| |
| Common Sense |
| |
Published in 1776, Common Sense challenged the authority of the
British government and the royal monarchy. The plain language that Paine
used spoke to the common people of America and was the first work to
openly ask for independence from Great Britain.
|
| |
|
Introduction to the
Third Edition
|
| |
|
Perhaps the sentiments
contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable
to procure them general favour; 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
|
| |
On the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks
on the English Constitution
|
| |
|
SOME writers have so
confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction
between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different
origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our
wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our
affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one
encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a
patron, the last a punisher.
|
| |
|
Society in every state
is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we
suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we
might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our 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 upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of
conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no
other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to
surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection
of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in
every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least.
Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it
unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to
ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is
preferable to all others.
|
| |
|
In order to gain a
clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose
a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth,
unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling
of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty,
society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them
thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his
mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek
assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same.
Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the
midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of
life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he
could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the
mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want
would 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 supercede, 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
encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance
at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient
for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number
was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and
trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to
leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from
the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake
which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner
as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue
encreasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of
representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may
be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into
convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the
ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the
ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections
often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again
with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to
the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod
for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common
interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and
naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of
king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE
GOVERNED.
|
| |
|
Here then is the
origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the
inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design
and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes
may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however
prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the
simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right.
|
| |
|
I draw my idea of the
form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn,
viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be
disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim
in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of
England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it
was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the
least 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, 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 an UNION of three powers, reciprocally
CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or
they are flat contradictions.
|
| |
|
First. — That the King
it 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 a 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 something which either cannot exist,
or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will
be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot
inform the mind: for this explanation includes a previous question, viz.
HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND
ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise
people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet
the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to
exist.
|
| |
|
But the provision is
unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the
end, and the whole affair is a Felo de se: for as the greater weight
will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are
put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the
constitution has the most weight, for that will govern: and tho' 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
endeavours 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 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 tho' avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously
poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
|
| |
|
But there is another
and great 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 inquiring 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 throws mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king hath
enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical
governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet
and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them,
which vanishes 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 honours 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 Cesar the things which
are Cesar's" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support
of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a
king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
|
| |
|
Near three thousand
years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the
Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of
government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed)
was a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the
tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any
being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously
reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings,
he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should
disapprove 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 honour, but
denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with
invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style 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 intrusted with some
secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel,
saying, "Behold thou art old, and they sons walk not in thy ways, now
make us a king to judge us like all the other nations." And here we
cannot observe but that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be
LIKE unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory
lay 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 show them the manner of the King that shall reign over them," i.e.
not of any particular King, but the general manner of the Kings of the
earth whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the
great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still
in fashion. "And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people,
that asked of him a King. And he said, This shall be the manner of the
King that shall reign over you. He will take your sons and appoint them
for himself for his chariots and to be his horsemen, and some shall run
before his chariots" (this description agrees with the present mode of
impressing men) "and he will appoint him captains over thousands and
captains over fifties, 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 expense and luxury as
well as the oppression of Kings) "and he will take your fields and your
vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to
his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your
vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants" (by which
we see that bribery, corruption, and favouritism, 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 shell 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
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 was then 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 kingcraft as
priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in popish
countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government.
|
| |
|
To the evil of
monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first
is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a
matter of right, is an insult and 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 tho'
himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his
contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit
them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary
right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not
so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A
LION.
|
| |
| |
|
Secondly, as no man at
first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him,
so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away the right
of posterity, and though they might say "We choose you for our head,"
they could not without manifest injustice to their children say "that
your children and your children's children shall reign over ours
forever." 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, we should find
the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some
restless gang, whose savage manners of pre-eminence in subtilty obtained
him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power
and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless to
purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could
have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such
a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and
restrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary
succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a
matter of claim, but as something casual or complemental; but as few or
no records were extant in those days, the traditionary history stuff'd
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 favour 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 honourable 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 the 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 that there was any intention it ever should. If the first
king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a
precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future
generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their
choice not only of a king but of a family of kings for ever, hath no
parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which
supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such
comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can
derive no glory. for as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors
all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and
in the other to sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and
our authority in the last; and as both disable us from re-assuming some
former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin
and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonourable rank! inglorious
connection! yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
|
| |
|
As to usurpation, no
man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was
an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that
the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.
|
| |
| |
|
But it is not so much
the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns
mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the
seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the
WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men
who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow
insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early
poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially
from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of
knowing its true interests, and when they succeed in the government are
frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
|
| |
|
Another evil which
attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be
possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency acting under
the cover of a king have every opportunity and inducement to betray
their trust. The same national misfortune happens when a king worn out
with age and infirmity enters the last stage of human weakness. In both
these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant who can tamper
successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.
|
| |
|
The most plausible
plea which hath ever been offered in favor of hereditary succession is,
that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would
be weighty; whereas it is the most bare-faced 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 has 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 upon.
|
| |
|
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 re-called 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 enquire into the
business of a King, we shall find that in some countries they may 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 'tis the Republican and not the
Monarchical part of the Constitution of England which Englishmen glory
in, viz. the liberty of choosing an House of Commons from out of their
own body — and it is easy to see that when Republican virtues fail,
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 giveaway places; which, in plain
terms, is to empoverish 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
|
| |
|
ON 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 has 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 County, 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 honour. 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 would enlarge with the tree, and
posterity read in it full grown characters.
|
| |
|
By referring the
matter from argument to arms, a new era for politics is struck — a new
method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the
nineteenth of April, i.e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like
the almanacks of the last year; which tho' proper then, are superceded
and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side
of the question then, terminated in one and the same point, viz. a union
with Great Britain; the only difference between the parties was the
method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship;
but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second
hath withdrawn her influence.
|
| |
|
As much hath been said
of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream,
hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right that we should
examine the contrary side of the argument, and enquire into some of the
many material injuries which these Colonies sustain, and always will
sustain, by being connected with and dependant on Great Britain. To
examine that connection and dependance, on the principles of nature and
common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we
are to expect, if dependant.
|
| |
|
I have heard it
asserted by some, that as America has flourished under her former
connection with Great Britain, the same connection is necessary towards
her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can
be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert
that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have
meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a
precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is
true; for I answer roundly that America would have flourished as much,
and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her.
The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of
life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of
Europe.
|
| |
|
But she has protected
us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and defended the
Continent at our expense as well as her own, is admitted; and she would
have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. — for 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; and 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 waive her pretensions to the Continent, or the Continent throw
off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain,
were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to
warn us against connections.
|
| |
|
It hath lately been
asserted in parliament, that the Colonies have no relation to each other
but through the Parent Country, i.e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys
and so on for the rest, are sister Colonies by the way of England; this
is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relationship, but it is
the nearest and only true way of proving enmity (or 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
prejudices, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the World. A man born in
any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most
with his fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will
be common) and distinguish him by the name of NEIGHBOR; if he meet him
but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and
salutes him by the name of TOWNSMAN; if he 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. COUNTYMAN; but if in their foreign
excursions they should associate in France, or any other part of EUROPE,
their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of ENGLISHMEN. And
by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any
other quarter of the globe, are COUNTRYMEN; for England, Holland,
Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same
places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and
county do on the smaller ones; Distinctions too limited for Continental
minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province,
[Pennsylvania], are of English descent. Wherefore, I reprobate the
phrase of Parent or Mother Country applied to England only, as being
false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.
|
| |
|
But, admitting that we
were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain,
being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and title: and to
say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king
of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman,
and half the peers of England are descendants from the same country;
wherefore, by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed
by France.
|
| |
|
Much hath been said of
the united strength of Britain and the Colonies, that in conjunction
they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the
fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for
this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants,
to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
|
| |
|
Besides, what have we
to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and
that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all
Europe; because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free
port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold
and silver secure her from invaders.
|
| |
|
I challenge the
warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that this
continent can reap by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the
challenge; not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its
price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for
buy them where we will.
|
| |
|
But the injuries and
disadvantages which 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 set us at variance with nations who would otherwise
seek our friendship, and against whom we have neither anger nor
complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no
partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of
America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do,
while, by her dependance on Britain, she is made the makeweight 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
reasonable 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 present sorrow; the evil is
not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the
precariousness with which all American property is possessed. But let
our imaginations transport us 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
situation 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 Great 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
can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name
of husband, father, friend or lover, and whatever may be your rank or
title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a
sycophant.
|
| |
Of the Present Ability of America: with some Miscellaneous Reflections
|
| |
|
I HAVE never met with
a man, either in England or America, who hath not confessed his opinion,
that a separation between the countries would take place one time or
other: And there is no instance in which we have shown less judgment,
than in endeavoring to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness
of the continent for independence.
|
| |
|
As all men allow the
measure, and vary only in their opinion of the time, let us, in order to
remove mistakes, take a general survey of things, and endeavor if
possible to find out the VERY time. But I need not go far, the inquiry
ceases at once, for the TIME HATH FOUND US. The general concurrence, the
glorious union of all things, proves the fact.
|
| |
|
'Tis 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, is
able to do any thing. Our land force is more than 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 or difficult to procure.
|
| |
|
Were the Continent
crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances
would be intolerable. The more seaport-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 independent 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's unworthy a
man of honour, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a
piddling politician.
|
| |
|
The debt we may
contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be but accomplished. No
nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt is a national bond;
and when it bears no interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is
oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions
sterling, for which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a
compensation for her debt, she has a large navy; America is without a
debt, and without a navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English
national debt, could have a navy as large again. The navy of England is
not worth at this time more than three millions and a half sterling.
|
| |
|
The first and second
editions of this pamphlet were published without the following
calculations, which are now given as a proof that the above estimation
of the navy is a just one. See Entic's "Naval History," Intro., p. 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.
|
| |
