COMMON SENSE;
addressed to the
INHABITANTS
of
AMERICA,
On the following interesting
SUBJECTS
Of the Origin and Design of Government in general,
with concise Remarks on the English Constitution.
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession
Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs
Of the present Ability of America, with some
miscellaneous Reflections
A new edition, with several additions in the body of the work. To
which is added an appendix; together with an address to the people
called Quakers.
Man knows no Master save creating Heaven
Or those whom choice and common good ordain.
Thomson.
PHILADELPHIA
Printed and sold by W. & T. Bradford, February 14, 1776.
MDCCLXXVI
Common Sense
By Thomas Paine
INTRODUCTION.
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet
sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit
of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of
being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of
custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than
reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of
calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might
never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated
into the inquiry) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his
own Right, to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs, and as
the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the
combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the
pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either.
In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every
thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as
censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the
worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose
sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves
unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion.
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.
Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but
universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind
are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are
interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword,
declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and
extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the
Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling;
of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the
AUTHOR
P.S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a
View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to
refute the Doctrine of Independance: As no Answer hath yet appeared,
it is now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such
a Performance ready for the Public being considerably past.
Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the
Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the
Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected
with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private,
but the influence of reason and principle.
Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL,
WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION.
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave
little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only
different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our
wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our
happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter
negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,
the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a
punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its
best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an
intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same
miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without
government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish
the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge
of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of
the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear,
uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver;
but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a
part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest;
and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every
other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least.
Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it
unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely
to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is
preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of
government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some
sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will
then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world.
In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first
thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength
of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for
perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and
relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five
united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a
wilderness, but one man might labour out of the common period of
life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber
he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in
the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want
call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be
death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable
him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather
be said to perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly
arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which,
would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government
unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as
nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably
happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties
of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they
will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and
this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some
form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the
branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on
public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will
have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by no other
penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man,
by natural right, will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase
likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated,
will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every
occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations
near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out
the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to
be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are
supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those who
appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole
body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing,
it will become necessary to augment the number of the
representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony
may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into
convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the
elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the
electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections
often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix
again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their
fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflexion of
not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange
will establish a common interest with every part of the community,
they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this
(not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of
government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode
rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the
world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom
and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our
ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or
interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of
reason will say, it is right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature,
which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is,
the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when
disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on
the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for
the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When
the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a
glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions,
and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily
demonstrated.
Absolute governments (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this
advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer,
they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise
the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures.
But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the
nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover
in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in
another, and every political physician will advise a different
medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices,
yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of
the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains
of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican
materials.
First.--The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.
Secondly.--The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of
the peers.
Thirdly.--The new republican materials, in the persons of the
commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people;
wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards
the freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers
reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have
no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two
things:
First.--That the king is not to be trusted without being looked
after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the
natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly.--That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose,
are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to
check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the
king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their
other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those
whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of
monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet
empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.
The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a
king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different
parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the
whole character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king,
say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in
behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this
hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and
though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined
they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the
nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the
description of some thing which either cannot exist, or is too
incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be
words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot
inform the mind, for this explanation includes a previous question,
viz. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to
trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the
gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking,
be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes,
supposes such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or
will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se;
for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all
the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to
know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that
will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or,
as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as
they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first
moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed
is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution
needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence
merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident,
wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door
against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish
enough to put the crown in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government by
king, lords and commons, arises as much or more from national pride
than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in
some other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of
the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead
of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people
under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the
fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle--not
more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour
of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to
the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the
government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in
Turkey.
An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of
government is at this time highly necessary, for as we are never in
a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue
under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we
capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any
obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute,
is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in
favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from
discerning a good one.
OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION.
Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the
equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance;
the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be
accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill
sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the
consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though
avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it
generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly
natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the
distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female are the
distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but
how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and
distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and
whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture
chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there
were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into
confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this
last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe.
Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of
the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes
away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the
Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was
the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the
promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their
deceased kings, and the christian world hath improved on the plan by
doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of
sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor
is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be
justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be
defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty,
as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves
of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have
been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they
undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their
governments yet to form. "Render unto Cæsar the things which are
Cæsar's" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support
of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a
king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the
creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king.
Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases,
where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administred by
a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it
was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the
Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous
homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder,
that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a
form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of
heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for
which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of
that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon
marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro' the
divine interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews elate with
success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed
making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and
thy son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a
kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his
soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule
over you. The Lord shall rule over you. Words need not be more
explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right
to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented
declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet
charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King
of heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into
the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous
customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but
so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons,
who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an
abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old,
and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us
like all other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their
motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations,
i.e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much
unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they
said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord,
and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people
in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but
they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According
to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought
them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have
forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now
therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto
them and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them,
i.e. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings
of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And
notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners,
the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the words of
the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said,
This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he
will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots,
and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this
description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he
will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties,
and will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to
make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he
will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks and
to be bakers (this describes the expence and luxury as well as the
oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive
yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he
will take the tenth of your feed, and of your vineyards, and give
them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that
bribery, corruption and favoritism are the standing vices of kings)
and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid
servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them
to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall
be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your
king which ye shall have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you in
that day. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do
the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either
sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the
high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a
king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless the
People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but
we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations,
and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our
battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he
set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and
seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call
unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was a
punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive
and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the
sight of the Lord, in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the
Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the
people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said
unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die
not, for we have added unto our sins this evil, to ask a king. These
portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no
equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his
protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is
false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much
of king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from
the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is
the Popery of government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession;
and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the
second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition
on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth
could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference
to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent
degree of honors of his cotemporaries, yet his descendants might be
far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural
proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature
disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into
ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors
than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could
have no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they
might say "We choose you for our head," they could not, without
manifest injustice to their children, say "that your children and
your children's children shall reign over ours for ever." Because
such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the
next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool.
Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated
hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which
when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear,
others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the
king the plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had
an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we
take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their
first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better
than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage
manners or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief
among plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his
depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their
safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no
idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a
perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and
unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore,
hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take
place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complimental;
but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditional
history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a
few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently
timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of
the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to
threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one
(for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced
many at first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it
happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was
submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.
England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but
groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his
senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a
very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti,
and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the
natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original.--It
certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend
much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are
any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass
and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor
disturb their devotion.
Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first?
The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by
election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it
establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary
succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary,
neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention
it ever should. If the first king of any country was by election,
that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that
the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the
first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family
of kings for ever, hath no parrallel in or out of scripture but the
doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men
lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no
other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all
sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one
all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty;
as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the
last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and
privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary
succession are parellels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion!
Yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that
William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be
contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English
monarchy will not bear looking into.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary
succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and
wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens
a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it
the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign,
and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of
mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world
they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they
have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when
they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and
unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne
is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the
regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity
and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune
happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the
last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes
a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the
follies either of age or infancy.
The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of
hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil
wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the
most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history
of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have
reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time
there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil
wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace,
it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to
stand on.
The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York
and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years.
Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought
between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in
his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war
and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are
the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a
prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a
foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom
lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward
recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the
strongest side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not
entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families
were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that
kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of
government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood
will attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in
some countries they have none; and after sauntering away their lives
without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw
from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle
round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business, civil
and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their
request for a king, urged this plea "that he may judge us, and go
out before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is
neither a judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled
to know what is his business.
The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business
there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name
for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a
republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name,
because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places
in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and
eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in
the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as
monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names
without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the
monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen
glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing a house of commons from out
of their own body--and it is easy to see that when republican virtue
fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly,
but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath
engrossed the commons?
In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give
away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and
set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to
be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and
worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to
society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that
ever lived.
THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS.
In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain
arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to
settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of
prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings
to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he
will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously
enlarge his views beyond the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between
England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the
controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but
all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms,
as the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice
of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho' an able
minister was not without his faults) that on his being attacked in
the house of commons, on the score, that his measures were only of a
temporary kind, replied "they will last my time." Should a thought
so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present contest,
the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with
detestation.
The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the
affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a
continent--of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis
not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually
involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to
the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of
continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be
like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a
young oak; the wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read
it in full grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new æra for
politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans,
proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April, i.e. to the
commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacks of the last year;
which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now. Whatever
was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then,
terminated in one and the same point, viz. a union with Great-
Britain; the only difference between the parties was the method of
effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it
hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath
withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which,
like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it
is but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the
argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which
these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected
with, and dependant on Great-Britain. To examine that connexion and
dependance, on the principles of nature and common sense, to see
what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect,
if dependant.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished
under her former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same
connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always
have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind
of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived
upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty
years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But
even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that
America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had
no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by
which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and
will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed us is
true, and defended the continent at our expence as well as her own
is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive,
viz. the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made
large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of
Great-Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not
attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our
account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had
no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our
enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the
continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and we should
be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The
miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connexions.
It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no
relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e. that
Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister
colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about
way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way
of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never
were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our
being the subjects of Great-Britain.
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame
upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages
make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true,
turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly
so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically
adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design
of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds.
Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new
world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and
religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled,
not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of
the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny
which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants
still.
In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits
of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry
our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every
European christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the
force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the
world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will
naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their
interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the
name of neighbour; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he
drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of
townsman; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any other,
he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him
countryman, i.e. county-man; but if in their foreign excursions they
should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local
remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just
parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other
quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany,
or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on
the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do
on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds.
Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of
English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or
mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish,
narrow and ungenerous.
But admitting, that we were all of English descent, what does it
amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes
every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation is our
duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present
line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the Peers of
England are descendants from the same country; therefore, by the
same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the
colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world.
But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither
do the expressions mean any thing; for this continent would never
suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British
arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Besides what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our
plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the
peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of
all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a
protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from
invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a
single advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected
with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage
is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe,
and our imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will.
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection,
are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to
ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any
submission to, or dependance on Great-Britain, tends directly to
involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at
variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and
against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our
market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any
part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of
European contentions, which she never can do, while by her
dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of
British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and
whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the
trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with
Britain. The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it
not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for
separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer
convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural
pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of
nature cries, 'Tis time to part. Even the distance at which the
Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural
proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the
design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was
discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it
was peopled encreases the force of it. The reformation was preceded
by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to
open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should
afford neither friendship nor safety.
The authority of Great-Britain over this continent, is a form of
government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious
mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the painful
and positive conviction, that what he calls "the present
constitution" is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy,
knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure
any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method
of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we
ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and
pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we
should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few
years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect,
which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am
inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of
reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions.
Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who cannot see;
prejudiced men, who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men,
who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this
last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more
calamities to this continent, than all the other three.