Common Sense, by Thomas Paine


**[rexresearch.com](../index.htm)**


---

  

**Thomas PAINE**

***Common Sense***

---

**Table of Contents**

**On 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**

---

> After the First Edition published in January, 1776   
> Rendered into HTML on 12 April 1998, by Steve Thomas for The
> University of Adelaide Library Electronic Texts Collection.
>
> ---
>
>
>
> ### ON THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL,
>
> ### WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION
>
> ### SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
>
> Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in
> its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an
> intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the
> same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a
> country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by
> reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
> Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the
> palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of
> paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform
> and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but
> that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up
> a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of
> the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence
> which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to
> choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design
> and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever
> form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the
> least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all
> others.
>
> In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end
> of government, let us suppose a small number of persons
> settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected
> with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of
> any country, or of the world. In this state of natural
> liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand
> motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is
> so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for
> perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance
> and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four
> or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in
> the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the
> common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he
> had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it
> after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him
> to quit his work, and every different want would call him a
> different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death;
> for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable
> him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might
> rather be said to perish than to die.
>
> Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our
> newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings
> of which would supercede, and render the obligations of law
> and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just
> to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to
> vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they
> surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound
> them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in
> their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness
> will point out the necessity of establishing some form of
> government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
>
> Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under
> the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to
> deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that
> their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and
> be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this
> first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.
>
> But as the Colony increases, the public concerns will
> increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may
> be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them
> to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was
> small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and
> trifling. This will point out the convenience of their
> consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a
> select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to
> have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed
> them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body
> would act were they present. If the colony continue
> increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of
> representatives, and that the interest of every part of the
> colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the
> whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper
> number: and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an
> interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out
> the propriety of having elections often: because as the
> ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the
> general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity
> to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not
> making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange
> will establish a common interest with every part of the
> community, they will mutually and naturally support each
> other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,)
> depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE
> GOVERNED.
>
> Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a
> mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to
> govern the world; here too is the design and end of
> government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes
> may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound;
> however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our
> understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say,
> 'tis right.
>
> I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in
> nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple
> any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the
> easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I
> offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of
> England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in
> which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun
> with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue.
> But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and
> incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily
> demonstrated.
>
> Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature)
> have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people
> suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs;
> know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety
> of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so
> exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years
> together without being able to discover in which part the
> fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and
> every political physician will advise a different medicine.
>
> I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing
> prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the
> component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find
> them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies,
> compounded with some new Republican materials.
>
> First.  The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of
> the King.
>
> Secondly.  The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the
> persons of the Peers.
>
> Thirdly.  The new Republican materials, in the persons of
> the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
>
> The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the
> People; wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute
> nothing towards the freedom of the State.
>
> To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three
> powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either
> the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
>
> To say that the Commons is a check upon the King, presupposes
> two things.
>
> First.  That the King it not to be trusted without being
> looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute
> power is the natural disease of monarchy.
>
> Secondly.  That the Commons, by being appointed for that
> purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than
> the Crown.
>
> But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power
> to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives
> afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by
> empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes
> that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed
> to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
>
> There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition
> of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of
> information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the
> highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him
> from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to
> know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by
> unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the
> whole character to be absurd and useless.
>
> Some writers have explained the English constitution thus:
> the King, say they, is one, the people another; the Peers are
> a house in behalf of the King, the commons in behalf of the
> people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided
> against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly
> arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous;
> and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that
> words are capable of, when applied to the description of
> something which either cannot exist, or is too
> incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will
> be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear,
> they cannot inform the mind: for this explanation includes a
> previous question, viz. HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE
> PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such
> a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can
> any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the
> provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power
> to exist.
>
> But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either
> cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is
> a Felo de se: for as the greater weight will always carry up
> the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion
> by one, it only remains to know which power in the
> constitution has the most weight, for that will govern: and
> tho' the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the
> phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as
> they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual: The
> first moving power will at last have its way, and what it
> wants in speed is supplied by time.
>
> That the crown is this overbearing part in the English
> constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its
> whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and
> pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise
> enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we
> at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in
> possession of the key.
>
> The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own
> government, by King, Lords and Commons, arises as much or more
> from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly
> safer in England than in some other countries: but the will of
> the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in
> France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding
> directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the
> formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of
> Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle  not more
> just.
>
> Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in
> favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that IT IS
> WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE
> CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as
> oppressive in England as in Turkey.
>
> An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form
> of government, is at this time highly necessary; for as we are
> never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while
> we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so
> neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we
> remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man who
> is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of
> a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten
> constitution of government will disable us from discerning a
> good one.
>
> ---
>
>
>
> ### OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
>
> MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the
> equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent
> circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great
> measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to
> the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice.
> Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the
> MEANS of riches; and tho' avarice will preserve a man from
> being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous
> to be wealthy.
>
> But there is another and great distinction for which no truly
> natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is the
> distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female
> are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions
> of Heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so
> exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new
> species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the
> means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
>
> In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture
> chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was,
> there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws
> mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king hath enjoyed
> more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical
> governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for
> the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a
> snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the
> history of Jewish royalty.
>
> Government by kings was first introduced into the world by
> the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the
> custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever
> set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid
> divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian
> World hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their
> living ones. How impious is the title of sacred Majesty
> applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is
> crumbling into dust!
>
> As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be
> justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be
> defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the
> Almighty as declared by Gideon, and the prophet Samuel,
> expressly disapproves of government by Kings.
>
> All anti-monarchical parts of scripture, have been very
> smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they
> undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their
> governments yet to form. "Render unto Cesar the things which
> are Cesar's" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no
> support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time
> were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the
> Romans.
>
> Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic
> account of the creation, till the Jews under a national
> delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government
> (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed)
> was a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders
> of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to
> acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts.
> And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage
> which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that
> the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should disapprove a
> form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative
> of Heaven.
>
> Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the
> Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them.
> The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
>
> The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites,
> Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory
> thro' the divine interposition decided in his favour. The
> Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the
> generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying,
> "Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son's son." Here
> was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but
> an hereditary one; but Gideon in the piety of his soul
> replied, "I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule
> over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU." Words need not be
> more explicit: Gideon doth not decline the honour, but denieth
> their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with
> invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style
> of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper
> Sovereign, the King of Heaven.
>
> About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell
> again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had
> for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something
> exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of
> the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were intrusted with
> some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous
> manner to Samuel, saying, "Behold thou art old, and they sons
> walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all
> the other nations." And here we cannot observe but that their
> motives were bad, viz. that they might be LIKE unto other
> nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory lay in
> being as much UNLIKE them as possible. "But the thing
> displeased Samuel when they said, give us a King to judge us;
> and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto
> Samuel, hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they
> say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have
> rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to
> all the works which they have done since the day that I
> brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith
> they have forsaken me, and served other Gods: so do they also
> unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit,
> protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the
> King that shall reign over them," i.e. not of any particular
> King, but the general manner of the Kings of the earth whom
> Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the
> great distance of time and difference of manners, the
> character is still in fashion. "And Samuel told all the words
> of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a King. And he
> said, This shall be the manner of the King that shall reign
> over you. He will take your sons and appoint them for himself
> for his chariots and to be his horsemen, and some shall run
> before his chariots" (this description agrees with the present
> mode of impressing men) "and he will appoint him captains over
> thousands and captains over fifties, will set them to ear his
> ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of
> war, and instruments of his chariots, And he will take your
> daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be
> bakers" (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the
> oppression of Kings) "and he will take your fields and your
> vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and
> give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your
> seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and
> to his servants" (by which we see that bribery, corruption,
> and favouritism, are the standing vices of Kings) "and he will
> take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants,
> and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to
> his work: and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye
> shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day
> because of your king which ye shell have chosen, AND THE LORD
> WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY." This accounts for the
> continuation of Monarchy; neither do the characters of the few
> good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title,
> or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium of
> David takes no notice of him OFFICIALLY AS A KING, but only as
> a MAN after God's own heart. "Nevertheless the people refused
> to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will
> have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and
> that our king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our
> battles." Samuel continued to reason with them but to no
> purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would
> not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried
> out, "I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and
> rain" (which was then a punishment, being in the time of wheat
> harvest) "that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is
> great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING
> YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent
> thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared
> the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray
> for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE
> HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING." These
> portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of
> no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered
> his protest against monarchical government is true, or the
> scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that
> there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding
> the scripture from the public in popish countries. For
> monarchy in every instance is the popery of government.
>
> To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary
> succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of
> ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an
> insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being
> originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set
> up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for
> ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of
> honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be
> far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural
> proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that
> nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently
> turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION.
>
> Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public
> honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those
> honors could have no power to give away the right of
> posterity, and though they might say "We choose you for our
> head," they could not without manifest injustice to their
> children say "that your children and your children's children
> shall reign over ours forever." Because such an unwise,
> unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next
> succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool.
> Most wise men in their private sentiments have ever treated
> hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils
> which when once established is not easily removed: many submit
> from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful
> part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.
>
> This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to
> have had an honorable origin: whereas it is more than
> probable, that, could we take off the dark covering of
> antiquity and trace them to their first rise, we should find
> the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of
> some restless gang, whose savage manners of pre-eminence in
> subtilty obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and
> who by increasing in power and extending his depredations,
> overawed the quiet and defenseless to purchase their safety by
> frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of
> giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a
> perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the
> free and restrained principles they professed to live by.
> Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy
> could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something
> casual or complemental; but as few or no records were extant
> in those days, the traditionary history stuff'd with fables,
> it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to
> trump up some superstitious tale conveniently timed,
> Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the
> vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to
> threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new
> one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly)
> induced many at first to favour hereditary pretensions; by
> which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what
> at first was submitted to as a convenience was afterwards
> claimed as a right.
>
> England since the conquest hath known some few good monarchs,
> but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones: yet no
> man in his senses can say that their claim under William the
> Conqueror is a very honourable one. A French bastard landing
> with an armed Banditti and establishing himself king of
> England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms
> a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity
> in it. However it is needless to spend much time in exposing
> the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to
> believe it, let them promiscuously worship the Ass and the
> Lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor
> disturb their devotion.
>
> Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at
> first? The question admits but of three answers, viz. either
> by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was
> taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which
> excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the
> succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from
> that transaction that there was any intention it ever should.
> If the first king of any country was by election, that
> likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say,
> that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the
> act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king
> but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out
> of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes
> the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such
> comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary
> succession can derive no glory. for as in Adam all sinned, and
> as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all
> mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to
> sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and our
> authority in the last; and as both disable us from re-assuming
> some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that
> original sin and hereditary succession are parallels.
> Dishonourable rank! inglorious connection! yet the most subtle
> sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
>
> As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it;
> and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to
> be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of
> English monarchy will not bear looking into.
>
> But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary
> succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of
> good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority,
> but as it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the
> IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look
> upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow
> insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are
> early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in
> differs so materially from the world at large, that they have
> but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when
> they succeed in the government are frequently the most
> ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
>
> Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the
> throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all
> which time the regency acting under the cover of a king have
> every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The
> same national misfortune happens when a king worn out with age
> and infirmity enters the last stage of human weakness. In both
> these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant who
> can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or
> infancy.
>
> The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favor
> of hereditary succession is, that it preserves a nation from
> civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas
> it is the most 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 has been (including the
> revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen
> Rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes
> against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand
> upon.
>
> The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses
> of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for
> many years. Twelve pitched battles besides skirmishes and
> sieges were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry
> prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And
> so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation,
> when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel,
> that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and
> Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as
> sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his
> turn was driven from the throne, and Edward re-called to
> succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest
> side.
>
> This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was
> not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the
> families were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz.
> from 1422 to 1489.
>
> In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that
> kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of
> government which the word of God bears testimony against, and
> blood will attend it.
>
> If we enquire into the business of a King, we shall find that
> in some countries they may have none; and after sauntering
> away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage
> to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their
> successors to tread the same idle round. In absolute
> monarchies the whole weight of business civil and military
> lies on the King; the children of Israel in their request for
> a king urged this plea, "that he may judge us, and go out
> before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is
> neither a Judge nor a General, as in England, a man would be
> puzzled to know what IS his business.
>
> The nearer any government approaches to a Republic, the less
> business there is for a King. It is somewhat difficult to find
> a proper name for the government of England. Sir William
> Meredith calls it a Republic; but in its present state it is
> unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the
> Crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so
> effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue
> of the House of Commons (the Republican part in the
> constitution) that the government of England is nearly as
> monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with
> names without understanding them. For 'tis the Republican and
> not the Monarchical part of the Constitution of England which
> Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an House of
> Commons from out of their own body  and it is easy to see
> that when Republican virtues fail, slavery ensues. Why is the
> constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath
> poisoned the Republic; the Crown hath engrossed the Commons.
>
> In England a King hath little more to do than to make war and
> giveaway places; which, in plain terms, is to empoverish the
> nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business
> indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling
> a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is
> one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all
> the crowned ruffians that ever lived.
>
> ---
>
>
>
> ### THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS
>
> 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 has accepted the challenge.
>
> It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho' an
> able minister was not without his faults) that on his being
> attacked in the House of Commons on the score that his
> measures were only of a temporary kind, replied, "THEY WILL
> LAST MY TIME." Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess
> the Colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors
> will be remembered by future generations with detestation.
>
> The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not
> the affair of a City, a County, a Province, or a Kingdom; but
> of a Continent  of at least one-eighth part of the habitable
> Globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age;
> posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be
> more or less affected even to the end of time, by the
> proceedings now. Now is the seed-time of Continental union,
> faith and honour. The least fracture now will be like a name
> engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young
> oak; the wound would enlarge with the tree, and posterity read
> in it full grown characters.
>
> By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for
> politics is struck  a new method of thinking hath arisen. All
> plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April,
> i.e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the
> almanacks of the last year; which tho' proper then, are
> superceded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the
> advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in
> one and the same point, viz a union with Great Britain; the
> only difference between the parties was the method of
> effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship;
> but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and
> the second hath withdrawn her influence.
>
> As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation,
> which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us
> as we were, it is but right that we should examine the
> contrary side of the argument, and enquire into some of the
> many material injuries which these Colonies sustain, and
> always will sustain, by being connected with and dependant on
> Great Britain. To examine that connection and dependance, on
> the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have
> to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if
> dependant.
>
> I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has
> flourished under her former connection with Great Britain, the
> same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and
> will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more
> fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert
> that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never
> to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is
> to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is
> admitting more than is true; for I answer roundly that America
> would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no
> European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which
> she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and
> will always have a market while eating is the custom of
> Europe.
>
> But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed
> us is true, and defended the Continent at our expense as well
> as her own, is admitted; and she would have defended Turkey
> from the same motive, vizfor the sake of trade and dominion.
>
> Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices and
> made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the
> protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her
> motive was INTEREST not ATTACHMENT; and that she did not
> protect us from OUR ENEMIES on OUR ACCOUNT; but from HER
> ENEMIES on HER OWN ACCOUNT, from those who had no quarrel with
> us on any OTHER ACCOUNT, and who will always be our enemies on
> the SAME ACCOUNT. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the
> Continent, or the Continent throw off the dependance, and we
> should be at peace with France and Spain, were they at war
> with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn
> us against connections.
>
> It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the Colonies
> have no relation to each other but through the Parent Country,
> i.e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys and so on for the rest,
> are sister Colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a
> very roundabout way of proving relationship, but it is the
> nearest and only true way of proving enmity (or enemyship, if
> I may so call it.) France and Spain never were, nor perhaps
> ever will be, our enemies as AMERICANS, but as our being the
> SUBJECTS OF GREAT BRITAIN.
>
> But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more
> shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young,
> nor savages make war upon their families. Wherefore, the
> assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not
> to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase PARENT OR MOTHER
> COUNTRY hath been jesuitically adopted by the King and his
> parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair
> bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not
> England, is the parent country of America. This new World hath
> been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and
> religious liberty from EVERY PART of Europe. Hither have they
> fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the
> cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that
> the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home,
> pursues their descendants still.
>
> In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow
> limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of
> England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim
> brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the
> generosity of the sentiment.
>
> It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we
> surmount the force of local prejudices, as we enlarge our
> acquaintance with the World. A man born in any town in England
> divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his
> fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases
> will be common) and distinguish him by the name of NEIGHBOR;
> if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow
> idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of TOWNSMAN; if
> he travel out of the county and meet him in any other, he
> forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him
> COUNTRYMAN, i.e. COUNTYMAN; but if in their foreign excursions
> they should associate in France, or any other part of EUROPE,
> their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of
> ENGLISHMEN. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans
> meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are
> COUNTRYMEN; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when
> compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the
> larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county
> do on the smaller ones; Distinctions too limited for
> Continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of
> this province, [Pennsylvania], are of English descent.
> Wherefore, I reprobate the phrase of Parent or Mother Country
> applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and
> ungenerous.
>
> But, admitting that we were all of English descent, what does
> it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy,
> extinguishes every other name and title: and to say that
> reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king
> of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a
> Frenchman, and half the peers of England are descendants from
> the same country; wherefore, by the same method of reasoning,
> England ought to be governed by France.
>
> Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the
> Colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the
> world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is
> uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this
> continent would never suffer itself to be drained of
> inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia,
> Africa, or Europe.
>
> Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at
> defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to,
> will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because
> it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port.
> Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of
> gold and silver secure her from invaders.
>
> I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a
> single advantage that this continent can reap by being
> connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge; not a
> single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in
> any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for
> buy them where we will.
>
> But the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by that
> connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind at
> large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the
> alliance: because, any submission to, or dependance on, Great
> Britain, tends directly to involve this Continent in European
> wars and quarrels, and set us at variance with nations who
> would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom we have
> neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for
> trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of
> it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of
> European contentions, which she never can do, while, by her
> dependance on Britain, she is made the makeweight in the scale
> of British politics.
>
> Europe is too thickly planted with Kingdoms to be long at
> peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any
> foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, BECAUSE OF
> HER CONNECTION WITH BRITAIN. The next war may not turn out
> like the last, and should it not, the advocates for
> reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then,
> because neutrality in that case would be a safer convoy than a
> man of war. Every thing that is right or reasonable pleads for
> separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of
> nature cries, 'TIS TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which
> the Almighty hath placed England and America is a strong and
> natural proof that the authority of the one over the other,
> was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the
> Continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the
> manner in which it was peopled, encreases the force of it. The
> Reformation was preceded by the discovery of America: As if
> the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the
> persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither
> friendship nor safety.
>
> The authority of Great Britain over this continent, is a form
> of government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a
> serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward,
> under the painful and positive conviction that what he calls
> "the present constitution" is merely temporary. As parents, we
> can have no joy, knowing that this government is not
> sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath
> to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are
> running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work
> of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to
> discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our
> children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther
> into life; that eminence will present a prospect which a few
> present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.
>
> Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence,
> yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the
> doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the
> following descriptions.
>
> Interested men, who are not to be trusted, weak men who
> CANNOT see, prejudiced men who will not see, and a certain set
> of moderate men who think better of the European world than it
> deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation,
> will be the cause of more calamities to this Continent than
> all the other three.
>
> It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene
> of present sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to
> their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which
> all American property is possessed. But let our imaginations
> transport us a few moments to Boston; that seat of
> wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to
> renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants
> of that unfortunate city who but a few months ago were in ease
> and affluence, have now no other alternative than to stay and
> starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of their
> friends if they continue within the city and plundered by the
> soldiery if they leave it, in their present situation they are
> prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a general
> attack for their relief they would be exposed to the fury of
> both armies.
>
> Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the
> offences of Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are
> apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again for
> all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind:
> bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of
> nature, and then tell me whether you can hereafter love,
> honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire
> and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are
> you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin
> upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you
> can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and
> being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in
> a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the
> first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over,
> then I ask, hath your house been burnt? Hath your property
> been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children
> destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you
> lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the
> ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you
> not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still
> shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name
> of husband, father, friend or lover, and whatever may be your
> rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the
> spirit of a sycophant.
>
> 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. 'Tis not
> in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if
> she doth 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 doth not
> deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the
> means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.
>
> 'Tis repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things,
> to all examples from former ages, to suppose that this
> Continent can long remain subject to any external power. The
> most sanguine in Britain doth not think so. The utmost stretch
> of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan, short of
> separation, which can promise the continent even a year's
> security. Reconciliation is NOW a fallacious dream. Nature
> hath deserted the connection, and art cannot supply her place.
> For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never can true reconcilement
> grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep."
>
> Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our
> prayers have been rejected with disdain; and hath tended to
> convince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy
> in Kings more than repeated petitioning  and nothing hath
> contributed more than that very measure to make the Kings of
> Europe absolute. Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since
> nothing but blows will do, for God's sake let us come to a
> final separation, and not leave the next generation to be
> cutting throats under the violated unmeaning names of parent
> and child.
>
> To say they will never attempt it again is idle and
> visionary; we thought so at the repeal of the stamp act, yet a
> year or two undeceived us; as well may we suppose that nations
> which have been once defeated will never renew the quarrel.
>
> As to government matters, 'tis not in the power of Britain to
> do this continent justice: the business of it will soon be too
> weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree
> of convenience, by a power so distant from us, and so very
> ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot
> govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles
> with a tale or petition, waiting for 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 government 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, reverse 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 a little more, a little further,
> would have rendered this Continent the glory of the earth.
>
> As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards
> a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained
> worthy the acceptance of the Continent, or any ways equal to
> the expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to.
>
> The object contended for, ought always to bear some just
> proportion to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole
> detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have
> expended. A temporary stoppage of trade was an inconvenience,
> which would have sufficiently 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, 'tis 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 'tis as great a folly to pay a Bunker-hill
> price for law as for land. As I have always considered the
> independancy of this Continent, as an event which sooner or
> later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the
> Continent to maturity, the event cannot 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
> tresspasses 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, but the moment the event
> of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened,
> sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the
> wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE
> can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep
> with their blood upon his soul.
>
> But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be
> the event? I answer, the ruin of the Continent. And that for
> several reasons.
>
> First.  The powers of governing still remaining in the hands
> of the King, he will have a negative over the whole
> legislation of this Continent. And as he hath shown himself
> such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a
> thirst for arbitrary powers, 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 quarrelling,
> 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 Independant for
> independency means no more than this, whether we shall make
> our own laws, or, whether the King, the greatest enemy this
> continent hath, or can have, shall tell us THERE SHALL BE NO
> LAWS BUT SUCH AS I LIKE.
>
> But the King, you will say, has a negative in England; the
> people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of
> right and good order, 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 so, makes quite another
> case. The King's negative here is ten times more dangerous and
> fatal than it can be in England; for there he will scarcely
> refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as
> strong a state of 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
> second hand government, considering what has happened. Men do
> not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a
> name: And in order to 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 CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT
> RUN. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
>
> Secondly.  That as even the best terms which we can expect
> to obtain can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or
> a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer
> than till the Colonies come of age, so the general face and
> state of things in the interim will be unsettled and
> unpromising. Emigrants of property will not choose to come to
> a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and
> who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and
> disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay
> hold of the interval to dispose of their effects, and quit the
> Continent.
>
> But the most powerful of all arguments is, that nothing but
> 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 some where or other, the consequences of which may be
> far more fatal than all the malice of Britain.
>
> Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands
> more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those men have other
> feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now
> possess is liberty; what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to
> its service, and having nothing more to lose they disdain
> submission. Besides, the general temper of the Colonies,
> towards a British government will be like that of a youth who
> is nearly out of his time; they will care very little about
> her: And a government which cannot preserve the peace is no
> government at all, and in that case we pay our money for
> nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do whose power
> will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the
> very day after reconciliation? I have heard men say, many of
> whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded an
> independance, fearing that it would produce civil wars: It is
> but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that
> is the case here; for there is ten times more to dread from a
> patched up connection than from independance. 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 pretence for his fears, on any other
> grounds, than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz.,
> that one colony will be striving for superiority over another.
>
> Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority;
> perfect equality affords no temptation. The Republics of
> Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and
> Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchial
> 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 independance,
> it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their
> way out. Wherefore, as an opening into that business I offer
> the following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that
> I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be
> the means of giving rise to something better. Could the
> straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would
> frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve
> into useful matter.
>
> Let the assemblies be annual, with a president only. The
> representation more equal, their business wholly domestic, and
> subject to the authority of a Continental Congress.
>
> Let each Colony be divided into six, eight, or ten,
> convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of
> Delegates to Congress, so that each Colony send at least
> thirty. The whole number in Congress will be at least 390.
> Each congress to sit and to choose a President by the
> following method. When the Delegates are met, let a Colony be
> taken from the whole thirteen Colonies by lot, after which let
> the 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, in behalf of the whole Province, by as many
> qualified voters as shall think proper to attend from all
> parts of the Province for that purpose; or, if more
> convenient, the Representatives may be chosen in two or three
> of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus
> assembled, will be united the two grand principles of
> business, KNOWLEDGE and POWER. The Members of Congress,
> Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in
> national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors, and
> the whole, being impowered by the people, will have a truly
> legal authority.
>
> The conferring members being met, let their business be to
> frame a Continental Charter, or Charter of the United
> Colonies; (answering what is called the Magna Charta of
> England) fixing the number and manner of choosing Members of
> Congress, Members of Assembly, with their date of sitting; and
> drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them:
> Always remembering, that our strength is Continental, not
> provincial. Securing freedom and property to all men, and
> above all things, the free exercise of religion, according to
> the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as 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 extracts from
> that wise observer on Governments, Dragonetti. "The science,"
> says he, "of the Politician consists in fixing the true point
> of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the
> gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government
> that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with
> the least national expense." (Dragonetti on "Virtues and
> Reward.")
>
> 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 Great Britain. Yet that we may not
> appear to be defective even in earthly honours, let a day be
> solemnly set apart for proclaiming the Charter; let it be
> brought forth placed on the Divine Law, the Word of God; let a
> crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so
> far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is
> king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in
> free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be
> no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let
> the Crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and
> scattered among the people whose right it is.
>
> A government of our own is our natural right: and when a man
> seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he
> will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer,
> to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner,
> while we have it in our power, than to trust such an
> interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some
> Massanello 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 independance now,
> ye know not what ye do: ye are opening a door to eternal
> tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are
> thousands and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious
> to expel from the Continent, that barbarous and hellish power,
> which hath stirred up the Indians and the 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 thro' 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 encrease, or that we shall agree
> better when we have ten times more and greater concerns to
> quarrel over than ever?
>
> Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore
> to us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its
> former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and
> America. The last cord now is broken, the people of England
> are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which
> nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she
> did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his
> mistress, as the Continent forgive the murders of Britain. The
> Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings
> for good and wise purposes. They are the Guardians of his
> Image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of
> common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice
> be extirpated from the earth, or have only a casual existence
> were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber and
> the murderer would often escape unpunished, did not the
> injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice.
>
> O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the
> tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old
> world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted
> round the Globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her.
> Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her
> warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in
> time an asylum for mankind.
>
> ---
>
>
>
> ### OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA : WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLECTIONS
>
> I HAVE never met with a man, either in England or America, who
> hath not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the
> countries would take place one time or other: And there is no
> instance in which we have shown less judgment, than in
> endeavoring to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness
> of the continent for independence.
>
> As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion
> of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a
> general survey of things, and endeavor if possible to find out
> the VERY time. But I need not go far, the inquiry ceases at
> once, for the TIME HATH FOUND US. The general concurrence, the
> glorious union of all things, proves the fact.
>
> 'Tis not in numbers but in unity that our great strength
> lies: yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the
> force of all the world. The Continent hath at this time the
> largest body of armed and disciplined men of any power under
> Heaven: and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in
> which no single colony is able to support itself, and the
> whole, when united, is able to do any thing. Our land force is
> more than sufficient, and as to Naval affairs, we cannot be
> insensible that Britain would never suffer an American man of
> war to be built, while the Continent remained in her hands.
> Wherefore, we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in
> that branch than we are now; but the truth is, we should be
> less so, because the timber of the Country is every day
> diminishing, and that which will remain at last, will be far
> off or difficult to procure.
>
> Were the Continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings
> under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more
> seaport-towns we had, the more should we have both to defend
> and to lose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned
> to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of
> trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a
> new trade.
>
> Debts we have none: and whatever we may contract on this
> account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we
> but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an
> independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price
> will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting
> a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry
> only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the
> utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to
> do, and a debt upon their backs from which they derive no
> advantage. Such a thought's unworthy a man of honour, and is
> the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a piddling
> politician.
>
> The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the
> work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a
> debt. A national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no
> interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with
> a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling,
> for which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a
> compensation for her debt, she has a large navy; America is
> without a debt, and without a navy; yet for the twentieth part
> of the English national debt, could have a navy as large
> again. The navy of England is not worth at this time more than
> three millions and a half sterling.
>
> The first and second editions of this pamphlet were published
> without the following calculations, which are now given as a
> proof that the above estimation of the navy is a just one. See
> Entic's "Naval History," Intro., p. 56.
>
> The charge of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing
> her with masts, yards, sails, and rigging, together with a
> proportion of eight months boatswain's and carpenter's
> sea-stores, as calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the
> navy.   
> For a ship of 100 guns, .......... 35,553 GBP   
> 90 " .......... 29,886   
> 80 " .......... 23,638   
> 70 " .......... 17,785   
> 60 " .......... 14,197   
> 50 " .......... 10,606   
> 40 " .......... 7,558   
> 30 " .......... 5,846   
> 20 " .......... 3,710
>
> And hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost, rather, of
> the whole British navy, which, in the year 1757, when it was
> at its greatest glory, consisted of the following ships and
> guns.   
> Ships Guns Cost of One Cost of All   
> 6 ............ 100 ............ 35,553 GBP........... 213,318 GBP
>   
> 12 ............ 90 ............ 29,886 ............ 358,632   
> 12 ............ 80 ............ 23,638 ............ 283,656   
> 43 ............ 70 ............ 17,785 ............ 764,755   
> 35 ............ 60 ............ 14,197 ............ 496,895   
> 40 ............ 50 ............ 10,605 ............ 424,240   
> 45 ............ 40 ............ 7,558 ............ 340,110   
> 58 ............ 20 ............ 3,710 ............ 215,180   
> 85 sloops, bombs, and fireships,   
> one with another at ......... 2,000 ............ 170,000   
>    
> Cost, ............ 3,266,786 GBP   
> Remains for guns, ............ 233,214   
>    
> Total, ............ 3,500,000 GBP
>
> No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so
> internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber,
> iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad
> for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by
> hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese,
> are obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought
> to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it
> being the natural manufactory of this country. 'Tis the best
> money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than
> it cost: And is that nice point in national policy, in which
> commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want
> them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our paper
> currency with ready gold and silver.
>
> In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great
> errors; it is not necessary that one-fourth part should be
> sailors. The Terrible privateer, captain Death, stood the
> hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty
> sailors on board, though her complement of men was upwards of
> two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct
> a sufficient number of active landsmen in the common work of a
> ship. Wherefore we never can be more capable of beginning on
> maritime matters than now, while our timber is standing, our
> fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of
> employ. Men of war, of seventy and eighty guns, were built
> forty years ago in New England, and why not the same now? Ship
> building is America's greatest pride, and in which she will,
> in time, excel the whole world. The great empires of the east
> are mainly inland, and consequently excluded from the
> possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of
> barbarism; and no power in Europe hath either such an extent
> of coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where
> nature hath given the one, she hath withheld the other; to
> America only hath she been liberal to both. The vast empire of
> Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore her
> boundless forests, her tar, iron and cordage are only articles
> of commerce.
>
> In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are
> not the little people now which we were sixty years ago; at
> that time we might have trusted our property in the streets,
> or fields rather, and slept securely without locks or bolts to
> our doors and windows. The case is now altered, and our
> methods of defence ought to improve with our increase of
> property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come
> up the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under
> contribution for what sum he pleased; and the same might have
> happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of
> fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the whole
> Continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are
> circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the
> necessity of naval protection.
>
> Some perhaps will say, that after we have made it up with
> Britain, she will protect us. Can they be so unwise as to mean
> that she will keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose?
> Common sense will tell us that the power which hath
> endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others the most improper
> to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
> friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance,
> be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to
> be admitted into our harbours, I would ask, how is she going
> to protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles off can be
> of little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all.
> Wherefore if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do
> it for ourselves? Why do it for another?
>
> The English list of ships of war is long and formidable, but
> not a tenth part of them are at any time fit for service,
> numbers of them are not in being; yet their names are
> pompously continued in the list; if only a plank be left of
> the ship; and not a fifth part of such as are fit for service
> can be spared on any one station at one time. The East and
> West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts, over
> which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon her
> navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention we have
> contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and
> have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter
> at once, and for that reason supposed that we must have one as
> large; which not being instantly practicable, has been made
> use of by a set of disguised Tories to discourage our
> beginning thereon. Nothing can be further from truth than
> this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval
> force of Britain, she would be by far an over-match for her;
> because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion,
> our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we
> should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of
> those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over before
> they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order
> to refit and recruit. And although Britain, by her fleet, hath
> a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over
> her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the
> neighborhood of the Continent, lies entirely at its mercy.
>
> Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in
> time of peace, if we should judge it necessary to support a
> constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants to
> build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty,
> thirty, forty, or fifty guns (the premiums to be in proportion
> to the loss of bulk to the merchant), fifty or sixty of those
> ships, with a few guardships on constant duty, would keep up a
> sufficient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the
> evil so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their
> fleet in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite
> the sinews of commerce and defence is sound policy; for when
> our strength and our riches play into each other's hand, we
> need fear no external enemy.
>
> In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes
> even to rankness so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is
> superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to
> any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre
> and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is
> hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and
> courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it that
> we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we can
> expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the
> government of America again, this Continent will not be worth
> living in. Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections
> will be constantly happening; and who will go forth to quell
> them? Who will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen
> to a foreign obedience? The difference between Pennsylvania
> and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shows the
> insignificance of a British government, and fully proves that
> nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental
> matters.
>
> Another reason why the present time is preferable to all
> others is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there
> is yet unoccupied, which, instead of being lavished by the
> king on his worthless dependents, may be hereafter applied,
> not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the
> constant support of government. No nation under Heaven hath
> such an advantage as this.
>
> The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far
> from being against, is an argument in favour of independence.
> We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so we might be
> less united. 'Tis a matter worthy of observation that the more
> a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In
> military numbers, the ancients far exceeded the moderns; and
> the reason is evident, for trade being the consequence of
> population, men became too much absorbed thereby to attend to
> anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit both of
> patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently
> informs us that the bravest achievements were always
> accomplished in the non-age of a nation. With the increase of
> commerce England hath lost its spirit. The city of London,
> notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with
> the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less
> willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to
> fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity
> of a spaniel.
>
> Youth is the seed-time of good habits as well in nations as
> in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to
> form the Continent into one government half a century hence.
> The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of
> trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be
> against colony. Each being able would scorn each other's
> assistance; and while the proud and foolish gloried in their
> little distinctions the wise would lament that the union had
> not been formed before. Wherefore the present time is the true
> time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in
> infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune, are
> of all others the most lasting and unalterable. Our present
> union is marked with both these characters; we are young, and
> we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our
> troubles, and fixes a memorable era for posterity to glory in.
>
> The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time which never
> happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself
> into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity,
> and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from
> their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves.
> First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas
> the articles or charter of government should be formed first,
> and men delegated to execute them afterwards; but from the
> errors of other nations let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of
> the present opportunity  TO BEGIN GOVERNMENT AT THE RIGHT
> END.
>
> When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them law
> at the point of the sword; and, until we consent that the seat
> of government in America be legally and authoritatively
> occupied, we shall be in danger of having it filled by some
> fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same manner, and
> then, where will be our freedom? where our property?
>
> As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of
> government to protect all conscientious professors thereof,
> and I know of no other business which government hath to do
> therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that
> selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all
> professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at
> once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the
> companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For
> myself, I fully and conscientiously believe that it is the
> will of the Almighty that there should be a diversity of
> religious opinions among us. It affords a larger field for our
> Christian kindness; were we all of one way of thinking, our
> religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on
> this liberal principle I look on the various denominations
> among us to be like children of the same family, differing
> only in what is called their Christian names.
>
> In page [97] I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety of a
> Continental Charter (for I only presume to offer hints, not
> plans) and in this place I take the liberty of re-mentioning
> the subject, by observing that a charter is to be understood
> as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into,
> to support the right of every separate part, whether of
> religion, professional freedom, or property. A firm bargain
> and a right reckoning make long friends.
>
> I have heretofore likewise mentioned the necessity of a large
> and equal representation; and there is no political matter
> which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors,
> or a small number of representatives, are equally dangerous.
> But if the number of the representatives be not only small,
> but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this,
> I mention the following: when the petition of the associators
> was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, twenty-eight
> members only were present; all the Bucks county members, being
> eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester members
> done the same, this whole province had been governed by two
> counties only; and this danger it is always exposed to. The
> unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their
> last sitting, to gain an undue authority over the delegates of
> that province, ought to warn the people at large how they
> trust power out of their own hands. A set of instructions for
> their delegates were put together, which in point of sense and
> business would have dishonoured a school-boy, and after being
> approved by a few, a very few, without doors, were carried
> into the house, and there passed IN BEHALF OF THE WHOLE
> COLONY; whereas, did the whole colony know with what ill will
> that house had entered on some necessary public measures, they
> would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a
> trust.
>
> Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if
> continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right
> are different things. When the calamities of America required
> a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time
> so proper, as to appoint persons from the several houses of
> assembly for that purpose; and the wisdom with which they have
> proceeded hath preserved this Continent from ruin. But as it
> is more than probable that we shall never be without a
> CONGRESS, every well wisher to good order must own that the
> mode for choosing members of that body deserves consideration.
> And I put it as a question to those who make a study of
> mankind, whether representation and election is not too great
> a power for one and the same body of men to possess? When we
> are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue
> is not hereditary.
>
> It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims,
> and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes.
> Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the
> petition of the New York Assembly with contempt, because THAT
> house, he said, consisted but of twenty-six members, which
> trifling number, he argued, could not with decency be put for
> the whole. We thank him for his involuntary honesty.
>
> To CONCLUDE, however strange it may appear to some, or
> however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but
> many strong and striking reasons may be given to show that
> nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and
> determined declaration for independence. Some of which are,
>
> *First*.  It is the custom of Nations, when any two are
> at war, for some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to
> step in as mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a
> peace; But while America calls herself the subject of Great
> Britain, no power, however well disposed she may be, can offer
> her mediation. Wherefore, in our present state we may quarrel
> on for ever.
>
> *Secondly*.  It is unreasonable to suppose that France
> or Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only
> to make use of that assistance for the purpose of repairing
> the breach, and strengthening the connection between Britain
> and America; because, those powers would be sufferers by the
> consequences.
>
> *Thirdly*.  While we profess ourselves the subjects of
> Britain, we must, in the eyes of foreign nations, be
> considered as Rebels. The precedent is somewhat dangerous to
> their peace, for men to be in arms under the name of subjects;
> we, on the spot, can solve the paradox; but to unite
> resistance and subjection requires an idea much too refined
> for common understanding.
>
> *Fourthly*.  Were a manifesto to be published, and
> despatched to foreign Courts, setting forth the miseries we
> have endured, and the peaceful methods which we have
> ineffectually used for redress; declaring at the same time
> that not being able longer to live happily or safely under the
> cruel disposition of the British Court, we had been driven to
> the necessity of breaking off all connections with her; at the
> same time, assuring all such Courts of our peaceable
> disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into
> trade with them; such a memorial would produce more good
> effects to this Continent than if a ship were freighted with
> petitions to Britain.
>
> Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can
> neither be received nor heard abroad; the custom of all Courts
> is against us, and will be so, until by an independence we
> take rank with other nations.
>
> These proceedings may at first seem strange and difficult,
> but like all other steps which we have already passed over,
> will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and until
> an independence is declared, the Continent will feel itself
> like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business
> from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about
> it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the
> thoughts of its necessity.
>
> ---

![](0logo.gif)

********Your Support Maintains this
Service --******BUY**  
********The
Rex Research Civilization Kit********   
  
********... It's
Your Best Bet & Investment in
Sustainable Humanity on Earth ...********  ********Ensure & Enhance Your Survival &
Genome Transmission ...********  
********Everything
@ rexresearch.com on a******** **Thumb
Drive !**  
  
 ********[ORDER PAGE](../order.htm)********

---