SINCE the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the King’s Speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture or a more necessary time. The bloody mindedness of the one — shows the necessity of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the Speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of Independence.
Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances. Wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows that the King’s Speech, as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a general execration both by the Congress and the people.
Yet, as the domestic tranquility of a nation, depends greatly, on the chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is often better, to pass some things over in silent disdain. This is preferable then to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on that guardian of our peace and safety. And, perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the King’s Speech, has not, before now, suffered a public execution.
The Speech, if it may be called one, is nothing better than a willful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind. It is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But, this general massacre of mankind is one of the privileges, and the certain consequence of Kings. For, as nature knows them not, they know not her. Although they are beings of our own creating, they know not us and are become the gods of their creators. The Speech has one good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive. Neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss. Every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a Savage than the King of Britain.
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining, in a jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, “The Address of the people of England to the inhabitants of America,” has, perhaps, from a vain supposition, argued that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp and description of a king. This is given, though very unwisely on his part, the real character of the present one. “But” says this writer, “if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not complain of, it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that prince, by whose nod alone they were permitted to do anything.”
This is Toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask. And, he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, has forfeited his claim to rationality — an apostate from the order of manhood. He ought to be considered as one who has not only given up the proper dignity of man but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals. Instead, contemptibly crawling through the world like a worm.
However, it matters very little now, what the king of England either says or does. He has wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, and he has trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet. By a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty, he has procured for himself a universal hatred.
It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She has already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be granting away her property to support a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and Christians. You, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination you are of, as well as, you, who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty: if you wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, you must in secret wish a separation. But, leaving the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following heads.
First: That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.
Secondly: Which is the easiest and most practicable plan: reconciliation or independence?
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent. Those whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position.
For no nation in a state of foreign dependence, limited in its commerce, and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence. America does not yet know what opulence is. Although the progress which she has made stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at had she as she ought to have the legislative powers in her own hands.
England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it, and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce, and not the conquest of America, by which England is to be benefited. That would in a great measure continue were the countries as independent of each other as France and Spain. This is because, in many articles, neither can go to a better market.
But, it is the independence of this country of Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object worthy of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.
First: This is because it will come to that — one time or other.
Secondly: The longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself both in public and private company, with silently remarking, the specious errors of those who speak without reflecting. And, among the many which I have heard, the following seems the most general. That is that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the Continent would have been more able to have shaken off the dependence.
To which I reply, that “our military ability, at this time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in, forty or fifty years’ time, would have been totally extinct.” The Continent, would not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer left. And, we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians.
This single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others. The argument turns thus: at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers. Forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, but without experience.
Wherefore, the proper point of time must be some particular point between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the latter is obtained. And, that point of time is the present time.
Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, we shall deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have, or may contract. The value of the back lands which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds-sterling, per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five million. The quit-rents are at one penny sterling per acre — to two million yearly.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burthen to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen. In time, it will wholly support the yearly expense of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it. The execution, of which, the Congress for the time being will be the continental trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, “Which is the easiest and most practicable plan: reconciliation or independence?
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally, “that independence being a single simple line, contained within ourselves, and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which, a treacherous capricious court is to interfere — gives the answer without a doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government, and without any other mode of power than what is founded on and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which, is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve.
Our present condition is: Legislation without law, wisdom without a plan, and constitution without a name. It is strangely astonishing — perfect Independence contending for dependence. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before. Who can tell what may be the event?
The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal. There is no such thing as treason. Wherefore, everyone thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases.
The Tories dared not have assembled offensively; as they had they known that their lives, by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between, English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to do anything, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither Reconciliation nor Independence will be practicable.
The king and his worthless adherents are at their old game of dividing the Continent, and there are not wanting among us, Printers, who will be busy in spreading specious falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letter, which appeared a few months ago in two of the New York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men who want either judgment or honesty.
It is easy getting into holes or corners and talking of reconciliation. But, do such men seriously consider: how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent divide thereon? Do they take within their view, all the various orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are to be considered therein?
Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who has quitted all for the defense of his country? If their ill-judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only, regardless of others, the event will convince them, that “they are reckoning without their Host.”
Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three. To which, I answer, “the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it.”
But, if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, “By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements?” Another parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretense, of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted. In that case, where is our redress? No going to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of Crowns; and the sword, not of justice but of war, decides the suit.
To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not sufficient that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state. Our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up. Our private losses made good, and our public debts, contracted for defense, discharged. Otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the Continent. But, now it is too late, as: “The Rubicon is passed.”
Besides, the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The object, on either side, does not justify the means. For the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away on such trifles.
It is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons. The destruction of our property by an armed force. The invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms. And, the instant, in which such a mode of defense became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased. The independency of America, should have been considered, as dating its era from and published by the first musket that was fired against her. This line is a line of consistency — neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition. But, it was produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the authors.
I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well-intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways, by which an independency may hereafter be effected.
That one of those three will, one day or other, be the fate of America.
By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob: it may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men. Virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again.
A situation, similar to the present, has not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The Reflection is awful — and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavilings of a few weak or interested men appear when weighed against the business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an Independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow and prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or reflecting.
There are reasons to be given in support of Independence, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be independent or not. But, anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, we ought to be uneasy rather that it is not yet begun. Every day convinces us of its necessity.
Even the Tories should, of all men, be the most solicitous to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first, protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and well established form of government, will be the only certain means of continuing it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for Independence.
In short, Independence is the only Bond that can tie and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well, as a cruel enemy.
We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates, “rebellious subjects,” for terms of accommodation.
It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good-effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances. Let us now try the alternative, by independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade.
The mercantile and reasonable part in England, will be still with us. Because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to.
On these grounds, I rest the matter. And as no offer has yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favor of it are too numerous to be opposed.
Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity. Let each of us — hold out to his neighbour the hearty hand of friendship and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension.
Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct. And, let none other be heard among us, then those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights of mankind and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.
Purchase This TitleBrowse Titles
- BROTHER ISAAC NEWTON
P.O. BOX 70
Larkspur CO 80118
Co-Masonry, Co-Freemasonry, Women's Freemasonry, Men and Women, Mixed Masonry
Copyright © 1975-2020 Universal Co-Masonry, The American Federation of Human Rights, Inc. All Rights Reserved.