Securing freedom and property to all

men, and above all things, the free exercise of religion, according

to the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is

necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which, the

said Conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen

comformable to the said charter, to be the legislators and governors

of this continent for the time being: Whose peace and happiness, may

God preserve, Amen.

Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some

similar purpose, I offer them the following extracts from that wise

observer on governments Dragonetti. "The science" says he "of the

politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and

freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should

discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of

individual happiness, with the least national expense.

Dragonetti on virtue and rewards."

But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he

reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal

Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in

earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the

charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word

of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know,

that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is

king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free

countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.

But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the

conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the

people whose right it is.

A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man

seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will

become convinced, that it is 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.

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.

To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to

have faith, and our affections wounded through a thousand pores

instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the

little remains of kindred between us and them, and can there be any

reason to hope, that as the relationship expires, the affection will

increase, or that we shall agree better, when we have ten times more

and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever?

Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us

the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former

innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last

cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting addresses

against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she

would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive

the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders

of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these 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.

O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny,

but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun

with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and

Africa, have long expelled her--Europe regards her like a stranger,

and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the

fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.

OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA,

WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS.

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

not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the countries,

would take place one time or other: And there is no instance, in

which we have shewn less judgment, than in endeavouring to describe,

what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for

independance.

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 very time. But

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

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

prove the fact.

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

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

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

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

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

support itself, and the whole, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. See Entic's naval

history, intro. page 56.

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

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

months boatswain's and carpenter's sea-stores, as calculated by Mr.

Burchett, Secretary to the navy.

£

[pounds

sterling]

For a ship of 100 guns = 35,553

90 = 29,886

80 = 23,638

70 = 17,785

60 = 14,197

50 = 10,606

40 = 7,558

30 = 5,846

20 = 3,710

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

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

greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns:

Ships. Guns. Cost of one. Cost of all.

Cost in £ [pounds sterling]

6 100 35,553 213,318

12 90 29,886 358,632

12 80 23,638 283,656

43 70 17,785 764,755

35 60 14,197 496,895

40 50 10,606 424,240

45 40 7,558 340,110

58 20 3,710 215,180

85 Sloops, bombs

and fireships, one

with another, at } 2,000 170,000

------------

Cost 3,266,786

Remains for Guns 233,214

------------

3,500,000

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

improve with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve

months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of

Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased;

and the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring

fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the

whole Continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are

circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the

necessity of naval protection.

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

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

keep a navy in our 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present

time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is

contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in

misfortune, are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable.

Our present union is marked with both these characters: we are young

and we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our

troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in.

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

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

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

means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors,

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

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

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

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

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

at the right end.

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

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

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

shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian,

who may treat us in the same manner, and then, where will be our

freedom? where our property?

As to religion, I hold it to be the 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.

In page forty, 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.

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

equal representation; and there is no political matter which more

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

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

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

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

Associators petition was before the House of Assembly of

Pennsylvania; twenty-eight members only were present, all the Bucks

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

Chester members done the same, this whole province had been governed

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

unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their last

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

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

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

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

dishonoured a schoolboy, and after being approved by a few, a very

few without doors, were carried into the House, and there passed in

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

what ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public

measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of

such a trust.

Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued

would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different

things. When the calamities of America required a consultation,

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

appoint persons from the several Houses of Assembly for that purpose;

and the wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved this

continent from ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall

never be without a Congress, every well wisher to good order, must

own, that the mode for choosing members of that body, deserves

consideration. And I put it as a question to those, who make a study

of mankind, whether representation and election is not too great a

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

planning for posterity, we ought to remember, that virtue is not

hereditary.

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

frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr. Cornwall

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

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

but of twenty-six members, which trifling number, he argued, could

not with decency be put for the whole.

We thank him for his

involuntary honesty. ¹

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.

To Conclude, however strange it may appear to some, or however

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

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

affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for

independance. Some of which are,

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

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

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

America calls herself the Subject of Great-Britain, no power,

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

in our present state we may quarrel on for ever.

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

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

assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and

strengthening the connection between Britain and America; because,

those powers would be sufferers by the consequences.

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

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

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

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

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

much too refined for common understanding.

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

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

peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress; declaring,

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

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

been driven to the necessity of breaking off all 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.

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.

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.

APPENDIX.

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

rather, on the same day on which it came out, the King's Speech made

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

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

more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The bloody

mindedness of the one, 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.

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 chastity

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

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

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

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

owing to this prudent delicacy, that the King's Speech, hath not,

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

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

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

formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the

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

the privileges, and the certain consequence of Kings; for as nature

knows them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of

our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their

creators. The Speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not

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

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

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

that He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored

Indian, is less a Savage than the King of Britain.

Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical

piece, fallaciously called, "The Address of the people of England to

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

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

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

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

are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do

not complain of," (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the repeal

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

that prince, by whose nod alone they were permitted to do any

thing." 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.

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

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

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

a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty,

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

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

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

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

reproach to the names of men and christians--Ye, whose office it is

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

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

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

country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret

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

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

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

Britain.

Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,

reconciliation or independance? with some occasional remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the

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

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

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

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

it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her

final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of

America, by which England is to be benefited, and that would in a

great measure continue, were the countries as 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.

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

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

accomplish.

I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies,

with silently remarking, the 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 now, the Continent

would have been more able to have shaken off the dependance. To

which I reply, that our military ability, at this time, arises from

the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty

years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would

not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer

left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as

ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this single

position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the

present time is preferable to all others. The argument turns thus--

at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted

numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers,

without experience; wherefore, the proper point of time, must be

some particular point between the two extremes, in which a

sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the

latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time.

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

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

the following position, viz.

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

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

circumstanced, is giving up the point 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.

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.

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

practicable plan, reconciliation or independance; with some

occasional remarks.

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

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

being a single simple line, contained within ourselves; and

reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and

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

answer without a doubt.

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

capable of 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.

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

our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The

Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not

done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall

into a state, in which, neither Reconciliation nor Independance 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.

It is easy getting into holes and corners and talking of

reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how difficult

the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent

divide thereon. Do they take within their view, all the various

orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their

own, are to be considered therein. Do they put themselves in the

place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier,

who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill

judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only,

regardless of others, the event will convince them, that "they are

reckoning without their Host."

Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three: To which

I answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply

with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should

be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a

corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another

parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the

obligation, on the pretence, of its being violently obtained, or

unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress?--No going

to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of Crowns; and the

sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the

footing of sixty-three, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be

put on the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put

on the same state; Our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built

up, our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for

defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we

were at that enviable period. Such a request, had it been complied

with a year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the Continent-

-but now it is too late, "The Rubicon is passed."

Besides, the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a

pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as

repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce

obedience thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the

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, the first musket that was

fired against her. This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn

by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of

events, of which the colonies were not the authors.

I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well

intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three different

ways, by which an independancy may hereafter be effected; and that

one of those three, will one day or other, be the fate of America,

viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military

power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are

citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I

have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual.

Should an 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.

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. Wherefore, if they have not

virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to

wish for Independance.

In short, Independance is the only Bond 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 now try the

alternative, by independantly redressing them ourselves, and then

offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in

England, will be still with us; because, peace with trade, is

preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not accepted,

other courts may be applied to.

On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been

made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this

pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be

refuted, or, that the party in favour of it are too numerous to be

opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious

or doubtful curiosity; let each of us, hold out to his 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 a good citizen, an open and

resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights of mankind

and of the FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.

To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called

Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing the

late piece, entitled "The Ancient Testimony and Principles of the

People called Quakers renewed, with Respect to the King and

Government, and touching the Commotions now prevailing in these and

other parts of America addressed to the People in General."

The Writer of this, is one of those few, who never 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.

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 Political Representation.

When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they

stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have

managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men)

is not your proper Walk; for however well adapted it might appear to

you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely

together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and

unjust.

The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give you

credit for, and expect the same civility from you, because the love

and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural,

as well 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. Our plan

is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can

see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently,

because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted

peace, do we bear the evils and 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.

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

Bigot in the place of the Christian.

O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles. If the

bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by

all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence.

Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make

a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince the world thereof,

by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear

arms. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St.

James's, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and

Captains who are piratically ravaging our coasts, and to all the

murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under him whom ye

profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay ¹ ye would

preach repentance to your 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 spare none. 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

Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are not Quakers.

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 oppressed thou hast reason

to know how hateful the oppressor is both to God and man: If after

all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the

Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy

distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely

great will be thy condemnation.--Against which snare, as well as the

temptation of those who may or do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil,

the most excellent and prevalent remedy will be, to apply thyself to

that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience, and which

neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in

thy sins."

--Barclay's address to Charles II.

Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your

testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was

reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and that

by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for

conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants

uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to

many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the

same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against

the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a

step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.

The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of

your testimony, that, "when a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh

even his enemies to be at peace with him"; is very unwisely chosen

on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways

(whom ye are desirous of supporting) do not please the Lord,

otherwise, his reign would be in peace.

I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for

which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz.

"It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called

to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences

unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and

governments, is God's peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to

himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or

contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much

less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn 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; under the government which God is pleased to set over us."-

-If these are really your principles why do ye not abide by them?

Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God's Work, to be managed by

himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with patience

and humility, for the event of all public measures, and to receive

that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion

is there for your political testimony if you fully believe what it

contains: And the very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not

believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to practise what

ye believe.

The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the

quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government which is

set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and

governments is God's peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will

not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself leads

you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to

kings as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then,

died not by the hands of man; and should the present Proud Imitator

of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of

the Testimony, are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud

the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes

in governments brought about by any other means than such as are

common and human; and such as we are now using. Even the 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 new world, at the greatest distance

it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old,

doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being 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

abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire

and design to break off the happy 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.

Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no

man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly;)

to which I subjoin the following remark; "That the setting up and

putting down of kings," most certainly mean, the making him a king,

who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is already one.

And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We neither mean

to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to

have nothing to do with them. Wherefore, your testimony in whatever

light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgement, and for

many other reasons had better have been let alone than published.

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.

Secondly, Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow

the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and

approvers thereof.

Thirdly, Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental harmony

and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and charitable

donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of

which is of the utmost consequence to us all.

And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely

wishing, that as men and christians, ye may always fully and

uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in

your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example

which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may

be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.

F I N I S.

On Common Sense

"No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and familiarity of style, in

perspicuity of expression, happiness of elucidation, and in simple

and unassuming language."

Thomas Jefferson

"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."

Nicholas Cresswell

"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."

John Adams

"Its effects were sudden and extensive upon the American mind. It

was read by public men."

Dr. Benjamin Rush

"Have you read the pamphlet Common Sense? I never saw such a

masterful performance.... In short, I own myself convinced, by the

arguments, of the necessity of separation."

General Charles Lee

Transcriber's Notes

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.

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.

In one case, the text refers to page forty (see our Page 130). 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.

The section "On Common Sense," containing quotes about Common Sense,

have been added by this transcriber.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 147 ***

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 147 ***

COMMON SENSE;

addressed to the

INHABITANTS

of

AMERICA,

On the following interesting

SUBJECTS

Of the Origin and Design of Government in general,

with concise Remarks on the English Constitution.

Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession

Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs

Of the present Ability of America, with some

miscellaneous Reflections

A new edition, with several additions in the body of the work. To

which is added an appendix; together with an address to the people

called Quakers.

Man knows no Master save creating Heaven

Or those whom choice and common good ordain.

Thomson.

PHILADELPHIA

Printed and sold by W. & T. Bradford, February 14, 1776.