Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs, 2

Though I would carefully avoid giving needless offense, I am inclined to believe that everyone who embraces reconciliation falls into one of these groups: self-interested men who cannot be trusted; weak men who cannot see; prejudiced men who refuse to see; and certain moderate men who think more highly of Europe than it deserves. Through ill-judged hesitation, this last group will bring more calamity upon this continent than the other three combined.

Many have the good fortune to live far from the scene of suffering; the evil has not come close enough to make them feel how precariously every American holds his property. But let us imagine ourselves for a moment in Boston. That seat of misery will teach us wisdom, and teach us to renounce forever a power we cannot trust. The inhabitants of that unhappy city, prosperous and at ease only a few months ago, now face a choice between staying to starve and going out to beg. If they remain in the city, they risk the fire of their friends; if they leave, the soldiers will plunder them. They are prisoners with no hope of release, and a general assault to rescue them would expose them to the fury of both armies.

Men of placid temperament tend to make light of Britain's offenses and, still hoping for the best, cry, “Come, come, we shall be friends again, despite it all.” But examine human passions and feelings. Test the doctrine of reconciliation against human nature, and then tell me whether you can ever again love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that has brought fire and sword into your land. If you cannot do all three, you are only deceiving yourselves, and your delay will bring ruin upon your descendants. Your future bond with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural; founded merely on present convenience, it will soon collapse into a conflict more wretched than the first. But if you say you can still overlook these outrages, I ask: Has your house been burned? Has your property been destroyed before your eyes? Are your wife and children without a bed to sleep in or bread to eat? Have you lost a parent or a child at their hands, and survived ruined and miserable yourself? If not, you cannot judge those who have. But if you have suffered these things and can still shake hands with the murderers, you are unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover. Whatever your station or title, yours is the heart of a coward and the spirit of a sycophant.

This is not to inflame or exaggerate events, but to measure them by the feelings and affections that nature sanctions, without which we could neither fulfill our duties to one another nor enjoy the happiness of society. I do not present these horrors to incite revenge, but to wake us from a fatal and unmanly sleep, so that we may pursue a definite aim with resolve. Britain and Europe cannot conquer America unless she conquers herself through delay and timidity. This winter is worth an age if put to good use. But if it is wasted or neglected, the whole continent will share in the disaster; and whoever, whatever his position or location, causes so precious and useful a season to be sacrificed will deserve every punishment.

Reason, the universal order of things, and every example from earlier ages all forbid the notion that this continent can remain subject to an outside power much longer. Even the most optimistic man in Britain does not believe it. Human wisdom at its utmost cannot now devise a plan short of separation that would promise this continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is a deceptive dream. Nature has abandoned the bond, and artifice cannot take her place. As Milton wisely puts it, “never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”

Every peaceful means of securing peace has failed. Our petitions have been rejected with contempt, serving only to teach us that nothing flatters a king's vanity or strengthens his obstinacy more than repeated petitions—and nothing has done more than that practice to make Europe's kings absolute. Witness Denmark and Sweden. Since nothing but blows will serve, then, for God's sake, let us separate once and for all. Let us not leave the next generation cutting one another's throats under the hollow, violated names of parent and child.

To say that Britain will never try again is idle fantasy. We thought so when the Stamp Act was repealed, but a year or two disabused us. We might just as well suppose that a nation once defeated will never renew the fight.

As for government, Britain cannot do justice to this continent. Its affairs will soon be too weighty and complex for a power so distant from us and so ignorant of us to manage with tolerable competence; if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. In a few years we will see how foolish and childish it is to travel three or four thousand miles with an account or a petition, wait four or five months for an answer, and then need five or six more months to explain that answer. There was a time when this was fitting; there is also a time when it must end.

Small islands unable to protect themselves are fitting charges for kingdoms. But the notion that an island should govern a continent forever is absurd. Nature has never made a satellite larger than the planet it circles. Since England and America reverse the ordinary order of nature in their relation to one another, plainly they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.

I do not embrace separation and independence from pride, partisanship, or resentment. I am plainly, firmly, and conscientiously convinced that it is this continent's true interest; that anything less is mere patchwork and cannot bring lasting happiness; that it would leave the sword to our children and have us shrink back when a little more effort, a little farther advance, would have made this continent the glory of the earth.

Britain has shown not the slightest willingness to compromise. We may therefore be certain that no terms worth this continent's acceptance can be obtained, nor any that would match the blood and treasure we have already spent.

What we fight for should always bear a just proportion to what it costs us. Removing North, or even his whole detestable clique, is not worth the millions we have spent. If all the offending acts had been repealed, a temporary interruption of trade would have been an adequate price for it. But if the entire continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is hardly worth fighting merely against a contemptible ministry. Dearly, dearly we pay for repeal if that is all we fight for: properly considered, it is as foolish to pay a Bunker-hill price for a law as for land. I have always regarded this continent's independence as inevitable sooner or later, and its swift recent progress toward maturity showed that the moment could not be far away. Once fighting began, then, it was not worth disputing an issue that time would eventually settle unless we meant to settle it in earnest. Otherwise we are like someone spending an estate on a lawsuit to restrain a tenant whose lease is about to expire. No one wished more warmly for reconciliation than I did before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775. But the instant I learned what happened that day, I rejected forever England's hard-hearted, sullen Pharaoh. I despise the wretch who, while styling himself the father of his people, can hear of their slaughter without feeling and sleep soundly with their blood upon his soul.

But suppose an agreement were reached now. What would follow? The ruin of the continent. There are several reasons.

First. If the king still holds the powers of government, he will have a veto over all legislation on this continent. He has shown himself a relentless enemy of liberty, with a thirst for arbitrary power. Is such a man fit to tell these colonies, “You shall make no laws but those I please”? Is anyone in America so ignorant that he does not know that, under the so-called present constitution, this continent can make no laws without the king's permission? And is anyone so foolish as to imagine, after what has happened, that he will permit a law here unless it serves his purposes? The absence of laws in America can enslave us as surely as submission to laws made for us in England. Once an agreement is reached, as they call it, can anyone doubt that the crown will use all its power to keep this continent as weak and submissive as possible? Instead of advancing, we will retreat, or go on quarreling endlessly and petitioning absurdly. We are already greater than the king wishes us to be; will he not try to make us smaller? The question comes down to this: is a power jealous of our prosperity fit to govern us? Anyone who answers no is an advocate of independence. Independence means nothing more than deciding whether we make our own laws or the king, the greatest enemy this continent has or can have, tells us, “There shall be no laws but those I like.”

But, you will say, the king also has a veto in England; its people cannot make laws without his consent. As a matter of right and good government, it is absurd for a young man of twenty-one, as has often happened, to tell several million people older and wiser than he is, “I forbid you to make this or that act a law.” But I will set that argument aside here, though I will never stop exposing its absurdity. I answer only that England is the king's home and America is not, and that makes an entirely different case. His veto here is ten times more dangerous and deadly than in England. There he would scarcely refuse a bill to put England in the strongest possible state of defense; in America he would never allow such a bill to pass.

America occupies only a secondary place in British politics. England considers this country's welfare only insofar as it serves her own ends. Her interests therefore lead her to suppress our growth whenever it fails to benefit her or even slightly conflicts with her advantage. What a fine condition we would soon find ourselves in under such a government at second hand, after all that has happened! A change of name does not turn enemies into friends. To show how dangerous reconciliation has become, I say it would be shrewd policy for the king to repeal the acts now in order to restore his rule over the provinces, so that over time he might accomplish by cunning and subtlety what he cannot accomplish quickly by force and violence. Reconciliation and ruin are close kin.

I don't want to cause needless offense, but I think everyone who favors reconciliation fits one of these descriptions. Some have a personal interest and can't be trusted. Some are too weak to see what is happening. Some are too prejudiced to see it. And some are moderate people who think more highly of Europe than it deserves. Through their poor judgment and hesitation, this last group will bring more disaster on this continent than the other three groups combined.

Many people are lucky enough to live far from the suffering. The harm has not reached their doors, so they do not feel how insecure all American property is. But imagine for a moment that we are in Boston. That miserable city will teach us to give up forever any allegiance to a power we cannot trust. Just a few months ago its people lived in comfort and plenty. Now they must either stay and starve or leave and beg. If they remain, their friends' gunfire puts them in danger. If they leave, soldiers rob them. They are prisoners with no hope of rescue. If an attack were launched to free them, both armies would put them in danger.

People with mild temperaments tend to overlook Britain's offenses. Still hoping for the best, they say, “Come on, we'll be friends again despite all this.” But think about human feelings. Test the idea of reconciliation against human nature. Then tell me: can you ever again love, honor, and faithfully serve a power that has brought fire and the sword into your country? If you cannot do all three, you are fooling yourselves. Your delay will bring ruin on future generations. Any future tie to Britain, which you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural. It will be based only on what seems convenient now, and before long it will break down into a conflict worse than the first. But if you say you can overlook these wrongs, I ask: Has your house burned down? Has your property been destroyed before your eyes? Do your wife and children lack a bed to sleep in or bread to eat? Have you lost a parent or child at their hands, leaving you ruined and miserable? If not, you cannot judge those who have. But if you have suffered these things and can still shake hands with the killers, you do not deserve to be called a husband, father, friend, or lover. Whatever your position or title, you have a coward's heart and the spirit of a flatterer.

I am not stirring people up or exaggerating. I am judging events by the feelings and attachments that nature approves. Without them, we could neither meet our responsibilities to others nor enjoy the happiness of living together. I am not describing horrors to incite revenge. I want to wake us from a dangerous, shameful sleep so we can firmly pursue a clear goal. Britain and Europe cannot conquer America unless America defeats herself through delay and fear. If we use this winter well, it will be worth an age. If we waste it, the whole continent will suffer. Anyone who causes us to lose such a precious and useful season deserves every punishment, no matter who they are, what position they hold, or where they live.

It goes against reason, the natural order, and every example from the past to think this continent can remain under an outside power any longer. Even the most hopeful people in Britain do not think it can. At this point, no amount of human wisdom can devise a plan short of separation that promises the continent even a year of security. Reconciliation is now a false dream. Nature has broken the connection, and human effort cannot restore it. As Milton wisely put it, “True reconciliation can never grow where the wounds of deadly hatred run so deep.”

Every peaceful way of seeking peace has failed. Our petitions have been rejected with contempt. They have only shown us that repeated petitions flatter kings' vanity and strengthen their stubbornness more than anything else. This practice has done more than anything to give the kings of Europe absolute power. Denmark and Sweden are examples. Since only force will work, for God's sake, let us separate once and for all. Do not leave the next generation to kill each other while pretending Britain and America are still parent and child.

It is foolish wishful thinking to say they will never try again. We thought that when the Stamp Act was repealed, but a year or two later we learned otherwise. We might just as well assume that a nation defeated once will never fight again.

When it comes to government, Britain cannot treat this continent fairly. Its affairs will soon be too extensive and complicated to be managed reasonably by a power so far away and so ignorant of us. If they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. Imagine always having to travel three or four thousand miles to tell your story or submit a petition, wait four or five months for a reply, and then spend five or six more months explaining that reply. Within a few years, people will see that as foolish and childish. There was a time when it made sense, and there is a time when it should end.

Kingdoms may rightly look after small islands that cannot defend themselves. But it is absurd to suppose that a continent should always be governed by an island. Nature has never made a satellite bigger than its primary planet. England and America reverse that natural order, so they clearly belong to different systems: England belongs to Europe, and America belongs to itself.

I do not support separation and independence out of pride, loyalty to a party, or resentment. I am firmly and sincerely convinced it is in this continent's true interest. Anything less is just a patch, offering no lasting happiness. It would leave the sword to our children. We would be backing away when just a little more effort and progress could make this continent the glory of the earth.

Britain has shown no willingness at all to compromise. We can be sure it will offer no terms that the continent should accept, or that come anywhere close to justifying the blood and money we have already spent.

What we fight for should be worth what it costs. Removing North or his entire hateful circle is not worth the millions we have spent. If Britain had repealed every act we objected to, a temporary halt in trade would have been enough to balance the inconvenience. But if the whole continent must take up arms and every man become a soldier, fighting only against a contemptible ministry is hardly worthwhile. If repeal is all we seek, we are paying far too much for it. It is as foolish to pay the price of Bunker Hill for a change in law as it would be to pay it for land. I have always thought this continent would sooner or later become independent. Given how quickly it has recently grown toward maturity, that day cannot be far away. Once fighting began, there was no point in battling over an issue that time would eventually settle, unless we intended to pursue it seriously. Otherwise we would be like someone spending an estate on a lawsuit over a tenant's trespasses when the tenant's lease is almost up. Before the deadly nineteenth of April 1775, no one wanted reconciliation more than I did. But as soon as I heard what happened that day, I rejected England's hard-hearted, ill-tempered Pharaoh forever. I despise this wretch who claims to be the father of his people, yet can hear of their slaughter without feeling and sleep peacefully with their blood on his conscience.

But suppose we did settle our differences now. What would happen? The continent would be ruined, for several reasons.

First, the king would still have the powers of government. He could veto every law on this continent. He has shown himself to be a stubborn enemy of freedom, hungry for unchecked power. Is such a man fit to tell these colonies, “You may pass only the laws I approve”? Surely every American knows that, under the present constitution, this continent can make no laws without the king's permission. And surely everyone can see, given what has happened, that he will permit only laws that serve his aims. We can be enslaved just as effectively by having no laws of our own as by obeying laws made for us in England. Once things are supposedly settled, who can doubt that the crown will use all its power to keep this continent as weak and submissive as possible? Instead of moving forward, we will move backward, or else keep quarreling and submitting pointless petitions. We are already greater than the king wants us to be. Won't he try to make us smaller? The question comes down to this: should a power that resents our prosperity govern us? Anyone who answers no is for independence. Independence simply means that we make our own laws instead of letting the king, the greatest enemy this continent has or could have, tell us, “You may have only the laws I like.”

You may say that the king also has a veto in England: people there cannot make laws without his consent. It is ridiculous as a matter of right and sound government that a young man of twenty-one, as has often happened, can tell several million people older and wiser than himself, “I forbid you to make that a law.” I will never stop pointing out how absurd this is, but I won't make that my answer here. My answer is that the king lives in England, not America, and that makes the situation entirely different. His veto here is ten times more dangerous and destructive than in England. There he would hardly refuse a bill that gave England the strongest possible defenses. Here he would never let such a bill pass.

America is only a secondary concern in British politics. England looks after this country's welfare only when doing so serves England's purposes. Its interests therefore lead it to hold back our growth whenever our growth does not help it, or interferes with it even slightly. Given what has happened, what a fine situation we would soon be in under a government that treats us as an afterthought! Changing a name does not turn enemies into friends. To show why reconciliation is dangerous now, I say that it would serve the king's interests to repeal the acts at this moment so that he could take back control of the provinces. Then, over time, he could achieve through trickery and subtlety what he cannot achieve quickly through force and violence. Reconciliation and ruin are close relatives.