Preamble

Created in 1776 during the events leading up to the American Revolution,

Common Sense was perhaps one of the most important documents ever written.

The author, philosopher and political theorist Thomas Paine, may have single-

handedly sewn the seeds of a new nation with his paradigm-shifting pamphlet -

a profound work that convinced thousands of colonists to support the

movement for independence from the British crown.

At the time, the colonies were starkly divided between the Tories, those who

desired a continued relationship with Great Britain, and the Patriots, who

wanted to sever all ties with their rulers across the Atlantic.

In many ways, the United States is in a similar predicament - with two sides,

the right (conservatives) and the left (liberals) at opposite ends of the spectrum,

and an ever widening gulf between them.

Before Common Sense was published and distributed to the masses, many

colonists were still undecided about whether independence from the British

Crown was beneficial, and if it was even worth fighting for in the first place.

After all, clashes between “redcoats” and fed-up colonists had already occurred

at Lexington and Concord at this point - when Paul Revere made his infamous

midnight ride. War with a world superpower seemed inevitable, and certainly

impossible to win without the full support of the colonies.

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was able to do just that, winning the hearts and

minds of the vast majority of colonists in a short amount of time. And only six

months later, in July of 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed.

While our circumstances these days may not appear to be so dire when taken at

face value, the truth is that we’re approaching yet another critical moment in

American history.

Once again, a group of people (in this case, the left) marching to the beat of

“globalism” seek to undermine America’s sovereignty - just like the pre-

revolution Tories did so many years ago.

Time after time, they continue to prop-up and elect leadership that not only

would like to see the liberties of the American people diminished, but to strip

the country of its core values as well - the same principles upon which the

United States was founded.

So, it’s essential now, perhaps more than ever, that we, the American people,

remind ourselves of where we came from - so that we may continue down the

path that our founding fathers originally set us on.

That’s why I want you to read over this copy of Common Sense, attached

below. More importantly, I need you to share this with as many people as you

can.

Just like Thomas Paine did in 1776, it’s our duty as the American people to

spread the word of what makes this country so great - something that

absolutely must happen if we are going to win the fight against tyranny,

oppression, and the “globalist elites” that would love to see nothing more than

our freedoms suppressed.

So please, read and share this essential part of American history. Because if the

cause of our foundation is forgotten, everything we have now could be lost to

the annals of history.

And that’s something by which I cannot idly abide.

Liberty forever,

Drew Franklin Gates

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

sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not

thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and

raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon

subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

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

right of it in question (and in Matters too which might never have been thought

of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the King of

England hath undertaken in his own Right, to support the Parliament in what

he calls Theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed

by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the

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

In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing

which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to

individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the

triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or

unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon

their conversion.

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

circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and

through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the

Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying of a Country

desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all

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

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

which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is 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

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

wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our

affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages

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

punisher.

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

but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or

are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a

country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we

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

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

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

obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds

it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the

protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which

in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore,

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

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

expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

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

let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the

earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of

any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be

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

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

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

his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable

dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the

common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his

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

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

different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither

might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a

state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

This necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived

emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessing of which, would supersede, and

render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained

perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it

will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first

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

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

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

government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

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

which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is

more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of

REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem.

In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and

the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too

inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their

number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and

trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the

legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body,

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

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

act were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become

necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest

of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide

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

the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the

electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because

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

of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the

prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent

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

they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the

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

the governed.

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

necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the

design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes

may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice

may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of

nature and of reason will say, it is right.

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

no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to

be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in

view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England.

That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is

granted. When the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom

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

incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.

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

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

head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not

bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is

so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without

being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some

in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

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

will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English

constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient

tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.

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

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

Thirdly. The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on

whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

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

in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the

state.

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

reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning,

or they are flat contradictions.

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

First. That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in

other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

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

wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.

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

king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check

the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes

that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than

him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it

first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in

cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him

from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly;

wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each

other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

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

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

commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of an house

divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet

when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen,

that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the

description of some thing which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible

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

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

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

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

could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs

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

supposes such a power to exist.

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

accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for as the greater weight

will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in

motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the

most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them,

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

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

will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.

That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not

be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the

giver of places and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been

wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same

time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key.

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

lords and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason.

Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but

the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with

this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed

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

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

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes

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

people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as

oppressive in England as in Turkey.

An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is

at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing

justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading

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 monarchical

governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and

rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which

vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens,

from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous

invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The

Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the christian world

hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious

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

is crumbling into dust!

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

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

scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet

Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical

parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical

governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which

have their governments yet to form. "Render unto 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 administered by a judge and the elders of the

tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being

under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the

idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder,

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

government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.

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

curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is

worth attending to.

The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched

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

decided in his favour. The Jews elate with success, and attributing it to the

generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us,

thou and thy son and thy son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent;

not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul

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

SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not

decline the honor, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment

them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a

prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of

heaven.

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

error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the

Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying

hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some

secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel,

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

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

motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens,

whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the

thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel

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

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

rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the

works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even

unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they

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

them and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i. e. not of

any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom

Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of

time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told

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

This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons

and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some

shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of

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

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

his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your

daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the

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

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

take the tenth of your feed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to

his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the

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

maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his

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

shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE

LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the

continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings

which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the

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

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

obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we

may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us,

and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose;

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

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

thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat

harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have

done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto

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

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

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

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

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

Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true,

or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as

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

in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of

government.

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

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

matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being

originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in

perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve

some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might

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

folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she

would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.

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

bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give

away the right of posterity, and though they might say "We choose you for our

head," they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say "that

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

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

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

in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt;

yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed;

many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part

shares with the king the plunder of the rest.

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

honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the

dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, that we should

find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless

gang, whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title

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

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

frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary

right to his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves was

incompatible with the free and unrestrained principles they professed to live by.

Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take

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

or no records were extant in those days, and traditionary history stuffed with

fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some

superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right

down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or

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

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

favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened

since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards

claimed as a right.

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

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

can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one.

A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king

of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry

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

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

weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and

welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.

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

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

usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the

next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession

was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction there was any

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

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

future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice

not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parrallel in or out

of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all

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

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

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

Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first,

and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some

former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and

hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion!

Yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.

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

the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth

is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.

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

concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the

seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the

improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves

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

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

in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little

opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the

government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the

dominions.

Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is

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

acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to

betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn

out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both

these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper

successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.

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

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

this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever

imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty

kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the

conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than

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

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

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

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

battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward.

Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry.

And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing

but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in

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

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

his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him. The

parliament always following the strongest side.

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

extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were united.

Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 14 to 1489.

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

but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which the word of

God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

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

they have none; and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to

themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave

their successors to tread the same idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole

weight of business, civil and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in

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

before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is neither a judge nor

a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.

The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there

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

of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is

unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having

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

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

constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that

of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For

it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England

which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons

from out of their own body and it is easy to see that when republican virtue

fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because

monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?

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

places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by

the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred

thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is

one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians

that every lived.

Thoughts of the present state of American Affairs

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

and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader,

than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his

reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or

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

enlarge his views beyond the present day.

Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England

and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different

motives, and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period

of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was

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

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

not without his faults) that on his being attacked in the house of commons, on

the score, that his measures were only of a temporary kind, replied, "they will

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 superceded and

useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the

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

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

the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far happened that

the first hath failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence.

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

agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right, that

we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of

the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will

sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on Great-Britain. To examine

that connexion and dependance, on the principles of nature and common sense,

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

dependant.

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

former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same connexion is necessary

towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing

can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that

because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the

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

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

would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European

power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched

herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is

the custom of Europe.

But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and

defended the continent at our expence as well as her own is admitted, and she

would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and

dominion.

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

sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great-Britain,

without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did

not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own

account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who

will always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her

pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and we

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

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

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

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

Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is

certainly a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest

and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain

never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being

the subjects of Great-Britain.

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

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

their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it

happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phraseparent or mother

country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low

papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our

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

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

liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender

embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far

true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from

home, pursues their descendants still.

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

hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry our friendship on a

larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every European christian, and triumph

in the generosity of the sentiment.

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

of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born

in any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with

his fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be common)

and distinguish him by the name of neighbour; if he meet him but a few miles

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

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

the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him countryman; i. e. county-

man; but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in France or any

other part of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of

Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in

America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England,

Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the

same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county

do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one

third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent.

Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to

England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.

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

Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and

title: And to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king

of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and

half the Peers of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore, by

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

Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that

in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere

presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean any

thing; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants,

to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.

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

commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of

all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port.

Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver

secure her from invaders.

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

advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain.

I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its

price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for buy

them where we will.

But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are

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

instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependance

on Great-Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and

quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our

friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe

is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of

it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions,

which she never can do, while by her dependance on Britain, she is made the

make-weight in the scale on British politics.

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

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

of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain. The next war

may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the advocates for

reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in

that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right

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

nature cries, 'TIS TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which the Almighty

hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the

authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time

likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument,

and the manner in which it was peopled encreases the force of it. The

reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty

graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when

home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

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

which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious mind can draw no true

pleasure by looking forward, under the painful and positive conviction, that

what he calls "the present constitution" is merely temporary. As parents, we

can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to

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

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

the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover

the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our

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

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

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

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

may be included within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are not

to be trusted; weak men, who cannot see; prejudiced men, whowill not see; and

a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it

deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of

more calamities to this continent, than all the other three.

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

evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the

precariousness with which all American property is possessed. But let our

imaginations transport us for a few moments to Boston, that seat of

wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power

in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who

but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now, no other alternative

than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of their

friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they

leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the hope of

redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to

the fury of both armies.

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain,

and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends

again, for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the

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

you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried

fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only

deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your

future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be

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

convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first.

But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your

house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are

your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you

lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched

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

you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy

of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your

rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a

sycophant.

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

feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be

incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I

mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken

us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some

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

if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth

an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will

partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not

deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of

sacrificing a season so precious and useful.

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

from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject to

any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The

utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of

separation, which can promise the continent even a year's security.

Reconciliation is now a falacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion,

and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never can

true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep."

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

rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that nothing flatters

vanity, or confirms obstinacy in Kings more than repeated petitioning, and

noting hath contributed more than that very measure to make the Kings of

Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since nothing but

blows will do, for God's sake, let us come to a final separation, and not leave the

next generation to be cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning names of

parent and child.

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

at the repeal of the stamp act, yet a year or two undeceived us; as well may we

suppose that nations, which have been once defeated, will never renew the

quarrel.

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

continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to

be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant

from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot

govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a

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

requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as

folly and childishness, there was a time when it was proper, and there is a

proper time for it to cease.

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for

kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in

supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance

hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England

and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature,

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

itself.

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

doctrine of separation and independance; I am clearly, positively, and

conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so;

that every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting

felicity, that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a

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

the glory of the earth.

As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise,

we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the

continent, or any ways equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have been

already put to.

The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the

expense. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junto, is a matter

unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was

an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently ballanced the repeal of all the

acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent

must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while

to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the

repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great

a folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I have always

considered the independancy of this continent, as an event, which sooner or

later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to maturity,

the event could not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it

was not worth the while to have disputed a matter, which time would have

finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting

an estate on a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is

just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself,

before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775 1 , but the moment the event of that

day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of

England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of

FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and

composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.

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

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

First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he

will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath

shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst

for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies,

"You shall make no laws but what I please." And is there any inhabitant in

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

constitution, that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives it

leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what

has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit his

purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as

by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it

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

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

forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously

petitioning. We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he

not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is

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

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

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

greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us, "there shall be no

laws but such as I like."

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

make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is

something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often

happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I

forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of

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

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

another case. The king's negativehere 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 herown 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 secondhand government,

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

the alteration of a name:

And in order to shew that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm,

that it would be policy in the king at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of

reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in order that HE MAY

ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTILITY, IN THE LONG RUN,

WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT

ONE. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.

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

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

guardianship, which can last no longer than till the colonies come of age, so the

general face and state of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and

unpromising. Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country whose

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

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

inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispose of their effects, and quit

the continent.

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

e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and

preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with

Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will followed by a revolt

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

the malice of Britain.

Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more will

probably suffer the same fate.) Those men have other feelings than us who have

nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed is

sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain

submission. Besides, the general temper of the colonies, towards a British

government, will be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will

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

is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and

pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on paper,

should a civil tumult break out the very day after reconciliation? I have heard

some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they

dreaded an independance, fearing that it would produce civil wars. It is but

seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case here; for

there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connexion than from

independance. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I

driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances

ruined, that as a man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of

reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby.

The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and obedience to

continental government, as is sufficient to make every reasonable person easy

and happy on that head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on

any other grounds, that such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one

colony will be striving for superiority over another.

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

affords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and we may say always)

in peace. Holland and Swisserland are without wars, foreign or domestic:

Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a

temptation to enterprizing ruffians at home; and that degree of pride and

insolence ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign

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

natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.

If there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, it is because no

plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out, wherefore, as an opening

into that business, I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly

affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be

the means of giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of

individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able

men to improve into useful matter.

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

more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the authority of a

Continental Congress.

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

district to send a proper number of delegates to Congress, so that each colony

send at least thirty. The whole number in Congress will be least 390. Each

Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the

delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot,

after which, let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of

the delegates of that province. In the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot

from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was taken in

the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had

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

is satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a

majority. He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed

as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.

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

business must first arise, and as it seems most agreeable and consistent that it

should come from some intermediate body between the governed and the

governors, that is, between the Congress and the people, let a CONTINENTAL

CONFERENCE be held, in the following manner, and for the following

purpose.

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

Two members for each House of Assembly, or Provincial Convention; and five

representatives of the people at large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of

each province, for, and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified

voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that

purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or

three of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus assembled,

will be united, the two grand principles of business, knowledge and power. The

members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in

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

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

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

CONTINENTAL CHARTER, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering to

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

choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting,

and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them: (Always

remembering, that our strength is continental, not provincial:) Securing

freedom and property to all men, and above all things, the free exercise of

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

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

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

charter, to be the legislators and governors of this continent for the time being:

Whose peace and happiness, may God preserve, Amen.

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

purpose, I offer them the following extracts from that wise observer on

governments Dragonetti. "The science" says he "of the politician consists in

fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the

gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained

the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense."

"Dragonetti on virtue and rewards."

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

above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain.

Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be

solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on

the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the

world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE

LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free

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

ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony

be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

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

reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that

it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool

deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an

interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello 2 may

hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together

the desperate and discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of

government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge.

Should the government of America return again into the hands of Britain, the

tottering situation of things, will be a temptation for some desperate adventurer

to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could

hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and ourselves suffering like the

wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose

independance now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal

tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are thousands, and

tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that

barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to

destroy us, the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and

treacherously by them.

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

and our affections wounded through a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is

madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us

and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires,

the affection will increase, or that we shall agree better, when we have ten times

more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever?

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

that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye

reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people of

England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries 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 from 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 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 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 loose. Our present numbers are

so happily proportioned to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution

of trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a new trade.

Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this account will

serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a

settled form of government, an independant constitution of it's 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 a just one.

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.

For a ship of a 100 guns

35,553

29,886

23,638

17,785

14,197

10,606

7,558

5,846

3,710

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

British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was as its greatest glory consisted

of the following ships and guns:

Ships

Guns

Cost of one

Cost of all

100

35,553

213,318

29,886

358,632

23,638

283,656

17,785

746,755

14,197

496,895

10,606

424,240

7,558

340,110

3,710

215,180

Sloops, bombs,

2,000

170,000

and fireships

Cost

3,266,786

Remains for guns

233,214

3,500,000

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

raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural

produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large

profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are

obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought to view the building

a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this

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

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

and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by

that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and silver.

In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors; it is not

necessary that one fourth part should be sailor. 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 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 guard

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

burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of

suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the

sinews of commerce and defence is sound policy; for when our strength and our

riches, play into each other's hand, we need fear no external enemy.

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

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

countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannons 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 dependents, may be hereafter

applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant

support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as

this.

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

an argument in favor of 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 any thing 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 nonage of a nation.

With the increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of

London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with the

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

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

the trembling duplicity of a Spaniel.

Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It

might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the Continent into one government

half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of

trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony.

Each being able might scorn each other's assistance; and while the proud and

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

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

establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship

which is formed in misfortune, are, of all others, the most lasting and

unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters: we are

young, and we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our

troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in.

The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a

nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations

have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to

receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves.

First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or

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

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

lay hold of the present opportunity To begin government at the right end.

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

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

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

having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same

manner, and then, where will be our freedom? Where our property?

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible 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 a previous page, 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 or religion,

personal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long

friends.

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

representation; and there is no political matter which more deserves our

attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of representatives, are

equally dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small,

but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this, I mention the

following; when the Associators petition was before the House of Assembly of

Pennsylvania; twenty-eight members only were present, all the Bucks county

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

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

and this danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch likewise,

which that house made in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over the

Delegates of that province, ought to warn the people at large, how they trust

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

together, which in point of sense and business would have dishonored a

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 thatHouse, 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 3 .

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 the 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 peacable

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 villany, 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 owncreating, 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 so calmly hear,

and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality, an apostate

from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered?as one, who hath, not

only given up the proper dignity of a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of

animals, and contemptibly 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 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 extension of

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

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

quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions yearly.

It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without 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 dissentions. 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 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 dissention. Let

the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us,

than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous

supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the FREE AND

INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.

Epistle to Quackers

To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to

so many of them as were concerned in publishing a late piece, entitled "The

ANCIENT TESTIMONY AND PRINCIPLES of the people called QUAKERS

renewed, with Respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT, and touching the

COMMOTIONS now prevailing in these and other parts of AMERICA,

addressed to the PEOPLE IN GENERAL."

THE Writer of this, is one of those few, who never dishonors religion either

by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to

man, are all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle is

not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling

in matters, which the professed Quietude of your Principles instruct you not to

meddle with.

As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the

place of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on

an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting himself in the

place of all those, who, approve the very writings and principles, against which,

your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen their singular situation, in

order, that you might discover in him that presumption of character which you

cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you 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 for peace

is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well as the religious wish of all

denominations of men. And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an

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 burdens of the

present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, 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 it's 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 your enemies, for

they likewise bear ARMS. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St.

James's, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and Captains

who are practically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants

who are acting in authority under HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the

honest soul of Barclay 4 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.

Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony,

and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was reduced to, and comprehended

in, the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have

mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants

uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your

pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the

very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are

nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as

keen as Death.

The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your

testimony, that, "when a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his

enemies to be at peace with him"; is very unwisely chosen on your part;

because, it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways (whom ye are so desirous of

supporting) do not please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.

I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which all

the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz.

"It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called to

profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences unto this day,

that the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is God's peculiar

prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our business to

have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station,

much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn 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 goodliness and honesty; under the government

which God is pleased to set over us." —If these are really your principles why do

ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God's Work, to

be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with

patience and humility, for the event of all public measures, and to receive that

event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your

political testimony if you fully believe what it contains: And the very

publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not

virtue enough to 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 dispersing 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 you can produce divine authority, to prove, that the

Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance

it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth,

nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned

court of Britain, unless I say, ye can 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 of 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 dispairing

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 toput 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 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.