AN EXAMINATION OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
It is with painful feelings I now call your attention to the famous
document which sets forth the political creed of the United States. More
than once my pen has refused to set about this work, but I now ask: Who
wrote the original Declaration of Independence? I answer boldly, Thomas
Paine. To prove this, my method is the same as with Junius, and the
prejudices of the united world shall not intimidate me.
It is not my purpose to revive the old and long-forgotten controversy
about the authorship of this document. Enough to say, volumes have been
written to prove that it was _not_ Jefferson's. But the method and
object of a negative criticism I scorn. If it can not be shown to be
some other man's, then let the claimant wear his honors; he certainly
did not come by them meanly or dishonorably; they were forced upon him.
My evidence will be such as to exclude the possibility of even literary
theft in Jefferson, and that it is, as a whole, the work of the author
of Common Sense, and can not possibly be the work of any body else. This
is a bold assertion, and a little out of my turn, but my object is to
raise the strongest _doubt_ of the truth of what I assert in the mind of
my reader, so as to enlist his attention, and hold me to the proof.
The method of my argument is as follows:
First, to show wherein this document is exactly like Mr. Paine; and,
Secondly, wherein it is entirely unlike Mr. Jefferson.
The points wherein they would agree are necessarily thrown out, and
count nothing on either side. For example, the principles therein
contained may be common to both, and can have no weight in an argument.
It is said, in defense of this paper being Mr. Jefferson's, that the
"Summary View" of his submitted to, but not passed by the Virginia
Delegate Convention in 1774, contained the "_germs_" of the Declaration.
This I do not admit, but if it did, it would prove nothing, for so did
the writings of John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams, and
especially of James Otis. A thousand men in America had, perhaps,
expressed the cardinal doctrine of equal rights, and that the British
Parliament had usurped them. There is nothing peculiar nor individual in
this; but when we find one man only who makes a specialty of the
_Declaration_, it attracts attention, and must have great weight when
supported by a multitude of other special facts, all pointing in the
same direction. I, therefore, go to show:
First, Common Sense was written by Mr. Paine for the sole purpose of
declaring independence, and, with this document in view. I have
heretofore reviewed Common Sense, beginning on page 156 of this book. If
it were practicable for the reader to read the whole of Common Sense at
this time, it would render my labor much less; but as this may not be
the case, I will now give the whole of the third division of that paper,
being:
"THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE 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, must decide the contest; the appeal
was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the
challenge.
"It has been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who, though 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 shone on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the
affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a
continent--of at least one-eighth part of the habitable globe.
'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are
virtually involved in the contest, and they 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 era for
politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All
plans, proposals, etc., prior to the nineteenth of April, _i. e._,
to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacs of last
year; which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now.
Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the
question then terminated in one and the same point, viz., a union
with Great Britain. The only difference between the parties was
the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other
friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first has failed,
and the second has 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 dependent on Great Britain. To examine that
connection and dependence, 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 dependent.
"I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished
under her former connection with Great Britain, the same
connection is necessary toward 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 articles of commerce by which she has enriched herself,
are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while
eating is the custom of Europe.
"But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is
true, and defended the continent at our expense, as well as her
own, is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same
motives, viz., for the sake of trade and dominion.
"Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made
large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection
of Great Britain, without considering that her motive was
_interest_, not _attachment_; and that she did not protect us from
_our enemies_ on _our account_, but from _her enemies_ on _her own
account_, from those who had no quarrel with us on any _other
account_, and who will always be our enemies on the _same
account_. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the continent, or
the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at peace
with France and Spain, were they at war with Britain. The miseries
of Hanover, last war, ought to warn us against connections.
"It hath lately been asserted in Parliament that the colonies have
no relation to each other, but through the parent country, _i.
e._, that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest,
are sister colonies by the way of England. This is certainly a
very roundabout way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest
and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it.
France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies
as _Americans_, but as our being the _subjects of Great Britain_.
"But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame
upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor
savages make war upon their families; wherefore, the assertion, if
true, turns to her reproach. But it happens not to be true, or
only partly so; and the phrase _parent_, or _mother country_ hath
been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a
low, papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous
weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent
country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the
persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from _every part_
of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of
the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far
true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first
emigrants from home pursues their descendants still.
"In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow
limits of three hundred and sixty miles--the extent of
England--and carry our friendship on a larger scale. We claim
brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the
generosity of the sentiment.
"It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount
local prejudices, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A
man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will
naturally associate most with his fellow-parishioners--because
their interests, in many cases, will be common--and distinguish
him by the name of _neighbor_; if he meet him but a few miles from
home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the
name of _townsman_; if he travel out of the county, and meets him
in any other, he forgets the minor division of street and town,
and calls him _countryman_--_i. e._, _countyman_; but if, in their
foreign excursions, they should associate in France, or any other
part of _Europe_, their local remembrance would be enlarged into
that of _Englishmen_. And, by a just parity of reasoning, all
Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe,
are _countrymen_; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when
compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger
scale which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the
smaller one--distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not
one-third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of
English descent. Wherefore, I reprobate the phrase of parent, or
mother country, applied to England only, as being false, selfish,
narrow, and ungenerous.
"But, admitting that we were all of English descent, what does it
amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes
every other name and title; and to say that reconciliation is our
duty, is truly farcical. The first King of England, of the present
line--William the Conqueror--was a Frenchman, and half the peers
of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore, by
the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by
France.
"Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the
colonies--that, in conjunction, they might bid defiance to the
world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain,
neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would
never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants to support the
British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
"Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance?
Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us
the peace and friendship of all Europe, because it is the interest
of all Europe to have America a _free port_. Her trade will always
be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her
from invaders.
"I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a
single advantage that this continent can reap by being connected
with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge; not a single
advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market
in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where
we will.
"But the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by that
connection are without number; and our duty to mankind at large,
as well as to ourselves, instructs us to renounce the alliance,
because any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain, tends
directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels,
and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our
friendship, and against whom we have neither anger nor complaint.
As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial
connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America
to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do;
while, by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight
in the scale of British politics.
"Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace;
and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign
power, the trade of America goes to ruin, _because of her
connection with Britain_. The next war may not turn out like the
last, and, should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now
will be wishing for separation then, because neutrality, in that
case, would be a safer convoy than a man-of-war. Every thing that
is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain,
the weeping voice of Nature, cries, '_'Tis time to part!_' Even
the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and
America, is a strong and natural proof that the authority of the
one over the other was never the design of Heaven. The time,
likewise, at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to
the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the
force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of
America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary
to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither
friendship nor safety.
"The authority of Great Britain over this continent is a form of
government which, sooner or later, must have an end; and a serious
mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the
painful and positive conviction that what he calls 'the present
constitution,' is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no
joy, knowing that _this government_ is not sufficiently lasting to
insure 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 further 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 offense, 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 _can
not_ see; prejudiced men, who _will not_ see; and a certain set of
moderate men, who think better of the European world than it
deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will
be the cause of more calamities to this continent than all the
other three.
"It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of
sorrow. The evil is not sufficiently brought to _their_ doors to
make _them_ feel the precariousness with which all American
property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us a few
moments to Boston; that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom,
and instruct us forever to renounce a power in whom we can have no
trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who, but a few
months ago, were in ease and affluence, have now no other
alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to
beg--endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue
within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it.
In their present situation they are prisoners without the hope of
redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would
be exposed to the fury of both armies.
"Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses 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, honor, and faithfully serve the
power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you can
not do all these, then you are only deceiving yourselves, and, by
your delay, bringing ruin upon your posterity. Your future
connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will
be forced and unnatural, and, being formed only on the plan of
present convenience, will, in a little time, fall into a relapse
more wretched than the first. But if you say you can still pass
the violations over, then I ask, hath your house been burnt? Hath
your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and
children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have
you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the
ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a
judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake
hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of
husband, father, friend, or lover; and, whatever may be your rank
or title in life, you have the heart of a coward and the spirit of
a sycophant.
"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 does 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 and 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 do not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom can
not, at this time, compass a plan short of separation, which can
promise the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is
_now_ a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection, and
art can not 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--nothing hath contributed more than this
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 can not conquer us they can not 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 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 that they belong to different systems:
England to Europe--America to itself.
"I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to
espouse the doctrine of separation and independence. I am clearly,
positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true
interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of
_that_ is mere patchwork; that it can afford no lasting felicity;
that it is leaving the sword to our children and shrinking back at
a time when, going a little further, would have rendered this
continent the glory of the earth.
"As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination toward 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.
{213}"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 balanced the repeal of all the acts
complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole
continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is
scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry
only. Dearly, dearly do we pay for the repeal of the acts if that
is all we fight for; for, in a just estimation, it is as great a
folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law as for land. I have
always considered the independency of this continent as an event
which sooner or later must take place, and, from the late rapid
progress of the continent to maturity, the event can 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 a reconciliation than myself before the fatal
nineteenth of April, 1775,[A] but the moment the event of that day
was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh
of England forever; 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.
"1st. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the
king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this
continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate enemy
to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power, is
he, or is he not, a proper person to say to these colonies, '_You
shall make no laws but what I please?_' And is there any
inhabitant of America so ignorant as not to know that, according
to what is called the _present constitution_, this continent can
make no laws but what the king gives leave to? and is there any
man so unwise as not to see that (considering what has happened)
he will suffer no law to be made here but such as suits _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 quarreling or ridiculously
petitioning. We are already greater than the king wishes us to be,
and will he not hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring the
matter to one point, is the power who is jealous of our prosperity
a proper power to govern us? Whoever says _No_ to this question is
an _independent_, for independency means no more than this,
whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the
greatest enemy which 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, it 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 makes quite another case. The king's negative _here_
is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England;
for _there_ he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for
putting England into as strong a state of defense 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 further
than it answers her _own_ purpose. Wherefore, her own interest
leads her to suppress the growth of _ours_ in every case which
doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interferes with
it. A pretty state we should soon be in under such a secondhand
government, considering what has happened! Men do not change from
enemies to friends by the alteration of a name; and in order to
show that reconciliation _now_ is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm
_that it would be policy in the 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
subtlety, in the long run, what he can not do by force in the
short one_. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
"2dly. 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 which is every day tottering
on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the
present inhabitants would lay hold of the interval to dispose of
their effects and quit the continent.
"But the most powerful of all arguments is, that nothing but
independence, _i. e._, a continental form of government, can keep
the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil
wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as
it is more than probable that it will be followed by a revolt
somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more
fatal than all the malice of Britain.
"Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity. (Thousands
more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those men have other
feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they _now_ possess
is liberty; what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service,
and, having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission.
Besides, the general temper of the colonies toward 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
can not 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 independence, fearing that it would produce
civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here; for there is ten times more to
dread from a patched up connection than from independence. I make
the sufferer's 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 pretense for his fears on any other grounds than
such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz.: that one colony
will be striving for superiority over another.
"Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority;
perfect equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe
are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Switzerland
are without wars, foreign or domestic. Monarchical governments, it
is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation
to enterprising ruffians at home, and that degree of pride and
insolence, ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a
rupture with foreign powers in instances where a republican
government, by being formed on more natural principles, would
negotiate the mistake.
"If there is any true cause of fear respecting independence, it is
because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out.
Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the following
hints, at the same time modestly affirming that I have no other
opinion of them myself than that they may be the means of giving
rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of
individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for
wise and able men to improve into useful matter:
"Let the assemblies be annual, with a president only. The
representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and
subject to the authority of a continental congress.
"Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten convenient
districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to
congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole
number in congress will be at least three hundred and ninety. Each
congress to sit ----, and to choose a president by the following
method: When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the
whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which let the congress
choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that
province. In the next congress, let a colony be taken by lot from
twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was
taken in the former congress, and so proceeding on till the whole
thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And, in order that
nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not
less than three-fifths of the congress to be called a majority.
He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed
as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.
"But, as there is a peculiar delicacy from whom, or in what
manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most
agreeable and consistent that it should come from some
intermediate body between the governed and the governors--that is,
between the congress and the people--let a _Continental
Conference_ be held, in the following manner, and for the
following purpose:
"A committee of twenty-six members of congress, viz.: two for each
colony; two members from each house of assembly, or provincial
convention, and five representatives of the people at large, to be
chosen in the capital city or town of each province, for and in
behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified voters as shall
think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that
purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen
in two or three of the most populous parts thereof. In this
conference, thus assembled, will be united the two grand
principles of business--_knowledge_ and _power_. The members of
congress, assemblies, or conventions, by having had experience in
national concerns, will be able and useful counselors, and the
whole, being empowered by the people, will have a truly legal
authority.
"The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame
a _Continental Charter_, or Charter of the United Colonies
(answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England); fixing
the number and manner of choosing members of congress and 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 it is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately
after which, the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies which
shall be chosen conformable to the said charter to be the
legislators and governors of this continent for the time being:
whose peace and happiness may God preserve. Amen.
"Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some
similar purpose, I offer them the following extract 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.'
"But where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you,
friend: he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like
the royal brute of Britain. Yet, that we may not appear to be
defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart
for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the
divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by
which the world may know that, so far as we approve of monarchy,
that in America _the law is king_. For as in absolute governments
the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king;
and there ought to be no other. But, lest any ill use should
afterward 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 may hereafter
arise, who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect
together the desperate and the discontented, and, by assuming to
themselves the powers of government, finally sweep away the
liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of
America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering
situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate
adventurer to try his fortune; and, in such a case, what relief
can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news the fatal business
might be done, and ourselves suffering, like the wretched Britons,
under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence
now, ye know not what ye do: ye are opening a door to eternal
tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. 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 can not 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, and 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.
"Oh, 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 haunted round the
globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her
like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. Oh!
receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind."
ORIGINAL DECLARATION.[B]
I now place before the reader the original draft of the Declaration of
Independence, as it was presented by Jefferson. I have placed in
brackets the matter struck out or amended by Congress.
It will be remembered that Mr. Jefferson was chairman of the committee
to draft the document; Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and
R. R. Livingston, being the other four of the committee; that they
changed but a word or two in it; and that John Adams became its champion
in Congress, and fought manfully for every word of it. Jefferson said
nothing, as he scarcely ever spoke in public:
1. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for
one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected
them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the
separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of
nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
[inherent and] inalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter and abolish it, and to institute new
government, laying its foundations on such principles, and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, [begun at a distinguished period, and]
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for
their future security. Such has been the patient sufferings of
these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains
them to [expunge] their former systems of government. The history
of the present king of Great Britain, is a history of
[unremitting] injuries and usurpations, [among which appears no
solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, but all
have] in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny
over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a
candid world, [for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet
unsullied by falsehood.]
{223}3. "He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.
4. "He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his
assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly
neglected to attend to them.
5. "He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of
large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish
the right of representation in the legislature, a right
inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
6. "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance
with his measures.
7. "He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly [and
continually] for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on
the rights of the people.
8. "He has refused, for a long time after such dissolutions, to
cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers,
incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large
for their exercise, the state remaining, in the meantime, exposed
to dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
9. "He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states;
for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of
foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations
hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
10. "He has [suffered] the administration of justice [totally to
cease in some of these states], refusing his assent to laws for
establishing judiciary powers.
11. "He has made [our] judges dependent on his will alone for the
tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their
salaries.
12. "He has erected a multitude of new offices [by a self-assumed
power], and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our
people and eat out their substance.
13. "He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies [and
ships of war] without the consent of our legislatures.
14. "He has affected to render the military independent of and
superior to the civil power.
15. "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws,
giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation for
quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting
by a mock trial from punishment, any murders which they should
commit on the inhabitants of these states; for cutting off our
trade with all ports of the world; for imposing taxes on us
without our consent; for depriving us of the benefits of trial by
jury; for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended
offenses; for abolishing the free system of English laws in a
neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary
government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at
once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
absolute rule in these [states]; for taking away our charters,
abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering, fundamentally,
the forms of our governments; for suspending our own legislatures,
and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us
in all cases whatsoever.
16. "He has abdicated government here [withdrawing his governors
and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection].
17. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
18. "He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign
mercenaries, to complete the works of death, desolation, and
tyranny already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy,
unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
19. "He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the
high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the
executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands.
20. "He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of the
frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of
warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and
conditions of [existence].
21. ["He has excited treasonable insurrection of our
fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture and
confiscation of our property.]
22. ["He has waged cruel war against human nature itself,
violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the
persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating
and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur
miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical
warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the
CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market
where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his
negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or
restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of
horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now
exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to
purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering
the people on whom he has obtruded them; thus paying off former
crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people with crimes
which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.]
23. "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for
redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been
answered only by repeated injuries.
24. "A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which
may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people [who
mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe that the
hardiness of one man adventured, within the short compass of
twelve years only, to lay a foundation so broad and so undisguised
for tyranny over a people fostered and fixed in principles of
freedom.]
25. "Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British
brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts, by
their legislature, to extend [a] jurisdiction over [these, our
States.] We have reminded them of the circumstances of our
emigration and settlement here, [no one of which would warrant so
strange a pretention. These were effected at the expense of our
own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or strength of
Great Britain; that in constituting, indeed, our several forms of
government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a
foundation for perpetual league and amity with them; but that
submission to their Parliament was no part of our constitution,
nor ever in idea, if history may be credited; and] we appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, [as well as to] the ties of
our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which [were
likely] to interrupt our connection and correspondence. They, too,
have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity; [and
when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of
their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our
harmony, they have, by their free election, reestablished them in
power. At this very time, too, they are permitting their chief
magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but
Scotch and foreign mercenaries, to invade and destroy us. These
facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly
spirit bids us renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must
endeavor to forget our former love for them,] and hold them as we
hold the rest of mankind--enemies in war, in peace friends. [We
might have been a free and a great people together; but a
communion of grandeur and of freedom, it seems, is below their
dignity. Be it so, since they will have it. The road to happiness
and to glory is open to us, too. We will tread it apart from them,
and] acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our [eternal]
separation.
26. "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of
America, in general Congress assembled, do, in the name and by the
authority of the good people of these [States, reject and renounce
all allegiance and subjection to the King of Great Britain, and
all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we
utterly dissolve all political connection which may heretofore
have subsisted between us and the people or Parliament of Great
Britain; and, finally, we do assert and declare these colonies to
be free and independent States;] and that, as free and independent
States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract
alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things
which independent States may of right do.
"And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to
each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
FOOTNOTES:
[A] Massacre at Lexington.
[B] See Note A, page 277.
ANALYSIS.
We have to do with the original draft, and to let the reader see the
hand of a master, I will analyze it.
"I love method," said Mr. Paine. The method of the piece stands as
follows, and, for the sake of elucidation, I have numbered the
paragraphs in the original;
I. INTRODUCTION, viz:--Paragraph 1.
II. BILL OF RIGHTS--Paragraph 2.
III. INDICTMENT--under three general charges: _Usurpation_,
_Abdication_, and _War_, as follows:
USURPATION.
Par. 3, 4, 5--Laws usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Negatived.
_b._ Forbidden and neglected.
_c._ Refused, unless rights are surrendered.
Par. 6, 7, 8, 9--Legislation usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Legislative bodies meet at the wrong place.
_b._ Legislative bodies dissolved.
_c._ Refused to have them elected.
_d._ Obstructing legislation for naturalization.
Par. 10, 11, 12--Judiciary powers usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Destroyed by his negative.
_b._ Made the judges dependent on his will,
_c._ And erected new offices by his own will.
Par. 13, 14--Military powers usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Established without consent of legislatures.
_b._ Made superior to civil power.
Par. 15--Jurisdiction usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Troops, the quartering of.
_b._ Trial, of a mock nature.
_c._ Trade, the cutting off.
_d._ Taxes, without consent.
_e._ Trial, depriving of.
_f._ Transportation, to be
_g._ Tried, for pretended offenses.
_h._ Laws, abolishing the English.
_i._ Charters, the taking of.
_j._ Laws, abolishing special ones.
_k._ Constitutions, altering form of.
_l._ Legislatures, suspension of.
_m._ Power, to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
ABDICATION.
Par. 16--Declaring us out of his allegiance and protection.
WAR.
Par. 17--Warfare begun, and hereunder:
_a._ Seas plundered.
_b._ Coasts ravaged.
_c._ Towns burnt.
_d._ Lives destroyed.
Par. 18--Invasion.
Par. 19--Pressing of seamen.
Par. 20--Indian massacres.
Par. 21--Insurrection.
Par. 22--Waging war against human nature.
IV. PEACEFUL METHOD OF REDRESS, viz: Petitioning--Paragraph 23.
V. NECESSITY OF SEPARATION--declared in Paragraphs 24, 25.
VI. POWERS OF AN INDEPENDENT STATE DECLARED TO THE WORLD--in Paragraph
26.
ARGUMENT.
Let us now examine Articles III, IV, V, and VI. As they form the piece
proper, namely, the indictment and the declaration thereunder, let us
compare them with reference to the following:
In the conclusion of Common Sense Mr. Paine wrote: "Should a manifesto
be published and dispatched to foreign courts setting forth--
I. "The miseries we have endured; [This is Art. III of the
Declaration.]
II. "The peaceful methods which we have ineffectually used for redress;
[This is Art. IV of the Declaration.]
III. "Declaring at the same time that, not being able any longer to live
happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we
had been driven to the _necessity_ of breaking off all connection with
her; [This is Art. V of the Declaration.]
IV. "At the same time assuring all courts of our peaceful disposition
toward them, and of our desire of entering into _trade_ with them."
[This is Art. VI of the Declaration.]
Here are, _in their order_, the directions for producing the four last
articles of the famous document, and which constitute, as a special
instrument, all there is of it. Did Mr. Jefferson study this production
of Thomas Paine's so closely as to get the _exact order_, without
transposing an article? A cursory reading would not do this, and if he
did not study it for this purpose, then the same peculiar mind belonged
to Jefferson that belonged to Thomas Paine; and in writing the
Declaration a greater special miracle was performed than any recorded of
Jesus of Nazareth.
In the above there is a striking coincidence of documentary facts, in
the same order, and it is safe to say there is not one man in a million
who, in reading Common Sense, would remember this order, unless he read
it with such special purpose. But it is known Jefferson never consulted
a book or paper upon the subject, nor for the purpose of producing it.
Here is what Bancroft says, and I have found him to be a truthful
historian as to current facts touching on the subject:
"From the fullness of his own mind, without consulting one single book,
Jefferson drafted the Declaration; he submitted it separately to
Franklin and John Adams, accepted from each of them one or two verbal
unimportant corrections," etc.--Hist., vol. viii, p. 465.
The above history is doubtless taken from the reply of Mr. Jefferson to
attacks on the originality of the Declaration, which is as follows:
"Pickering's observations and Mr. Adams' in addition, 'that it contained
no new ideas; that it is a common-place compilation; its sentiments
hackneyed in Congress for two years before, and its essence contained in
Otis' pamphlet,' may all be true. Of that I am not to be the judge.
Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke's Treatise on
Government. Otis' pamphlet I never saw; and whether I had gathered my
ideas from reading, I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither
book nor pamphlet while writing it."--Works, vol. vii, p. 305.
This was written when he was eighty years old.
But it seems that Mr. Jefferson had never read the pamphlet, Common
Sense, as the following gross error in regard to it will show. Speaking
of Mr. Paine, he says: "Indeed, his Common Sense was for awhile believed
to have been written by Dr. Franklin, and published under the borrowed
name of Paine, who had come over with him from England."--Works, vol.
vii., p. 198.
In the above sentence there are two historic errors. First, Common Sense
was not published under the name of Paine; and, second, Mr. Paine did
not come over with Franklin from England. He preceded Franklin six
months.
That Mr. Paine did not attach his name to the pamphlet, Common Sense,
there is abundance of evidence to prove. The author of a pamphlet,
subscribed Rationalis, in answer to Common Sense, says: "I know not the
author, nor am I anxious to learn his name or character, for the book,
and not the writer of it, is to be the subject of my animadversions."
But we have Mr. Paine's own testimony, in the second edition of Common
Sense, direct to the point. In a postscript to the Introduction, he
says: "Who the author of this production is, is wholly unnecessary to
the public, as the object for attention is the doctrine, not the man.
Yet it may not be unnecessary to say that he is unconnected with any
party, and under no sort of influence, public or private, but the
influence of reason and principle."
An examination of all the earliest editions which can be seen in the
Congressional Library at Washington will satisfy any one on this
subject.
If Mr. Jefferson had read Common Sense before the writing of the
Declaration, he would never have erred so in regard to this fact. This
goes to show he had not even read it, much less studied it. How, then,
was the exact order followed, in writing the Declaration, which Mr.
Paine laid down in Common Sense?
My first proposition, then, I have proven, namely: that Thomas Paine
wrote a work for the sole purpose of bringing about a separation and
making a Declaration of Independence. I have proven, also, that he
therein submitted the subject-matter in the _order_ in which it was
afterwards put. This much on the positive side. On the negative side, I
have shown that Mr. Jefferson did none of these things, for it was
produced from "the fullness of his own mind, without consulting one
single book."
But if Mr. Bancroft be a truthful historian, there is already great
doubt thrown on Jefferson's authorship of it, and it would have been
better to have made Jefferson a close student and thorough reader for
this special purpose. This is the view, in fact, taken of the question
of authorship in the New American Cyclopedia (article Thomas Jefferson),
and I will give an extract therefrom, to show how historians differ.
Speaking of the Declaration, the Cyclopedia says: "Two questions have,
however, arisen as to its originality: the first, a general one upon the
substance of the document; the second, in regard to its phraseology in
connection with the alleged Mecklenburg declaration of May, 1775. It is
more than probable that Jefferson made use of some of the ideas
expressed in newspapers at the time, and that his study of the great
English writers upon constitutional freedom was of service to him. But
an impartial criticism will not base upon this fact a charge of want of
originality. It should rather be regarded as the peculiar merit of the
writer that he thus _collected and embodied_ the conclusions upon
government of the leading thinkers of the age in Europe and America,
rejecting what was false, and combining his material into a production
of so much eloquence and dignity."
This does not sound much like Bancroft. The two historians have placed
Mr. Jefferson in a sad dilemma. The one, to make him an original in the
production of the Declaration, says he did not consult one single book,
but produced it from the fullness of his own mind. The other, to defend
him from the charge of want of originality, says he made use of the
newspapers, collected and embodied, etc. But the single fact which I
have brought from the conclusion of Common Sense destroys the first
hypothesis, and the last hypothesis, in being contradictory in itself
destroys itself. How the reader will fathom this labyrinth of
contradictions, and reconcile this conflict of historic opinion, is a
question which does not trouble me, and I pass on to something more
important.
STYLE.
The style of the Declaration of Independence is in every particular the
style of Mr. Paine and Junius; and it is in no particular the style of
Thomas Jefferson. This I now proceed to prove.
That equality in the members of the periods, which gives evenness and
smoothness, and the alliteration which gives harmony in the sound, and
which together render the writings of Mr. Paine so stately and metrical,
are qualities so prominent that no one can mistake the style. And what
renders the argument in this regard so strong, is the entire absence of
these qualities in Mr. Jefferson's writings. In fact, if Mr. Jefferson
drafted the Declaration of Independence, he never before nor since wrote
any thing like it, in the same style, order, or spirit; or produced any
thing which evinced genius, or the hand of a master in literature. What
I have already said on style, in the former part of this work, will
render this readily understood by the reader; but I will now make a few
comparisons, and first with Junius, and then Paine and Jefferson.
Junius wrote two declarations, or rather pieces, after the very same
style and manner, namely, the first and the thirty-fifth Letters. They
can be thrown into the same synoptical form in which I have put the
Declaration. But to show the rythm, and alliteration, and peculiar
style, I give the following:
"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them
with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the
separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of
nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation."--Declaration.
"When the complaints of a brave and powerful people are observed
to increase in proportion to the wrongs they have suffered; when,
instead of sinking into submission, they are roused to resistance,
the time will soon arrive at which every inferior consideration
must yield to the security of the sovereign and to the general
safety of the state. There is a moment of difficulty and danger at
which flattery and falsehood can no longer deceive, and simplicity
itself can no longer be misled."--Junius.
"When the tumult of war shall cease, and the tempest of present
passions be succeeded by calm reflection; or when those who,
surviving its fury, shall inherit from you a legacy of debts and
misfortunes; when the yearly revenue shall scarcely be able to
discharge the interest of the one, and no possible remedy be left
for the other, ideas far different from the present will arise and
embitter the remembrance of former follies."
The above three extracts are from the Declaration, Junius, and Crisis,
viii. There is in them the same stately measure or _tread_; the same
harmony of sounds; the same gravity of sentiment; the same clearness of
diction; the same boldness of utterance; the same beauty and vivacity;
in short, the same spirit and the same hand.
Now an extract from Jefferson will be in place, and I give it from one
of his most impassioned pieces, the "Summary View." I do this for two
reasons: first, because it is the only piece, up to the writing of the
Declaration, which he ever produced worthy of note; and second, because
it is his best. I give also the best of this piece, the exordium:
{236}"_Resolved_, That it be an instruction to the said deputies,
when assembled in General Congress, with the deputies from the
other states of British America, to propose to the said Congress
that an humble and dutiful address be presented to his Majesty,
begging leave to lay before him, as Chief Magistrate of the
British empire, the united complaints of his Majesty's subjects in
America; complaints which are excited by many unwarrantable
encroachments and usurpations, attempted to be made by the
legislature of one part of the empire upon the rights which God
and the laws have given equally and independently to all. To
represent to his Majesty that these, his states, have often
individually made humble application to his imperial Throne to
obtain through its intervention some redress of their injured
rights, to none of which was ever even an answer condescended.
Humbly to hope that this, their joint address, penned in the
language of truth, and divested of those expressions of servility
which would persuade his Majesty that we are asking favors, and
not rights, shall obtain from his Majesty a respectful acceptance;
and this his Majesty will think we have reason to expect, when he
reflects that he is no more than the chief officer of the people,
appointed by the laws, and circumscribed with definite powers to
assist in working the great machine of government, erected for
their use, and consequently subject to their superintendence, and
in order that these our rights, as well as the invasions of them,
may be laid more fully before his Majesty, to take a view of them
from the origin and first settlement of these countries."
It will be observed in the above extract from Mr. Jefferson, that there
is no proportion between the members of the sentences. We have them of
all lengths, interlarded with phrases, and thrown into a confused mass.
Hence, there is no _harmony_. Mr. Paine's periods are almost faultless
in this regard; the members of the periods follow each other like the
waves of the ocean, which gives _evenness_ of "_tread_" and _majesty_ of
_expression_. While the style of Mr. Jefferson is absolutely devoid of
all _harmony_, for the members of the periods move on like the rumbling
of a government wagon over a rough and stony road.
This peculiarity of style is one of mental constitution. It is an effect
of nature which education can never remedy. No art can reach it, for no
mental training can annul a law of nature. It may be said of the writer
in this regard as of the poet: "He is born, not made." It is herein
nature made these two men entirely unlike. Paine was a poet; Jefferson
was not. The former had the most lively imagination; the latter had none
at all. It is this quality of the mind--_imagination_--which adorns
language with the figure.
In the proper use of the figure Mr. Paine can not be excelled. Mr.
Jefferson makes but infrequent use of figures of speech, and when he
goes out of the ruts of custom, he almost always fails in his efforts.
Two or three examples will suffice. In vol. i, p. 58, he says: "I never
heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the
main point which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders
to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of
themselves." In this men are arguing the _points_ of a question. But Mr.
Jefferson says they "laid their shoulders" to them, instead of their
tongues. In vol. i, p. 358, he says: "The Emperor, to satisfy this
tinsel passion, _plants_ a dagger in the heart of every Dutchman, which
no time will extract." Perhaps these planted daggers will take root. He
speaks also about "confabs" and "swallowing opinions."
* * * * *
Let us look now, for a moment, at the grand requisites of style,
_Precision_, _Unity_, and _Strength_.
Of the first, I would say, I have never yet seen an ambiguous sentence
in Paine's works. Mr. Jefferson's style is confused, labored, and
prolix. There is no paragraph he ever wrote, especially in the first
half of his life, but will bear me out in the assertion, that he uses a
great many words to express a few ideas. The above quotation I cite on
this point. It could all have been put into one-fourth of the space, and
thus have been rendered clear and distinct. His style, however, grew
better as he grew older. He is diffuse, which at once destroys _Unity_
of expression. He puts subject after subject into one period, often into
one sentence. The consequence is, there is no order in his style, and
his ideas tumble over each other in the greatest confusion; and the
consequence of this is, there is no _Strength_ to his style.
That the reader may see all these faults, I will make a brief analysis
of the Introduction to the "Summary View," quoted above:
FIRST PERIOD.
1. Instruction, to deputies.
2. When assembled in Congress.
3. With other deputies.
4. To propose to Congress.
5. To present an address to his Majesty.
6. Begging leave to lay before him complaints.
7. Complaints excited.
8. By encroachments and usurpations.
9. By the legislature of a part of the empire.
10. On the rights which God and the laws have given
11. Equally to all.
This is the first sentence. In it he has put the Introduction, the Bill
of Rights, the Indictment, a proposition to Congress to go a begging
before his Majesty, and several other particulars. But let us continue
with the next sentence:
SECOND PERIOD.
12. To represent to his Majesty.
13. That his states.
14. Humble application.
15. To Imperial Throne.
16. To get redress of injured rights.
17. No answer.
Here there is no relation between the _beginning_ of the sentence and
the conclusion.
THIRD PERIOD.
18. Humbly to hope.
19. By joint address.
_a._ Penned in truth.
_b._ Divested of terms of servility.
20. Would persuade his Majesty.
21. That we ask no favors.
22. But rights.
23. Shall obtain a respectful acceptance.
24. His Majesty will think.
25. We have reason to expect.
26. When he reflects.
_a._ That he is only the chief officer.
_b._ Appointed by law.
_c._ Circumscribed with powers.
_d._ To assist in working the great machine of government.
_e._ Erected for their use.
_f._ Are therefore subject to their superintendence.
27. And that these our rights.
28. As well as invasions.
29. May be laid before his Majesty.
_a._ To take a view of them.
_b._ From their origin.
_c._ And first settlement of these countries.
It is only necessary to remark on the above, that thirty or forty
subjects can hardly be handled successfully in three periods. How
different is this from the Declaration, or, in fact, from any production
of Mr. Paine's.
In the three great requisites of style, _Precision_, _Unity_, and
_Strength_, where Mr. Paine is so perfect, we see great defects in
Jefferson; and in the fourth, _Harmony_, a complete failure.
If we now take the "Summary View," and submit it to the same critical
analysis as I have the Declaration of Independence, we will find the
same defects in it, as a whole, that we find in the first paragraph,
which I have just analyzed. There is a complete mixture of all subjects.
But this I leave to the reader, should he question the truth of my
assertion.
If we now turn to the synopsis of the Declaration, we will find an
exhibition of the most perfect _order._ The Introduction is short, to
the point, and complete. The Bill of Rights contains the _first
principles_. These apply to mankind universally. It then proceeds as a
specialty. The Indictment is divided into three grand divisions,
Usurpation, Abdication, and War, and the separate counts are stated,
clearly containing but one subject. Nowhere do we find a mixing up of
different subjects. We do not find a count of war under the head of
usurpation, nor one of usurpation under the head of war.
* * * * *
There is also seen the passion for alliteration throughout the whole
instrument, and especially in the following passages: "Fostered and
fixed in principles of freedom." Paragraph 22 is filled with examples.
But in paragraph 15 it seems he uses this power of the mind to aid him
in itemizing counts. He takes t for the letter under which he marshals
this army of charges: "Troops," "trial," "trade," "taxes," "trial,"
[No. 2,] "transportation," "tried." Here are seven words comprising as
many charges following in succession. He follows it with others, but
never uses the t again. This shows a passion for order and alliteration.
I presume there is no other document in the world with these
peculiarities so marked, and I presume there is no writer in the world
who ever exhibited to such a remarkable degree these peculiarities of
style, as did Thomas Paine. [See on this subject Junius Unmasked, p.
107.] Now, these peculiarities are almost entirely wanting in Thomas
Jefferson, and without them it is absolutely impossible for him to be
the author of the Declaration of Independence.
I wish now to call attention to the word "hath." It is found but once in
the Declaration, and is in paragraph 2, in the following connection:
"And accordingly all experience hath shown." It is put in here for the
sake of harmony and force in sound, for if we substitute the word has,
there will be a halting at shown, and a disagreeable hissing sound. At
the time this was written Mr. Paine frequently used the word, and it may
have slipped in unnoticed, on account of sound, or he may have put it in
so that the critic could track him. I have never seen the word in any of
Jefferson's writings.
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS.
I have heretofore shown that Mr. Paine had the Declaration of
Independence in view in the production of Common Sense, and that he
sketched therein the outlines in the same order in which they afterward
appeared. I have shown its architecture and plan, and also its style,
to be that of Mr. Paine's, and not Mr. Jefferson's. I have shown this
somewhat in detail, but not more than the subject demanded. Herein I
have given the grand outlines and general features, but I shall now
review the whole, to point out its special characteristics, that, in the
multitude of small things all tending one way, it will be made
conclusive to the mind of the reader that it is Mr. Paine's, and not
Jefferson's. In this I shall be compelled, some times, to refer to
propositions already proven in the first part of this work, to shorten
the argument, not wishing to go over the same ground twice. In the
demonstration of a theorem in geometry, what has been proven is made to
aid what shall come after. I shall proceed with the same method, and not
be guilty of taking any thing which Mr. Paine may have written
afterward, to prove something which has gone before. But mental
_characteristics_ may be taken wherever we can find them. I am confined
to Common Sense, and shall use also Junius as aiding, but never to
_entirely_ prove a point. In my references to Common Sense, I shall be
compelled to refer to the page. I use the political works of Mr. Paine
as published by J. P. Mendum, Boston, as they are most generally known
and read in this country. With these explanations, the reader can not go
wrong.
* * * * *
I now take up the original Declaration, beginning with the Introduction;
and, as I have numbered its paragraphs, I shall use the figures to
denote them, proceeding in their numerical order:
Paragraph 1. "Political bonds." The same figure is found on page 64,
Common Sense.
"To assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station
to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them." Here the
crowning thought is that God, through his natural laws, and by natural
proofs, designed a separation. Thus Mr. Paine, in Common Sense, page 37,
says: "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." ... "Every thing that is
right or _natural_ pleads for separation."
Note also above the phrase, "separate and _equal_ station." The writer
of the Declaration considered England and America equal, and thus Mr.
Paine says, above: "It is proof that the authority of _the one_ over
_the other_ was never the design of Heaven."
"A decent _respect_ for the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Note
hereunder the phrase, "_decent respect_." Thus, in his introduction to
his first Letter, which was an indictment and declaration of principles
also, Junius says: "Let us enter into it [the inquiry] with candor and
_decency_. _Respect_ is due to the station of ministers, and, if a
resolution must at last be taken, there is none so likely to be
supported with firmness as that which has been adopted with moderation."
The above are perfect parallels in idea, and in the expression of the
prominent thought, "_decent respect_." But the thought is expanded from
the narrow confines of the British nation to the whole world, and if Mr.
Paine wrote both, as they strongly indicate, to make the conclusion
good we must find this change or mental growth in Mr. Paine to coincide
therewith. Here it is: "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 local
prejudices as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in
any town in England," etc. I wish the reader to read the whole of the
paragraph I have begun. See Common Sense, pages 35 and 36. See also
Crisis, viii, near its close; a noble passage on the same subject. Mr.
Paine frequently takes the pains to tell us how he outgrew his local
prejudices, and how he at last considered the "world his country." He
undertook, also, for America what he calls "_the business of a
world_."--Common Sense, page 63.
Paragraph 2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and
inalienable rights." Compare from Common Sense, pages 24, 25, and 28, as
follows: "Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the
equality could not be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance." ...
"The equal rights of nature." ... "For all men being originally equals,"
etc. So, also, Junius says: "In the rights of freedom we are all equal."
... "The first original rights of the people," etc. To show that he
believes these rights to be inalienable, he says:
"The equality can not be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance."
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Junius uses the terms,
"Life, liberty, and fortune."--Let. 66. And Mr. Paine frequently, "Life,
liberty, and property." But these terms were in quite common use with
many writers.
"To secure these rights, _governments_ are instituted among men." What
is said on government in this paragraph is paraphrased or condensed from
page 21, Common Sense. It is a concise repetition of Mr. Paine's pet
theme and political principles, first given to the world in Junius, and
then elaborated in Common Sense.
"_Prudence_ indeed will dictate." This word _prudence_ is ever flowing
from the pen of Mr. Paine. See an example on page 21, Common Sense. It
is quite common in Junius. The same may be said, also, of the word
_experience_.
"And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more
disposed to _suffer while evils are sufferable_, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Compare Common Sense, page 17, as follows: "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 to the inquiry," etc.
"_Forms._" That is, the "forms of the constitution." See Junius, Let.
44, where he says: "I should be contented to renounce the forms of the
Constitution once more, if there were no other way to obtain
substantial justice for the people." And here the Declaration is
renouncing the forms.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, all having in direct
object the establishment of an absolute _tyranny_ over these States."
Paine says on _tyranny_: "Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not
what ye do, ye are opening a door to _eternal tyranny_, by keeping
vacant the seat of government." ... "Ye that dare oppose not only the
_tyranny,_ but the tyrant, stand forth." Common Sense, p. 47.
"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, _for the truth
of which we pledge a faith, yet unsullied by falsehood_." The above
sentence is very peculiar, and I will show wherein. The last member of
the sentence which I have italicised was stricken out of the original
draft by Congress. The peculiarity in it is that "_the truth of a fact_"
is affirmed, and its falsehood implied. Now a fact is always true. There
can be no false facts. What is here meant, is, that we pledge a faith
yet unsullied by falsehood, that the statements are true. Not that the
facts are _true_, but that they are facts. It is the passion (if I may
so express it) for conciseness, to speak of facts being true or false.
Now this is a peculiarity of Junius. In Let. 3 he says: "I am sorry to
tell you, Sir William, that in this article your first fact is false."
It is thus Mr. Paine frequently sacrifices both grammar and strict
definition to conciseness; but never to obscure the sense. An example
from the publicly acknowledged pen of Mr. Paine ought to be here
produced; I, therefore, give one from his letter to the Abbe Raynal,
which is as follows: "His _facts_ are coldly and carelessly stated.
They neither inform the reader, nor interest him. Many of them are
_erroneous_, and most of them are defective and obscure." Here
"erroneous facts," "false facts," and "facts for the truth of which we
pledge a faith unsullied by falsehood," are evidence of the same head
and hand. It is thus an author puts some peculiar feature of his soul on
paper unwittingly; and it lies there a fossil, till the critic,
following the lines of nature, gathers it up to classify, arrange, and
combine with others, and then to put on canvas, or in marble bust. It
may be well to remind the reader that the above peculiarity I can
nowhere find in Jefferson's writings.
I now call attention to the sentence: "But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations [begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing
invariably the same object] evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I have placed in brackets what has been interpolated by Jefferson. I
conclude this from the following reasons:
1. It breaks the measure.
2. It destroys the harmony of the period, and the sentence is
complete and harmonious without it.
3. "Begun at a distinguished period," is indefinite.
4. It refers to time, and is mixed up with other subject matter,
and is therefore in the wrong place.
5. It is tautology, for two sentences further on it is all
expressed in its proper place, in referring to the history of the
king.
In all of these particulars it is not like Mr. Paine, for he is never
guilty of such a breach of rhetoric. But in all of the above particulars
it is just like Mr. Jefferson.
The above two paragraphs comprise the Introduction and the Bill of
Rights, and are the foundation of the Declaration. It is a basis fit and
substantial, because one of universal principles, so that whatever
special right may be enunciated, it will rest firmly on this foundation;
or whatever special denunciation of wrongs, it will have its authority
therein.
I now pass to consider the indictment under its three
divisions--_Usurpation_, _Abdication_, and _War_.
If the reader will now turn back to page 223, he will find from
paragraphs 3 to 15, inclusive, the whole charge of usurpation included
therein. But, separately, we find paragraph 3 to be a charge of the
abuse of the king's negative; and he concludes in paragraph 15 with the
climax, "suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves [the
king and parliament] invested with power to legislate for us in all
cases whatsoever." Now, if the reader will turn to page 41, Common
Sense, which is page 213 of this book, he will find Mr. Paine beginning
the first of his "several reasons" as follows:
"1. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the
king, he will have a negative over the whole of this continent."
It will be observed, in a general view, that the _reasons_ given by Mr.
Paine cover the whole thirteen paragraphs; and it will be observed
specially that he begins the reasons the same as he does the
indictment--namely, with the king's negative. Mr. Paine was violently
opposed to the king's negative, and all through life he never fails to
attack it, when the opportunity offered itself. This would weigh most
heavily on his mind, and be most naturally uttered first. On page 59 of
Common Sense will also be found reasons for independence, which come
within this part of the indictment. But pages 41, 42, 43 of Common Sense
cover nearly, or quite all of it. But they are stated _generally_ for
the sake of argument--not _specially_ for the sake of indictment.
Paragraph 16. "He has abdicated government here, withdrawing his
governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection."
Compare with this the following, to be found on page 61 of Common Sense:
"The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is
capable of reflection. _Without law, without government, without any
other mode of power than what is founded on and granted by courtesy._
Held together by an unexampled occurrence of sentiment, which is,
nevertheless, subject to change, and which every secret enemy is
endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition is legislation without
law, wisdom without a plan, a constitution without a name."
I now take up the third part of the indictment--_War_.
Paragraph 17. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."
Paragraph 18. "He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign
mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny,
already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy the
head of a civilized nation."
On the above two counts, which charge war and invasion, I submit from
Common Sense, page 62, as follows: "_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
mode of defense became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to
have ceased, and the independence of America should have been considered
as dating its era from, and published by the first musket that was fired
against her."
Under the above, also, may be classed paragraph 19.
Paragraph 20. "He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants the
merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions of
existence." Compare Common Sense, page 47, as follows: "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."
Paragraph 21. "He has excited _treasonable insurrection_," etc. Compare
Common Sense, page 61, as follows: "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."
The above paragraph and the following one, it will be remembered, were
stricken out by Congress.
I now come to the closing paragraph of this part of the indictment, and,
as it is the most important of all, the author kept it for a climax, and
he throws his whole soul into it. I will transcribe it here:
Paragraph 22. "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself,
violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the persons of
a distant people, who never offended him, captivating and carrying them
into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their
transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of
INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain.
Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he
has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt
to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and, that this
assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now
exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase
that liberty of which he has deprived them; thus paying off former
crimes, committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which
he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another."
The capital words in the above are his own. Let us begin with the last
sentence, and go backward. The substance of the last sentence is, that
by exciting the negroes to rise on the people of this continent, the
king was guilty of a double crime, both against the _liberties_ of the
negroes and the _lives_ of the American people. Compare Common Sense,
page 47, as follows: "He 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_." This is the same complex idea, well
reasoned out, and expressed almost in the same language--certainly in
the same style. But Jefferson "never consulted a single book," so
original was the Declaration to his own mind and habits of thought!
Let us now take the sentence: "This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of
INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain."
The antithesis above between infidel and Christian, falls upon the mind
with such stunning weight; with such boldness of religious sentiment;
with such emphasis in expression, and with such withering sarcasm toward
the king, that it becomes an epitome of Mr. Paine himself, and a concise
record of his whole life, up to that period. The reader can not fail
here to see the pen of Junius, and to recall the great power of
antithesis in all his Letters. This peculiarity of style is _absolutely
wanting_ in Jefferson.
The first sentence in the paragraph, is in every phrase so like Mr.
Paine, the reader must think it superfluous to comment upon it. The
expressions, "cruel war," "against human nature," "sacred rights," "life
and liberty," "in the persons of," and especially "_prostituted_," are
all to be found in Common Sense and Junius. For the phrase "in the
persons of," see it repeated three times on page 22 of Common Sense.
Thus ends the indictment. It is Article I, of Mr. Paine's Manifesto,
heretofore pointed out. I now proceed with Article II of the Manifesto,
which he states to be "the peaceful methods which we have ineffectually
used for redress." See Common Sense, p. 56. It is as follows:
Paragraph 23. "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned in
the most humble terms; our _repeated petitions_ have been answered by
repeated injuries." Compare Common Sense, pp. 39-40, as follows: "Every
quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers hath been
rejected with disdain, and only tended to convince us that nothing
flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in kings more than in _repeated
petitioning_."
Paragraph 24. "A prince whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean
to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe, that the hardiness of one
man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, to lay a
foundation so broad and so undisguised for tyranny over a people
fostered and fixed in principles of freedom."
The first sentence pronounces the king a tyrant, and is so often
repeated heretofore by Mr. Paine, it is useless to cite any thing in
proof. The second sentence was stricken out of the Declaration by
Congress, and contains new matter which must be attended to. And,
First, "_Future ages will scarcely believe that_." This phrase is
peculiar to Mr. Paine, for his mind was continually dwelling on the
future. So Junius says: "_Posterity will scarce believe that_."--Let.
48. And Mr. Paine says: "_Mankind will scarcely believe that_."--Rights
of Man, p. 94.
I parallel this phrase not so much to show a verbal construction as to
show a mental characteristic which must express itself in the same
language.
Second, "That the hardiness of one man adventured." Compare with this
from Common Sense, page 41: "No man was a warmer wisher for
reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775;
but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the
_hardened_, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England forever," etc. How
different is this language in the Declaration, from that used by Mr.
Jefferson in the "Summary View," when speaking of the king. Jefferson
used the word majesty, as though he was speaking to a god; and seems to
delight in the repetition of it. See p. 236.
Third, "Within the short compass of twelve years only." The Declaration
was dated July 4th, 1776. Twelve years would take it back to 1764. This
was the year the stamp act passed, and made an era in colonial troubles.
Now, if Mr. Paine had been speaking of the troubles of the English
people, he would have used the same expression, with the exception of
adding a year; for, as before stated in the first part of this work, Mr.
Paine dated the miseries, oppressions, and invasions on the rights of
the English people from the close of the Seven Years' War, or the
beginning of 1763. And the time was estimated in round numbers as
follows:
Junius says, in the beginning of 1769: "Outraged and oppressed as we
are, this nation will not bear after a _six years' peace_," etc.; and,
also, in the beginning of 1770: "At the _end of seven years_ we are
loaded," etc. Mr. Paine, at the close of the year 1778, says to the
English people: "A period of sixteen years of misconduct and
misfortune," etc. These round numbers all refer back to the beginning of
1763, and the expression in the Declaration, "within the short compass
of _twelve years only_," is not, as it appears, inconsistent with this
peculiarity, for the English era with him was 1763, and the American
1764. Nowhere do I find this mental characteristic in Jefferson. This is
strong proof--it goes beyond proof, it is demonstration. Mr. Jefferson,
nor any man living, could steal this fact; it is one of mental
constitution, stamped there and pointing with fingers of truth both
backward and forward to Thomas Paine, and at right angles to the
character of Thomas Jefferson.
The figure "compass" is often found in Mr. Paine's writings, as "compass
a plan," and the like. But I call attention to the perfect similarity in
style between the Declaration and every passage from Common Sense.
Paragraph 25. "Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British
brethren. We have _warned_ them from time to time," etc. It is the
peculiarity of Mr. Paine to hold up a warning to the sense. See on this
point, page 103 of this work.
"We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and
settlement here." Compare Common Sense, p. 35, as follows: "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."
Thus, also, says the Declaration (and note the style): "These were
affected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by
the wealth or strength of Great Britain; that in constituting indeed our
several forms of government we had adopted one _common king_."
I call attention to the phrases, "_common king_," "_common blood_," and
"_common kindred_," in the same paragraph. Mr. Paine was never guilty of
calling England the "parent" or "mother" country, but the "common"
country. (See Common Sense, p. 36.) Junius in Let. 1 says: "A series of
inconsistent measures has alienated the Colonies from their duty as
subjects, and from their _natural affection_ to their _common country_."
Jefferson uses "parent" and "mother" country, both before and after the
writing of the Declaration.
In connection with the above sentence from Junius, I subjoin the same
sentiment in regard to _natural affection_ from the Declaration a few
sentences further on, as follows: "These facts have given the last stab
to agonizing _affection_, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever
these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for
them, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in
peace friends." Compare with this, Common Sense, p. 47, as follows: "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." In regard to the phrase "_renounce
forever_" above, as quoted from the Declaration, compare Common Sense,
p. 38, as follows: "That seat of wretchedness [speaking of Boston] will
teach us wisdom and instruct us to _forever renounce_ a power in whom we
can have no trust." See also Common Sense, p. 37, as follows: "And our
duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instructs us _to_
renounce the alliance."
The expression "forever" will not be mistaken, for it runs through
Junius' and all of Mr. Paine's writings as a common expression.
The figure "to stab" is one which Mr. Paine adopted in Junius and
carried through his whole life. Thus he talks about "stabbing the
Constitution," and "to stab the character of the nation." The former is
found in Junius, the latter in his Letter to the Abbe Raynal.
The italicised phrases in the following expression, "_These facts_ have
given the _last stab_ to _agonizing affection_, and _manly spirit bids_
us to _renounce forever_," etc., are so very like Mr. Paine, and so
entirely unlike Mr. Jefferson, that the cursory reader, with the
commonest understanding, would not fail to pronounce in favor of the
former being the author.
I now call attention to a striking peculiarity in regard to the mention
of the Scotch. It is found in the same paragraph, and is as follows: "At
this very time, too, they [our British brethren] are permitting their
chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our _common blood_,
but _Scotch_ and foreign _mercenaries_, to invade and destroy us." The
word mercenaries is used once before in the Declaration.
The writer of the Declaration is speaking of the "British brethren,"
whom he designates as "of our common blood," but excludes the _Scotch_
therefrom. Now, we know Mr. Paine to have been an Englishman, and that
in Junius he often inveighed bitterly against the _Scotch_. The reader
will remember what he said of Mr. Wedderburn, on page 195 of this work.
Mansfield was a Scotchman, and this fact embitters Junius. He speaks of
the Scotch "cunning," "treachery," and "fawning sycophancy," of "the
characteristic prudence, the selfish nationality, the indefatigable
smile, the persevering assiduity, the everlasting profession of a
discreet and moderate resentment." It is quite evident that the writer
of the Declaration did not consider the Scotch as included in the term
"British brethren," whom he warned, as he called them "_mercenaries_;"
nor as having the like origin, nor as being of the same race as the term
"common blood" indicates. These are facts which speak out of the
Declaration, and as such Jefferson could not have written them, for two
reasons:
1. He had no antipathy to the Scotch, but rather a liking. This is
seen in the selection of his teachers, both by his parents and
himself. At nine years of age he studies Latin, Greek, and French
under the Rev. Mr. Douglas, a Scotchman, living with the minister
at the same time. At fourteen, and after his father's death, he
goes away to attend the school of Mr. Murray, a Scotchman; and
when he goes to college at Williamsburg, being then a young man
grown, he becomes strongly attached to one Professor Small, a
Scotchman. In short, Jefferson was peculiarly attached to the
Scotch, and why?
2. Because he was nearer related to them by "_common blood_" than
to the English. He was of Welsh origin--a perfect Celt, and not a
Briton. Now, the Cimbri of Wales and the Gael of Scotland are of
the same blood, build, habits, and instincts. Jefferson, on Scotch
soil, would have been taken, from personal appearance, to be a
red-headed Scotchman, and a fine specimen at that. From "_common
blood_," then, he could not consistently have written it, if he
knew any thing about his origin, or comprehended what he was
writing.
But there is an argument in this connection, which goes toward the whole
instrument, showing that Mr. Jefferson could not possibly be the author
of it. In a special commentary of Mr. Jefferson's on this phrase,
"_Scotch and foreign mercenaries_," he misquotes the Declaration, which
he would not be likely to do if he wrote it. In volume viii, page 500,
of his works, he says: "When the Declaration of Independence was under
the consideration of Congress, there were two or three _unlucky_
expressions in it, which gave offense to some members. The words,
'_Scotch and other foreign auxiliaries_' excited the ire of a gentleman
or two of that country." In the phrase "Scotch and other foreign
auxiliaries," Jefferson is trying to quote the words "Scotch and foreign
_mercenaries_." There is a vast difference between the two words
"auxiliaries" and "mercenaries." But the former expresses the real
spirit of Jefferson, the latter of Paine. Entirely different sentiments
produced the two expressions. The style, also, is changed from Paine's
to Jefferson's, by putting in the word "other." It is thus changed from
the concise to the diffuse. Mr. Jefferson says this expression was
"unlucky;" and it still proves to be, near the close of a century.
Now, the word mercenaries, which, with the author of the Declaration,
means prostituted hirelings, is used twice in the instrument, but
auxiliaries, which would mean honorable allies, _is not used once_. It
is not strange that he should forget, for the sentiment is foreign to
his own character; and I had written my argument, and given my reasons
above why Mr. Jefferson could not possibly be the author of that
sentiment, a month before I found that Jefferson had misquoted the
Declaration. I reason from first principles, which rest on established
facts, the _silent language of nature_, compared with which the vain
babblings of men amount to nothing. For example, John Adams says that he
and Mr. Jefferson met as a sub-committee to draft the Declaration; that
he urged Jefferson to do it; that afterward they both met, and conned it
over, and he does not remember of making or suggesting a single
alteration. This Mr. Jefferson denies. He says there was _no_
sub-committee; that Adams has forgotten about it; that he [Jefferson]
drew it, and turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it, and
that Adams _did_ correct it.--Jefferson's Works, vol. vii, pages 304,
305. Here are two men, one eighty and the other eighty-eight, on whose
words history rests, differing materially about historic facts. The one
who can not quote an important passage correctly, as to fact or language
which he says he wrote himself, accuses the other of _forgetting_ about
a committee _which never existed_. _The reader must judge._
"Be it so." Let us find the feeling which produced this expression. It
is peculiar to Junius. See Letters 18, 34, and 44, where the sentence is
used. And now let me remark, _that the reader may be led to a just
criticism, and not ramble after vague and unmeaning expressions_, the
spirit of the writer must be found, the prominent sentiment of the heart
must _be felt_, the cause must be seen which shall give utterance to the
expression, "Be it so." How trifling it appears to the cursory reader!
But let me arrest your attention. Junius uses the expression three
times, and every time in connection with the sentiment of _dignity_. So,
also, in the Declaration. It is only produced in him by a feeling, and
the peculiar and particular feeling of _dignity_, in antithesis to
contempt, littleness, disrepute, or meanness. I will now give the
context. In Let. 18 he says: "You seem to think the channel of a
pamphlet more respectable, and better suited to the _dignity_ of your
cause, than a newspaper. Be it so."
In Let. 34 he says: "We are told by the highest judicial authority that
Mr. Vaughan's offer to purchase the reversion of a patent place in
Jamaica amounts to a _high misdemeanor_. Be it so; and if he deserves
it, let him be punished. _But_ the learned judge might have had a fairer
opportunity of displaying the powers of his eloquence. Having delivered
himself with so much energy upon the criminal nature and dangerous
consequences of any attempt to corrupt a man in your _grace's station_,
what would he have said to the minister himself, to that very privy
counselor, to that first commissioner of the treasury, who does not wait
for, but impatiently solicits the touch of corruption, who employs the
meanest of his creatures in these honorable services, and forgetting the
genius and fidelity of the secretary, _descends to_ apply to his
housebuilder for assistance?"
In Let. 44 he says: "There may be instances of contempt and insult to
the House of Commons, which do not fall within my own exceptions, yet,
in regard to the _dignity_ of the house, ought not to pass unpunished.
Be it so."
In the Declaration, paragraph 25, we read: "We might have been a free
and a great people together, but a communication of grandeur and
freedom, it seems, is below their _dignity_. Be it so, since they will
have it."
So much for the trifling little trinity of words made up of six letters,
when traced to their mental origin. The reader will see an aura of
_dignity_ always darting out from the sentence when used by Mr. Paine.
It might never have this connection in the soul of any other man. This
closes paragraph 25, and I proceed to the conclusion.
Paragraph 26. Here the nation is named. "The United States of America,"
are declared "free and independent States." ... "And for the support of
this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor." Compare Common Sense, conclusion, as
follows: "Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or
doubtful curiosity, let each of us _hold out to his neighbor the hearty
hand of friendship_, and unite in drawing a line which, like an act of
oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the
name of whig and tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us
than those of _a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a
virtuous supporter of the_ RIGHTS OF MANKIND, _and of the_ FREE AND
INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA."
I have now gone through with the Declaration, both in a general and
special manner. In the former regard I have found it to be the soul's
image of Mr. Paine, in style, _order_, and construction, and, in the
latter, a complete synopsis of Common Sense. I have fully and
conclusively shown that the substance of _every paragraph_ is found in
Common Sense, with much of the language the same, and also that many
special, mental peculiarities, common to Mr. Paine, and wanting in Mr.
Jefferson, are found there. Now, Mr. Jefferson never before, nor since,
ever produced any thing like it in any of these particulars. If we take
a hasty review, we will find that in as many particulars as the
Declaration has, in just so many there is a reproduction of Mr. Paine.
In no single fact does the Declaration disagree with Mr. Paine. It does
with Mr. Jefferson in very many. I have shown also that it would be
impossible for Mr. Jefferson to steal it, for he would have to steal the
very soul of Mr. Paine, and write under its influence. This is above
proof, it is demonstration.