Common Sense

Sense
By Thomas Paine Introduction

PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure
them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being
right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But 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 is 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 a country desolate with fire and
sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the
face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class,
regardless of party censure, is

THE AUTHOR.
Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.
 OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL.
WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them;
whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and
government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the
latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The
first 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 calamities 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 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 labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing;
when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean
time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even
misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and
reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the
reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary
while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will
unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound
them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this
remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral
virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may
assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only
of Regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man,
by natural right will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members
may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when
their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out
the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from
the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those 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 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 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 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 overrun with
tyranny the least 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 (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are
simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy,
and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly
complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault
lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine
the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient
tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.

First.- The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly.- The remains of aristocratical
tyranny in the persons of the peers. Thirdly.- The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on
whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they
contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical,
either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

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

First.- That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for
absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly.- That the commons, by being appointed for that
purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies,
gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it
again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere
absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the
means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a
king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the
different parts, 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 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 though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the
rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving
power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.

That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it
derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places pensions is self evident, wherefore, though
we have and 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 favor 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 most 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 favor 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 favor of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION

MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some
subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that
without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the
consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being
necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater
distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men
into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions
of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some
new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of
which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without
a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe.
Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something
in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel
copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of
idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on
the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm,
who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither
can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the
prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchial parts of scripture have
been very smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of
countries which have their governments yet to form. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's is the
scriptural doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchial 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 Lords 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, through the divine interposition, decided in his favor. 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 be 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 Heathen, 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, THEN I
SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM.

According to all the works which have done since the day; wherewith they 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, 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 expense 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 seed, 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 sent thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being 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 monarchial 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 an imposition on posterity.
For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual
preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his
contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural
proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so
frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.

Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers
of those honors could have no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they might say, "We
choose you for our head," they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, "that your children
and your children's children shall reign over ours for ever." Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact
might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in
their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which
when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more
powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.

This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more
than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, that we
should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage
manners of preeminence in subtlety 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 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 complemental; but as few or no records were extant in those
days, and traditionary history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to
trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the
throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten on the decease of a leader
and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at first to
favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was
submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.

England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger
number of bad ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very
honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England
against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no
divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are
any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither
copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.

Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first? The question admits but of three answers,
viz., either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent
for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary,
neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any
country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all
future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a
family of kings for ever, hath no 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 reassuming some former state and privilege, it
unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable 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 to the government are frequently the
most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.

Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at
any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement
to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity,
enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant,
who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.

The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in 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 have been (including the
Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it
makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.

The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene
of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry
and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain
is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel,
that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a
foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the
throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest side.

This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh,
in whom the families were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz., from 1422 to 1489.

In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes.
'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that (in some countries they have none) and after
sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the
scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of
business civil and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request for a king, urged this plea
"that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is neither a judge
nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.

The nearer any government approaches to a republic, the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat
difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in
its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence If the crown, by having all the
places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of
commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as
that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and
not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz., the liberty of
choosing a house of commons from out of their own body- and it is easy to see that when the republican virtue
fails, slavery ensues. My is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the
republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?

In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to
impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight
hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to
society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

THOUGHTS OF THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS

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 fast my time." Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present
contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with detestation.

The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a
kingdom, but of a continent- of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a
year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the
end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor. The least
fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; The
wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters.

By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new area 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 almanacs of the last year; which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now. Whatever
was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in one and the same point, viz.,
a union with Great Britain; the only difference between the parties was the method of effecting it; the one
proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second
hath withdrawn her influence.

As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away
and left us as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire
into some of the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being
connected with, and dependant on Great Britain. To examine that 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 hath flourished under her former connection with Great
Britain, that 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 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
expense 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 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 relation ship, 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 off 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 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 travels 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, 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 we sustain by that connection, are without number; and our duty to
mankind I 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 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 Past, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be
wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of war.
Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature
cries, 'tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong
and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time
likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it
was peopled increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the
Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford
neither friendship nor safety.

The authority of Great Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have
an end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the painful and positive
conviction, that what he calls "the present constitution" is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy,
knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to 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 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 offenses of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are
apt to call out, Come we shall be friends again for all this. But examine the passions and feelings of mankind.
Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter
love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you 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 honor, will be forced and unnatural, and being
formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the
first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath you
property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to
live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If
you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the
murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your
rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature
justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the
felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal
and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain
or of Europe to conquer America, if she 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 the 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 was 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 only
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 me we may suppose that nations, which have been once defeated, will
never renew the quarrel.

As to government matters, it is not in the powers 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
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 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 the North,
or the whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of
trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the acts complained of,
had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier,
it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the
repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker Hill
price for law, as for land. As I have always considered the independency 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 of a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a
warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775 (Massacre at
Lexington), 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 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 inhabitants 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 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 make 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 independent, for independency 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 now 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 interfere 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 kingdom 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, wha he cannot do by force ans 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
inhabitant would lay hold of the interval, to dispose of their effects, and quit the continent.

But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independence, i.e., a continental form of
government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of
a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere
or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain.

Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those
men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before
enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the
general temper of the colonies, 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 independence, fearing
that it would produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case
here; for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connection than from independence. 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 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 Switzerland are without wars,
foreign or domestic; monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest: the crown itself is a
temptation to enterprising ruffians at home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal
authority swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances where a republican government, by being
formed on more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.

If there is any true cause of fear respecting independence it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not
see their way out; wherefore, as an opening into that business I offer the following hints; at the same time
modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving
rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form
materials for wise and able men to improve to useful matter.

Let the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly
domestic, and subject to the authority of a continental congress.

Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of
delegates to congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in congress will be at least
three hundred ninety. Each congress to sit..... and to choose a president by the following method. When the
delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which let the whole
congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province. I 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 join
Lucifer in his revolt.

But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what manner, this business must first arise, and as it
seems most agreeable and consistent, that it should come from some intermediate body between the governed
and the governors, that is between the Congress and the people, let a Continental Conference be held, in the
following manner, and for the following purpose:

A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz., two for each colony. Two members for each house of
assembly, or provincial convention; and five representatives of the people at large, to be chosen in the capital
city or town of each province, for, and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified voters as shall
think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the
representatives may be chosen in two or three of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus
assembled, will be united, the two grand principles of business, knowledge and power. The members of
Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will be able and useful
counsellors, and the whole, being empowered by the people will have a truly legal authority.

The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame a Continental Charter, or Charter of the
United Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England) fixing the number and manner
of choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of
business and jurisdiction between them: always remembering, that our strength is continental, not provincial:
Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things the free exercise of religion, according to the
dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after
which, the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen 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 Virtue and Rewards.

But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of
mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a
day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the
word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of
monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries
the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should 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 in finitely 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 Massenello* 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, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of
America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a temptation for
some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could
hear the news the fatal business might be done, and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the
oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a
door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government.

(*Thomas Anello, otherwise Massenello, a fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting up his countrymen in the
public market place, against the oppression of the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted
them to revolt, and in the space of a day became king.)

There are thousands and tens of thousands; who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that
barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a
double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them. To talk of friendship with those in whom
our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections, (wounded through a thousand pores) instruct us to
detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them, and can
there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires, the affection will increase, or that we shall agree
better, when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever?
Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to
prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken,
the people of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she
would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent
forgive the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these inextinguishable 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 the earth, of 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 we need not go far, the
inquiry ceases at once, for the time hath found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things
prove the fact.

It is not in numbers but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel
the force of all the world. The Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of armed and disciplined men of
any power under Heaven; and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to
support itself, and the whole, who united can accomplish the matter, and either more, or, less than this, might
be fatal in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot be insensible,
that Britain would never suffer an American man of war to be built while the continent remained in her
hands. Wherefore we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in that branch, than we are now; but
the truth is, we should be less so, because the timber of the country is every day diminishing, and that which
will remain at last, will be far off and difficult to procure.

Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances would be
intolerable. The more sea port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to loose. Our
present numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of trade
affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a new trade. Debts we have none; and whatever we
may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with
a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap.
But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few we acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is
unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work
to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man
of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling 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 Entick's naval history, intro.
page 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, is as follows:
For a ship of 100 guns £35,553
And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather, of the 90 £29,886
whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was as its 80 £23,638
greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns:
70 £17,785
60 £14,197
Ships Guns Cost of one Cost of all 50 £10,606
6 100 £35,533 £213,318 40 £7,558
12 90 £29,886 £358,632 30 £5,846
12 80 £23,638 £283,656 20 £3,710
43 70 £17,785 £746,755
35 60 £14,197 £496,895
No country on the globe is so happily situated, so
40 50 £10,606 £424,240 internally capable of raising a fleet as America.
45 40 £7,758 £344,110 Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural
58 20 £3,710 £215,180 produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas
the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out
85 Sloops, bombs, their ships of war to the Spaniards and
£2,000 £170,000
and fireships, one another Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the
materials they use. We ought to view the building
Cost £3,266,786 a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the
natural manufactory of this country. It is the best
Remains for guns £229,214 money we can lay out. A navy when finished is
Total £3,500,000 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 privateer Terrible, 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 to begin on maritime matters than now, while our timber is
standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war of seventy and
eighty guns were built forty years ago in New England, and why not the same now? Ship building is
America's greatest pride, and in which, she will in time excel the whole world. The great empires of the east
are mostly inland, and consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of
barbarism; and no power in Europe, hath either such an extent or coast, or such an internal supply of
materials. Where nature hath given the one, she has withheld the other; to America only hath she been liberal
of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forests, her tar,
iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce.

In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are not the little people now, which we were sixty
years ago; at that time we might have trusted our property in the streets, or fields rather; and slept securely
without locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defence ought to
improve with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the
Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased; and the
same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns, might
have robbed the whole Continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which
demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.

Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise
as to mean, that she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored 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 harbors, I would ask, how is she to protect us? A
navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all. Wherefore,
if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another.

The English list of ships of war is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit
for service, numbers of them not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the list, if only a plank
be left of the ship: and not a fifth part, of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one
time. The East, and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her
claim, make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have contracted a
false notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to
encounter at once, and for that reason, supposed that we must have one as large; which not being instantly
practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing
can be farther from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she
would be by far an over match for her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole
force would be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage
of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance
to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain by her fleet, hath a check over our trade to
Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the neighborhood of the
Continent, is entirely at its mercy.

Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary
to support a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in their service,
ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk
to the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guard ships on constant duty, would keep up a
sufficient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of
suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defence
is sound policy; for when our strength and our riches, play into each other's hand, we need fear no external
enemy.

In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want
cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. 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 favor of
independence. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is a matter
worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers,
the ancients far exceeded the moderns: and the reason is evident, for trade being the consequence of
population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to 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 might scorn each other's assistance: and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little
distinctions, the wise would lament that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is
the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is
formed in misfortune, are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with
both these characters: we are young, and we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our
troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in.

The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of
forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been
compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king,
and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be formed first, and
men delegated to execute them afterwards: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay
hold of the present opportunity- to begin government at the right end.

When William the Conqueror subdued England he gave them law at the point of the sword; and until we
consent that the seat of government in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger
of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same manner, and then, where will be
our freedom? where our property?

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors
thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that
narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part
with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and
the bane of all good society. For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty,
that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian
kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation;
and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same
family, differing only, in what is called their Christian names.

Earlier in this work, 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 rementioning 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, personal freedom, or property, A firm bargain
and a right reckoning make long friends.

In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation; and there is no
political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of
representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small, but
unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the Associators
petition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania; twenty-eight members only were present, all the
Bucks County members, being eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester members done the same,
this whole province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The
unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over
the delegates of that province, ought to warn the people at large, how they trust power out of their own
hands. A set of instructions for the Delegates were put together, which in point of sense and business would
have dishonored a 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 hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think
them unworthy of such a trust.

Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions.
Expedience and right are different things. When the calamities of America required a consultation, there was
no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the several Houses of Assembly for
that purpose and the wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as
it is more than probable that we shall never be without a Congress, every well-wisher to good order, must
own, that the mode for choosing members of that body, deserves consideration. And I put it as a question to
those, who make a study of mankind, whether representation and election is not too great a power for one and
the same body of men to possess? When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary.

It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims, and are frequently surprised into reason by their
mistakes. Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the petition of the New York Assembly
with contempt, because 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.*

*Those who would fully understand of what great consequence a large and equal representation is to a state,
should read Burgh's political Disquisitions.

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 eye of foreign nations, be
considered as rebels. The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to be in arms under the
name of subjects; we on the spot, can solve the paradox: but to unite resistance and subjection, requires an
idea much too refined for common understanding.

Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we
have endured, and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress; declaring, at the same time,
that not being able, any longer to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had
been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connection 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 appear strange and difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already
passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an 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.

APPENDIX

SINCE the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out,
the king's speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this
production, it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The
bloody-mindedness of the one, show the necessity of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of
revenge. And the speech instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of independence.

Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give
the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it
naturally follows, that the king's speech, as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a
general execration both by the congress and the people. Yet as the domestic tranquility of a nation, depends
greatly on the chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is often better, to pass some things
over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least
innovation, on that guardian of our peace and safety. And perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent
delicacy, that the king's speech, hath not before now, suffered a public execution. The speech if it may be
called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the
existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of
tyrants. But this general massacre of mankind, is one of the privileges, and the certain consequences of kings;
for as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of our own creating, they
know not us, and are become the gods of their creators. The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is
not calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny appear
on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He,
who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a savage than the king of Britain.

Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, The address of the
people of ENGLAND to the inhabitants of America, hath, perhaps from a vain supposition, that the people
here were to be frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his part) the
real character of the present one: "But," says this writer, "if you are inclined to pay compliments to an
administration, which we do not complain of," (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the repeal of the
Stamp Act) "it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were
permitted to do anything." This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who
can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality an apostate from the order of
manhood; and ought to be considered- as one, who hath, not only given up the proper dignity of a man, but
sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawl through the world like a worm.

However, it matters very little now, what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken
through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by a steady
and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the
interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty
to take care of, than to be granting away her property, to support a power who is become a reproach to the
names of men and Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect
or denomination ye are of, as well as ye, who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye
wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret wish a
separation But leaving the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the
following heads:

First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain. Secondly. Which is the easiest and most
practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? with some occasional remarks.

In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most
experienced men on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in
reality a self-evident position: For no nation in a state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and
cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence. America doth not yet
know what opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of
other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she
ought to have, the legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what
would do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her
final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by which England is to be
benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the countries as independent of each other as
France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the independence of
this country on Britain or any other which is now the main and only object worthy of contention, and which,
like all other truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.

First. Because it will come to that one time or other. Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it
will be to accomplish.

I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies, with silently remarking the spacious
errors of those who speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the following seems
the most general, viz., that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the
Continent would have been more able to have shaken off the dependance. To which I reply, that our military
ability at this time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years time,
would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by that time, have had a General, or even a
military officer left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial matters as
the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present
time is preferable to all others: The argument turns thus- at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience,
but wanted numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience; wherefore,
the proper point of time, must be some particular point between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of
the former remains, and a proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time.

The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come under the head I first set out with, and to
which I again return by the following position, viz.:

Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain the governing and sovereign power of America,
(which as matters are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive ourselves of the
very means of sinking the debt we have or may contract. The value of the back lands which some of the
provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five
pounds sterling per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania currency; and
the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions yearly.

It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved
thereon, will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expense of government. It matters not
how long the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the
execution of which, the Congress for the time being, will be the continental trustees.

I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the earliest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or
independence? with some occasional remarks.

He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer
generally- That INDEPENDENCE being a SINGLE SIMPLE LINE, contained within ourselves; and
reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which, a treacherous capricious court is
to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.

The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Without law,
without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy.
Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which
every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, legislation without law; wisdom
without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence
contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who can
tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The
mind of the multitude is left at random, and feeling no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or
opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at
liberty to act as he pleases. The tories dared not to have assembled offensively, had they known that their
lives, by that act were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between
English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the
latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty the other his head.

Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives
encouragement to dissensions. The Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not done in
time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither reconciliation nor
independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old game of dividing
the continent, and there are not wanting among us printers, who will be busy spreading specious falsehoods.
The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in two of the New York papers, and
likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men who want either judgment or honesty. It is easy
getting into holes and corners and talking of reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how difficult
the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent divide thereon. Do they take within their
view, all the various orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are to be
considered therein. Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the
soldier, who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill judged moderation be suited to their
own private situations only, regardless of others, the event will convince them, that "they are reckoning
without their Host."

Put us, says some, on the footing we were in the year 1763: To which I answer, the request is not now in the
power of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask,
as a reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements?
Another parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being
violently obtained, or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress? No going to law with nations;
cannon are the barristers of crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the
footing of 1763, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances,
likewise, be put on the same state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private losses made
good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were
at that enviable period. Such a request had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart and
soul of the continent- but now it is too late, "the Rubicon is passed."

Besides the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the
divine law, and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The
object, on either side, doth not justify the ways and means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast
away on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our
property by an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the
use of arms: And the instant, in which such a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain
ought to have ceased; and the independency of America should have been considered, as dating its area from,
and published by, the first musket that was fired against her. This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn
by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the
authors.

I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well intended hints, We ought to reflect, that
there are three different ways by which an independency may hereafter be effected; and that one of those
three, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in congress; by a
military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a
body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should
an independency be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every
encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our
power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of
Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men perhaps as numerous as all
Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The reflection is
awful- and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavillings, of a few weak
or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an independence be hereafter effected by any
other means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow and prejudiced
souls, are habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be given
in support of Independence, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought
not now to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but, anxious to accomplish it on a firm,
secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its
necessity. Even the tories (if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous to
promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first, protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and
well established form of government, will be the only certain means of continuing it securely to them.
Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for
independence.

In short, independence is the only bond that can tie and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and
our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy. We shall then too,
be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will
be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates,
"rebellious subjects," for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for
conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect
therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by
independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable
part of England will be still with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this
offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to.

On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the
former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the
party in favor of it are too numerous to be opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with
suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and
unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. Let
the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an
open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the FREE AND
INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.

EPISTLE TO QUAKERS

To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were
concerned in publishing a late piece, entitled "THE ANCIENT TESTIMONY and PRINCIPLES of the
people called QUAKERS renewed with respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT, and Touching the
COMMOTIONS now prevailing in these and other parts of AMERICA, addressed to the PEOPLE IN
GENERAL."

THE writer of this is one of those few, who never dishonors religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any
denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score of religion.
Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling in
matters, which the professed quietude of your Principles instruct you not to meddle with.

As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the
Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of
putting himself in the place of all those who approve the very writings and principles, against which your
testimony is directed: And he hath chosen their singular situation, in order that you might discover in him,
that presumption of character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you have any claim or
title to Political Representation.

When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident
from the manner in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not
your proper walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and
bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.

The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give you credit for, and expect the same civility
from you, because the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well as the
religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an Independent
Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are
tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently,
because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of
the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and dissolve a
connection which hath already filled our land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be
the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both countries.

We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with
our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we
attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our
enemies in the characters of highwaymen and housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil
law; are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have
before now, applied the halter. Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of
the continent, and with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your bosoms.
But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion;
nor put the bigot in the place of the Christian.

O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles! If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to
war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence.

Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion,
convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear ARMS. Give
us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James's, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the
admirals and captains who are practically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are
acting in authority under HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay* ye would preach
repentance to your king; Ye would tell the royal tyrant of his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would
not spend your partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but like faithful ministers, would
cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavor to make us the authors of that
reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against
you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT Quakers.

*"Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity; thou knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to
be overruled as well as to rule, and set upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast reason to know now
hateful the oppressor is both to God and man. If after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost not
turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself
to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy condemnation. Against which snare, as well as the
temptation of those who may or do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy
will be, to apply thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience and which neither can, nor will
flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins."- Barclay's Address to Charles II.

Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your Testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as
if all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear
to us, to have mistaken party for conscience, because the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And
it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because we see them made by
the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are
nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.

The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, "when a man's
ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him;" is very unwisely chosen on your
part; because it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways (whom ye are so desirous of supporting) do not please
the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.

I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which all the foregoing seems only an
introduction, viz:

"It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus,
manifested in our consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is
God's peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand
or contrivance therein; nor to be busy-bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or
overturn any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men: that we may
live a peaceable and quiet life, in all goodliness and honesty; under the government which God is pleased to set
over us." If these are really your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye
call God's work, to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with patience and
humility, for the event of all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will towards you.
Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political Testimony if you fully believe what it contains? And the
very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to practice
what ye believe.

The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any,
and every government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and
governments is God's peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the
principle itself leads you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to kings as being his
work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present proud
imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the Testimony, are bound by the
doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in
governments brought about by any other means than such as are common and human; and such as we are now
using. Even the dispersing of the Jews, though foretold by our Savior, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye
refuse to be the means on one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in silence;
and unless you can produce divine authority, to prove, that the Almighty who hath created and placed this
new world, at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth,
nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain; unless I say,
ye can show this, how can ye, on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up of the
people "firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire and design to
break off the happy connection we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom of Great Britain, and our just
and necessary subordination to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him." What a
slap in the face is here! the men, who, in the very paragraph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the
ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and governments, into the hands of God, are now recalling their
principles, and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the conclusion, which is here justly
quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the
absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could only have been made by those, whose
understandings were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are not
to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional and fractional part thereof.

Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only
to read and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; "That the setting up and putting down
of kings," most certainly mean, the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is
already one. And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down,
neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore your testimony in whatever
light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgment, and for many other reasons had better have been let
alone than published.

First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to
society, to make it a party in political disputes. Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom
disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and approvers thereof. Thirdly.
Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late
liberal and charitable donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of which, is of the utmost
consequence to us all.

And here, without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and Christians, ye
may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of
securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may
be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.

-THE END-
END-

Source: Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, printed by W. and T. Bradford, Philadelphia, 1791.