Addressed to the Inhabitants of America
February 14, 1776
PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right,
and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the
tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of
calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might
never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into
the inquiry) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his own Right, to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs,
and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the
combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the
pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either.
In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every
thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure
to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not
the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious,
or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are
bestowed upon their conversion.
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.
Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but
universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind
are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are
interested. The laying of a Country desolate with Fire and Sword,
declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and
extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the
Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of
which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the
P. S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a
View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute
the Doctrine of Independance: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now
presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a
Performance ready for the Public being considerably past.
Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man.
Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any
Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the
influence of reason and principle.
Philadelphia, February 14, 1776.
Of the origin and design of government in general, with concise remarks on the English Constitution
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave
little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only
different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our
wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively
by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other
creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its
best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable
one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government,
our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by
which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost
innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of
paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and
irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not
being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his
property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he
is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises
him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of
government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some
sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will
then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In
this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A
thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is
so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual
solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of
another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would
be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but
one man might labour out the common period of life without
accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not
remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time
would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a
different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though
neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and
reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than
This necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly
arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessing of which, would
supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary
while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but
heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in
proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which
bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in
their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will
point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to
supply the defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the
branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on
public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will
have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be
enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first
parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase
likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will
render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as
at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the
public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience
of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a
select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the
same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who
will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they
present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary
to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of
every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to
divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper
number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors
in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the
prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves. And as this
frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part
of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other,
and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode
rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the
world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and
security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears
deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest
darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will
say, it is right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature,
which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the
less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when
disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the
so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark
and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world
was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious
rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable
of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this
advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they
know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the
remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But
the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation
may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which
part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and
every political physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing
prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component
parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base
remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican
First.?The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.
Secondly.?The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.
Thirdly.?The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things.
First.?That the king is not to be trusted without being
looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is
the natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly.?That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to
check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a
power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other
bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has
already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of
monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet
empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.
The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a
king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts,
by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole
character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king,
say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf
of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the
distinctions of an house divided against itself; and though the
expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle
and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction
that words are capable of, when applied to the description of some
thing which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be
within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and
though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind, for this
explanation includes a previous question, viz. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or
will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for
as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the
wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know
which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will
govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the
phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot
stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power
will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution
needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence
merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident;
wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door
against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough
to put the crown in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government by
king, lords and commons, arises as much or more from national pride
than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some
other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law
of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead
of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under
the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of
Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle?not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form
of government is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in
a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under
the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of
doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate
prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted
to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a
rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession
MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the
equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the
distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted
for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill sounding names
of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means
of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being
necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly
natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the
distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the
distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but
how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and
distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and
whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture
chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there
were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into
confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last
century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity
favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first
patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we
come to the history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the
Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was
the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the
promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their
deceased kings, and the christian world hath improved on the plan by
doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred
majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is
crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be
justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended
on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as
declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of
government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been
very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they
undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their
governments yet to form. "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's"
is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of
monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king,
and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the
creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king.
Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases,
where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a
judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was
held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of
Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which
is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty
ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government
which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for
which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that
transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon
marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro' the divine
interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews elate with success, and
attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a
king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son's son.
Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an
hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline
the honor, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he
compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the
positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their
proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into
the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous
customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so
it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who
were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and
clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But
the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us;
and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken
unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they
have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According
to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them
up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken me
and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken
unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and shew them the
manner of the king that shall reign over them, i. e. not of any
particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom
Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great
distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in
fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people,
that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the
king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them
for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall
run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and
he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties,
and will set them to ear his ground and to read his harvest, and to
make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he
will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks and to
be bakers (this describes the expence and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and
he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them,
and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your feed,
and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and
he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants,
and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work;
and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants,
and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall
have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This
accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of
the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title,
or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of
David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless
the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but
we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and
that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before
them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully
bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So
Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that
day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the
people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God
that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK
A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit
of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his
protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is
false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of
king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the
public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the
Popery of government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession;
and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the
second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on
posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some
decent degree of honors of his cotemporaries, yet his descendants might
be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural
proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature
disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into
ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors
than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have
no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they might say
"We choose you for our head," they could not, without manifest
injustice to their children, say "that your children and your
children's children shall reign over ours for ever." Because
such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next
succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most
wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary
right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once
established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from
superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the
plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had
an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we
take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first
rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the
principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or
pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief among
plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his
depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their
safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea
of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a perpetual
exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained
principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary succession
in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of
claim, but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no
records were extant in those days, and traditionary history stuffed
with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to
trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to
cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the
disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a
leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could
not be very orderly) induced many at first to favor hereditary
pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since,
that what at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards
claimed as a right.
England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but
groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his
senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very
honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and
establishing himself king of England against the consent of the
natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original.?It
certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much
time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are any so
weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion,
and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their
Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first?
The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by
election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it
establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary
succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary,
neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it
ever should. If the first king of any country was by election, that
likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right
of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first
electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings
for ever, hath no parrallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of
original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and
from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary
succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in
the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were
subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence
was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both
disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it
unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are
parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion! Yet the most
subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that
William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted.
The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not
bear looking into.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary
succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and
wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a
door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper,
it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves
born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from
the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and
the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large,
that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests,
and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most
ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne
is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the
regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and
inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens,
when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of
human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every
miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age
The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of
hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars;
and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most
barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of
England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in
that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have
been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and
nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes
against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.
The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York
and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve
pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between
Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn
was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the
temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of
a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace,
and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as
sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was
driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him. The
parliament always following the strongest side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not
entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were
united. Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 14 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that
kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of
government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood
will attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in
some countries they have none; and after sauntering away their lives
without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw
from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle
round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business, civil and
military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request for
a king, urged this plea "that he may judge us, and go out before us and
fight our battles." But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a
general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.
The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business
there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for
the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic;
but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the
corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its
disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the
virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the
constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical
as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without
understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical
part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the
liberty of choosing an house of commons from out of their own body?and
it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues.
Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath
poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?
In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give
away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set
it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be
allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into
the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the
sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that every lived.
Thoughts of the present state of American Affairs
IN the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain
arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle
with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and
prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for
themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between
England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy,
from different motives, and with various designs; but all have been
ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last
resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice of the king,
and the continent hath accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr Pelham (who tho' an able
minister was not without his faults) that on his being attacked in the
house of commons, on the score, that his measures were only of a
temporary kind, replied, "they will last my time." Should a
thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present
contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations
The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the
affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a
continent?of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not
the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually
involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the
end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of
continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like
a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young
oak; The wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in
full grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new æra for
politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans,
proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April, i. e. to
the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacks of the last
year; which, though proper then, are superceded and useless now.
Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question
then, terminated in one and the same point, viz. a union with
Great-Britain; the only difference between the parties was the method
of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it
hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath
withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which,
like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is
but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the argument,
and inquire into some of the many material injuries which these
colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with, and
dependant on Great-Britain. To examine that connexion and dependance,
on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to
trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependant.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished
under her former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same connexion
is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the
same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument.
We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that
it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives
is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is
admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would
have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power
had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched
herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market
while eating is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is
true, and defended the continent at our expence as well as her own is
admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz.
the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made
large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of
Great-Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account.
Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent
throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and
Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war
ought to warn us against connexions.
It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i. e.
that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister
colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about
way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of
proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were,
nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great-Britain.
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame
upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages
make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns
to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and
the phrase parent or mother country hath been
jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low
papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness
of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of
America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers
of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe.
Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but
from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that
the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues
their descendants still.
In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits
of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry our
friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every European
christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the
force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the
world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will
naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their
interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name
of neighbour; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of townsman; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him countryman; i. e. county-man; but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen;
for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole,
stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of
street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too
limited for continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even
of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the
phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being
false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.
But admitting, that we were all of English descent, what does it
amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes
every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation is our duty,
is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present line
(William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the Peers of England
are descendants from the same country; wherefore, by the same method of
reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the
colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But
this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the
expressions mean any thing; for this continent would never suffer
itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in
either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our
plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace
and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe
to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a
single advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected with
Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is
derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our
imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will.
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection,
are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to
ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any
submission to, or dependance on Great-Britain, tends directly to
involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at
variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and
against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our
market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part
of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European
contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependance on
Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale on British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and
whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the
trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain.
The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the
advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then,
because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of
war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The
blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, 'TIS TIME TO
PART. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and
America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one,
over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at
which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and
the manner in which it was peopled encreases the force of it. The
reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the
Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in
future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.
The authority of Great-Britain over this continent, is a form of
government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious mind
can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the painful and
positive conviction, that what he calls "the present constitution" is
merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government
is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath
to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the
next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we
use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our
duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our
station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a
prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our
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 sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them
feel the precariousness with which all American property is possessed.
But let our imaginations transport us for a few moments to Boston, that
seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to
renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that
unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence,
have now, no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to
beg. Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within
the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their
present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemption,
and in a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to the
fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this."
But examine the passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the doctrine of
reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether
you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that
hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these,
then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin
upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can
neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed
only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall
into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can
still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt?
Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and
children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you
lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and
wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those
who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the
murderers, then you are unworthy of the name of husband, father,
friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you
have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by
those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without
which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life,
or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the
purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly
slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not
in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not
conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present
winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected,
the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no
punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or
where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so
precious and useful.
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things to all
examples from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer
remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does
not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time,
compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the continent
even a year's security. Reconciliation is now a falacious
dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion, and Art cannot supply her
place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never can true reconcilement
grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep."
Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have
been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that
nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in Kings more than
repeated petitioning?and noting hath contributed more than that very
measure to make the Kings of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and
Sweden. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God's sake, let
us come to a final separation, and not leave the next generation to be
cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child.
To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we
thought so at the repeal of the stamp act, yet a year or two undeceived
us; as well may we suppose that nations, which have been once defeated,
will never renew the quarrel.
As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do
this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty,
and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience,
by a power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they
cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or
four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five
months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to
explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and
childishness?There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper
time for it to cease.
Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper
objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something
very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an
island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its
primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other,
reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to
different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.
I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to
espouse the doctrine of separation and independance; I am clearly,
positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest
of this continent to be so; that every thing short of that is
mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,?that it is
leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time, when,
a little more, a little farther, would have rendered this continent the
glory of the earth.
As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a
compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the
acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expense of blood
and treasure we have been already put to.
The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion
to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junto, is
a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage
of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently ballanced
the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been
obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man
must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a
contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of
the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is
as great a folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I
have always considered the independancy of this continent, as an event,
which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of
the continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore,
on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth the while to have
disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we
meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an estate on a
suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is
just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than
myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 17751,
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
First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands
of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this
continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to
liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is
he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, "You shall make no laws but what I please." And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the present constitution,
that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives it leave
to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering
what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as
suit his purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want
of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England.
After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but
the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as
low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go
backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning.?We
are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not
hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point.
Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern
us? Whoever says No to this question is an independant,
for independancy means no more, than, whether we shall make our own
laws, or, whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or
can have, shall tell us, "there shall be no laws but such as I like."
But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people
there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good
order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one
(which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people,
older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be
law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will
never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that
England being the King's residence, and America not so, make quite
another case. The king's 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 defence as possible, and in America he would never
suffer such a bill to be passed.
America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics, England consults the good of this country, no farther than it answers 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 shew that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that
it would be policy in the king at this time, to repeal the acts for the
sake of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in
order that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTILITY, IN THE LONG RUN,
WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT ONE.
Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
Secondly. That as even the best terms, which we can expect to
obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of
government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the
colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things, in the
interim, will be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants of property will
not choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a
thread, and who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and
disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of
the interval, to dispose of their effects, and quit the continent.
But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but
independance, i. e. a continental form of government, can keep the
peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I
dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more
than probable, that it will followed by a revolt somewhere or other,
the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of
Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more
will probably suffer the same fate.) Those men have other feelings than
us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty,
what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having
nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general
temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will be like that
of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will care very little
about her. And a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no
government at all, and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and
pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on
paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after
reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke
without thinking, that they dreaded an independance, fearing that it
would produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are
truly correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more
to dread from a patched up connexion than from independance. I make the
sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and
home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as a
man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of
reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby.
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and
obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to make every
reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign the
least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, that such as are
truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving
for superiority over another.
Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect
equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and we
may say always) in peace. Holland and Swisserland are without wars,
foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never
long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprizing ruffians
at home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant
on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in
instances, where a republican government, by being formed on more
natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.
If there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, it is
because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way
out?Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the following
hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other
opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise
to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be
collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men
to improve into useful matter.
Let the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The representation
more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the
authority of a Continental Congress.
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient
districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to
Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in
Congress will be least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a
president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a
colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which,
let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the
delegates of that province. In the next Congress, let a colony
be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the
president was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till
the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order
that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not
less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority.?He that
will promote discord, under a government