America’s Current Capabilities and Some Other Thoughts

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 shewn less judgment, than in endeavouring to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for independance.

Every man I have met in England or America has admitted that the countries would eventually separate. And we have never shown worse judgment than in trying to define what we call the Continent’s readiness 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 endeavour, 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.

Since all men agree on the measure and differ only about the timing, let us review the whole situation. To avoid misunderstandings, let us try, if possible, to identify the exact time. But we need not look far. The search ends at once, because the time has found us. The widespread agreement and the glorious coming together of all things prove the point.

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, when 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.

Our great strength lies not in numbers, but in unity. Yet our current numbers are enough to repel the forces of the entire world. The Continent now has more armed and disciplined men than any other power under Heaven. We have just reached a level of strength where no single colony can sustain itself, but together we can succeed. Either more or less strength could prove fatal. Our land forces are already sufficient. As for naval power, we must recognize that Britain would never allow an American warship to be built while controlling the Continent. So, under British rule, we would be no further ahead in naval power a hundred years from now. In fact, we would be further behind, because the country's timber supply shrinks every day. The timber left in the end will be far away and hard to obtain.

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 lose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a new trade.

If the continent were crowded with people, its suffering under present conditions would be unbearable. The more seaport towns we had, the more we would have to defend and the more we could lose. Our population is now so well matched to our needs that no one needs to be idle. The decline in trade frees up men for an army, and the army’s needs create 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 independant constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a pedling politician.

We have no debts. Any debt we take on for this cause will serve as a glorious reminder of our virtue. If we can leave future generations a stable government and an independent constitution of their own, any price is cheap. But spending millions merely to repeal a few disgraceful laws and drive the current ministers from office is not worth the cost. Spending money for those purposes also treats future generations with the utmost cruelty. It leaves them the great work still to do, burdened with a debt that brings them no benefit. Such an idea is beneath a person of honor. It reveals a small heart and a petty 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 an half sterling.

The debt we may take on should not concern us if the work is accomplished. No nation should be without a debt. A national debt binds a nation together. And when the debt carries no interest, it is never a burden. Britain is burdened with a debt of more than 140 million pounds sterling. Britain pays more than four million pounds in interest on that debt. And in return for that debt, Britain has a large navy. America has neither debt nor a navy. Yet for one-twentieth of the English national debt, America could have a navy twice as large as Britain’s. England’s navy is currently worth no more than three and a half million pounds 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 just. See Entic’s naval history, intro. page 56.

The first and second editions of this pamphlet did not include the following calculations. These calculations are now included to prove that the estimate of the navy given above is accurate. See Entic’s naval history, introduction, 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.

The cost of building a ship of each class and equipping it with masts, yards, sails, and rigging. The cost also includes a proportionate allowance of eight months’ supplies for the boatswain and carpenter at sea. These costs were calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the navy.

And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather, of the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was at its greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns:

From this, we can easily calculate the value, or rather the cost, of the entire British navy. In 1757, at the height of its glory, the navy consisted of the following ships and guns:

No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and silver.

No country in the world is better located or better supplied with its own resources for building a fleet than America. Tar, timber, iron, and rope are all natural products of America. We need to import nothing. By contrast, the Dutch must import most of their shipbuilding materials. Yet the Dutch make large profits by renting their warships to the Spaniards and Portuguese. We should see building a fleet as a business, because shipbuilding is a natural industry for this country. It is the best investment we can make. A finished navy is worth more than it cost to build. And building a navy achieves that fine balance in national policy where trade and defense come together. Let us build ships. If we do not need the ships, we can sell them. By selling them, we can replace our paper currency with gold and silver ready for use.

In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors; it is not necessary that one fourth part should be sailors. The Terrible privateer, Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landmen 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 of 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.

People generally make serious mistakes about staffing a fleet. Not even a quarter of the crew needs to be sailors. The privateer Terrible, commanded by Captain Death, fought the fiercest battle of any ship in the last war. Yet fewer than twenty of her crew of over two hundred were sailors. A few skilled, cooperative sailors can quickly teach enough active men from shore to handle ordinary shipboard work. So we can never be better prepared to begin building a navy than we are now. Our timber is still standing, our fisheries are blockaded, and our sailors and shipbuilders are out of work. Warships carrying seventy or eighty guns were built in New-England forty years ago. Why not build the same now? Shipbuilding is America’s greatest pride, and in time she will surpass the whole world at it. The great empires of the East are mostly inland, so they cannot rival America in shipbuilding. Africa is in a state of barbarism. No European power has both such an extensive coastline and such a supply of materials within its borders. Where nature has given one advantage, she has withheld the other. Only to America has nature generously given both. The vast empire of Russia is almost cut off from the sea. So Russia’s boundless forests, tar, iron, and rope are merely goods for trade.

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.

For our own safety, should we be without a fleet? We are no longer the small nation we were sixty years ago. Back then, we might have left our possessions in the streets, or rather, in the fields. We could have slept safely without locks or bolts on our doors or windows. But circumstances have changed, and our defenses should improve as our wealth grows. Just twelve months ago, an ordinary pirate might have sailed up the Delaware and immediately demanded payment from Philadelphia. He could have demanded any amount he pleased, and the same might have happened elsewhere. Indeed, any daring fellow in a brig armed with fourteen or sixteen guns might have robbed the whole Continent. He could have carried off half a million in money. These dangers demand our attention and show why we need 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 harbours for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted into our harbours, I would ask, how is she 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?

Some, perhaps, will say that after we make peace with Britain, Britain will protect us. Can we be so foolish as to want Britain to keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense tells us that the power that has tried to conquer us is the least fit to defend us. Britain may conquer us under the pretense of friendship. And after our long and brave resistance, we may finally be tricked into slavery. And if British ships are not allowed into our harbors, I ask, how will Britain protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles away can be of little use, and in sudden emergencies, none at all. So if we must protect ourselves in the future, why not do so for our own sake? Why do so for someone else?

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 neighbourhood of the Continent, is entirely at its mercy.

England’s list of warships is long and impressive, but fewer than a tenth are fit for service at any time. Many no longer exist. Yet their names remain grandly displayed on the list, even if only a single plank remains of the ship. And fewer than a fifth of the serviceable ships can be spared for any one station at a time. The East and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other places Britain claims make heavy demands on its navy. Through a mixture of prejudice and carelessness, we have formed a false idea of England’s navy. We have spoken as if we would have to face the entire fleet at once. We have therefore assumed that we must have a navy just as large. Since we cannot build such a navy immediately, disguised Tories have used that difficulty to discourage us from starting. Nothing could be further from the truth. If America had only a twentieth of Britain’s naval strength, America would still be far more than Britain could handle. Because we neither possess nor claim any foreign territory, our entire force would serve along our own coast. There, in the long run, we would have a two-to-one advantage over the British. They would have to sail three or four thousand miles before they could attack us. They would then have to sail the same distance back for repairs, supplies, and new recruits. And although Britain’s fleet can restrict our trade with Europe, we can equally restrict Britain’s trade with the West Indies. Because the West Indies lie near the Continent, that trade is entirely at the Continent’s 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 guardships on constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defense is sound policy; for when our strength and our riches play into each other’s hand, we need fear no external enemy.

We might find a way to maintain a naval force in peacetime if we decide a permanent navy is unnecessary. Suppose merchants received payments to build ships carrying twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns and use them for trade. (The payments would be proportional to the cargo space the merchants lost.) Fifty or sixty such ships, with a few patrol ships on constant duty, would provide a sufficient navy. We would also avoid the problem so loudly complained of in England: letting the fleet rot in docks during peacetime. Joining the resources of commerce and defense is sound policy. For when our strength and wealth support each other, we need fear no foreign enemy.

In almost every article of defense 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, shews the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters.

We have an abundance of almost everything needed for defense. Hemp grows so thickly that we need never lack rope. Our iron is better than that of other countries. Our firearms are as good as any in the world. We can cast cannons whenever we choose. We produce saltpeter and gunpowder every day. Our knowledge improves by the hour. Determination is part of our nature, and our courage has never failed us. So what do we lack? Why do we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If Britain is ever allowed to govern America again, this Continent will not be worth living in. Suspicions will always arise. Uprisings will happen constantly. And who will step forward to put them down? Who will risk his life to force his own countrymen to obey a foreign power? The dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over some lands with unsettled boundaries shows how little British government can accomplish. The dispute fully proves that only a government for the whole Continent can manage matters affecting the whole Continent.

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 dependants, 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.

Another reason why now is better than any other time is that our smaller population leaves more land unoccupied. Instead of being lavished by the king on his worthless dependents, that land may later serve two purposes. It may not only pay off our current debt but also provide ongoing support for the government. No nation on earth has such an advantage.

The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favour of independance. 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.

The so-called infancy of the Colonies is not an argument against independence. It is an argument in its favor. We have enough people, and if we had more, we might be less united. One fact deserves attention: the more populated a country becomes, the smaller its armies are. Ancient peoples had far larger armies than modern peoples do, and the reason is clear. Trade grows with population, and men become too absorbed in trade to attend to anything else. Commerce weakens both patriotism and the will to defend the country. History clearly shows that nations have always achieved their bravest deeds in their youth. As commerce has grown, England has lost its spirit. Despite its large population, the city of London endures repeated insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing they are to take risks. The rich are generally slaves to fear. They submit to royal power with the trembling, two-faced obedience 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.

Youth is the time to plant good habits, both in nations and in individuals. Fifty years from now, uniting the Continent under one government might be difficult, if not impossible. Growing trade and population would create widely differing interests, leading to confusion. Colony would turn against colony. Each colony, able to support itself, might scorn the others’ help. And while the proud and foolish celebrated their petty differences, the wise would regret that the union had not formed earlier. So the present time is the right time to establish the union. The closeness formed in childhood and the friendship formed through hardship are the most lasting and unchanging of all. Our present union has both qualities: we are young, and we have suffered. But our unity has survived our troubles and marks a memorable era that future generations can take pride 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 afterward: 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.

Now, too, is a special moment that comes only once in a nation’s history: the time to form its government. Most nations have missed this opportunity. As a result, those nations have been forced to accept laws from their conquerors instead of making their own. First came a king, and then a system of government. Instead, the rules or charter of government should come first, with people appointed afterward to carry them out. But let us learn from other nations’ mistakes and seize the present opportunity: To build a government in the right order.

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?

When William the Conqueror conquered England, he imposed laws on the people by force. Until we agree to have America’s government filled legally and with proper authority, we will face a danger. Some lucky thug may seize power and treat us the same way. Then where will our freedom be? Where will our property be?

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.

As for religion, I believe every government has an essential duty to protect all who sincerely practice their faith. I know of no other role government should have in religion. Let a person abandon the narrow-mindedness and selfish principles that petty people of all faiths cling to so tightly. Then that person will immediately be free of fears about religion. Suspicion goes hand in hand with small-mindedness and is the ruin of all good society. For my part, I fully and sincerely believe the Almighty wants us to hold different religious opinions. Such diversity gives us more opportunities to show Christian kindness. If we all thought alike, our religious character would have nothing to test it. Following this broad-minded principle, I see our various denominations as children of the same family. They differ only in what we call their Christian names.

In page forty, I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of re-mentioning the subject, by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends.

On page forty, I offered a few thoughts on whether a Continental Charter would be appropriate. (I only presume to offer suggestions, not plans.) Here, I take the liberty of raising the subject again. A charter should be understood as a solemn commitment by the whole to protect the rights of every separate part. These rights include religious freedom, personal freedom, and property. A firm agreement and a fair accounting make lasting 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 dishonoured a schoolboy, 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.

Earlier, I also mentioned the need for a large number of representatives and equal representation. No political matter deserves more attention. Too few voters and too few representatives are equally dangerous. But if representatives are both few in number and unequally distributed, the danger increases. Here is an example. When the Associators’ petition came before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, only twenty-eight members were present. All eight members from Bucks county voted against the petition. If seven Chester members had also voted against it, just two counties would have governed the whole province. The province is always exposed to this danger. At its last session, the House also unjustifiably overstepped its powers to gain improper control over the province’s delegates. This overreach should warn everyone to be careful about entrusting power to others. Instructions were drawn up for the Delegates that would have embarrassed a schoolboy for their lack of sense and practicality. These instructions were approved by a few, a very few outside the House. They were then brought into the House and passed on behalf of the whole colony. Yet the House has shown great reluctance to undertake some necessary public measures. If the whole colony knew how reluctant the House had been, the people would immediately consider its members unworthy of such 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.

Urgent necessity makes many measures useful that would become oppressive if kept in place. But what is practical and what is right are different things. When America’s troubles required consultation, the quickest and most suitable approach was to appoint people from the several Houses of Assembly. The wisdom of those appointed has saved this continent from ruin. But we will very likely always have a Congress. So everyone who wants good order must admit that the way we choose its members deserves consideration. I ask those who study human nature: does representation and election give too much power to the same group of men? When we plan for future generations, we should remember that virtue is not inherited.

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.¹

We often learn excellent principles from our enemies, and their mistakes frequently bring us to reason unexpectedly. Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the New-York Assembly’s petition with contempt. His reason was that that House, he said, had only twenty-six members. He argued that so tiny a number could not reasonably represent the whole. We thank him for his unintended honesty.¹

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 shew, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independance. Some of which are,

In conclusion, some may find the following idea strange or be unwilling to accept it. But neither reaction matters. Many strong and striking reasons can be given to show this: Nothing can settle our affairs faster than an open and firm declaration of independence. Some of those reasons 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.

First. When two nations are at war, some other powers not involved usually step in to mediate. These powers help arrange the first steps toward peace. But as long as America calls herself a subject of Great-Britain, no power can offer to mediate. This is true no matter how willing that power may be. So, in our present situation, we may go on fighting forever.

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.

Secondly. It is unreasonable to expect any help from France or Spain if we intend only to use that help to repair the split and strengthen the connection between Britain and America. That is because France and Spain would suffer as a result.

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.

Thirdly. As long as we call ourselves subjects of Britain, foreign nations must see us as rebels. Taking up arms while claiming to be subjects sets a somewhat dangerous example for their peace. We who are here can explain the contradiction. But combining resistance with submission requires an idea far too subtle for ordinary 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 connections with her; at the same time, assuring all such courts of our peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them: Such a memorial would produce more good effects to this Continent, than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.

Fourthly. If we published a manifesto and sent it to foreign courts, we could explain the miseries we have endured. We could describe the peaceful methods we have tried, without success, to get relief. At the same time, we could declare that we can no longer live happily or safely under the cruel British court. We could explain that we have therefore been forced to break all ties with Britain. We could also assure all those courts of our peaceful intentions toward them and our desire to trade with them. Such a statement would do more good for this Continent than a ship loaded with petitions sent 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 independance, we take rank with other nations.

As long as we remain British subjects, we cannot be received or heard by foreign governments. The customs of all foreign courts are against us. They will remain so until we gain independence and take our place among 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 independance 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.

These steps may seem strange and difficult at first. But soon they will become familiar and welcome, like all the other steps we have already taken. Until independence is declared, the Continent will feel like a man who keeps putting off an unpleasant task. He knows the task must be done, but hates to begin and wishes it were over. The thought that he must do it constantly haunts him.