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, shew 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 Independance.
Since the first edition of this pamphlet was published, the King’s Speech has appeared in this city. More precisely, the speech appeared on the very day the pamphlet came out. If prophecy itself had guided this pamphlet’s arrival, it could not have chosen a better or more necessary moment. The speech’s bloodthirsty spirit shows the need to pursue the principles of this pamphlet. People read the pamphlet as an act of revenge. And instead of frightening people, the speech paved the way for the bold 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 tranquillity 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 consequence 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.
Formal politeness, and even silence, can cause harm, whatever their motive, when they give wicked acts even the slightest support. If we accept this principle, the King’s Speech, a work of utter villainy, deserved and still deserves universal condemnation. Both Congress and the people should condemn it. Yet a nation’s peace at home depends greatly on the purity of what we may call its public conduct. So it is often better to pass over some things with silent contempt. New ways of expressing disapproval might disturb, even slightly, the public standards that protect our peace and safety. Perhaps this careful restraint is the main reason the King’s Speech has not already suffered a public execution. The Speech, if it can be called one, is nothing but a deliberate, shameless slander. It attacks truth, the common good, and humanity’s very existence. It is a formal, pompous way of offering human sacrifices to satisfy the pride of tyrants. But this wholesale slaughter of humanity is one of the privileges of Kings, and a certain consequence of their rule. For nature does not recognize Kings, and they do not recognize her. Although they are beings of our own creation, they do not recognize us. They have become the gods of their creators. The Speech has one good quality: it is not designed to deceive, nor could we be deceived even if we wished. Its brutality and tyranny are plain to see. It leaves no room for doubt. Every line convinces us, even as we read, that the naked, untaught Indian who hunts in the woods is less 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 any thing.” 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 man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawls through the world like a worm.
Sir John Dalrymple is the supposed author of a whining, deceitfully Jesuitical piece falsely called “The Address of the people of England to the inhabitants of America.” Perhaps he foolishly imagined that people here would be frightened by a grand description of a king. In doing so, he revealed the present king’s true character, though very unwisely for his own cause: “But,” says this writer, “if you are inclined to praise an administration we do not complain about, it is very unfair to withhold that praise from the prince whose nod alone allowed that administration to do anything.” He means the Marquis of Rockingham’s administration when the Stamp Act was repealed. This is Toryism with a vengeance! Here is idolatry without even a mask. Anyone who can calmly listen to and accept such teaching has given up any claim to being rational. He has deserted the ranks of humanity. He ought to be regarded as someone who has not only surrendered his proper human dignity, but sunk below animals. He crawls contemptibly 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.
However, what the king of England says or does matters very little now. He has wickedly violated every moral and human obligation and trampled nature and conscience underfoot. His constant insolence and cruelty, rooted in his character, have earned him universal hatred. America must now look after her own interests. She already has a large, young family. Her duty to care for them outweighs any duty to give away her property to support such a power. That power has become a disgrace to humanity and Christianity. Some of you are responsible for watching over the nation’s morals, whatever your sect or denomination. Others are more directly responsible for protecting public liberty. If you wish to keep your native country free from European corruption, you must secretly wish for separation. But I will leave the moral question to private reflection. I will focus the rest of my remarks mainly on the following points.
First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.
First. It is in America's best interest to separate from Britain.
Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independance? with some occasional remarks.
Second. Which plan is easier and more practical, reconciliation or independence? With some additional remarks along the way.
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 independant of each other as France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the independance of this country of 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.
To support the first point, I could offer the opinions of some of this continent’s ablest and most experienced men. I would do so if I thought it proper. Their views on that subject are not yet publicly known. The point is self-evident. No nation can ever achieve real greatness while dependent on a foreign power, restricted in trade, and denied legislative freedom. America does not yet know what wealth is. Although her progress is unmatched in the history of other nations, she is still in her childhood. She could achieve far more if she controlled her own lawmaking, as she ought to. England now proudly seeks something that would do her no good even if she gained it. Meanwhile, the Continent hesitates over a question that, if neglected, will ultimately ruin her. England stands to benefit from trade with America, not from conquering America. Much of that trade would continue even if the countries were as independent of each other as France and Spain. For many goods, neither country can find a better market. But this country’s independence from Britain or any other nation is now the main and only goal worth fighting for. Like all other truths discovered through necessity, the need for independence will become clearer and stronger every day.
First. Because it will come to that one time or other.
First. Because it will come to that sooner or later.
Secondly. Because, the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish.
Second. 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 specious 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.
In public and private gatherings, I have often amused myself by silently noting the plausible errors of people who speak without thinking. Among the many errors I have heard, the following seems the most common. If this break had happened forty or fifty years from now, instead of now, the Continent could have gained independence more easily. My reply is that our military strength, at this time, comes from the experience gained in the last war. In forty or fifty years, that experience would have disappeared entirely. By then, the Continent would not have had a single General or even a military officer left. And we, or those who succeed us, would have known as little about warfare as the ancient Indians. This point alone, carefully considered, proves beyond dispute that the present time is better than any other. The argument runs as follows: at the end of the last war, we had experience but lacked numbers. Forty or fifty years from now, we would have numbers but no experience. So the right time must fall somewhere between these two extremes. Enough experience must remain, and our numbers must have grown enough. And that time is now.
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.
The reader will forgive this digression, since it falls outside the topic I began with. I now return to that topic with the following point:
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 intirely) 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 extention 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.
If we settle our differences with Britain and let Britain remain America’s governing and sovereign power, we surrender our position entirely. (That is what such a settlement means under present circumstances.) We would deny ourselves the very means of paying off debts we have or may take on. Some provinces are secretly being deprived of western lands through the unjust expansion of Canada’s boundaries. Valued at only five pounds sterling per hundred acres, those lands are worth over twenty-five million in Pennsylvania currency. And the quit-rents, annual land payments of one penny sterling per acre, would amount to two million a year.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burthen to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expence 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.
Selling those lands may pay off the debt without burdening anyone. The quit-rent, a fixed payment still owed on those lands, will always reduce the annual cost of government. In time, those payments will cover the entire cost. It does not matter how long paying off the debt takes, as long as the land-sale proceeds go toward repayment. The Congress in office at the time will serve as trustees for the continent to carry out this task.
I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independance; with some occasional remarks.
I now turn to the second question: Is reconciliation or independence the easier and more practical plan? I will also offer 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 independance 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.
Anyone who follows nature’s guidance is not easily argued out of their position. On that basis, I answer in general: independence is a single, simple path entirely within our own control. Reconciliation, however, is extremely tangled and complicated, and involves interference from a treacherous, unpredictable royal court. These facts leave no doubt about the answer.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflexion. 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 endeavouring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independance 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 seeing 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 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.
America’s present condition is truly alarming to every man capable of serious thought. We have no law, no government, and no authority except what people freely grant out of courtesy. We are held together by an unprecedented agreement of opinion. Yet that agreement can change, and every secret enemy is working to break it apart. Our present condition is lawmaking without law, wisdom without a plan, and a constitution without a name. Most astonishing of all, we have complete independence, yet we struggle to become dependent. There is no precedent for this situation. Nothing like it has ever existed before, and who can tell what the outcome may be? No man’s property is secure under our present unstable system. The public is left without direction. With no clear goal in sight, people pursue whatever goals fancy or opinion suggests. Nothing is a crime. There is no such thing as treason. So everyone thinks he is free to act as he pleases. The Tories would not have dared to gather for an attack if they had known the legal consequence. Under the state’s laws, that act would have cost them their lives. We should distinguish between English soldiers captured in battle and inhabitants of America captured while fighting against us. The first are prisoners, but the second are traitors. One loses his freedom, 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 Independance 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 in 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.
Despite our wisdom, some of our actions show a clear weakness that encourages division. The Continental Belt is buckled too loosely. And if we do not act in time, we will be too late to do anything. We will reach a point where neither Reconciliation nor Independence will be possible. The king and his worthless supporters are back to their old game of dividing the Continent. And there is no shortage of printers among us ready to spread lies that seem credible. A few months ago, a cunning and hypocritical letter appeared in two New-York newspapers and two others. That letter is evidence that some men lack 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.”
It is easy to hide away in corners and talk of reconciliation. But do such men seriously consider how difficult that task is? Do they consider how dangerous reconciliation may prove if the Continent becomes divided over it? Do they consider all the different groups whose situations and circumstances matter just as much as their own? Do they put themselves in the place of someone who has already lost everything? And do they put themselves in the place of the soldier who has left everything to defend his country? If their misguided moderation suits only their own private circumstances and ignores others, the outcome will teach them a lesson. These men will discover that “they are making plans without considering everyone involved.”
Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three: 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 sixty-three, 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.”
Some say, put us back on the same footing we were on in 1763. My answer is that Britain cannot now meet that request, nor will Britain offer to do so. But suppose Britain could and did grant the request. Then I reasonably ask: How can such a corrupt and untrustworthy royal government be held to its promises? A future parliament, or even the present one, may later cancel the agreement. Parliament may claim the agreement was forced upon it or unwisely granted. In that case, where can we turn for a remedy? Nations cannot take each other to court. Cannons are the lawyers of kings. The sword of war, not justice, decides the case. Returning to the footing of 1763 requires more than restoring the laws as they stood then. Our circumstances must also be restored. Our burned and destroyed towns must be repaired or rebuilt. Our private losses must be repaid, and our public debts, incurred for defense, must be paid off. Otherwise, we will be millions poorer than we were in that enviable time. Had Britain granted such a request a year ago, it 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 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 independancy of America, should have been considered, as dating its æra 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.
Besides, taking up arms merely to repeal a tax law seems as unjustifiable under God's law as fighting to enforce it. Both seem equally offensive to human feelings. Neither side's goal justifies the means, for human lives are too valuable to waste on such trifles. What morally justifies armed resistance is the violence inflicted on us and the threats to our safety. It is the destruction of our property by armed forces and the invasion of our country with fire and sword. And the moment armed defense became necessary, all submission to Britain should have ended. America's independence should have been considered to begin with, and to have been proclaimed by, the first musket fired against her. This position is consistent. It was neither chosen on a whim nor pushed further by ambition. Instead, it arose from a chain of events the colonies did not cause.
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 independancy 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 independancy 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 Reflexion is awful—and in this point of view, How trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavellings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.
I will end these remarks with some timely, well-meant advice. We should remember that independence may come about in three different ways. And one of those three will sooner or later determine America’s fate: the people’s lawful voice in Congress, military power, or a mob. Our soldiers may not always be citizens, and the crowds may not always be reasonable people. As I have already noted, virtue is neither inherited nor permanent. If independence comes through the first of these means, we have every opportunity and encouragement before us. We can create the noblest, purest constitution on earth. We have the power to begin the world over again. Nothing like our present situation has happened since the days of Noah. The birth of a new world is near. A population perhaps as large as all of Europe’s will receive its share of freedom from the next few months’ events. The thought is awe-inspiring. Seen in this light, how trivial and ridiculous are the petty objections of a few weak or self-interested men. How little those objections matter when weighed against the affairs of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an Independance 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 Independance, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be independant 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 Independance.
If we waste this favorable and inviting moment, and independence later comes by other means, we must blame ourselves. Or rather, we must blame those whose narrow, prejudiced minds lead them to oppose independence without inquiry or reflection. There are reasons for independence that people should consider privately rather than be told publicly. We should no longer be debating whether to become independent. Instead, we should be eager to establish independence on a firm, secure, and honorable basis. We should be troubled, rather, that the work has not yet begun. Every day convinces us that independence is necessary. Even the Tories (if such beings still remain among us) should be more eager than anyone to promote independence. Just as the early appointment of committees protected the Tories from public rage, a wise, well-established government would preserve that protection. Such a government will be the only sure way to keep them safe. Therefore, if the Tories lack the virtue to be Whigs, they should have enough good sense to wish for independence.
In short, Independance is the only Bond that can tye 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 independantly redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in 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.
In short, independence is the only bond that can unite us and keep us together. We will then see our goal clearly. And we will be legally bound to reject the schemes of an enemy who is both devious and cruel. We will also be in a proper position to negotiate with Britain. There is reason to believe that negotiating peace with the American states would hurt the British government's pride less. Negotiating a settlement with those Britain calls “rebellious subjects” would hurt its pride more. Our delay in declaring independence encourages Britain to hope for conquest, and our hesitation only prolongs the war. We have withheld our trade to get our grievances addressed, but without success. So let us now try the alternative by independently addressing our grievances ourselves, and then offering to reopen trade. England's merchants and reasonable people will still support us, because peace with trade is better than war without trade. And if Britain does not accept this offer, we may approach other governments.
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 favour 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 neighbour the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the 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 INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.
On these grounds, I rest my case. No one has yet tried to refute the principles presented in earlier editions of this pamphlet. This gives indirect proof that either those principles cannot be refuted, or their supporters are too numerous to oppose. So instead of looking at one another with suspicion or doubt, let each of us warmly offer our neighbor friendship. Let us unite in drawing a line under past disputes, just as a general pardon would erase them from memory. Let the names Whig and Tory disappear. Let us be known only as a good citizen, an open and determined friend, and a principled supporter of the rights of mankind and of the FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.