COMMON SENSE, INTRODUCTION, AND PREFACE COMMON SENSE, BY TOMAS PAIN, INTRODUCTION AND PREFACE Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom, but the tumult soon subsides, time makes more converts than reason. As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, and in matters to which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry, and as the King of England hath undertaken in his own right to support the Parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either. In the following sheets the author hath studiously avoided everything which is personal among ourselves. Compliments, as well as censure to individuals, make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet, and those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which their affections are interested. The laying of a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extropating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling of which class, regardless of party censure, is the author. P.S. The publication of this new edition hath been delayed with a view of taking notice, had it been necessary, of any attempt to refute the doctrine of independence. As no answer hath yet appeared, it is now presumed that none will. The time needful for getting such a performance ready for the public being considerably passed. Who the author of this presentation is, is wholly unnecessary to the public, as the object for attention is the doctrine itself, not the man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say that he is unconnected with any party, and under no sort of influence, public or private, but the influence of reason and principle. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Some writers have so confounded society with government as to leave little or no distinction between them, whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by wickedness. The former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a publisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one. For when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence. The palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. But where the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other law-giver, but that, not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest. And this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopleing of any country or of the world. In the state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them hitherto. The strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind is so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out of the common period of his life, without accomplishing anything, when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erected after it was removed. Hunger in the meantime would urge him from his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die. This necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived immigrants into society, the reciprocal blessing of which would supersede and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary, while they remained perfectly just to each other. But as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of immigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other, and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue. Some convenient tree will afford them a statehouse, under the branches of which the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat. But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and a distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habituation near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out their convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake, which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act, were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to. It will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number, and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors. Prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often, because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflections of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other. And on this, not on the unmeaning name of king, depends the strength of government and the happiness of the governed. Here, then, is the origin and rise of government, namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world. Here, too, is the design and end of government, these freedom and security, and however our eyes may be dazzled with snow or our ears deceived by sound, however prejudice may warp our wills or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right. I draw my idea to the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, these that the more simple anything is, the less libel it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered. And with this maximan view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England, that it was noble for the mark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny, the least removed therefrom was a glorious rescue, but that it is imperfect subject to convulsions and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated. Absolute governments, through the disgrace of human nature, have this advantage with them that they are simple. If the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, no likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies. Some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine. I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies compounded with some new republican materials. First, the remains of monarchal tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly, the remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Thirdly, the new republican materials in the persons of the commons on whose virtue depends the freedom of England. The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people, and therefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state. To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers, reciprocally checking each other, is farcical. Either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions. To say that the commons as a check upon the king presupposes two things. First, that the king is not to be trusted without being looked after. Or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly, that the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown. But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king, by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons by empowering him to reject their other bills. It again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity. There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy. It first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires to know it thoroughly. Wherefore, the different parts by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other prove the whole character to be absurd and useless. Some writers have explained the English constitution thus. The king, they say, is one, the people another. The peers are at house in behalf of the king, the commons in behalf of the people, but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself. And though the expressions be presently arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous. And it will always happen that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only. And though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind. For this explanation includes a previous question. Vs. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people. Neither can any power which needs checking be from God. Yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist. But the provision is unequal to the task. The means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a philo d'essay. The wheels of a machine are put in motion by one. It only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight. For that will govern. And though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion. Yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual. The first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time. That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident.  The Englishmen, in favour of their own government by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth it is handed to the people under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles I hath only made kings more subtle, not more just. Wherefore, lying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government, that the crown is not as oppressive in England as it is in Turkey. An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary, for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice, and as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any pre-possession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one. Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance. The distinction of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for and without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avariance. Oppression is often that consequence but seldom or never the means of riches, and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is the distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female are the distinction of nature, good and bad the distinction of heaven, but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest and distinguished like some new species is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind. In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings, the consequence of which was there were no wars. It is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchal governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark, for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them which vanishes away when we come to the history of the Jewish royalty. Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved upon the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust? As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture. For the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchal parts of scripture have been smoothly glossed over in monarchal governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of a monarchal government for the Jews that at that time were without a king, and in a state of vacillage to the Romans. Near three thousand years passed away from the mosaic account of the creation till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government, except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed, was a kind of republic administered by the judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven. The monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for such a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to. The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midiites, Gideon marched against them with a small army and victory, though the divine interposed decided in his favor. The Jews elate with success and attribute it to the generalship of Gideon, the king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent, not a kingdom only, but a hereditary one.  Words need not be more explicit. Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denyeth their right to give it. Neither doth he compliment them in inventing declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper sovereign, the King of Heavens. About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous custom of the heathens is something exceedingly unaccountable, but so it was that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old, and thy son's walk not in thy ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations, and here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, these that they might be like unto other nations, in other words, the heavens, whereas their true glory lay in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us, and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hark unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them according to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even into this day, whereon they have forsaken me, and served other gods. So do they also unto thee, now therefore, harken unto their voice, how but protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the kings that shall reign over them. In other words, not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after, and not withstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king, and he said, This shall be the manner of the king, thou shall reign over you. He will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots. This description agrees with the present mode of impressing men, and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground, and to read his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots, and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. This describes the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of kings, and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants, and he will take the tenth of your feed and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants, by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings. And he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work, and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you in that day. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy. Neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since either sanctify the title or blot out the sinfulness of the origin. The high ecumen given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless, the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, May, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose. He set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail, and seeing them fully bent on their folly he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain, which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest, that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel, and all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God, that we die not, for we have added unto our sins this evil, to ask a king. These portions of Scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction, that the almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchal government is true, or the Scripture is false. And the man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the Scripture from the public in popish countries, for monarchy in every instance is the popery of government. To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession, and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so is the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever, and though himself might deserve some decent respect of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings is that the nature disproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion. Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away the right of posterity.  Most wise men in their private sentiments have ever treated hereditary right with contempt, yet it is one of those evils which when once established is not easily removed. Many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the most powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest. This is supposing the present race of kings is in the world to have had an honorable origin, whereas it is more than probable that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity and trace them to their first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless group, whose savage manners or preeminence in suitability obtained him the title of chief among plunderers, and who by increase in power and extending his deprotations overod the quiet and defenseless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained principles they profess to live by. Wherefore hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complemental, but as few or no records were extant in those days and traditionally history stuffed with fables. It was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale conveniently timed, Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened or seemed to threaten on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly, induced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions by which means it happened as it hath happened since that what at first was submitted to as a convenience was afterwards claimed as a right. England since the conquest hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one, a French bastard landing with an armed bandit and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility nor disturb their devotion. Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first. The question admits but of three answers, these either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by a lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary. Neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next. For to say that the right of all future generations is taken away by the act of the first electors in their choice not only of a king but of a family of kings forever hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam and from such comparison and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned and as in the first electors all men obeyed as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan and in the other to sovereignty. As our innocence was lost in the first and our authority in the last and as both disable us from resuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels dishonorable rank in glorious connection yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a jester simile. As to your subtation no man will be so hardy as to defend it and that William the Conqueror was a usurper is a fact not to be contradicted the plain truth is that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into but it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority but as it opens the door to the foolish the wicked and the improper it hath in the nature of oppression men who look upon themselves born to reign and others to obey soon grow insolent selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions another evil which attends hereditary succession is that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age all which time the regency acting under the cover of a king have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust the same national misfortune happens when a king worn out with age and infirmity enters the last stage of human weakness in both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant who can temper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy the most plausible plea which hath ever offended in favor of hereditary succession is that it preserves a nation from civil wars and were this true it would be weighty whereas it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind the whole history of England disowns the fact thirty kings and two minors have reigned in the distracted kingdom since the conquest in which time there have been including the revolution no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions where for instead of making for peace it makes against it and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on the contest for monarchy and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster laid England in a scene of blood for many years twelve pitched battles besides skirmishes and sieges were fought between Henry and Edward twice was Henry prisoner to Edward who in his turn was prisoner to Henry and so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land yet as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting Henry in his turn was driven from the throne and Edward recalled to succeed him the parliament always following the strongest side this contest began in the reign of Henry the sixth and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the seventh in whom the families were united including a period of sixty-seven years these from 1422 to 1489 in short monarchy and succession have laid not this or that kingdom only but the world in blood and ashes to the form of government which the world of God bears testimony against and blood will attend it if we inquire into the business of a king we shall find that in some countries they have none and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation withdrawn from the scene and leave their successors to tread the same idle round in absolute monarchies the whole weight of business civil and military lies on the king the children of Israel in their request for a king urged this plea that he may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles but in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general as in England a man would be puzzled to know what is his business the nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king it is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England so William Meredith calls it a republic but in his present state it is unworthy of the name because the corrupt influence of the crown by having all the places in its disposal hath so effectively swallowed up the power and eaten out the virtue of the House of Commons the republican part in the Constitution that the government of England is nearly as monarchal as that of France or Spain men fall out with names without understanding them for it is the republican and not the monarchal part of the Constitution of England which Englishman glory in fees the liberty of choosing and House of Commons from out of their own body and it is easy to see when republican virtue fails slavery ensues why is the Constitution of England sickly but because monarchy have poisoned the Republic the crown hath engrossed the Commons in England the king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places which in plain terms is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the years a pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for and worshipped into the bargain of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God than all the crowned Ruffians that ever lived end of chapter 2 common sense chapter 3 part 1 this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org common sense by Thomas Payne chapter 3 thoughts on the present state of American affairs part 1 in the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts plain arguments and common sense and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that he will put on or rather that he will not put off the true character of a man and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America men of all ranks have embarked on the controversy from different motives and with various designs but all have been ineffectual and the period of debate is closed arms as the last resource decide the contest the appeal was the choice of the king and the continent hath accepted the challenge it hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham who though 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 he 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 sun never shined on a cause of greater worth is not like 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 his 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 in it full-grown characters by referring the matter from argument to arms a new era for politics is struck a new method of thinking hath arisen all planes proposals etc prior to the 19th of April in other words to the commencement of hostilities are like the almanacs of the last year which though proper then are superseded and useless now whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then terminated in one and the same point these a union with Great Britain the only difference between the parties was the method of effectuating it the one proposing force the other friendship but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed and the second hath withdrawn her influence as much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation which like an agreeable dream hath passed away and left us as we are 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 dependent upon Great Britain to examine that connection and dependence 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 dependent I have heard it asserted by some that as America hath flourished under the former connection with Great Britain that the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness and will always have the same effect nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument we may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk that it is never to have meat or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become 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 anything to do with her the commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessities of life and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe but she has protected us some say that she hath engrossed us is true and defended the continent at our expense as well as her own is admitted and she would have defended turkey from the same motive these the sake of trade and dominion alas we have been long led away by ancient prejudices and made large sacrifices to superstition we have boasted the protection of Great Britain without considering that her motive was interest not attachment that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account but from her enemies on her own account from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account and who will always be our enemies on the same account let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent or to the continent throw off the dependence and we should be at peace with France and Spain where they at war with Britain the miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connections it hath lately been asserted in parliament that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country in other words that Pennsylvania and the jerseys and so on for the rest our sister colonies by way of England this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relationship but it is the nearest and only true way of relationship 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 subject of great Britain yet Britain is the parent country some say then the more shame upon her conduct even brutes do not devour their young nor savages make war upon their families where therefore the assertion if true turns to her reproach but it happens not to be true or only partly so that the phrase parent or mother country have been just diciously adopted by the king and his parasites with a low papistical design of gaining and unfair bias on the credulious 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 immigrants from home pursues their descendants still in this extensive quarter of the globe we forgot the narrow limits of 360 miles the extent of England and carry our friendship on a large scale we claim brotherhood with every European Christian and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment it is pleasant to observe by what regular graduations 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 with his fellow parishioners because their interests in England and distinguished him by the name of neighbor but if he meet him but a few miles from home he drops the narrow idea of the street and salutes him by the name of Townsman if he travel out of the country and meet him in any other he forgets the minor division of street and town and calls him countryman in other words country man but if in their foreign excursions associate in France or any other part of Europe their local remembrance would be enlarged to that of Englishman and by a just parody of reasoning all Europeans meeting in America or any other quarter of the globe are countryman for England, Holland, Germany or Sweden when compared with the whole stand in the same place on the larger scale which the division of street, town and country do on the smaller distinctions too limited for continental minds not one third of the inhabitants even of this province are of English descent whether for I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only as being false selfish narrow and ungenerous but admitting that we were all of English descent what does it amount to nothing Britain being now an enemy extinguishes every other civil 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 where for by the same method of reasoning England ought to be governed by France much hath been said of the united strength of Britain they might bid defiance to the world but this is mere presumption the fate of war is uncertain neither do the expressions mean anything for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa or Europe besides what have we to do with setting the world at defiance our plan is commerce and that well attended to will secure us the peace friendship of all Europe because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port her trade will always be a protection and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that this continent may 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 by them where we will but the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by the 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 dependence on Great Britain tends directly to involve this continent in European wars 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 her dependence on Britain she is made the make weight in the scale and British politics Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace and where never 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 of war everything that is right or natural pleads for separation the blood of the slain the weeping voice of nature cries to his 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 the manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it the reformation was preceded by the discovery of America and if the almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years when home should afford neither friendship nor safety the authority of Great Britain over this continent is a form of government which sooner or later must have an end and a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward under the painful and positive conviction that what he calls the present constitution is merely temporary as parents we can have no joy knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure anything which we may bequeathed 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 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 further into life that eminence will present a prospect which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offense yet I am inclined to believe that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation may be included within the following descriptions interested men who are not to be trusted weak men who cannot see prejudiced men who will not see and a certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than it deserves and this last class by an ill judged deliberation will be the cause of more calamities to this continent than all the other three it is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American property is possessed but let our imaginations transport us for a few moments to Boston that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom and instruct us forever 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 and the tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses of Britain and still hoping for the best our 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 thereafter love honor and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land if you do not do all these then are you only deceiving yourselves by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity your future connection with Britain whom you can neither love nor honor will be forced and unnatural and being formed only on the plane of present convenience will in a little time fall to 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 you are not a judge of those who have but if you have and still can shake hands with the murderers then you are unworthy of the name of husband father friend or lover never may be your rank or title in life you have the heart of a coward and the spirit of a sycophant it is not in flaming 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 slumbers that we may pursue determinately some fixed object it is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity the present winter is worth an age if rightly employed but if lost or neglected the whole continent will partake of the misfortune and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve be he who or what or where he will that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful it is repugnant to reason to the universal order of things to all examples from former ages to suppose that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power the most saguine in Britain does not think so the utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot at this time can pass a plan short of separation which can promise the continent even a year's security reconciliation is now a fallacious dream nature had deserted the connection and art cannot supply her place for as Milton wisely expresses never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep every quiet method for peace and respect will our prayers have been rejected with disdain and only intended to convince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in kings more than repeated petitioning and nothing have contributed more than that very measure to make the kings of Europe absolute witness Denmark and Sweden wherefore since nothing but blows will do for God's sake let us come to a final separation and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child to say that they will never attempted again is idle and illusionary we thought so at the repeal of the stamp act yet a year or two undeceived us as well as we supposed that nations which have been once defeated will never renew the quarrel as to government matters it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent justice the business of it will soon be too weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience by a power so distant from us and so very ignorant of us for if they cannot conquer us they cannot govern us to be always running three or four thousand miles with a tail or a petition waiting for an answer which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness there was a time when it was proper and there is a proper time for it to cease small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care but there is something very absurd in supposing a continent which is perpetually governed by an island in no instance have nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet and as England and America with respect to each other reverses the common order of nature it is evident they belong to different systems England to Europe America to itself I am not induced by motives of pride party or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation purely positively and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so that everything short of that is mere patchwork that it can afford no lasting felicity that it is leaving the sword to our children and jerking back at a time when a little more, a little farther would have rendered this continent the glory of the earth End of Part 1 of Chapter 3 Common Sense Part 2 This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Common Sense by Thomas Paine Chapter 3 Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs Part 2 As Britain hath not manifest the least inclination towards a compromise we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent or anyways equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to. The object contended for ought always to bear some just proportion to the expense. The removal of north or the whole detestable dhuntu is a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade was an inconvenience which would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the acts complained of had such repeals been obtained but if the whole continent must take up arms if every man must be a soldier it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly dearly do we pay for the repeal of the acts if that is all we fight for for in a just estimation it is as great a folly to pay a bunker hill price for law as for land. As I have always considered the independency of the 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 it to be in earnest. Otherwise it is like wasting an estate on a suit at law to regulate the trespass of a tenant whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wiser for reconciliation than myself before the fatal 19th of April 1775. But the moment the event of that day was made known I rejected the hardened sullen tempered pharaoh of England forever 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 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 first the powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent and as he hath shown himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power is he or is he not a proper man to say to these colonies you shall make no laws but what I please and is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant as not to know that according to what is called the present constitution that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives it leave to and is there any man so unwise as not to see that considering what has happened he will suffer no law to be made here but such as suits purpose he may be as ineffectually 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 quarreling or ridiculously petitioning we are always greater than the king wishes us to be and will he not thereafter endeavor to make us less to bring the matter to one point is the power who is jealous of our prosperity a proper power to govern us whoever says no to this question is an independent for independency means no more than whether we shall make our own laws or whether the king the greatest enemy this continent hath or can have shall tell us there shall be no laws but such as I like but the king you will say has a negative in England the people there can make no laws without his consent in point of right in 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 absurdities of it and only answer that England being the king's residence and America not so make quite another case the king's negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as strong a state of defense as possible and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be passed America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics England consults the good of this country no farther than it answers her own purpose wherefore her own interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every place 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 show that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine I affirm that it would be policy in the king at this time to repeal the acts of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces in order that he may accomplish by craft and subtlety in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one reconciliation and ruin are nearly related secondly that as ever 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 immigrants 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 those of their effects and quit the continent but the most powerful of all arguments is that nothing but independence in other words a continental form of government can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it in violence 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 that will be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain thousands are already ruined by British barbarity thousands more will probably suffer the same fate those men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered all they now possess is liberty what they therefore enjoyed is sacrificed to its service and having nothing more to lose they disdain submission the general temper of the colonies toward 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 every day after reconciliation I have heard some men say many of whom I believe spoke without thinking that they dreaded an independence fearing that it would produce civil wars it is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct and that is the case here for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connection than from independence I make the sufferers case alone and I protest that were I driven from house and home my property destroyed and my circumstances ruined that as a man sensible of injuries I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation or consider myself bound thereby the colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and obedience to continental government as is sufficient to make every reasonable person happy and happy on that head no man can assign least pretence for his fears on any other ground that such are truly childish and ridiculous these that one colony will be striving for superiority over another where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority perfect equality affords no temptation the republics of Europe are all and we may say always in peace and Switzerland are without wars foreign or domestic monarchal governments it is true are never long at rest the crown itself is a temptation to enter prizing ruffians at home and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority swells into a rupture with foreign powers in instances where a republican government by being formed on more natural principles would negotiate the mistake if there is any true cause of fear respecting independence it is because no plan has yet been laid down men do not see their way out where for 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 then that they may be means of giving rise to something better could a straggling thoughts of individuals be collected they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve into useful matter let the assemblies be annual with the president only the representation more equal their business wholly domestic and subject to the authority of a continental congress let each colony be divided into six eight or ten convenient districts each district to send a proper number of delegates to congress so that each colony sent at least thirty the whole number in congress will be leased three hundred ninety each congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method when the delegates are met let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot after which let the whole congress choose by ballot a president from out of the delegates of that province 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 until the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation in order that nothing may pass into the 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 but as there is a peculiar delicacy from whom or in what manner this business must first arise and as it seems most agreeable and consistent that it should come from some intermediate body between the governed and the governors that is between the congress and the people let a continental conference be held in the following manner and for the following purpose a committee of twenty-six members of congress vis two from each colony two members for each house of assembly or provincial convention and five representatives of the people at large to be chosen at 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 counselors empowered by the people will have a truly legal authority the conferring members being met let their business be to frame a continental charter or a charter of the united colonies answering to what is called the Magna Carta of England fixing the number and manner of choosing members of congress members of assembly with their dates of sitting and drawing a line of business and jurisdiction between them always remembering the 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 which such other matter as is necessary for a charter to contain immediately after which the said conference to dissolve and the bodies which shall be chosen conformable to the said charter to be legislatures and governors of this continent for the time being whose peace and happiness may God preserve amen should any body of men be here after delegated for this or some similar purpose I offer them the following extracts from that wise observer on governments Draganeti the science says he of the politician 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 and the least national expense Draganeti 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 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 as 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 least any ill use should afterward arise let the crown at this conclusion of the ceremony be demolished and scattered among the people whose right it is a government of our own is our natural right and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs he will become convinced that it is 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 mazanello may hereafter arise who lay hold of popular disquietudes may collect together the desperate and contented and by assuming to themselves the powers of government may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge should the government of America return again into the hands of Britain the tottering situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune and in such a case what relief can Britain give ere she could hear the news the fatal business might be done and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the conqueror ye that oppose independence now ye know not what ye do ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny by keeping vacant the seat of government 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 and cruelly hath a double guilt it is dealing brutally by us and treacherously by them to talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith and our affections wounded through a thousand pours instructs us to detest is madness and folly every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them and can there be any reason to hope that as the relationship expires the affection will increase or that we shall agree better when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation can ye restore us to 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 being addressed 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 murderers 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 the social compact would dissolve and justice be extirpated from the earth or have only a casual existence where we call us to the touches of affection the robber and the murderer would often escape unpunished did not the injuries which our tempters sustain provoke us into justice oh 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 around the globe Asia and Africa have long expelled her Europe regards her like a stranger and England hath given her warning to depart oh receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind End of Part 2 of Chapter 3 End of Chapter 3 Common Sense Chapter 4 This is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Common Sense by Thomas Paine Chapter 4 of the present ability of America with some miscellaneous reflections I have never met with a man either in England or America who hath not confessed his opinion that a separation between the countries would take place one time or other and there is no instance in which we have shown less judgment than in endeavoring to describe what we call the ripeness or fitness of the continent for independence as all men allow the measure and vary only in their opinion of the time let us in order to remove mistakes take a general survey of things and endeavor if possible to find out the very time but we need not go far the inquiry ceases at once for the time hath found us the general concurrence the glorious union of all things prove the fact it is not in numbers but in unity that our great strength lies yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world the continent hath at this time the largest body of armed and disciplined men of any power under heaven and is just arrived at the 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 could never suffer an American man of war to be built while the continent remained in her hands wherefore we should be no forwarder and 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 least will be far off and difficult to procure where the continent crowded with inhabitants her sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable the more seaport 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 debts we have none and whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento to our virtue can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government an independent constitution of its own the purchase at any price will be cheap but to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed and routing the present military only 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 honour and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician the debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be but accomplished no nation ought to be without a debt a national debt is a national bond and when it bears no interest is in no case a grievance Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling for which she pays upwards of four millions interest and as a compensation for her debt she has a large navy America is without a debt and without a navy yet for part of the English national debt could have a navy as large again the navy of England is not worth at this time more than three millions and a half sterling the first and second editions of this pamphlet were published without the following calculations which are now given as a proof that the above estimation of the navy is a just one from ethics naval history introduction the charge of building a ship of each rate and furnishing her with masts, yards, nails and ring together with the proportion of eight months bosons and carpenters sea stores as calculated by Mr. Burchett secretary to the navy for a ship of one hundred guns thirty five thousand five hundred fifty three pounds ninety guns twenty nine thousand eight hundred eighty six pounds eighty guns twenty three thousand six hundred thirty eight pounds seventy guns seventeen thousand seven hundred eighty five pounds sixty guns fourteen thousand one hundred ninety seven pounds fifty guns ten thousand six hundred and six pounds forty guns seven thousand five hundred fifty eight pounds thirty guns five thousand eight hundred forty six pounds twenty guns three thousand seven hundred ten pounds and from hence it is easy 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. Six ships, one hundred guns, thirty-five thousand, five hundred fifty-three pounds, for one, two hundred and thirteen thousand three hundred eighteen pounds, for all. Ships twelve, guns ninety, cost of one twenty-nine thousand eight hundred eighty-six, cost of all, three hundred fifty-eight thousand six hundred thirty-two. Ships twelve, guns eighty, cost of one twenty-three thousand six hundred thirty-eight, cost of all, two hundred eighty-three thousand six hundred fifty-six. Ships forty-three, guns seventy, cost of one seventeen thousand seven hundred eighty-five, cost of all, seven hundred and forty-six thousand seven hundred fifty-five. Ships thirty-five, guns sixty, cost of one fourteen thousand one hundred ninety-seven, cost of all, four hundred ninety-six thousand eight hundred ninety-five. Ships forty, guns fifty, cost of one ten thousand six hundred six, cost of all, four hundred twenty-four thousand two hundred forty. Ships forty-five, guns forty, cost of one seven thousand five fifty-eight, cost of all, three hundred forty thousand one hundred ten. Ships fifty-eight, guns twenty, cost of one three thousand seven hundred ten pounds, cost of all, two hundred fifteen thousand one hundred eighty pounds. Ships eighty-five, sloops, bombs, and fire ships, one with another at two thousand pounds each, one hundred seventy thousand pounds, cost three million two hundred sixty-six thousand seven hundred eighty-six pounds, remains for guns two hundred thirty-three thousand two hundred fourteen pounds, total three million five hundred thousand pounds sterling. No country on the globe is so happily situated, 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 of a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufacturing of this country. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy wind furnished 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. In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors. It is not necessary that one fourth part should be sailor. The terrible privateer, Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, through her compliment of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landsmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more capable to begin our 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? Shipbuilding 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 rivaling 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 hath withheld the other. To America only hath she been liberal of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea, wherefore her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce. In point of safety ought we 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 on our doors or windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defense ought to improve with our increase of prosperity. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware and laid the city of Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sums he pleased. And the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any darling fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the whole continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection. Some people will say that after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean that she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us is of all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be affected under the pretense of friendship, and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted into our harbors, I would ask, how is she to protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies none at all. Wherefore, if we must hear after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves, why do it for another? The English list of ships of war is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are in any 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 any 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 distinguished Tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from the truth than this, for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an overmatch for her, because, as we neither have nor claim, any foreign dominion, our whole force could be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain by her fleet hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the neighborhood of the continent, is entirely at its mercy. Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant navy. If premiums are to be given to merchants to build an employ in their service, ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns, the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchants, fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guard ships on constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that, without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England of suffering their fleet in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks, to unite the seawins 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. In almost every article of defense we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want courtage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Canons we can cast at pleasure. Salt, Peter, and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the Government of America again, this continent will not be worth living in. Jealousies will be always arising. Insurrections will be constantly happening. And who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a British government and fully proves that nothing but continental authority can regulate continental matters. Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others is that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet unoccupied, which instead of being lavished by the King on his worthless dependence, may be hereafter applied not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as this. The infant state of the colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is a matter worthy of observation that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far exceeded the moderns, and the reason is evident, for trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defense, and history sufficiently informs us that the bravest achievements are always accomplished in the non-age of a nation. With the increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are, in general, slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel. Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the continent into one government, half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able might scorn each other's assistance, and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would lament that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters. We are young, and we have been distressed. But our concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in. The present time, likewise, is that particular time which never happens to a nation but once. These, the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors instead of making laws for themselves. First they had a king, and then a form of government, whereas the articles or charter of government should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterwards. But from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold to the present opportunity to begin government at the right end. When William the conqueror subdued England, he gave them law at the point of the sword, and until we consent that the seat of government in America be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian who may treat us in the same manner, and then where will be our freedom, where our property? As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government have to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle which the niggers 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 large 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. I threw out a few thoughts on the property of a continental charter, for I only presume to offer hints, not plans. And in this place I take the liberty of rementioning the subject by observing that a charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part, whether religion, personal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends. In a former page, I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation, and there is no political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors or a small number of representatives are equally dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this, I mention the following. When the associators petitioned, as before, the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, twenty-eight members only were present. All the Bucks County members, being eight, voted against it. And had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch, likewise, which that House made in their last sitting to gain an undue authority over the delegates of that province, ought to warn the people at large how they trust power out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the delegates were put together which, in point of sense and business, would have dishonored a schoolboy, and after being approved by a few, a very few, without doors, were carried into the House and their past in behalf of the whole colony. Whereas did the whole colony know, with what ill will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a trust. Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which, if continued, would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different things. When the calamities of America required a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the several houses of assembly for that purpose. And the wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall never be without a Congress, every well-wisher to good order must own that the mode for choosing members of that body deserves consideration. And I put it as a question to those who make a study of mankind, whether representation and election is not too great a power for one and the same body of men to possess. When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary. It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims, and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr. Cornwall, one of the Lords of the Treasury, treated the petition of New York Assembly with contempt, because that house, he said, consisted but of twenty-six members. Such trifling number, he argued, could not, with decency, be put for the whole. We thank him for his involuntary honesty. To conclude, however strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not. But many strong and striking reasons may be given to show that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independence, some of which are, first, it is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for some other power not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as mediators and to 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 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. 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 race, for men to be in arms under the name of subjects, we on the spot can solve the paradox, but to unite resistance and subjugation requires an idea much too refined for the common understanding. Fourthly, we are a manifesto to be published and dispatched 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. Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can neither be received nor heard abroad. The custom of all courts is against us, and will be so until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations. These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult, but like all other steps which we have already passed over, we'll in a little time become familiar and agreeable, and until an independence is declared, the continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of his necessities.


This 26th and 27th of May we want to warmly welcome everyone to the next Mekong Region Land Forum. We at the Mekong Region Land Governance Project together with our partners at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Land Portal will be co-organizing this event in which we expect a wide group of stakeholders to participate in discussions over two days surrounding important topics all relating to smallholder tenure security in the Mekong Region. What we anticipate is to have representatives from key government agencies, from the private sector, from civil society and from academia and development agencies to talk together about the core issues that are of concern for smallholder farmers in the region. Largely these relate to two domains that we'll focus on. So one of these is the recognition of customary tenure in forest areas and the other is to do with responsible agricultural investments in the Mekong Region. So what we anticipate is a great discussion, debate and some dialogue, keynote presentations from important actors and experts in the region to talk about these issues, to come together with some ideas of consensus for joint action surrounding policy, legal frameworks and the practices of the public sector as well as governance of land resources more generally. So we want to warmly welcome you once more to this event. Thank you. So in past years when we organized the Mekong Region Land Forum, we had done this on-site in locations in Bangkok or elsewhere. Now because of COVID-19 of course the travel restrictions mean that we've now shifted the format for how we're going to do this. So this year the Mekong Region Land Forum will be organized as both an online event as well as in-person in Vieng Chan, in Laos, in Hanoi, in Vietnam, in Phnom Penh in Cambodia, in Chiang Mai in Thailand and also hopefully in Yangon in Myanmar. Having to reformulate the organization of the forum because of COVID-19 also gave us an interesting opportunity to open this to a wider stakeholder group, wider group of participants for the forum. So what we've intentionally done is structured it such that we have a lot of the content we thought would be of special interest to European or North American audiences put into the afternoon session so that with the time change would be simpler to incorporate them into the online discussions. Natalie, I wonder if you could say a few words about how we're going to organize the specific sessions and sort of the flow of the forum itself. So Micah explained to us the overall aspect of the forum and the different parts of the forum and why we're doing this forum. I'd like to explain a little bit about the details of the forum and how the forum will be organized. The forum will focus on two different thematic areas, customary tenure and responsible agricultural investment, both under the umbrella of looking at forested landscapes. We'll have two sessions on customary tenure and two sessions on responsible agricultural investment. Session one will focus on the national experience of the MRLG partners in country and talk about the different pathways for the recognition of customary tenure and hopefully discuss how to scale that out. Session two will really talk about regional experiences of leveraging regional platforms like ASEAN or other initiatives that are working on social forestry, forestry tenure and various different aspects that encompass tenure and we'll be talking about how to leverage these regional platforms to influence and make impact at the national level. Session three will be focused on F-PIC, we call it de-mystifying F-PIC so the session will really unpack what F-PIC means both for government but also for private sector that has an impact on increased investment in land but also on customary tenure. Session four will focus on responsible agricultural investment in the Mekong, specifically focused on the ASEAN guidelines for responsible agricultural investment and different experiences of private sector actors. The sessions will be broken down into three different sub-parts, let's say. The sessions will first have a panel of presenters so they'll be one or two or three, sometimes three presenters who will talk about the topic and the session. Then that will be followed by a panel discussion where people are responding and there'll be some time for question and answers and then after a coffee break there'll be breakout sessions. So how are these breakout sessions going to work? Because we're all going to be across the world online and in country. In each different country we'll have a breakout group or we'll actually probably have two breakout groups that will talk about those specific issues and answer specific questions in that local language. Online we'll have one or two breakout sessions that will discuss the topic at hand as well. So we're really hoping that you join us and we're really excited to have some very fruitful discussions that will hopefully give us a lot of tools to move forward and recognize or increase responsible forest and land governance in the Mekong. Thank you.