Appendix, 2

The present state of America is truly alarming to anyone capable of reflection. We have no law, no government, no form of authority except what rests on courtesy and is granted by it. We are held together by an unprecedented agreement of feeling, which can nevertheless change, and which every secret enemy is trying to break apart. Our present condition is legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, most astonishing of all, complete independence struggling for dependence. There is no precedent for it; such a situation has never existed before; and who can say how it will end? No one's property is secure under the present loose system of affairs. The minds of the people are left to wander, and, seeing no fixed goal ahead, they pursue whatever fancy or opinion presents to them. Nothing is a crime; there is no such thing as treason; so everyone thinks himself free to act as he pleases. The Tories would not have dared to assemble in arms against us if they had known that doing so would forfeit their lives under the laws of the state. A distinction must be drawn between English soldiers taken in battle and inhabitants of America captured bearing arms. The former are prisoners; the latter, traitors. One forfeits his liberty, the other his head.

For all our wisdom, there is a visible weakness in some of our actions that encourages division. The Continental Belt is buckled too loosely. Unless something is done in time, it will be too late to act, and we shall fall into a condition in which neither reconciliation nor independence is possible. The king and his worthless adherents are back at their old game of dividing the Continent, and there is no shortage of printers among us ready to spread plausible falsehoods. The cunning and hypocritical letter that appeared a few months ago in two New-York papers, and in two others as well, shows that some men lack either judgment or honesty.

It is easy to retreat into corners and talk of reconciliation. But do such men seriously consider how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it could become if the Continent divides over it? Do they take account of all the different groups of people whose situations and circumstances must be considered, as well as their own? Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer who has already lost everything, or of the soldier who has left everything behind to defend his country? If their misguided moderation suits only their own private circumstances, with no regard for others, events will teach them that “they are reckoning without their Host.”

“Put us,” some say, “on the footing we were on in sixty-three.” My answer is that Britain no longer has the power to grant this request, nor will she propose it. But even if she could, and even if she granted it, I ask a reasonable question: how could a court so corrupt and faithless be held to its promises? Another parliament—or even the present one—might later repeal the agreement, claiming it was obtained by force or granted unwisely. Where then would we seek redress? Nations cannot take each other to court: cannon are the advocates of crowns, and the suit is decided by the sword of war, not the sword of justice. To return to the footing of sixty-three, it would not be enough merely to restore the laws to their former state; our circumstances must be restored as well: our burned and destroyed towns repaired or rebuilt, our private losses repaid, and our public debts, incurred for defense, discharged. Otherwise we shall be millions worse off than we were in that enviable time. Had such a request been granted a year ago, it would have won the heart and soul of the Continent. But now it is too late: “The Rubicon is passed.”

Besides, taking up arms merely to compel the repeal of a tax law seems as unjustifiable under divine law, and as offensive to human feeling, as taking up arms to compel obedience to it. On neither side does the object justify the means: human lives are too precious to throw away over such trifles. It is the violence done and threatened to our persons, the destruction of our property by armed force, and the invasion of our country with fire and sword that justify the use of arms in good conscience. And the moment this form of defense became necessary, all submission to Britain should have ended. America's independence should have been reckoned as beginning with, and announced by, the first musket fired against her. This is a consistent dividing line, drawn neither by caprice nor by ambition, but by a chain of events the colonies did not set in motion.

I shall conclude these remarks with the following timely and well-meant suggestions. We should remember that independence may eventually be achieved in three different ways, and that one of the three will sooner or later be America's fate: by the lawful voice of the people in Congress, by military power, or by a mob. Our soldiers may not always be citizens, nor the multitude a body of reasonable people; virtue, as I have already observed, is neither hereditary nor everlasting. If independence comes by the first of these means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement to establish the noblest, purest constitution on earth. We have the power to begin the world anew. Nothing like our present situation has arisen since the days of Noah. The birth of a new world is near, and a people perhaps as numerous as all of Europe are to receive their share of freedom through the events of a few months. The thought inspires awe—and from this perspective, how petty, how ridiculous, the paltry objections of a few weak or self-interested men appear when set against the affairs of a world.

If we neglect this favorable and inviting moment, and independence is later achieved by some other means, we must blame ourselves for the consequences—or rather those narrow, prejudiced souls who habitually oppose it without inquiry or reflection. There are arguments for independence that men should consider privately rather than hear proclaimed in public. We should not now be debating whether to become independent, but striving to achieve independence on a firm, secure, and honorable foundation—and troubled instead that the work has not yet begun. Every day convinces us that it is necessary. Even the Tories, if any such people remain among us, should be more eager than anyone to advance it. Just as the first appointment of committees protected them from popular fury, a wise and firmly established form of government will be the only sure means of keeping them safe. Thus, if they lack the virtue to be Whigs, they ought at least to have the prudence to wish for independence.

In short, independence is the only bond that can bind us and hold us together. Then our aim will be clear, and the law will close our ears to the schemes of an enemy as cunning as he is cruel. Then, too, we shall be properly placed to negotiate with Britain: there is reason to think that court's pride will suffer less from discussing terms of peace with the American states than from discussing terms of accommodation with those it calls “rebellious subjects.” Our delay encourages Britain to hope for conquest, and our reluctance only prolongs the war. Since we have withheld our trade without thereby winning redress for our grievances, let us now try the alternative: redress them ourselves as an independent people, and then offer to reopen trade. The merchants and reasonable people of England will still support us, because peace with trade is better than war without it. And if the offer is refused, we can approach other courts.

On these grounds I rest the case. Since no attempt has yet been made to refute the argument in earlier editions of this pamphlet, that silence is evidence, if only by absence, either that the argument cannot be refuted or that its supporters are too numerous to oppose. So instead of regarding one another with suspicion and uncertainty, let each of us extend a warm hand of friendship to his neighbor and join in drawing a line that, like an act of oblivion, will consign every former division to forgetfulness. Let the names Whig and Tory disappear; let us hear no other names among us than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous defender of the rights of humanity and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.

America's present condition is deeply alarming to anyone who thinks about it. We have no law, no government, and no source of authority except powers people have agreed to grant as a courtesy. An extraordinary agreement in opinion holds us together. But opinions can change, and every hidden enemy is trying to break that agreement. Right now we have lawmakers without laws, wisdom without a plan, and a constitution without a name. Strangest of all, we have complete independence struggling to remain dependent. There has never been a case like this. Who can say what will happen? Nobody's property is safe under the weak system we now have. People have no clear goal in front of them, so they follow whatever idea or opinion comes to mind. Nothing counts as a crime. Treason does not exist under this system, so everyone thinks they can do as they please. The Tories would not have dared to gather for an attack if they had known that doing so would cost them their lives under the laws of the state. We should distinguish between English soldiers captured in battle and American residents captured while bearing arms. The first are prisoners; the second are traitors. One loses his freedom, the other his life.

For all our wisdom, some of our actions show a weakness that encourages division. The bond holding the Continent together is too loose. Unless we act in time, it will become too late to do anything. We will then reach a point where neither reconciliation nor independence is possible. The king and his worthless supporters are back to their old tactic of dividing the Continent. Some printers among us are ready to spread lies that sound convincing. A clever, dishonest letter appeared a few months ago in two New-York papers and two others. It shows that some people lack either good judgment or honesty.

It is easy to hide away and talk about reconciliation. But do the people who do this seriously consider how hard it would be, and how dangerous it could become if the Continent split over it? Do they think about all the different groups of people whose circumstances matter here, not just their own? Do they put themselves in the shoes of someone who has already lost everything, or a soldier who has left everything to defend his country? If their poorly judged moderation suits only their own private circumstances and ignores everyone else, the outcome will show them that they have made their plans without considering those who must live with them.

Some say, "Put us back where we were in sixty-three." My answer is that Britain cannot now grant that request, and she will not propose it. But even if she could grant it and did so, I have a reasonable question: How could we make such a corrupt and untrustworthy court keep its promises? Another parliament, or even the present one, could later cancel its obligation by claiming it was forced on them or foolishly granted. Where would we turn for a remedy then? Nations cannot take one another to court. Cannons serve as lawyers for kings, and war, not justice, decides the case. To return to the position we held in sixty-three, it would not be enough to restore the laws to what they were then. Our circumstances would also have to be restored. Our burned and destroyed towns would have to be repaired or rebuilt. Our private losses would have to be repaid, and our public debts incurred for defense would have to be paid off. Otherwise, we would be millions worse off than we were in that desirable period. Had Britain met such a request a year ago, it would have won the whole Continent's support. Now it is too late. We have crossed the Rubicon.

Besides, taking up arms just to force the repeal of a tax law seems as unjustified under God's law and as offensive to human feeling as taking up arms to force obedience to that law. Neither side's goal justifies its means. Human lives are too valuable to waste over such small matters. What does justify taking up arms in good conscience is the violence done and threatened to us personally, the destruction of our property by armed forces, and the invasion of our country with fire and weapons. The moment such a defense became necessary, all submission to Britain should have ended. We should have dated and proclaimed American independence from the firing of the first musket against America. This is a consistent dividing line. It does not come from a whim or from a desire for more power. It comes from a series of events the colonies did not cause.

I will end these remarks with some timely suggestions, offered with good intentions. We should remember that independence could come about in three different ways. One of them will someday determine America's fate: a lawful decision by the people through Congress, military power, or a mob. Our soldiers may not always be citizens, and the crowd may not always be made up of reasonable people. As I have already said, virtue is neither inherited nor permanent. If independence comes through the first of these methods, we will have every chance and every reason to create the noblest and purest constitution on earth. We have the power to start the world over. Nothing like our present situation has happened since the days of Noah. A new world is about to be born. Perhaps as many people as live in all of Europe will receive their share of freedom because of what happens in the next few months. This is an awesome thought. Seen in that light, how petty and absurd are the little objections of a few weak or self-interested people when set against a matter of worldwide importance.

If we let this favorable opportunity pass, and independence is later achieved by other means, we will have to blame ourselves for the consequences. More precisely, we will have to blame those narrow-minded, prejudiced people who keep opposing it without asking questions or thinking. There are arguments for independence that people would do better to consider in private than to have stated to them in public. The question now should not be whether to become independent. We should be working to achieve independence on a firm, secure, and honorable foundation, and we should be troubled that this work has not yet begun. Every day shows us more clearly that it is necessary. Even the Tories, if any still remain among us, should be more eager than anyone to support it. The creation of committees protected them from public anger at first. In the same way, a wise and firmly established government is the only sure way to keep them safe. So if they do not have enough principle to be Whigs, they should at least have enough sense to want independence.

In short, independence is the only bond that can hold us together. Then we will have a clear goal, and the law will keep us from listening to the schemes of an enemy who plots against us and treats us cruelly. We will also be in a proper position to negotiate with Britain. There is reason to think that the British court would find it less humiliating to negotiate peace terms with the American states than to negotiate an agreement with people it calls "rebellious subjects." Our delay gives Britain hope of conquering us, and our reluctance only makes the war last longer. We stopped trading in an attempt to secure relief from our grievances, but that brought us no benefit. Let us now try another course: resolve those grievances ourselves as an independent people, then offer to reopen trade. The merchants and reasonable people in England will still support us, because peace with trade is better than war without trade. If our offer is refused, we can approach other governments.

That is the case I make. No one has yet offered to refute the argument in earlier editions of this pamphlet. That absence is evidence that either the argument cannot be refuted or its supporters are too numerous to oppose. Instead of looking at one another with suspicion and doubt, let each of us offer our neighbor a sincere hand of friendship. Let us join in drawing a line that will put every past dispute out of mind, like an act that wipes away past offenses. Let the names Whig and Tory disappear. Among us, let people be known only as good citizens, open and determined friends, and principled supporters of human rights and of the free and independent states of America.