In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.
In the following pages, I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense. Before we begin, I ask only that the reader set aside his prejudices and preconceived opinions. Let him allow his reason and feelings to judge for themselves. Let him put on, or rather not take off, the true character of a man. And let him generously broaden his outlook beyond the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.
Many books have been written about the struggle between England and America. Men from all walks of life have joined the debate, with different motives and aims. But all their efforts have failed, and the time for debate is over. Armed force, as the last resort, now decides the struggle. The king chose to settle the dispute by force, and the continent has accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho’ an able minister was not without his faults) that on his being attacked in the house of commons, on the score, that his measures were only of a temporary kind, replied “they will last my time.” Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with detestation.
The late Mr. Pelham was reportedly challenged in the house of commons (though a capable minister, he had his faults). Critics said his policies were only temporary. He replied, “they will last my time.” If the colonies adopt such a disastrous and cowardly attitude in the present struggle, future generations will despise their ancestors.
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.
The sun has never shone on a worthier cause. This is not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent. It concerns at least one eighth of the habitable world. This is not just a concern for a day, a year, or an age. Future generations are effectively involved in this struggle. What we do now will affect them to a greater or lesser degree, even to the end of time. Now is the time to plant the seeds of continental unity, trust, and honor. The smallest division now will be like a name scratched with a pin into a young oak’s tender bark. The wound will grow as the tree grows, and future generations will read the name in fully grown letters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new æra for politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April, i.e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacks of the last year; which, though proper then, are 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.
By turning from argument to armed conflict, we have entered a new era in politics. A new way of thinking has emerged. All plans, proposals, and so on from before April 19, that is, before hostilities began, are like last year’s almanacs. Though useful then, they have now been replaced and are useless. Every argument made by supporters on either side then led to the same goal: union with Great-Britain. The only difference between the two sides was how to achieve that union. One proposed force, the other friendship. But so far, force has failed, and friendship has lost its influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on Great-Britain. To examine that connexion and dependance, on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependant.
Much has been said about the advantages of reconciliation. But like a pleasant dream, reconciliation has faded away and left us where we were. So it is only right to examine the other side of the argument. We should consider some of the many serious harms these colonies suffer, and always will suffer, from their connection with and dependence on Great-Britain. We should examine that connection and dependence through the principles of nature and common sense. We should see what we can rely on if we separate, and what we can expect if we remain dependent.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.
I have heard some people argue that America has prospered because of its past connection with Great-Britain. Therefore, they say, the same connection is necessary for America's future happiness and will always produce the same results. No argument could be more mistaken. We might as well say that because a child has thrived on milk, the child must never eat meat. Or we might say that our first twenty years must set the pattern for our next twenty. But even this comparison concedes too much. I say plainly that America would have prospered just as much, and probably much more, without any European power's involvement. America has grown rich by trading in the necessities of life. Those goods will always find a market as long as eating remains the custom in Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expence as well as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and dominion.
But she has protected us, some say. She has certainly kept us to herself. And admittedly, she has defended the continent at our expense as well as her own. But she would have defended Turkey for the same reason: trade and domination.
Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great-Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connexions.
Sadly, we have long been misled by old prejudices and sacrificed much to superstition. We have boasted of Great-Britain’s protection without considering that her motive was self-interest, not affection. She did not protect us from our enemies for our sake, but from her enemies for her own sake. Those enemies had no quarrel with us for any other reason. They will always be our enemies for the same reason. If Britain gives up her claims to the continent, or the continent breaks free of Britain, we would have peace with France and Spain even if those countries were at war with Britain. Hanover’s suffering in the last war should warn us against such ties.
It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great-Britain.
Some have recently claimed in parliament that the colonies have no connection to each other except through the parent country. That is, Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, like the other colonies, are sister colonies only through England. This is certainly a very roundabout way to prove a relationship. But it is the most direct and only true way to prove “enemyship,” if I may call it that. France and Spain have never been our enemies because we are Americans, and perhaps never will be. They are our enemies because we are subjects of Great-Britain.
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.
But Britain is the parent country, some say. Then her conduct is all the more shameful. Even beasts do not devour their young, nor do savages wage war on their families. So if the claim is true, it only brings Britain disgrace. But the claim is not true, or is only partly true. The king and his parasites have adopted the phrase parent or mother country with Jesuit-like cunning. Their purpose is a base, Catholic scheme to unfairly sway our weak, gullible minds. Europe, not England, is America's parent country. This new world has been a refuge for persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. These people fled here, not from a mother's tender embrace, but from a monster's cruelty. And the comparison to a monster is true of England in this respect: the same tyranny that drove the first emigrants from home still pursues their descendants.
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.
In this vast part of the world, we forget England’s narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles. We extend our friendship more widely. We call every European Christian a brother and take pride in the generosity of that feeling.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name of neighbour; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of townsman; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him countryman, i.e. county-man; but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.
It is pleasing to see how, step by step, we overcome local prejudice as we learn more about the world. A man born in an English town divided into parishes will naturally associate most with others from his parish. Their interests will often be shared, so he calls a fellow parishioner his neighbour. If he meets that neighbour just a few miles from home, he sets aside the narrow idea of a street. He greets him instead as a townsman. If he travels outside his county and meets the same man in another county, he forgets street and town. He calls him a countryman, meaning a county-man. But if the two meet while travelling in France or any other part of Europe, their shared identity broadens. They now think of themselves as Englishmen. By the same reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other part of the globe, are countrymen. Compared with the whole, England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden occupy the same positions on a larger scale. On a smaller scale, streets, towns, and counties occupy those positions. Such distinctions are too narrow for people who think on a continental scale. Not even one third of this province's inhabitants are of English descent. I therefore condemn calling England alone the parent or mother country. That description is 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; therefore, by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.
But even if we were all of English descent, what would that matter? Nothing. Britain is now an open enemy, and that wipes out every other name and title. So saying that reconciliation is our duty is truly ridiculous. The first king of England in the current royal line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman. And half the Peers of England are descended from people from that same country. So, by the same reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean any thing; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Much has been said about the combined strength of Britain and the colonies. Together, they could supposedly defy the world. But this claim is pure presumption. The outcome of war is uncertain, and such claims mean nothing. For this continent would never allow its population to be drained to support British forces in 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.
Besides, why should we challenge the whole world? Our plan is trade. If we manage trade well, we will secure the peace and friendship of all Europe. That is because all Europe benefits from America being a free port. America's trade will always protect America, and its lack of gold and silver will keep invaders away.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a single advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will.
I challenge the strongest supporter of reconciliation to name one advantage this continent gains from its ties to Great Britain. I repeat the challenge: we gain not a single advantage. Our grain will sell for its price in any European market. And we must pay for imported goods wherever we buy them.
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependance on Great-Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics.
But the harms and disadvantages we suffer from our connection with Great-Britain are countless. Our duty to humanity as a whole, as well as to ourselves, tells us to end the alliance. This is because any submission to or dependence on Great-Britain directly draws this continent into European wars and quarrels. It also puts us at odds with nations that would otherwise seek our friendship. We have neither anger toward those nations nor any complaint against them. Since Europe is our market for trade, we should not form exclusive ties with any part of Europe. America's true interest is to stay clear of European conflicts. But America can never do so while dependence on Britain makes America a tool for tipping the balance in British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain. The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ’Tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled encreases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.
Europe has too many kingdoms to stay at peace for long. Whenever war breaks out between England and a foreign power, America’s trade is ruined because of its connection with Britain. The next war may not turn out like the last. If it does not, those who now favor reconciliation will wish for separation then. In that case, neutrality would protect trade better than a warship. Everything right or natural calls for separation. The blood of those killed and the weeping voice of nature cry out: It is time to part. Even the distance the Almighty has placed between England and America is strong, natural evidence. It shows that Heaven never intended one to rule over the other. The timing of the continent’s discovery also strengthens the argument, as does the way people came to settle there. America was discovered before the Reformation. It was as if the Almighty graciously meant to provide a refuge for those persecuted in years to come, when their homelands would offer 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.
Great-Britain’s rule over this continent is a form of government that must end sooner or later. No thoughtful person can take real pleasure in looking ahead while painfully certain that “the present constitution” is only temporary. As parents, we can have no joy knowing that this government cannot last long enough to secure anything we leave to future generations. And the reasoning is simple: since we are putting the next generation in debt, we ought to do the work. Otherwise, we treat them badly and shamefully. To see our duty clearly, we should take our children by the hand and imagine ourselves a few years older. From that higher viewpoint, we will see a future that a few present fears and prejudices hide from us.
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.
Though I would take care to avoid unnecessary offense, I tend to believe all who support reconciliation fall into these groups. Self-serving men, who cannot be trusted. Weak men, who cannot see. Biased men, who will not see. And certain moderate men, who think more highly of Europe than Europe deserves. Through their misguided weighing of the issue, these moderate men will bring more disasters on this continent than the other three groups combined.
It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficient 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.
Many are fortunate enough to live far from the suffering. The harm has not come close enough to their doors to make them feel how insecure all American property is. But let us imagine ourselves in Boston for a few moments. That place of misery will teach us wisdom and show us why we must forever reject a power we cannot trust. Just a few months ago, the people of that unfortunate city lived in comfort and wealth. Now their only choice is to stay and starve or leave and beg. If they stay in the city, they risk being shot by their friends. If they leave, the soldiers rob them. As things stand, the people of Boston are prisoners with no hope of release. And if a full-scale attack were launched to free them, they would face the fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this.” But examine the passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
People with passive temperaments tend to brush aside Britain’s offenses. Still hoping for the best, they often cry, “Come now, we’ll be friends again, despite all this.” But examine human passions and feelings. Test the idea of reconciliation against human nature. Then tell me: can you ever again love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that has burned and ravaged your land? If you cannot do all these things, then you are only deceiving yourselves. And by delaying, you are bringing ruin on future generations. Your future relationship with Britain, a power you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural. And because that relationship will rest only on present convenience, it will soon collapse into something worse than before. But if you say you can still overlook these abuses, then I ask: Has your house been burned? Has your property been destroyed before your eyes? Are your wife and children left without a bed to sleep in or bread to eat? Have you lost a parent or a child at British hands, leaving you a ruined and miserable survivor? If you have not, then you have no right to judge those who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, you do not deserve to be called a husband, father, friend, or lover. And whatever your rank or title, you have the heart of a coward and the spirit of a flatterer.
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.
I am not stirring up anger or exaggerating matters. I am judging them by the feelings and affections that nature justifies. Without those feelings, we could neither fulfill our duties to one another nor enjoy life's happiness. I do not mean to display horrors to provoke revenge. Instead, I mean to wake us from a deadly, cowardly sleep so we can firmly pursue a clear goal. Neither Britain nor Europe can conquer America unless America defeats herself through delay and timidity. This winter is worth an age if used well. But if we waste or neglect this winter, the whole continent will share in the misfortune. Whoever causes us to sacrifice so precious and useful a season will deserve every possible punishment. His identity, position, or location will make no difference.
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things to all examples from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year’s security. Reconciliation is now a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion, and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, “never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”
The idea that this continent can remain subject to any outside power defies reason, the natural order, and all historical examples. Even the most hopeful person in Britain does not believe the continent can remain subject to an outside power. Even the greatest human wisdom cannot now devise any plan short of separation that promises the continent even a year’s security. Reconciliation is now a deceptive dream. Nature has abandoned the union, and human ingenuity cannot take her place. For, as Milton wisely puts it, “true reconciliation can never grow where the wounds of deadly hatred have cut 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.
Every peaceful effort to make peace has failed. Our appeals have been rejected with contempt. They have only convinced us that nothing feeds kings’ vanity or strengthens their stubbornness more than repeated petitions. And nothing has done more than repeated petitions to give the kings of Europe absolute power. Look at Denmark and Sweden. So, since nothing but fighting will work, for God’s sake, let us separate once and for all. Let us not leave the next generation to cut each other’s throats under the abused, meaningless names of parent and child.
To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp-act, yet a year or two undeceived us; as well may we suppose that nations, which have been once defeated, will never renew the quarrel.
To say they will never try it again is foolish and unrealistic. We thought the same when the Stamp Act was repealed, but a year or two proved us wrong. We might just as well suppose that nations defeated once will never renew the fight.
As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness—There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.
As for government, Britain cannot do this continent justice. Governing the continent will soon become too demanding and complex for Britain to manage with any reasonable ease. Britain is so far away and knows so little about us. For if Britain cannot conquer us, Britain cannot govern us. We constantly travel three or four thousand miles with a complaint or petition, then wait four or five months for an answer. When the answer arrives, explaining it takes another five or six months. In a few years, people will see this whole process as foolish and childish. There was a time when this arrangement made sense, and there is a right time for it to end.
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.
Small islands unable to protect themselves are rightly placed under the care of kingdoms. But the idea of a continent being governed forever by an island is absurd. Nature has never made a satellite larger than the planet it orbits. England and America reverse this natural order in their relationship, so clearly they belong to different systems. England belongs to Europe, and America to itself.
I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and independance; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,—that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered this continent the glory of the earth.
I do not support separation and independence out of pride, loyalty to a political faction, or resentment. I am clearly, firmly, and sincerely convinced that independence is in this continent’s best interest. Anything short of that is merely a temporary fix and can bring no lasting happiness. Accepting less than independence means leaving our children to fight the war. It means backing down when a little more effort, a little further progress, would have made 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 expence of blood and treasure we have been already put to.
Britain has shown no willingness at all to compromise. So we can be sure no terms will be worth accepting for the continent. Nor will any terms match the blood and money we have already been forced to spend.
The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the expence. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently ballanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I have always considered the independancy of this continent, as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth the while to have disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an estate on a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775, but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of father of his people can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.
What we fight for should always be worth the cost. Removing North, or his whole hateful clique, is not worth the millions we have spent. A temporary halt in trade was an inconvenience. But that inconvenience would have been a fair price for repealing all the laws we opposed, had we secured those repeals. If the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must become a soldier, we should seek more. Fighting only to remove a contemptible government is hardly worth our while. We pay dearly, dearly for repealing those laws if repeal is all we fight for. Judged fairly, paying a Bunker-hill price for laws is as foolish as paying that price for land. I have always believed that this continent's independence must come sooner or later. And the continent's recent, rapid growth toward maturity showed that independence could not be far off. So when fighting broke out, the dispute was not worth pursuing unless we meant to see it through. Time would eventually have settled the matter anyway. Otherwise, fighting is like spending an entire estate on a lawsuit to stop a tenant's trespassing when his lease is nearly over. No one wished more strongly for reconciliation than I did before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775. But the moment I heard what had happened that day, I rejected England's hardhearted, sullen Pharaoh forever. And I despise the wretch who falsely calls himself the father of his people. He can hear of their slaughter without feeling and sleep peacefully with their blood on 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.
But suppose the dispute were settled now. What would happen? My answer is that the continent would be ruined, 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 shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, “You shall make no laws but what I please.” And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the present constitution, that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit his purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning.—We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an independant, for independancy means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us “there shall be no laws but such as I like.”
First. With governing power still in the king’s hands, he will have a veto over all legislation on this continent. He has shown himself to be a bitter enemy of liberty, with a thirst for absolute power. So is he, or is he not, fit to tell these colonies, “You shall make no laws unless I approve.” Is anyone in America so ignorant that they do not understand what is called the present constitution? Under that constitution, this continent can make no laws without the king’s permission. And is anyone so foolish that they cannot see what follows, given what has happened? He will allow no laws here except those that serve his purposes. We may be enslaved just as effectively by having no laws in America as by obeying laws made for us in England. After we settle our differences (as people call it), can there be any doubt about how the crown will act? The crown will use all its power to keep this continent as weak and submissive as possible. Instead of moving forward, we will go backward, or spend our time endlessly quarreling or making ridiculous appeals. We are already greater than the king wishes us to be. Will he not try to make us less powerful in the future? The issue comes down to one question. Is a power that resents our prosperity fit to govern us? Whoever answers No is a supporter of independence. Independence means nothing more than choosing whether we will make our own laws or let the king dictate them. The king is the greatest enemy this continent has, or can have. Shall he tell us “there shall be no laws except those 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, makes quite another case. The king’s negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as strong a state of defence as possible, and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be passed.
But you will say the king has veto power in England. The people there can make no laws without his consent. In terms of rights and good government, there is something utterly ridiculous about such power. A young man of twenty-one can tell millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid your actions from becoming law. This has often happened. But for now, I will set that argument aside, though I will never stop exposing the absurdity of his power. I will answer only that England is the King’s home, while America is not, making the situation quite different. The king’s veto here is ten times more dangerous and deadly than in England. For there he would hardly refuse his consent to a bill making England’s defenses as strong as possible. But in America he would never allow such a bill to pass.
America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics, England consults the good of this country, no farther than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interferes with it. A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand government, considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name: And in order to shew that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the king at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in order, that he may accomplish by craft and subtilty, in the long run, what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
America is only a secondary concern in British politics. England considers the good of this country only when doing so serves her own purposes. So England’s self-interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours whenever our growth offers her no advantage. She also suppresses our growth whenever it interferes with her advantage even slightly. What a fine state we would soon be in under such secondhand government, considering what has happened! Men do not turn from enemies into friends just because the name of their relationship changes. And to show that reconciliation now is a dangerous idea, I make this claim: the king would be acting strategically now if he repealed the laws to regain control of the provinces. His purpose would be to achieve through cunning and deceit, over time, what he cannot achieve quickly through force and violence. Reconciliation and ruin are closely related.
Secondly. That as even the best terms, which we can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispense of their effects, and quit the continent.
Secondly. Even the best terms we can expect would offer no more than a temporary solution. Such terms would mean a kind of government under guardianship, lasting only until the colonies come of age. So, in the meantime, the overall situation will remain unstable and unpromising. Wealthy immigrants will not choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs by a thread. Nor will they choose a country constantly on the brink of unrest and disorder. And many current inhabitants would take advantage of the interval to sell their possessions and leave the continent.
But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independance, i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain.
But the strongest argument of all is that only independence can keep the continent peaceful and free from civil wars. Independence means a government for the whole continent. I fear reconciliation with Britain now, because a revolt somewhere on the continent would more than likely follow. The consequences of such a revolt may be far more deadly than all of Britain's malice.
Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more will probably suffer the same fate) Those men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will care very little about her. And a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded an independance, fearing that it would produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connexion than from independance. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby.
Thousands have already been ruined by British brutality. (Thousands more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those people feel differently from those of us who have suffered nothing. All they now have is liberty. Everything they once enjoyed has been sacrificed for liberty, and with nothing more to lose, they scorn submission. Besides, the colonies will generally feel about British rule as a young apprentice feels when his service is nearly over. They will care very little about Britain. And a government that cannot keep the peace is no government at all. In that case, we pay our money for nothing. And please, what could Britain do if civil unrest broke out the very day after reconciliation? Britain's power would exist only on paper. I have heard some men say they feared independence because it would lead to civil wars. I believe many of these men spoke without thinking. Our first thoughts are rarely truly correct, and so it is here. We have ten times more to fear from a patched-up union than from independence. I put myself in the place of those who have suffered. Suppose I were driven from my home, my property destroyed, and my livelihood ruined. I declare that, as a human being who feels such wrongs, I could never welcome the idea of reconciliation. Nor could I consider myself bound by it.
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to make every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for superiority over another.
The colonies have shown such commitment to good order and obedience to the continental government that every reasonable person can rest easy. No one can offer the slightest reason for fear except a truly childish and ridiculous one: that one colony will try to dominate another.
Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Swisserland are without wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprizing ruffians at home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances, where a republican government, by being formed on more natural principles, would negociate the mistake.
Where there are no differences in rank, no one can claim superiority. Perfect equality offers no temptation. The republics of Europe are all at peace (and we may say always have been). Holland and Swisserland have no wars, foreign or domestic. Monarchies, admittedly, are never at peace for long. The crown itself tempts ambitious ruffians at home. And the pride and arrogance that always accompany royal power lead to conflict with foreign powers. In the same circumstances, a republican government, founded on more natural principles, would settle the misunderstanding through negotiation.
If there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out—Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve into useful matter.
If there is any real reason to fear independence, it is that no plan has yet been laid out. People do not see a way forward. So, to begin that work, I offer the following suggestions. I modestly claim only that these suggestions may lead to something better. If individuals' scattered thoughts could be gathered, they would often provide material for wise and capable people to develop into something useful.
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 the assemblies be elected each year, with only a President. Let representation be more equal. The assemblies should handle only domestic affairs and remain under the authority of a Continental Congress.
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in Congress will be at least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which, let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province. In the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority.—He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.
Divide each colony into six, eight, or ten convenient districts. Each district should send a suitable number of delegates to Congress, so each colony sends at least thirty. Congress will have at least 390 delegates in total. Each Congress should meet and choose a president by the following method. Once the delegates have gathered, choose one of the thirteen colonies by lot. Then let the whole Congress choose a president by ballot from the delegates of that colony. In the next Congress, choose by lot from only twelve colonies, excluding the colony whose delegates supplied the previous president. Continue this process until all thirteen colonies have had their turn. To ensure that no law passes unless it is satisfactorily just, require a majority of at least three-fifths of Congress. Anyone who would promote discord under a government organized as fairly as this would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.
But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most agreeable and consistent that it should come from some intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that is, between the Congress and the people, let a Continental Conference be held, in the following manner, and for the following purpose.
But deciding who should first raise this matter, and how, is especially delicate. It also seems most fitting and appropriate for the matter to come from a body between rulers and ruled. This means a body between the Congress and the people. For these reasons, let a Continental Conference be held in the following way and for the following purpose.
A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two for each colony. Two members from each House of Assembly, or Provincial Convention; and five representatives of the people at large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province, for, 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 impowered by the people, will have a truly legal authority.
A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, two for each colony. Two members from each House of Assembly or Provincial Convention, and five representatives of the people at large. These five representatives are to be chosen in each province’s capital city or town, on behalf of the whole province. All qualified voters from across the province who choose to attend for that purpose may take part in the election. Or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or three of the province’s most populous areas. The conference assembled in this way will unite the two great principles of conducting affairs, knowledge and power. The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions will be capable and useful advisers because of their experience in national affairs. And because the people will have authorized the entire conference, the conference will have truly lawful 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 comformable 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.
Once the members of the Conference have gathered, their task should be to draft a Continental Charter, or Charter of the United Colonies. (This would serve the same purpose as England’s Magna Charta.) The charter should set the number of members of Congress and members of Assembly, and how they are chosen. It should also set when these bodies meet and define their separate duties and powers. (Always remember that our strength lies in the continent as a whole, not in individual provinces.) The charter should secure freedom and property for all men. Above all, it should secure the freedom to practice religion according to one’s conscience. It should also include whatever else a charter needs to contain. Immediately afterward, the Conference should dissolve. The bodies chosen according to the charter should then serve as this continent’s lawmakers and governors for the time being. May God preserve this continent’s peace and happiness. 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.
If any group of men is later appointed for this or a similar purpose, I offer them the following excerpts. They come from Dragonetti, a wise observer of governments. “The science” he says “of politics lies in finding the right balance of happiness and freedom. Men who discovered a form of government offering the greatest total individual happiness at the lowest national cost would deserve gratitude for generations.
Dragonetti on virtue and rewards.”
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 Brute 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.
But some ask, where is the King of America? I’ll tell you, friend. He reigns above and does not devastate humanity like the Royal Brute of Britain. Still, so that we may not seem to lack even earthly honors, let us set aside a solemn day to proclaim the charter. Let the charter be brought out and placed on the divine law, the word of God. Let a crown be placed on the charter so the world may know how far we approve of monarchy. In America, the law is king. For just as the King is law in absolute governments, in free countries the law ought to be King. And there ought to be no other king. But to prevent any later misuse, let the crown be destroyed at the end of the ceremony. Let its pieces be scattered among the people, to whom the crown rightfully belongs.
A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, 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 independance now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us, the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.
A government of our own is our natural right. Anyone who seriously considers how uncertain human affairs are will see the wiser and safer course. It is infinitely wiser and safer to create our own constitution calmly and carefully, while we still can. We should not leave such an important event to time and chance. If we fail to act now, some Massanello may arise later and exploit public unrest. He may gather the desperate and discontented, and together they may seize the powers of government. They may then sweep away the continent’s liberties like a flood. If America’s government returns to British hands, the unstable situation will tempt some desperate adventurer to try his luck. In that case, what help can Britain give? Before Britain could hear the news, the fatal deed might already be done. We might then suffer as the unfortunate Britons suffered under the oppression of the Conqueror. You who oppose independence now do not know what you are doing. By leaving the seat of government vacant, you are opening the door to endless tyranny. Thousands and tens of thousands would consider it glorious to drive that barbarous and hellish power from the continent. That power has stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us. Such cruelty carries a double guilt: it treats us brutally and betrays them.
Thomas Anello, also known as Massanello, was a fisherman from Naples. In the public marketplace, he stirred up his countrymen against oppression by the Spaniards, who then ruled Naples. He then urged his countrymen to revolt and became king within a day.
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?
Talking of friendship with people our reason tells us not to trust is madness and foolishness. Our feelings, wounded in a thousand ways, teach us to hate those same people. Every day wears away what little remains of the family ties between us and them. Can we reasonably hope that our affection will grow as those ties disappear? Or that we will get along better when we have ten times more and greater issues to fight over?
Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated the earth, or have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber, and the murderer, would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice.
You who speak to us of harmony and reconciliation, can you give us back the time that has passed? Can you restore innocence to prostitution? No more can you reconcile Britain and America. The last bond is now broken. The people of England are submitting formal statements against us. There are injuries that human nature cannot forgive. Human nature would no longer be itself if it forgave them. A lover could forgive the man who raped his beloved just as easily as America could forgive Britain’s murders. The Almighty has planted these feelings within us for good and wise purposes, and these feelings cannot be extinguished. These feelings guard his image in our hearts. They set us apart from the herd of ordinary animals. The social contract would collapse if we were unmoved by the feelings that bind us to others. Under that same condition, justice would disappear from the earth or exist only occasionally. Robbers and murderers would often go unpunished if the injuries to our feelings did not spur us to seek 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.
All of you who love humanity! You who dare to oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant, step forward! Every part of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom has been hunted around the globe. Asia and Africa drove her out long ago. Europe treats her like a stranger, and England has told her to leave. Oh, welcome the fugitive, and prepare a refuge for humanity before it is too late.