Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs, 1

In the pages that follow, I offer nothing but simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense. I ask only this of the reader beforehand: that he set aside prejudice and preconception, and allow his reason and feelings to judge for themselves; that he assume—or rather, not cast off—the true character of a human being, and generously extend his view beyond the present day.

Volumes have been written about the struggle between England and America. People of every rank have entered the dispute, moved by different motives and pursuing different ends; but all their efforts have failed, and the time for debate is over. Arms, the last resort, now decide the contest. The king chose this appeal, and the continent has accepted his challenge.

It has been said of the late Mr. Pelham—an able minister, though not without faults—that when he was attacked in the House of Commons because his measures were only temporary, he replied, “They will last my time.” If a thought so ruinous and unworthy should take hold of the colonies in the present struggle, future generations will remember their ancestors with disgust.

The sun has never shone on a worthier cause. This is no affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent—at least one eighth of the habitable globe. It concerns not a day, a year, or an age; posterity is already involved in the struggle, and what we do now will affect generations, more or less, even to the end of time. Now is the seedtime of continental union, trust, and honor. The slightest break now will resemble a name etched with a pin into the tender bark of a young oak: the wound will grow with the tree, and posterity will read the name in letters grown large.

In carrying the matter from argument to arms, we have entered a new political era; a new way of thinking has arisen. Every plan and proposal made before the nineteenth of April—that is, before hostilities began—is like last year’s almanac: useful then, but obsolete and useless now. Whatever either side argued at that time came down to the same goal: union with Great Britain. The parties differed only over how to achieve it, one proposing force and the other friendship. But so far, force has failed, and friendship has withdrawn its influence.

Much has been said of the benefits of reconciliation; that pleasing dream has passed, leaving us where we stood. It is only right, then, to examine the other side of the question and consider some of the many grave injuries these colonies suffer, and will always suffer, through their connection with and dependence on Great Britain. We should test that connection and dependence against nature and common sense, and see what we may rely on if we separate and what we must expect if we remain dependent.

Some say that because America has prospered under her former connection with Great Britain, that connection is necessary to her future happiness and will always have the same effect. No argument could be more deceptive. We might as well claim that because a child has thrived on milk, it must never eat meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives must set the pattern for the next twenty. Even that grants too much. I say plainly that America would have prospered as much, and probably much more, if no European power had had anything to do with her. The goods from whose trade she has grown rich are necessities of life, and will always find a market as long as people in Europe continue to eat.

But Britain has protected us, some say. It is true that she has claimed us for herself, and I grant that she has defended the continent at our expense as well as her own. Yet she would have defended Turkey for the very same reason: trade and dominion.

Alas, old prejudices have long led us astray, and we have made great sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted of Great Britain’s protection without considering that she was moved by self-interest, not affection. She protected us against her enemies for her own sake, not against ours for our sake: those enemies had no other quarrel with us, and will remain our enemies only so long as that connection lasts. Let Britain give up her claims to the continent, or let the continent throw off its dependence, and we would be at peace with France and Spain even if they were at war with Britain. Hanover’s sufferings in the last war should warn us against such ties.

It has lately been claimed in Parliament that the colonies have no relation to one another except through the mother country—that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and all the rest, are sister colonies by way of England. This is certainly a roundabout way to establish kinship, but it is the closest, and indeed the only true, way to establish enmity, if I may use the word. France and Spain have never been, and perhaps never will be, our enemies because we are Americans, but only because we are subjects of Great Britain.

But Britain is our mother country, some say. Then her conduct is all the more shameful. Even beasts do not devour their young, nor do savages wage war against their own families. If the claim were true, it would only disgrace her. In fact it is untrue, or true only in part; the king and his hangers-on have cunningly adopted the phrase “parent” or “mother country,” with a base, manipulative design to exploit our credulity and sway our minds unfairly. Europe, not England, is America’s mother country. This new world has offered refuge to lovers of civil and religious liberty persecuted in every part of Europe. They fled here not from the tender embrace of a mother but from the cruelty of a monster; and England’s part in the story is this: the same tyranny that drove the first emigrants from home still pursues their descendants.

In this vast part of the globe, we forget England’s narrow span of three hundred and sixty miles and extend our friendship on a larger scale. We claim kinship with every European Christian, and rejoice in the generosity of that feeling.

It is a pleasure to observe the steps by which we overcome the force of local prejudice as our acquaintance with the world grows. A man born in an English town divided into parishes will naturally associate most with the people of his own parish, since their interests will often coincide, and call one of them his neighbor. If he meets that person a few miles from home, he drops the narrower idea of a street and greets him as a townsman. If he travels beyond the county and meets him in another, he forgets the lesser divisions of street and town and calls him a countryman—that is, a man of the same county. If they meet abroad, in France or elsewhere in Europe, their local identity widens to that of Englishmen. By the same sound reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or in any other part of the globe, are countrymen. On the larger scale, England, Holland, Germany, and Sweden occupy the same positions as street, town, and county on the smaller; their distinctions are too narrow for continental minds. Not even one third of the inhabitants of this province are of English descent. I therefore reject the phrase “parent” or “mother country” when applied to England alone: it is false, selfish, narrow, and ungenerous.

But suppose we were all of English descent. What would that prove? Nothing. Britain is now an open enemy, and that fact overrides every other name and claim. To say that we have a duty to reconcile with her is absurd. The first king of England’s present line, William the Conqueror, was a Frenchman, and half the peers of England descend from that same country. By the same reasoning, then, England ought to be ruled by France.

Much has been said of the combined strength of Britain and the colonies, and how together they could defy the world. This is mere presumption. The fortunes of war are uncertain, and such talk is meaningless: this continent would never consent to have its people drained away to support British arms in Asia, Africa, or Europe.

Besides, why should we defy the world at all? Our aim is commerce, and if we attend to it well, it will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe, for every European nation has an interest in America’s being a free port. Her trade will always protect her, while her lack of gold and silver will keep invaders away.

I challenge the most ardent advocate of reconciliation to show a single benefit this continent gains from its connection with Great Britain. I repeat: not a single benefit comes of it. Our grain will command its price in any European market, and wherever we buy our imported goods, we must pay for them.

But the injuries and disadvantages we suffer from that connection are countless. Our duty to all humanity, as well as to ourselves, tells us to renounce the alliance. Any submission to or dependence on Great Britain tends directly to draw this continent into Europe’s wars and quarrels, and sets us against nations that would otherwise seek our friendship, and against which we have neither grievance nor cause for anger. Since Europe is our market, we should form no exclusive connection with any one part of it. America’s true interest is to remain clear of European conflicts; she can never do so while dependence on Britain makes her a counterweight in the balance of British politics.

Europe is too crowded with kingdoms to remain at peace for long. Whenever England goes to war with another power, America’s trade is ruined because of its connection with Britain. The next war may not end like the last; if it does not, those who now advocate reconciliation will then long for separation, since neutrality would offer a safer escort than a warship. Everything right and natural argues for separation. The blood of the slain and the weeping voice of nature cry, “It is time to part.” Even the distance at which the Almighty placed England and America is strong, natural evidence that heaven never intended one to rule the other. The time when the continent was discovered adds weight to this argument, and the manner of its settlement strengthens it further. The discovery of America came before the Reformation, as if the Almighty had graciously intended to open a sanctuary for those who would be persecuted in years to come, when their homes could offer neither friendship nor safety.

Great Britain’s authority over this continent is a form of government that must end sooner or later. No thoughtful person can look ahead with genuine pleasure while painfully certain that what he calls “the present constitution” is merely temporary. As parents, we cannot take comfort in knowing that this government will not last long enough to secure anything we might leave to our descendants. And the argument is simple: since we are putting the next generation in debt, we ought to do its work ourselves; otherwise we treat that generation shamefully and meanly. To discern our duty clearly, we should take our children by the hand and imagine ourselves a few years further on in life. From that height we will see a prospect now hidden by our passing fears and prejudices.

In the pages that follow, I offer only simple facts, clear arguments, and common sense. I ask just one thing of the reader before we begin: set aside prejudice and fixed opinions. Let your own reason and feelings decide. Act as a human being should—or rather, do not stop acting that way—and look generously beyond the concerns of today.

Many books have been written about the struggle between England and America. People from every rank of society have joined the debate, for different reasons and with different aims. But none of it has worked, and the time for debate is over. As a last resort, weapons will decide the conflict. The king chose to settle it this way, and the continent has accepted his challenge.

It is said that the late Mr. Pelham, who was a capable minister despite his faults, was once criticized in the House of Commons because his policies would last only a short time. He replied, “They will last my time.” If the colonies take such a harmful and cowardly attitude in this struggle, future generations will hate the memory of their ancestors.

There has never been a cause more important than this one. It concerns not just a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but a whole continent—at least one eighth of the habitable world. It concerns not just a day, a year, or an age. Future generations are involved in this struggle too, and our actions now will affect them to some degree until the end of time. Now is the time to plant the seeds of unity, trust, and honor across the continent. Even the smallest break in that unity now will be like a name scratched with a pin into the soft bark of a young oak. As the tree grows, the wound will grow too, until future generations can read the name in large letters.

Moving the dispute from arguments to weapons has begun a new political era and a new way of thinking. All plans and proposals made before the nineteenth of April, when fighting began, are like last year's calendars. They made sense then but are now outdated and useless. At that time, the arguments on both sides had the same goal: union with Great-Britain. The only disagreement was about how to achieve it. One side proposed force and the other friendship. But force has failed so far, and friendship has lost its influence.

People have said much about the advantages of reconciliation. That pleasant dream has passed, leaving us where we were. So we should look at the other side of the argument. We should examine some of the many serious harms the colonies suffer, and will always suffer, from their connection to and dependence on Great-Britain. We should judge that connection and dependence by nature and common sense. Then we can see what we can count on if we separate, and what to expect if we remain dependent.

Some people have told me that America prospered under its old connection with Great-Britain, so it needs that connection to prosper in the future. They say it will always have the same effect. This reasoning could hardly be more misleading. We might as well say that because a child grew well on milk, the child must never eat solid food, or that the first twenty years of our lives must set the pattern for the next twenty. But even that concedes too much. I say plainly that America would have prospered just as much, and probably much more, if no European power had involved itself here. America has grown rich through trade in life's necessities. Those goods will always find buyers as long as Europeans keep eating.

But some say Britain has protected us. It is true that Britain has kept us under its control. It has also defended the continent, at our expense as well as its own. But it would have defended Turkey for the same reason: to protect its trade and power.

Sadly, old prejudices have misled us for a long time, and we have made great sacrifices to misguided beliefs. We have praised Great-Britain for protecting us without asking why it did so. Its motive was self-interest, not affection. It defended us not against people who were our enemies for our own sake, but against Britain's enemies for Britain's sake. Those people had no other quarrel with us, and they will remain our enemies for that same reason. If Britain gave up its claims over the continent, or if the continent ended its dependence on Britain, we could be at peace with France and Spain even while they were at war with Britain. What Hanover suffered in the last war should warn us about such connections.

Parliament has recently claimed that the colonies are related to each other only through their parent country. In other words, Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and all the other colonies, are supposedly sister colonies only because of England. That is certainly a roundabout way to show that they are related. But it is the closest and only valid way to explain why they become enemies of other nations, if I may put it that way. France and Spain have never been our enemies as Americans, and perhaps never will be. They are our enemies only because we are subjects of Great-Britain.

But some say Britain is our parent country. If so, its conduct is all the more shameful. Even animals do not eat their own young, and even people called savages do not make war on their families. If the claim were true, it would only make Britain look worse. But it is not true, or is only partly true. The king and his hangers-on have cunningly adopted the phrase “parent country” or “mother country” to exploit our readiness to believe it, as religious manipulators exploit faith. Europe, not England alone, is America's parent country. This new world has sheltered people persecuted for their love of civil and religious freedom throughout Europe. They came here not to escape a mother's loving embrace, but to escape a monster's cruelty. As for England, the same tyranny that drove the first emigrants from home still pursues their descendants.

In this vast part of the world, we leave behind the narrow span of three hundred and sixty miles that makes up England. We extend our friendship more widely. We call every European Christian our brother and take pride in the generosity of that view.

It is pleasing to see how, as we get to know more of the world, we gradually overcome our local prejudices. Someone born in an English town divided into parishes will naturally spend the most time with people from his own parish, since they often share the same interests. He will call one of them a neighbor. If he meets that person a few miles from home, he will stop thinking in terms of streets and call him a fellow townsman. If he travels out of the county and meets him in another county, he will forget streets and towns and call him a countryman—that is, someone from the same county. If they meet while traveling in France or elsewhere in Europe, they will think of themselves more broadly as English people. By the same reasoning, all Europeans who meet in America or anywhere else in the world are countrymen. Compared with the world as a whole, England, Holland, Germany, and Sweden are like streets, towns, and counties on a smaller scale. Those divisions are too narrow for people who think on a continental scale. Not even one third of the people in this province have English ancestry. So I reject the claim that England alone is our parent or mother country. It is false, selfish, narrow-minded, and ungenerous.

But suppose we all had English ancestry. What would that prove? Nothing. Britain is now openly our enemy, and that fact outweighs every other name or relationship. To say that we therefore have a duty to reconcile is ridiculous. The first English king of the present royal line, William the Conqueror, was French, and half the peers of England are descended from the French. By the same reasoning, France ought to govern England.

People have said much about the combined strength of Britain and the colonies. They say that together we could stand against the whole world. But this is an empty assumption. No one can predict the outcome of war, and the claim means nothing in practice. The continent would never let its people be taken away to support British armies in Asia, Africa, or Europe.

Besides, why should we want to stand against the world? Our aim is trade. If we manage it well, it will bring us peace and friendship with all of Europe, because every European nation has an interest in America being a port open to all. America's trade will always protect it, and its lack of gold and silver will keep invaders away.

I challenge the strongest supporter of reconciliation to name one benefit the continent gets from its connection with Great Britain. I repeat: not one benefit comes from it. Our grain will earn a fair price in any European market, and wherever we buy imported goods, we will have to pay for them.

But the harms and disadvantages of that connection are countless. Our duty to ourselves and to humanity tells us to end the alliance. Any submission to or dependence on Great-Britain directly risks dragging the continent into Europe's wars and disputes. It puts us at odds with nations that would otherwise want our friendship, nations against which we have neither anger nor grievance. Since all of Europe is a market for our trade, we should not form an exclusive connection with any part of it. America's real interest lies in staying out of Europe's conflicts. It cannot do that while its dependence on Britain makes it a counterweight in British politics.

Europe has too many kingdoms to remain at peace for long. Whenever England goes to war with another power, America's trade suffers ruin because America is tied to Britain. The next war may not end like the last one. If it does not, those who now favor reconciliation will wish for separation then. In that situation, staying neutral would protect our trade better than a warship would. Everything right and natural argues for separation. The blood of those killed and the grieving voice of nature cry out, “It is time to part.” Even the great distance at which Almighty God placed England and America strongly suggests that God never meant one to rule the other. The time when the continent was discovered strengthens this argument, and the way it was settled makes it stronger still. The discovery of America came before the Reformation, as though Almighty God kindly meant to open a refuge for people who would be persecuted in later years, when they could find neither friendship nor safety at home.

Great-Britain's rule over this continent is a form of government that must end sooner or later. Anyone who thinks seriously about it can take no real pleasure in the future while knowing for certain that what he calls “the present constitution” is only temporary. As parents, we cannot be happy when we know this government will not last long enough to secure anything we leave to future generations. The reasoning is simple: if we leave the next generation in debt, we ought to do the work the debt pays for. Otherwise we treat them shamefully. To see our duty clearly, we should imagine holding our children's hands and standing a few years farther along in life. From that vantage point, we will see a future that our present fears and prejudices hide from us.