Of the Present Ability of America, with Some Miscellaneous Reflections, 2

In almost everything needed for defense, we have abundance. Hemp grows so luxuriantly that we need never lack cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries; our small arms equal any in the world. We can cast cannon whenever we please. Every day we produce saltpeter and gunpowder. Our knowledge improves by the hour. Resolution is in our nature, and courage has never yet deserted us. What, then, do we lack? Why do we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is ever admitted again to the government of America, this Continent will not be worth living in. Suspicions will constantly arise; insurrections will continually break out; and who will go to suppress them? Who will risk his life to force his own countrymen into obedience to a foreign power? The dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over certain unallocated lands shows the impotence of British government, and proves beyond doubt that only Continental authority can govern Continental affairs.

Another reason the present is preferable to every other time is that, while our population is smaller, more land remains unoccupied. Instead of the king squandering it on his worthless dependents, it can be used in future not only to pay off our present debt but to provide continuing support for government. No nation under heaven enjoys an advantage like this.

The Colonies’ supposed infancy, far from being an argument against independence, is an argument for it. We are numerous enough, and if we were more so we might be less united. It is worth observing that the more populous a country becomes, the smaller its armies grow. The ancients far exceeded the moderns in the numbers they took to war, and the reason is plain: as trade follows population, people become too absorbed in it to attend to anything else. Commerce weakens the spirit of both patriotism and military defense. History also tells us clearly that a nation’s bravest achievements have always come in its youth. As commerce has grown, England has lost its spirit. Despite its numbers, the city of London submits to repeated insults with the patience of a coward. The more people have to lose, the less willing they are to risk it. The rich are generally slaves to fear and submit to the power of the court with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.

Youth is the seedtime of good habits for nations as for individuals. Half a century from now it might be difficult, if not impossible, to bring the Continent under one government. Growth in trade and population would create a great diversity of interests and, with it, confusion. Colony would turn against colony. Each, feeling strong enough, might scorn the others’ help; and while the proud and foolish celebrated their small distinctions, the wise would lament that the union had not been formed earlier. The present, therefore, is the true time to establish it. Of all bonds, the intimacy formed in childhood and the friendship formed in adversity last longest and change least. Our present union bears both marks: we are young, and we have suffered; yet our concord has endured those troubles and establishes a memorable era for posterity to celebrate.

The present is also that singular time which comes to a nation only once: the time to form its own government. Most nations have let the opportunity pass and have therefore been forced to receive laws from conquerors instead of making laws for themselves. They had a king first, then a form of government. Instead, the articles or charter of government should first be drawn up, and people afterward delegated to carry them out. Let us learn from other nations’ mistakes and seize the present opportunity—to begin government at the right end.

When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave its people laws at swordpoint. Until we agree to fill the seat of government in America with lawful authority, we risk having it filled by some fortunate ruffian who may treat us in the same way. And then where will our freedom be? Where our property?

As for religion, I hold that every government has an indispensable duty to protect all who conscientiously profess a faith; I know of no other business government has with it. Let a person cast off that smallness of spirit, that selfishness of principle which the misers of every denomination so resist giving up, and his fears on this subject will vanish. Suspicion accompanies mean souls and poisons every good society. For my part, I fully and conscientiously believe it is the Almighty’s will that there be a diversity of religious opinions among us. It gives us a wider field in which to practice Christian kindness. If we all thought alike, our religious dispositions would have nothing to test them; on this generous principle, I regard our different denominations as children of one family, differing only in what are called their Christian names.

On page forty, I offered a few thoughts about the desirability of a Continental Charter (for I presume to offer hints only, not plans). Here I take the liberty of raising the subject again. A charter should be understood as a solemn, binding pledge undertaken by all to uphold the rights of each separate part, whether in religion, personal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a fair reckoning make lasting friends.

On an earlier page I also mentioned the need for broad and equal representation; no political question deserves more attention. Too few electors and too few representatives are equally dangerous. If representatives are not only few but unequally apportioned, the danger grows. Consider this instance: when the Associators’ petition came before the Pennsylvania House of Assembly, only twenty-eight members were present. All eight members from Bucks county voted against it. If seven members from Chester had done the same, two counties alone would have governed the whole province—a danger to which it is always exposed. The unwarranted effort that House made at its last sitting to claim undue authority over the province’s delegates should likewise warn the people against trusting power outside their own hands. Instructions for the Delegates were assembled that, for sense and practical judgment, would have disgraced a schoolboy. Approved by a few—very few—people outside the House, they were then brought in and passed on behalf of the entire colony. If the whole colony knew how reluctantly that House has undertaken certain necessary public measures, its people would not hesitate for a moment to consider its members unworthy of such trust.

Urgent necessity makes many arrangements convenient that would become oppressive if continued. What is expedient and what is right are different things. When America’s misfortunes called for consultation, no method was readier or, at the time, more fitting than to appoint people from the several Houses of Assembly for that purpose. Their wise conduct has saved this Continent from ruin. But since we will very likely never be without a Congress, everyone who values good order must admit that the method of choosing its members deserves consideration. And I put this question to those who study human nature: are representation and election not too much power for the same body of people to hold? As we plan for posterity, we should remember that virtue is not hereditary.

Our enemies often supply us with excellent principles; their mistakes frequently surprise us into reason. Mr. Cornwall, one of the Lords of the Treasury, dismissed the petition of the New-York Assembly with contempt. That House, he said, had only twenty-six members, and so trifling a number could not decently stand for the whole. We thank him for his unwitting honesty. ¹

¹ Those wishing to understand fully how vital broad and equal representation is to a state should read Burgh’s political disquisitions.

To conclude: however strange some may find it, or however reluctant they are to believe it, many powerful and compelling reasons show that nothing could settle our affairs more quickly than an open and resolute declaration of independence. Here are some of them:

First.—When two nations are at war, the custom is for other powers not involved in the quarrel to offer mediation and arrange the first steps toward peace. But while America calls herself a subject of Great-Britain, no power, however favorably disposed, can offer to mediate. In our present condition, then, we may go on quarreling forever.

Secondly.—It is unreasonable to expect France or Spain to give us any assistance if we intend to use it only to heal the breach and strengthen the connection between Britain and America, for those powers would suffer from the outcome.

Thirdly.—While we declare ourselves British subjects, foreign nations must regard us as rebels. It sets a somewhat dangerous precedent for their own peace when people take up arms under the name of subjects. We, being here, can resolve the paradox; but to combine resistance with subjection demands an idea far too subtle for ordinary understanding.

Fourthly.—Suppose we published a manifesto and sent it to foreign courts. It would set out the suffering we have endured and the peaceful measures we have tried in vain to obtain relief. It would declare that, unable any longer to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we have been driven to break off all connections with her. At the same time it would assure those courts of our peaceful intentions toward them and our wish to trade with them. Such a declaration would do more good for this Continent than a ship loaded with petitions to Britain.

Under our present name of British subjects, we can neither be received nor heard abroad. The practice of every court stands against us and will continue to do so until independence gives us a place among the nations.

At first these steps may seem strange and difficult. But like all the steps we have already taken, they will soon become familiar and welcome. Until independence is declared, the Continent will feel like a man who keeps putting off an unpleasant task from day to day, though he knows it must be done, dreads beginning it, wishes it finished, and is continually haunted by the need to do it.

We have plenty of nearly everything we need for defense. Hemp grows so well that we will have no shortage of rope. Our iron is better than other countries' iron. Our small arms are as good as any in the world. We can cast as many cannons as we want. We produce saltpeter and gunpowder every day. We are constantly learning more. Determination is part of our character, and courage has never deserted us. So what do we lack? Why do we hesitate? Britain can bring us nothing but ruin. If she is allowed to govern America again, this Continent will not be worth living in. Suspicions will constantly arise, and uprisings will keep happening. Who will go out to put them down? Who will risk his life to force his own countrymen to obey a foreign power? The dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over certain unassigned lands shows how little use British government is here. It proves fully that only authority held by the Continent can govern the Continent's affairs.

There is another reason why now is the best time. The fewer of us there are, the more land remains unoccupied. Instead of allowing the king to give that land away to his worthless followers, we can later use it both to pay off the present debt and to fund the government on an ongoing basis. No other nation on earth has this advantage.

People call the Colonies young as though that counted against independence. In fact, it is an argument for it. We have enough people already. If we had more, we might be less united. It is worth noting that as countries grow more populous, their armies grow smaller. Ancient peoples fielded far larger armies than modern ones. The reason is clear: a growing population creates more trade, and people become too caught up in it to pay attention to anything else. Trade weakens the spirit of patriotism and military defense alike. History also shows us that a nation's bravest achievements have generally come in its youth. As England's trade has increased, she has lost her spirit. London, despite its many people, puts up with repeated insults as patiently as a coward. The more people have to lose, the less willing they are to take risks. The rich are generally ruled by fear. They submit to royal power with the frightened, dishonest obedience of a spaniel.

Youth is the time when nations, like individuals, develop good habits. Half a century from now, it could be difficult, perhaps impossible, to unite the Continent under one government. Growth in trade and population would create many different interests and cause confusion. Colony would oppose colony. Each, being strong enough on its own, might reject the help of the others. The proud and foolish would celebrate their small differences, while the wise would regret that a union had not been formed earlier. Now, then, is the right time to establish it. Close bonds made in childhood and friendships formed through hardship last longer and change less than any others. Our present union has both qualities: we are young and we have suffered. Yet our unity has survived our troubles. It marks a memorable era for future generations to celebrate.

Now is also a special moment that comes to a nation only once: the chance to form its own government. Most nations have missed that chance and have had to accept laws from conquerors instead of making laws for themselves. They got a king first and a form of government afterward. But the rules or charter of government should come first. Only then should people be appointed to carry them out. Let us learn from other nations' mistakes and take our opportunity—to begin government in the right order.

When William the Conqueror conquered England, he imposed laws at sword point. Until we agree on who will lawfully and legitimately hold the seat of government in America, we risk having some successful brute take it. He might treat us as William treated England. What would then become of our freedom? What would become of our property?

On religion, I believe every government has an essential duty to protect all those who sincerely practice their faith. I know of no other role government should play in religion. If a person gives up the narrow-mindedness and selfish principles that stingy people of every faith cling to, his fears about this issue will disappear. Suspicion goes with small-mindedness and destroys healthy communities. I sincerely believe that the Almighty wants us to have different religious beliefs. Those differences give us more chances to show Christian kindness. If we all thought alike, our religious character would have no opportunity to be tested. With that generous principle in mind, I see our different denominations as children of the same family, differing only in what we call their Christian names.

On page forty I offered a few thoughts about the value of a Continental Charter. I offer suggestions, not a detailed plan. I return to the subject here to say that a charter should be understood as a solemn pledge made by everyone to uphold the rights of each part of the community, whether those rights concern religion, personal freedom, or property. A firm agreement and a fair accounting make lasting friends.

On an earlier page I also mentioned the need for broad and equal representation. No political question deserves more attention. Having too few voters or too few representatives is equally dangerous. If representatives are both few and distributed unequally, the danger is even greater. Consider this example. When the Associators' petition came before the Pennsylvania House of Assembly, only twenty-eight members were present. All eight members from Bucks County voted against it. If seven Chester County members had done the same, just two counties would have decided the policy for the entire province. That danger is always present. The House also overstepped its authority in its last session, trying to seize improper control over the province's delegates. This should warn everyone against handing over their power. Instructions for the delegates were drafted that would have embarrassed a schoolboy for their poor sense and practical judgment. A few people outside the House—very few—approved them. They were then brought into the House and passed in the name of the entire colony. If the whole colony knew how unwilling that House has been to take some necessary public steps, people would immediately judge its members unworthy of such trust.

Urgent need can make many arrangements useful for the moment, even when keeping them would make them oppressive. What works for now and what is right are different things. When America's troubles made it necessary to meet and discuss them, the quickest and most appropriate course at the time was to appoint people from the different colonial assemblies. The good judgment with which these delegates acted has saved this continent from disaster. But we will probably continue to have a Congress. Anyone who wants orderly government must therefore admit that we need to consider how its members should be chosen. I ask those who study human behavior whether the power to represent the people and the power to elect their representatives are too great to place in the same hands. When planning for future generations, we must remember that virtue is not inherited.

Our enemies often teach us useful principles. Their mistakes can unexpectedly bring us to our senses. Mr. Cornwall, one of the Lords of the Treasury, dismissed a petition from the New York Assembly. He said the Assembly had only twenty-six members, too few to claim decently to speak for the whole population. We thank him for being honest without meaning to be.¹

¹ Anyone who wants to understand fully why broad and equal representation matters so much to a state should read Burgh's political disquisitions.

In conclusion, whether or not some find it strange or refuse to believe it, there are many powerful, clear reasons to think that nothing will settle our affairs as quickly as an open, firm declaration of independence. Here are some of them:

First.—When two nations are at war, other powers not involved in the conflict customarily offer to mediate and arrange the first steps toward peace. But as long as America calls herself a subject of Great Britain, no power can offer to mediate for her, however willing it may be. In our present position, then, we could go on fighting forever.

Secondly.—We cannot reasonably expect France or Spain to give us any help if we intend to use it only to repair relations and strengthen the connection between Britain and America. Those countries would suffer as a result.

Thirdly.—As long as we say we are British subjects, other nations must see us as rebels. Armed people who still call themselves subjects set a precedent that could threaten those nations' peace. We here understand how this seeming contradiction can be resolved. But the idea of resisting a ruler while remaining subject to that ruler is too complicated for most people to grasp.

Fourthly.—Suppose we sent a public declaration to foreign courts. It would explain the hardships we have endured and the peaceful but unsuccessful efforts we have made to correct them. It would state that the British court's cruelty has made it impossible for us to live safely or happily under its rule, forcing us to break all ties with Britain. It would also assure those courts that we intend to remain at peace with them and want to trade with them. Such a document would do the Continent more good than a ship loaded with petitions sent to Britain.

As long as we call ourselves British subjects, foreign courts can neither receive us nor hear our case. Their established practice bars us and will continue to do so until independence gives us a place among other nations.

At first these steps might seem strange and difficult. Like the other steps we have already taken, they will soon feel familiar and welcome. Until we declare independence, the Continent will feel like someone who puts off an unpleasant job day after day. He knows he must do it, dreads starting, wishes it were over, and cannot stop thinking about how necessary it is.