Common Sense

The ideas in this text might not be popular yet. When people are used to something for a long time, they stop questioning if it’s wrong. It starts to seem right just because it’s familiar. This makes people initially react strongly to defend tradition. But that noise eventually fades. Time convinces more people than logic does.

When power is misused badly for a long time, people usually start to question if that power is legitimate. They might question things they never would have thought about if they hadn’t suffered so much. The King of England has decided to use his power to support Parliament’s power, calling it “theirs.” Because the people of this country are suffering greatly from this combination of powers, they have a definite right. They have the right to question the claims of both the King and Parliament. They also have the right to reject the unfair power grabs of either one.

In the following pages, I have deliberately avoided making things personal. There is no praise or criticism of specific individuals here. Wise and good people don’t need a pamphlet to make them look good. Those whose ideas are foolish or unfriendly will eventually disappear on their own, unless too much effort is wasted trying to change their minds.

America’s cause is, in many ways, the cause of all people everywhere. Many things have happened, and will happen, that are not just local issues but universal ones. These events affect the basic principles that all lovers of humanity care about. The outcome matters deeply to them. When a country is destroyed by fire and sword, when war is declared against the natural rights of all people, and when those who defend these rights are wiped off the earth – this concerns every person capable of feeling. I, the Author, am one of these people, and I write this without worrying about criticism from any political group.

P.S. Publishing this new edition was delayed. We waited to see if anyone would try to argue against the idea of independence. Since no response has come, we now assume none will. Enough time has passed for someone to prepare such an argument for the public.

Who wrote this doesn’t matter to the public. The focus should be on the ideas themselves, not the person. However, it might be useful to know this: The author is not connected to any political party. He is not influenced by any public or private group, only by reason and principle.

Philadelphia, February 14, 1776.

Of the origin and design of government in general, with concise remarks on the English Constitution

Some writers mix up the ideas of society and government so much that it’s hard to tell them apart. But they are different things with different origins. Society comes from our needs, while government comes from our bad behavior. Society helps us be happy directly by bringing us together. Government helps us indirectly by controlling our bad habits. Society encourages connection; government creates separations. Society is like a supportive friend; government is like a punisher.

Society is always a good thing. But government, even at its best, is only a necessary evil. At its worst, government is unbearable. Think about it: we suffer under government. Sometimes we face the same problems with a government that we would expect in a country with no government at all. When this happens, our suffering feels even worse because we realize we provide the resources for the government that makes us suffer.

Government, like clothing, is a sign that we are no longer innocent. Kings’ palaces are built on the ruins of paradise. If everyone’s conscience was clear, consistent, and always followed, people wouldn’t need any other lawmaker. But that’s not how things are. So, people find it necessary to give up some of their property to pay for protecting the rest. They are convinced to do this by the same common sense that tells them to choose the lesser of two evils in any situation.

Therefore, the real purpose of government is security. It logically follows that whatever type of government seems most likely to give us security, at the lowest cost and with the greatest benefit, is better than all other types.

To get a clear idea about why government exists, let’s imagine a small group of people settling in a remote place, cut off from everyone else. They would be like the first people in any country or the world. In this state of natural freedom, their first thought would be to form a society. Many things would push them toward this:

• One person alone isn’t strong enough to meet their own needs.
• A person’s mind isn’t suited for constant loneliness. So, people quickly feel forced to seek help and company from others, who also need the same in return. Four or five people working together could build a decent home in the wilderness. But one person alone could work their whole life and achieve nothing. If they cut down trees, they couldn’t move the timber or build with it. Hunger would constantly interrupt their work. Different needs would pull them in different directions. Sickness or even just bad luck could mean death. Even if the problem wasn’t fatal itself, it would leave them unable to survive, slowly perishing.

This need for cooperation, like gravity, would quickly pull these new settlers into a society. The benefits of helping each other would be so great that laws and government wouldn’t be needed, as long as they treated each other perfectly fairly. But since only heaven is perfect and free from bad behavior, problems will inevitably arise. As they overcome the initial hardships of settling (which united them for a common goal), they will start to become less careful about their duties and connections to each other. This carelessness will show them why they need to set up some form of government to make up for the lack of moral perfection.

They might find a suitable tree to serve as their meeting place, like a statehouse. Under its branches, the whole group could gather to discuss public issues. It’s very likely their first rules would just be called Regulations. The only punishment for breaking them would be disapproval from the community. In this early stage, every person would have a natural right to participate in making decisions.

But as the settlement grows, public issues will become more complex. People will live farther apart. It will become too inconvenient for everyone to meet for every issue, like they did when they were few, lived close together, and had only small problems to deal with. This inconvenience will show them the benefit of choosing a small group of people from the whole community to handle lawmaking. These chosen representatives are expected to have the same interests as the people who selected them. They should act the same way the whole community would act if everyone were present. If the settlement keeps growing, they’ll need more representatives. To make sure every part of the settlement is represented, it will be best to divide the area into sections, with each section sending its own representatives. To prevent the elected representatives from developing interests separate from the people who elected them, common sense suggests holding frequent elections. Why? Because frequent elections mean the representatives will soon return to being part of the general population. Knowing this makes them less likely to create rules that could harm themselves later (it keeps them honest). This regular exchange between elected officials and the public will create a shared interest throughout the community. Everyone will naturally support each other. This mutual support is the real strength of government and the source of happiness for the governed – not some meaningless title like “king.”

So, this is how government starts and develops. It’s a system made necessary because people’s own morality isn’t strong enough to govern the world perfectly. The purpose of government is also clear: freedom and security. Our eyes might be impressed by showiness, or our ears fooled by sounds. Prejudice might twist our desires, or self-interest might cloud our thinking. But the simple voice of nature and reason tells us this basic idea of government is right.

My idea of the best form of government comes from a natural principle that no trick can defeat: the simpler something is, the less likely it is to break down, and the easier it is to fix when it does. With this principle in mind, I want to offer some thoughts on the highly praised constitution of England. Yes, it was impressive for the dark, oppressive times when it was created. When tyranny ruled the world, any step away from it was a great achievement. But it’s easy to show that the English constitution is flawed, prone to problems, and doesn’t deliver what it seems to promise.

Absolute governments (rule by one person with total power), even though they are a disgrace to human nature, have one advantage: they are simple. If the people suffer, they know who is causing their suffering (the ruler). They also know the solution (deal with the ruler). They aren’t confused by many different causes and cures. But the English constitution is extremely complicated. The nation can suffer for years without figuring out where the problem lies. Some people will blame one part, others will blame another. Every political advisor will suggest a different solution.

I know it’s hard to overcome long-held beliefs or local biases. But if we allow ourselves to look closely at the parts of the English constitution, we find they are basically leftovers from two old forms of tyranny, mixed with some newer republican elements. These parts are:

1. Monarchical Tyranny: Leftovers found in the person of the King.
2. Aristocratical Tyranny: Leftovers found in the persons of the Peers (Lords/nobility).
3. New Republican Materials: Found in the persons of the Commons (elected representatives), whose virtue is supposed to protect England’s freedom.

The first two parts (King and Peers) inherit their positions, so they are independent of the people. In terms of the constitution, they do nothing to advance the freedom of the country.

To say that the English constitution is a system of three powers checking each other is ridiculous. Either these words mean nothing, or they are complete contradictions.

Saying the Commons (elected representatives) acts as a check on the King implies two things:

1. The King cannot be trusted without supervision. In other words, wanting absolute power is a natural problem with monarchy.
2. The Commons, chosen for this checking role, must be wiser or more trustworthy than the King.

But the same constitution that gives the Commons power to check the King (by refusing to fund him) also gives the King power to check the Commons (by rejecting their proposed laws). This setup suggests the King is wiser than the Commons, even though the system previously assumed the Commons was wiser than the King. This is simply absurd!

There’s something extremely ridiculous about monarchy itself. It isolates a person (the King) from the real world and prevents them from getting information. Yet, it gives that same person the power to make decisions in situations requiring the best possible judgment. A king’s life cuts him off from the world, but his job requires him to understand it completely. These different parts of the system conflict and undermine each other, proving the whole idea of a king is illogical and useless.

Some writers explain the English constitution this way: The King is one power, the people are another. The Peers (House of Lords) represent the King’s interests. The Commons (House of Commons) represent the people’s interests. But this sounds like a house divided against itself. Although the words sound nice, when you examine them, they are pointless and unclear. It always happens that even the cleverest arrangement of words, when used to describe something that can’t exist or is too complex to describe, just becomes empty sound. It might sound pleasing, but it doesn’t actually explain anything. This explanation, for instance, brings up a prior question: How did the King get power that the people are afraid to trust and feel they constantly need to check? Wise people would not grant such power. And any power that needs checking cannot come from God. Yet, the English constitution is set up as if such a power exists.

But the system designed to check this power isn’t up to the job. The methods used either cannot or will not achieve the goal. The whole thing is self-defeating. It’s like a scale: the heavier weight will always lift the lighter one. Or like a machine: all the wheels are set in motion by one main part. So, we just need to figure out which power in the English constitution has the most weight, because that power will ultimately rule. The other powers might slow it down or “check” its speed, but as long as they can’t stop it completely, their efforts don’t really work. The main driving power will eventually get its way. What it lacks in speed, it makes up for over time.

It’s obvious that the Crown (the King) is this dominant part of the English constitution. It’s also clear that the Crown gets all its influence simply because it has the power to give out jobs and pensions. So, although we were smart enough to lock the door against absolute monarchy, we were foolish enough to give the Crown the key.

English people’s bias in favor of their own government (King, Lords, and Commons) comes more from national pride than from reason. People are certainly safer in England than in some other countries. But the King’s will is effectively the law in Britain, just as it is in France. The difference is that instead of coming directly from the King’s mouth, it’s given to the people in the more impressive form of an Act of Parliament. What happened to King Charles I didn’t make kings more just; it only made them more sneaky.

Therefore, if we set aside all national pride and bias about specific forms of government, the plain truth is this: It is the character of the people, not the structure of the government, that keeps the Crown from being as oppressive in England as it is in Turkey.

Looking into the flaws of the English system of government is very important right now. Just as we can’t treat others fairly if we are strongly biased, we also can’t make good decisions for ourselves if we are stuck in stubborn prejudice. A person devoted to a prostitute isn’t fit to choose or judge a good wife. Similarly, being attached to a flawed system of government makes us unable to recognize a good one.

Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession

Equality is Natural

Humans were originally created equal. This equality could only be disrupted by something that happened later. We can mostly explain the differences between rich and poor without using harsh words like “oppression” or “greed.” Unfair treatment is often a result of being rich, but rarely the cause of becoming rich. And while extreme greed might keep someone from being desperately poor, it usually makes them too timid to become truly wealthy.

But there’s a different, bigger distinction between people that has no real natural or religious reason: the division into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Nature creates distinctions like male and female. Heaven (or morality) creates distinctions like good and bad. But how did a group of people appear in the world who are treated as so much better than everyone else, almost like a different species? We need to investigate this and figure out if these kings bring happiness or misery to humanity.

Kings, Wars, and Questionable Origins

In the earliest times, according to the Bible’s timeline, there were no kings. As a result, there were no wars. It’s the pride of kings that throws humanity into chaos. Holland, which doesn’t have a king, has enjoyed more peace in the last hundred years than any country in Europe ruled by a monarch. History shows the same pattern. The peaceful, simple lives of the early biblical leaders had a certain happiness that disappears when we read about the Jewish kings.

Rule by kings was first started by ancient peoples who weren’t Israelites. The Israelites then copied this custom. It was the most successful idea the Devil ever created to encourage idolatry (worshipping things other than the true God). Those ancient peoples gave god-like honors to their dead kings. The Christian world took this further by doing the same for their living kings. How disrespectful to God it is to call a mere human being “sacred majesty” – a person who, even in all their glory, is turning back to dust!

Nature and Scripture Oppose Kingship

Just as putting one person so far above others can’t be justified by the equal rights given by nature, it also can’t be defended using the Bible. The will of God, as stated by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, clearly disapproves of government by kings. In countries with kings, the parts of the Bible that speak against monarchy have been smoothly ignored or explained away. But these passages definitely deserve attention from countries that are still deciding on their form of government. “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s” is the biblical phrase courts love to quote. But it doesn’t support rule by kings. The Jews at that time didn’t have their own king; they were under the control of the Romans.

Israel’s Mistake: Asking for a King

Nearly 3,000 years passed from the creation story in the Bible until the Jews, under a mistaken national belief, asked for a king. Until then, their government (except for rare times when God directly intervened) was a kind of republic run by a judge and the elders of the tribes. They had no kings. It was considered sinful to call anyone “king” except God Himself. When you seriously think about the god-like worship given to kings, it’s no wonder that God, who is protective of His honor, would disapprove of a government system that disrespectfully takes over His rightful authority.

The Bible lists monarchy as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a future punishment is promised. The story of how this happened is worth examining.

• Gideon Rejects Kingship: The Israelites were being oppressed by the Midianites. Gideon led a small army against them and won, thanks to God’s help. The Jews, excited by their success, blamed it on Gideon’s leadership and offered to make him king, saying, “Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson.” This was a huge temptation – not just a kingdom, but one that would pass down through his family. But Gideon, in his deep religious belief, replied, “I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU.” His words couldn’t be clearer. Gideon didn’t just politely decline the honor; he denied their right to offer it. He didn’t flatter them with thanks but spoke directly like a prophet, accusing them of disloyalty to their true ruler, the King of Heaven.

• Samuel Warns Against Kingship: About 130 years later, the Israelites made the same mistake again. Their strong desire for the idolatrous customs of other ancient peoples is hard to understand. But they used the bad behavior of Samuel’s two sons (who handled some non-religious tasks) as an excuse. They came to Samuel abruptly and loudly, saying, “Look, you are old, and your sons don’t follow your ways. Now give us a king to judge us like all the other nations.” We can see their motives were bad: they wanted to be like other nations (the non-believers), when their true glory was in being different from them. Samuel was displeased when they asked for a king. He prayed to God, and God told him: “Listen to the people in everything they say to you. They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not rule over them. They are doing to you just like they have always done since I brought them out of Egypt – abandoning me and serving other gods. Now, listen to them. However, solemnly warn them and show them what the king who will rule over them will be like.” (God meant the typical behavior of earthly kings, which Israel wanted to copy.) Even though times and customs have changed, this description of kings is still accurate today.

  So Samuel told the people who asked for a king everything God had said:

  • “This is what the king who reigns over you will do: He will take your sons and force them into his service – for his chariots, as his horsemen, or to run ahead of his chariots.” (This sounds like forcing people into military service today).
  • “He will appoint commanders over thousands and fifties.”
  • “He will force them to plow his ground, harvest his crops, and make his weapons and chariot equipment.”
  • “He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers.” (This shows the expense, luxury, and oppression of kings).
  • “He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves and give them to his attendants.”
  • “He will take a tenth of your grain and your grapes and give it to his officials and servants.” (Here we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are constant problems with kings).
  • “He will take a tenth of your male and female servants, your best young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work.”
  • “He will take a tenth of your sheep.”
  • “And you yourselves will become his servants.”
  • “When that day comes, you will cry out because of the king you have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT ANSWER YOU IN THAT DAY.”

  This explains why monarchy continues. Even the few good kings who have lived since then don’t make the title holy or erase the sinfulness of how it began. The Bible’s high praise for David focuses on him as a man loyal to God, not officially as a king. Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to Samuel. They said, “No! We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us, go out before us, and fight our battles.” Samuel kept reasoning with them, but it was no use. He pointed out their ingratitude, but nothing worked. Seeing they were determined to be foolish, he cried out, “I will call on the Lord, and He will send thunder and rain” (which was a punishment then, as it was wheat harvest time) “so that you will realize how great your wickedness was in the sight of the Lord when you asked for a king.” So Samuel called to the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day. All the people became terrified of the Lord and Samuel. They said to Samuel, “Pray to the Lord your God for your servants so that we won’t die, for WE HAVE ADDED TO ALL OUR SINS THE EVIL OF ASKING FOR A KING.”

These parts of the Bible are direct and clear. They don’t allow for uncertain interpretations. Either God protested against government by kings here, or the Bible is false. There’s good reason to believe that blocking public access to the Bible in Catholic countries involves as much “king-craft” (political manipulation by kings) as “priest-craft.” Because monarchy, in every case, is the ultimate authoritarianism in government.

Hereditary Succession: An Added Evil

To the evil of having a king, we have added the evil of hereditary succession (passing power down through a family). Monarchy lowers and lessens our own worth. Hereditary succession, when claimed as a right, is an insult and an unfair burden on future generations. Since all people are originally equal, no one could have a birthright to put their own family permanently above all others forever. Even if someone deserved honors from the people of their own time, their descendants might be completely unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs that hereditary right for kings is foolish is that nature itself seems to disapprove. Otherwise, nature wouldn’t so often mock the idea by giving humanity an incompetent ruler (like putting a donkey on the throne instead of a lion).

Secondly, since no person could originally have any public honors except those given to them, the people who gave those honors had no power to give away the rights of future generations. They might say, “We choose you to be our leader,” but they could not fairly say to their children, “Your children and your children’s children shall rule over our children forever.” Why not? Because such an unwise, unfair, and unnatural agreement might put the next generation under the rule of a criminal or a fool. Most wise people, in private, have always viewed hereditary right with disgust. Yet, it’s one of those problems that, once started, is hard to get rid of. Many people submit because they are afraid, others because of superstition. The most powerful people share the stolen wealth with the king.

The Shady Origins of Ruling Families

This assumes that the current kings in the world started from an honorable place. But it’s more likely that if we could peel back the darkness of history and trace them to their beginnings, we’d find the first kings were nothing more than the main thugs of some restless gangs. Their savage behavior or clever trickery earned them the title of chief among thieves. By gaining more power and expanding their raids, these leaders scared peaceful, defenseless people into paying them regularly for safety. But the people who first followed these leaders could not have intended to give hereditary right to their descendants. Always excluding themselves from power went against the free principles they claimed to live by. Therefore, hereditary succession in the early days of monarchy couldn’t have been claimed as a right. It must have happened by chance or as a favor. But since few or no records existed then, and oral history was full of myths, it was easy, after a few generations, to invent some superstitious story (like Muhammad did) at just the right time to force the idea of hereditary right onto the common people. Perhaps the chaos that threatened (or seemed to threaten) when a leader died and a new one had to be chosen (elections among thugs wouldn’t be very orderly) led many people at first to support hereditary claims. This is how it happened then, and has happened since: what people first accepted as convenient was later demanded as a right.

The Example of England

Since the Norman Conquest, England has had a few good monarchs but suffered under many more bad ones. Yet no sane person can say that the kings’ claim to rule, starting with William the Conqueror, is very honorable. A French illegitimate son landing with armed bandits and making himself king of England against the will of the native people is, plainly speaking, a very pathetic and dishonest beginning. It certainly has nothing divine about it. However, there’s no need to spend much time showing how foolish hereditary right is. If some people are weak enough to believe in it, let them worship both the donkey and the lion equally – fine by me. I won’t copy their lowliness or disturb their beliefs.

How Did Kings Begin Anyway?

But I would like to ask believers in hereditary right: how do you think kings started in the first place? There are only three possible answers:

1. By Lot: Chosen randomly.
2. By Election: Chosen by vote.
3. By Usurpation: Taken by force.

• If the first king was chosen by lot, that sets the example for choosing the next king by lot, which rules out hereditary succession. Saul in the Bible was chosen by lot, but the kingship didn’t pass to his family, nor does it seem like that was ever the plan.

• If the first king was chosen by election, that also sets the example for choosing the next king by election. To say that the first electors took away the rights of all future generations by choosing not just a king, but a whole family of kings forever, is an idea without any comparison in or out of the Bible except for the doctrine of Original Sin. (Original Sin is the idea that all humans lost their free will because of Adam’s sin). Hereditary succession gains no honor from this comparison.

  • Just as all sinned in Adam, all obeyed the first electors.
  • Just as mankind was subjected to Satan through Adam, mankind was subjected to Kingly Rule through the first electors.
  • Just as our innocence was lost in Adam, our authority was lost in the first election.
  • Both Original Sin and the first election prevent us from returning to a previous state of freedom. It clearly follows that Original Sin and hereditary succession are similar. What a dishonorable comparison! What a shameful connection! Yet even the most clever deceiver cannot produce a fairer comparison.

• As for usurpation, no one will be bold enough to defend taking power by force. And it’s an undeniable fact that William the Conqueror was a usurper. The plain truth is that the history of English monarchy doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

The Evils of Hereditary Succession

But it’s not just the absurdity of hereditary succession that matters; it’s the harm it does to humanity. If it guaranteed a line of good and wise rulers, it would seem divinely approved. But because it opens the door to foolish, wicked, and unsuitable people, it is oppressive by its very nature. People who see themselves as born to rule, and others as born to obey, quickly become arrogant and rude. Separated from the rest of humanity, their minds are corrupted early on by a sense of self-importance. The world they live in is so different from the world at large that they have little chance to understand its true needs. When they eventually take over the government, they are often the most ignorant and unfit people in the entire country.

Another evil of hereditary succession is that the throne can be inherited by a child of any age. During the time the child is too young to rule (a minor), the regency (temporary rulers acting in the king’s name) has every opportunity and temptation to betray the country’s trust. The same national disaster happens when a king becomes worn out by old age and sickness and enters the final stage of human weakness. In both cases (child king or frail king), the public becomes prey for any villain who can successfully manipulate the follies of youth or old age.

Hereditary Succession Does Not Prevent Civil War

The most reasonable-sounding argument ever offered for hereditary succession is that it saves a nation from civil wars over who should rule next. If this were true, it would be a strong argument. However, it is the most obvious lie ever told to mankind. The entire history of England proves it wrong. Since the Norman Conquest, thirty kings and two child rulers have reigned in that troubled kingdom. During that time, there have been no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions (including the Glorious Revolution). Therefore, instead of promoting peace, hereditary succession works against it and destroys the very foundation it supposedly stands on.

The fight for the throne and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster drenched England in blood for many years. Twelve major battles, plus smaller fights and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Henry was twice captured by Edward, and Edward was later captured by Henry. The fate of war and the mood of a nation are so uncertain when the fight is only about personal power struggles. Henry was taken from a prison cell to a palace in triumph, while Edward had to flee from his palace to another country. But since sudden changes in mood rarely last, Henry was soon driven from the throne, and Edward was called back to replace him. Parliament always sided with whoever was strongest at the moment.

This conflict (the Wars of the Roses) began under King Henry VI and wasn’t fully settled until Henry VII, who united the two families. This period lasted 67 years, from 1422 to 1489.

In short, monarchy and hereditary succession have covered the world (not just one kingdom) in blood and destruction. It’s a form of government that the Bible speaks against, and violence will always accompany it.

The Pointless Job of a King

If we look into what a king actually does, we find that in some countries, they have no real job. After wandering through life without bringing pleasure to themselves or benefit to the nation, they leave the scene, allowing their successors to follow the same pointless routine.

In countries where the king has total power, all government business, both non-military and military, falls on him. When the ancient Israelites asked for a king, they argued, “so that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.” But in countries like England, where the king is not the main judge or general, it’s hard to figure out what his job actually is.

The closer any government gets to being a republic (run by elected representatives), the less there is for a king to do. It’s somewhat difficult to find the right label for England’s government. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic. But as it is now, it doesn’t deserve that name. Why? Because the king’s corrupting influence – controlling all government jobs and appointments – has completely swallowed the power of the House of Commons (the republican part of the constitution). It has destroyed the House’s integrity. Because of this, England’s government is nearly as focused on the monarch as France or Spain. People get caught up arguing about labels without understanding them. The part of the English system that Englishmen should be proud of is the republican part, not the monarchical part. That is, the freedom to choose representatives (the House of Commons) from among themselves. It’s easy to see that when this republican commitment fails, freedom is lost. Why is the English constitution unhealthy? It’s because the monarchy has poisoned the republic. The Crown has taken over the Commons.

In England, a king has little more to do than start wars and hand out jobs. In plain terms, this means making the nation poorer and causing conflict among the people. What a fine job for a man to be paid eight hundred thousand pounds sterling a year for – and be worshipped on top of it all! One honest person is worth more to society, and in God’s eyes, than all the crowned thugs who have ever lived.

Thoughts of the present state of American Affairs

Introduction: Time for Common Sense

In the following pages, I offer only simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense. I ask only one thing from the reader beforehand: please put aside your biases and preconceived ideas. Let your own reason and feelings guide you. Act like a true human being, and be willing to think beyond just today’s concerns.

Countless books and pamphlets have been written about the conflict between England and America. People from all walks of life have joined the debate, for different reasons and with different goals. But none of these efforts have worked. The time for discussion is over. Fighting, as the last resort, will now decide the outcome. The King chose to appeal to force, and the American continent has accepted the challenge.

The Urgency of the Moment

There’s a story about a former British minister, Mr. Pelham. Although capable, he had flaws. When criticized in Parliament because his policies were only temporary fixes, he supposedly replied, “They will last my time.” If the American colonies adopt such a deadly and cowardly attitude in this current struggle, future generations will remember the name “ancestors” with hatred.

The sun has never shone on a more important cause. This isn’t just about a city, a county, a province, or even a single kingdom. It’s about a whole continent – at least one-eighth of the inhabited Earth. This isn’t just a concern for today, this year, or this era. Future generations are deeply involved in this struggle. The actions we take now will affect them, for better or worse, until the end of time. Now is the critical moment – the planting season – for unity, faith, and honor across the continent. The smallest crack or division now will be like a name scratched with a pin on the soft bark of a young oak tree. The scar will grow as the tree grows, and future generations will see it clearly as a large wound.

From Arguments to Arms: A New Era

By shifting the matter from debates to battles, a new era in politics has begun. A new way of thinking has emerged. All plans, proposals, and ideas from before April 19th (when the fighting started) are like last year’s almanacs. They might have been useful then, but they are outdated and useless now. Whatever points supporters on either side made back then, they all aimed at the same goal: unity with Great Britain. The only difference was how to achieve it. One side proposed force, the other proposed friendship. But as it turned out, force has failed, and friendship has disappeared.

Examining the Downside of British Connection

Much has been said about the benefits of reconciliation (making peace and restoring ties with Britain). It was like a pleasant dream that has now vanished, leaving us where we were. So, it’s only right that we now look at the other side of the argument. We need to examine some of the many serious harms that these colonies suffer, and always will suffer, by being connected to and dependent on Great Britain. Let’s examine this connection and dependence based on the principles of nature and common sense. Let’s see what we can rely on if we separate, and what we should expect if we remain dependent.

Myth: America Needs Britain to Succeed

I’ve heard some people claim that since America prospered under its past connection with Great Britain, the same connection is needed for future happiness and will always have the same positive effect. Nothing could be more wrong than this type of argument.

• We might as well say that because a baby thrived on milk, it should never eat solid food.
• Or we could argue that the first twenty years of our lives should set the pattern for the next twenty.

But even saying this admits too much. I state directly: America would have prospered just as much, and probably much more, if no European power had ever interfered here. The trade that has made America wealthy is based on selling the necessities of life (like food). These goods will always have a market as long as people in Europe eat.

Myth: Britain Protected America

“But Britain protected us,” some say. It’s true that Britain controlled us for its own benefit. It’s also true that Britain defended the continent – partly at our expense and partly at its own. But Britain would have defended Turkey for the exact same reasons: for the sake of trade and power.

Sadly, we have been misled for a long time by old biases and have made great sacrifices to superstition. We have proudly talked about Great Britain’s protection without thinking about the real motive: it was self-interest, not affection.

• Britain did not protect us from our enemies for our sake.
• It protected us from Britain’s enemies for Britain’s sake.
• These enemies had no argument with us Americans for any other reason.
• They will always be our enemies for the same reason – because we are connected to Britain.

If Britain gave up its claims to the continent, or if the continent broke free from dependence, we could be at peace with France and Spain even if they were at war with Britain. The suffering of Hanover (a German territory ruled by the British king) in the last war should warn us against these kinds of connections.

Recently, it was stated in the British Parliament that the colonies have no relationship with each other except through Britain. They claim Pennsylvania and New Jersey, for example, are “sister colonies” only because of their shared connection to England. This is certainly an indirect way to prove a relationship. But it’s the most direct and only true way to prove they are enemies, if I can use that term. France and Spain were never our enemies as Americans, and perhaps never will be. They were our enemies only because we were subjects of Great Britain.

Myth: Britain is the “Parent Country”

“But Britain is the parent country,” some argue. If that’s true, then Britain’s behavior is even more shameful. Even animals don’t devour their young. Even uncivilized people don’t make war on their own families. So, if the statement were true, it would only reflect badly on Britain. But it happens not to be true, or only partly true. The phrase “parent country” or “mother country” has been cleverly used by the King and his supporters. They have a sneaky motive: to unfairly influence our minds, playing on our tendency to believe too easily. Europe, not England, is the parent country of America. This new world has been a safe haven for people from every part of Europe who were persecuted for seeking civil and religious freedom. They fled here – not from the loving embrace of a mother, but from the cruelty of a monster. And it’s true of England that the same tyranny that drove the first settlers away from home still pursues their descendants today.

In this huge part of the world, we forget the small size of England (only about 360 miles long). We extend our friendship more broadly. We claim kinship with every European Christian and feel proud of this generous view.

It’s interesting to see how we overcome local biases step-by-step as we learn more about the world.

• A person born in an English town divided into smaller districts (parishes) will naturally feel closest to people from their own parish. They call them “neighbor.”
• If they meet that person a few miles from home, they drop the narrow idea of the street and greet them as “townsman.”
• If they travel outside their county and meet them elsewhere, they forget the smaller divisions of street and town and call them “countryman” (meaning from the same county).
• But if they travel abroad to France or elsewhere in Europe, their sense of local connection expands to seeing each other as “Englishmen.”

By the same logic, all Europeans who meet in America or anywhere else in the world are “countrymen” in a larger sense. England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared to the whole world, are like streets, towns, or counties on a larger scale. These distinctions are too small for people with a continental perspective. Not even one-third of the people living in this province (Pennsylvania) are of English descent. Therefore, I reject the phrase “parent” or “mother country” applied only to England. It is false, selfish, narrow-minded, and ungenerous.

But let’s suppose we were all of English descent. What would that mean? Nothing. Britain is now an open enemy. That cancels out every other name or relationship. To say that reconciliation is our duty now is truly ridiculous. The first king of England in the current royal line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman. Half the nobles in England are descended from French families. By the same logic, England should be governed by France!

Myth: Combined Strength with Britain is Key

Much has been said about the combined strength of Britain and the colonies, suggesting that together they could challenge the world. But this is just wishful thinking. The outcome of war is uncertain. Besides, the idea itself is meaningless. This continent would never allow its population to be drained to support British military actions in Asia, Africa, or Europe.

Besides, what business do we have trying to challenge the world? Our plan is trade. If we focus on that, it will ensure peace and friendship with all of Europe. Why? Because it is in the interest of all European countries for America to be a free port for trade. America’s trade itself will always be a form of protection. And its lack of gold and silver mines will make it less tempting for invaders.

Challenge: Name ONE Benefit of the British Connection

I challenge the strongest supporter of reconciliation to show a single advantage this continent gains by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge: not one single advantage comes from it. Our crops will sell for a good price in any market in Europe. We will have to pay for imported goods no matter where we buy them.

But the injuries and disadvantages we suffer from that connection are countless. Our duty to all humankind, as well as to ourselves, tells us to end this alliance. Why? Because any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain directly tends to drag this continent into European wars and quarrels. It puts us in conflict with nations who would otherwise want our friendship, nations against whom we have no anger or complaint.

Since Europe is our market for trade, we should not form a special, biased connection with any single part of it. America’s true interest is to stay clear of European conflicts. This is impossible as long as our dependence on Britain makes us a pawn used to tip the scales in British politics.

Europe has too many kingdoms packed together to stay peaceful for long. Whenever war breaks out between England and any other foreign power, America’s trade is ruined – simply because of its connection to Britain. The next war might not turn out like the last one. If it doesn’t, the people arguing for reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then. In that situation, neutrality (staying out of the fight) would protect our trade better than a British warship.

Nature Itself Demands Separation

Everything that is right or natural calls for separation.

• The blood of those killed in conflict cries out.
• The weeping voice of nature itself cries, “‘TIS TIME TO PART.”
• Even the great distance God placed between England and America is strong natural proof that He never intended one to rule over the other.
• The timing of the continent’s discovery also adds weight to this argument. The way it was settled increases the force of it. The Protestant Reformation began shortly after America was discovered, as if God kindly intended to open a refuge for persecuted people in future years when their home countries offered neither friendship nor safety.

British Rule is Temporary and Harmful

Great Britain’s authority over this continent is a form of government that must end sooner or later. No thoughtful person can feel true pleasure looking ahead, knowing for certain that what they call “the present constitution” is only temporary. As parents, we can have no joy knowing that this government isn’t stable enough to guarantee anything we might leave to our children. By simple logic, since we are putting the next generation into debt (with the costs of this conflict), we ought to finish the job ourselves. Otherwise, we are treating them poorly and unfairly. To understand our duty correctly, we should imagine taking our children by the hand and looking ahead a few years into the future. That viewpoint will reveal possibilities that our current fears and biases hide from us.

Who Supports Reconciliation, and Why?

Although I want to avoid causing unnecessary offense, I believe that everyone who supports the idea of reconciliation falls into one of these groups:

1. Interested men: People who personally benefit from the connection. They cannot be trusted.
2. Weak men: People who cannot see the reality of the situation. They lack insight.
3. Prejudiced men: People who will not see the reality, even when it’s clear. They are willfully blind.
4. Certain moderate men: People who think too highly of Europe and the current system. This last group, through their poor judgment and excessive caution, will cause more disasters for this continent than the other three combined.

The Reality of Suffering: Think of Boston

Many people are lucky enough to live far from the scenes of sorrow. The evil hasn’t come close enough to their homes to make them feel how insecure all American property really is. But let’s transport ourselves in imagination for a few moments to Boston. That place of misery will teach us wisdom. It will instruct us to forever reject a power that we cannot trust. The residents of that unfortunate city were living in comfort and wealth just a few months ago. Now, they have only two choices: stay and starve, or leave and beg. They are endangered by the gunfire of their own side (the Americans outside the city) if they stay inside, and robbed by the British soldiers if they leave. In their current state, they are prisoners with no hope of rescue. If a general attack were made to free them, they would be exposed to the violence of both armies.

An Emotional Test: Can You Truly Forgive?

People with passive personalities tend to overlook Britain’s offenses. Still hoping for the best, they are likely to say, “Come on, we’ll be friends again after all this.” But examine human passions and feelings. Test the idea of reconciliation against the standard of nature. Then tell me: can you, in the future, love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that has brought fire and violence into your land? If you cannot do all these things, then you are only fooling yourselves. By delaying action, you are bringing ruin to future generations. Your future connection with Britain – a nation you can neither love nor honor – will be forced and unnatural. Since it would only be based on temporary convenience, it will soon collapse into a situation even worse than the first.

But if you say you can still overlook these violations, then I ask you:

• Has your house been burned down?
• Has your property been destroyed before your eyes?
• Are your wife and children without a bed or food?
• Have you lost a parent or child killed by British hands, leaving you a ruined and miserable survivor?

If you have not experienced these things, then you are not qualified to judge those who have. But if you have experienced them, and you can still shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover. Whatever your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward and the spirit of a kiss-up.

The Goal: Determined Action, Not Revenge

This is not about stirring up anger or exaggerating matters. It’s about testing the situation against the feelings and affections that nature justifies. Without these feelings, we couldn’t fulfill our social duties or enjoy life’s happiness. My goal is not to display horror just to provoke revenge. It is to awaken us from deadly and cowardly inaction, so we can decisively pursue a fixed goal. Britain and Europe do not have the power to conquer America – unless America conquers itself through delay and fearfulness. This present winter season is worth an entire age if used correctly. But if it is lost or neglected, the whole continent will suffer the consequences. There is no punishment too severe for the person – whoever, whatever, or wherever they may be – who causes us to waste a season so precious and useful.

Separation is Natural and Inevitable

It goes against reason, the universal order of things, and all examples from history to suppose that this continent can remain subject to any outside power for much longer. Even the most optimistic people in Britain don’t really think so. The greatest human wisdom cannot, at this time, create any plan short of separation that can promise the continent even one year of security. Reconciliation is now a false dream. Nature has abandoned the connection, and human effort cannot replace what nature has broken. As the poet Milton wisely wrote, “Never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”

Peace Efforts Have Failed; Separation is Necessary

Every peaceful method to achieve peace has failed. Our prayers and petitions have been rejected with contempt. This has only served to convince us that nothing boosts the vanity or confirms the stubbornness of Kings more than repeated begging. In fact, that very approach has helped make the Kings of Europe absolute rulers (look at Denmark and Sweden). Therefore, since only fighting will work, for God’s sake, let us come to a final separation. Let’s not leave the next generation to kill each other under the violated and meaningless names of “parent” and “child.”

Britain Won’t Stop Trying to Control America

To say that Britain will never try to assert its authority again is foolish and unrealistic. We thought that when the Stamp Act was repealed, but a year or two later proved us wrong. We might as well assume that nations that have been defeated once will never start another fight.

Britain Cannot Govern America Fairly or Effectively

Regarding government matters, Britain simply does not have the power to treat this continent justly. The business of governing America will soon be too large and complicated to be managed reasonably well by a power that is so far away and so ignorant about us. If they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To always be running three or four thousand miles with a report or a petition, then waiting four or five months for an answer, which then requires five or six more months to clarify – this will soon be seen as foolish and childish. There was a time when this relationship was appropriate, and now there is a proper time for it to end.

Small islands that cannot protect themselves are suitable targets for kingdoms to take under their care. But it’s completely absurd to think a continent should be permanently governed by an island. Nature never made a satellite (like a moon) larger than its main planet. Since England and America reverse this natural order in relation to each other, it’s clear they belong to different systems. England belongs to Europe; America belongs to itself.

My reasons for supporting separation and independence are not based on pride, political party, or anger. I am clearly, positively, and with full conviction persuaded that independence is in the true interest of this continent.

• Anything short of independence is just temporary patchwork.
• It cannot bring lasting happiness.
• It means leaving the fight for our children.
• It means backing down at a time when just a little more effort could make this continent the glory of the Earth.

Since Britain hasn’t shown the slightest interest in a compromise, we can be sure that no terms offered will be good enough for the continent to accept. No terms could possibly equal the cost in lives and money we have already paid.

The goal we are fighting for should always be reasonably proportionate to the cost. Simply removing Lord North (the British Prime Minister) or his whole hated group isn’t worth the millions we have spent. A temporary halt in trade would have been a fair price for canceling all the laws we complained about, if that had been achieved. But if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must become a soldier, it’s hardly worth fighting only against a worthless government ministry. We are paying a very high price (dearly, dearly) for canceling the acts if that is all we fight for. By any fair measure, paying a “Bunker Hill price” (a very high cost in lives) just for changes in law is as foolish as paying that price for land.

I have always seen the independence of this continent as something that must happen sooner or later. Given how quickly the continent has recently matured, that event could not be far off. Therefore, when the fighting broke out, it wasn’t worth arguing over a matter that time would have eventually settled anyway – unless we intended to be serious about achieving independence now. Otherwise, it’s like spending a fortune on a lawsuit just to deal with minor problems caused by a renter whose lease is about to expire. No one wished more strongly for reconciliation than I did before the fatal date of April 19, 1775 (Lexington and Concord). But the moment I learned what happened that day, I rejected the hard-hearted, stubborn Pharaoh of England (King George III) forever. I despise the miserable person who, with the fake title “FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE,” can hear about the slaughter of his subjects without feeling, and sleep calmly with their blood on his soul.

Why Reconciliation Means Ruin

But even if things were settled now, what would happen? My answer is: the ruin of the continent. Here are several reasons why:

Reason 1: The King Would Still Control Our Laws The power to govern would remain with the king. This means he would have veto power over all laws made by this continent.

• He has shown himself to be such a deep-rooted enemy of liberty and has revealed such a thirst for absolute power. Is he the right person to tell these colonies, “You can only make laws that I approve of”?
• Is anyone in America so ignorant that they don’t know the current system allows the king to block any colonial law?
• Is anyone so unwise as not to see that (given what has happened) he will only allow laws here that suit his own purposes?

We can be enslaved just as effectively by not being allowed to make needed laws in America as by submitting to laws made for us in England. If things are patched up, is there any doubt the Crown will use all its power to keep this continent as weak and low as possible? Instead of moving forward, we will go backward, or be constantly arguing or making pointless petitions. We are already more successful than the king wants us to be. Won’t he try to make us less successful in the future? Let’s simplify: Is a power that is jealous of our prosperity the right power to govern us? Anyone who says “No” to this question is supporting independence. Independence means nothing more than deciding whether we make our own laws, or whether the king – the greatest enemy this continent has or can have – tells us, “There shall be no laws but the ones I like.”

But you might say the king also has veto power in England; the people there can’t make laws without his consent. From a standpoint of rights and good order, it’s ridiculous that a 21-year-old (which has often happened) can tell millions of older, wiser people, “I forbid your act from becoming law.” But I won’t focus on that reply here, though I will never stop pointing out how absurd it is. I’ll just answer that England being the King’s home, and America not, makes it a completely different situation. The king’s veto here is ten times more dangerous and deadly than it can be in England. In England, he would rarely refuse to approve a law making England as strong defensively as possible. But in America, he would never allow such a law to pass.

America is only a secondary concern in British politics. England considers this country’s good only when it serves England’s own goals. Therefore, Britain’s self-interest leads it to hold back our growth whenever it doesn’t help Britain or interferes with British interests. Considering what has happened, we would soon be in a terrible state under such second-hand government! People don’t change from enemies to friends just because a label changes. To show that reconciliation now is a dangerous idea, I declare that it would be a clever strategy for the king right now to repeal the acts just to get back in control of the provinces. Why? So that he can achieve through trickery and cunning, in the long run, what he cannot achieve through force and violence in the short run. Reconciliation and ruin are practically the same thing.

Reason 2: Any Deal Would Be Temporary and Unstable Even the best terms we could possibly get would only be a short-term fix. It would be like a temporary government or guardianship, lasting only until the colonies mature. In the meantime, the general situation would be unsettled and discouraging.

• Wealthy immigrants won’t choose to move to a country whose government is hanging by a thread and constantly on the verge of chaos.
• Many current residents would use this unstable period to sell their belongings and leave the continent.

Reason 3: Only Independence Can Prevent Civil War But the most powerful argument of all is this: nothing but independence – meaning a continental form of government – can keep peace on this continent and protect it from internal civil wars. I dread the idea of reconciling with Britain now. It’s more than likely that it would be followed by a revolt somewhere in the colonies. The consequences of that revolt could be far worse than all the evil Britain could inflict.

Thousands of people have already been ruined by British cruelty (and thousands more probably will be). Those who have suffered feel differently than those of us who haven’t. All they have left now is liberty. Everything they enjoyed before has been sacrificed for liberty’s sake. Since they have nothing more to lose, they despise the idea of submitting. Besides, the general attitude of the colonies toward a British government will be like that of a young person nearing the end of their apprenticeship – they won’t care much about it. A government that cannot keep the peace is no government at all. In that case, we are paying our money for nothing. And really, what could Britain do if civil unrest broke out the day after reconciliation? Its power would exist only on paper.

I’ve heard some people say (many, I believe, without thinking) that they feared independence because it might lead to civil wars. Our first thoughts are rarely correct, and that’s the case here. There is ten times more to fear from a poorly patched-up connection with Britain than from independence. I put myself in the place of those who have suffered. I declare strongly that if I were driven from my house and home, my property destroyed, and my life ruined, as a person aware of these injuries, I could never accept the idea of reconciliation or feel bound by it.

The colonies have shown such a spirit of good order and obedience to the continental government that every reasonable person should feel comfortable and happy about self-rule. No one can offer the slightest reason for their fears, except for reasons that are truly childish and ridiculous – like the idea that one colony will try to dominate another.

Where there are no ranks or titles, there can be no struggle for superiority. Perfect equality offers no temptation for such conflict. The republics of Europe are all generally peaceful (and we could say always have been). Holland and Switzerland exist without foreign or domestic wars. Monarchies, it’s true, are never peaceful for long.

• The crown itself tempts ambitious thugs within the country.
• The pride and arrogance that always accompany royal authority often lead to wars with foreign powers over issues that a republic, based on more natural principles, could resolve through negotiation.

A Plan is Needed

If there is any true reason to fear independence, it’s because no plan for government has been laid out yet. People don’t see the path forward. Therefore, to start that process, I offer the following suggestions. At the same time, I humbly state that I only see them as a way to perhaps spark better ideas. If the scattered thoughts of individuals could be collected, they would often provide material for wise and capable people to develop into something useful.

Suggestions for a New Government

Here are some ideas:

• Let colonial assemblies meet annually, with only a President leading them.

• Representation should be more equal.

• The assemblies’ business should be purely domestic (within the colony) and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress.

• Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten convenient districts.

• Each district should send a suitable number of delegates to the Continental Congress, ensuring each colony sends at least thirty delegates.

• The total number in Congress will be at least 390.

• Each Congress should sit and choose a president using this method:

  • When the delegates meet, choose one colony out of the thirteen by drawing lots.
  • Then, let the entire Congress choose a president (by secret ballot) from the delegates of that chosen colony.
  • In the next Congress, choose a colony by lot from only the remaining twelve (leaving out the one whose delegate was president).
  • Continue this process until all thirteen colonies have had their turn providing the president.

• To ensure that only truly just laws are passed, require a majority of at least three-fifths of the Congress.

• Anyone who promotes conflict under a government formed so equally would be as evil as Lucifer in his revolt against Heaven.

How to Create the New Government: A Continental Conference

But there’s a tricky question: who should start this process, and how? It seems most appropriate and logical for it to come from some group that stands between the people and their current governing bodies (Congress). So, let a CONTINENTAL CONFERENCE be held, in the following way and for the following purpose:

• Who attends:

  • A committee of 26 members from the current Continental Congress (two from each colony).
  • Two members from each colonial House of Assembly or Provincial Convention.
  • Five representatives of the people at large, chosen in the capital city of each province. These five would represent the whole province, chosen by any qualified voters who wish to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose. (Or, if easier, they could be chosen in two or three of the most populated areas).

• Why this group: This conference would combine two essential principles: knowledge and power.

  • The members from Congress and the colonial assemblies/conventions have experience in national affairs and would be capable advisors.
  • The entire group, being empowered by the people, would have truly legal authority.

• What they do: Once assembled, the conference members’ job would be to create a CONTINENTAL CHARTER (or Charter of the United Colonies). This would be similar to what is called the Magna Carta in England. This Charter should:

  • Set the number of members for Congress and colonial assemblies, how they are chosen, and when they meet.
  • Define the areas of business and legal authority for each level of government. (Always remember: our strength comes from being united as a continent, not from individual provinces).
  • Secure freedom and property for everyone.
  • Above all: Guarantee the free exercise of religion according to each person’s conscience.
  • Include any other matters necessary for such a charter.

• What happens next: Immediately after creating the Charter, the Conference should dissolve. The governing bodies chosen according to the rules in the Charter would then become the legislators and governors of this continent. May God preserve their peace and happiness, Amen.

If any group is chosen in the future for this or a similar purpose, I offer them this quote from Dragonetti, a wise observer of governments: “The science of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense.”

The True King of America

But where, some might ask, is the King of America? I’ll tell you, friend. He reigns above (God) and doesn’t destroy humankind like the Royal Brute of Britain (King George III). Yet, so we don’t seem to lack even earthly symbols of authority, let a special day be set aside for proclaiming the Charter.

• Let the Charter be brought out and placed upon the divine law, the word of God (the Bible).
• Let a crown be placed on top of it. This will show the world that, as far as we approve of monarchy, in America THE LAW IS KING.
• Because just as in absolute governments the King is the law, in free countries the law ought to be King. There should be no other king.
• But, to prevent any misuse later, let the crown be destroyed at the end of the ceremony and the pieces scattered among the people – because the right to rule belongs to them.

Act Now: Form a Government Deliberately

Having our own government is our natural right. When a person seriously thinks about how uncertain life is, they will realize it is infinitely wiser and safer to create our own constitution in a cool, deliberate way while we have the power to do so, rather than trusting such an important event to time and chance. If we fail to do it now, some rabble-rouser (like Massanello, who led a revolt in Naples) might appear later. Grabbing hold of popular unrest, he could gather desperate and unhappy people and seize government power, sweeping away the continent’s liberties like a flood. Should America return to British rule, the unstable situation would tempt some desperate adventurer to try their luck. In such a case, what help could Britain provide? Before Britain could even hear the news, the disastrous deed might be done, and we would be suffering like the miserable Britons under William the Conqueror. You who oppose independence now, you don’t know what you are doing! You are opening the door to permanent tyranny by leaving the seat of government empty. There are thousands and tens of thousands who would think it glorious to drive out that barbaric and hellish power (Britain) from the continent – the power that has stirred up the Native Americans and enslaved Africans to destroy us. This cruelty has double guilt: it treats us brutally and treats them treacherously.

Friendship and Reconciliation are Impossible

To talk of friendship with those whom our reason tells us not to trust, and whom our wounded feelings (hurt in a thousand ways) tell us to hate, is madness and folly. Every day wears away the little remaining kinship between us and them. Can there be any reason to hope that as the relationship ends, affection will increase? Or that we will agree better when we have ten times more and bigger issues to argue about than ever before?

You who tell us about harmony and reconciliation, can you bring back the past? Can you restore lost innocence? No. And neither can you reconcile Britain and America. The last tie is now broken. The people of England are sending petitions against us. There are injuries that nature cannot forgive; it would cease to be nature if it did. A lover cannot forgive the one who violates his beloved any more than this continent can forgive the murders committed by Britain. The Almighty has planted these feelings in us that cannot be extinguished, and He did so for good and wise purposes. These feelings are the guardians of His image in our hearts. They separate us from the herd of common animals. The social contract would fall apart, and justice would be wiped off the earth (or exist only by chance), if we were insensitive to the touch of emotion. Robbers and murderers would often escape punishment if the injuries to our feelings did not provoke us to seek justice.

A Call to Action: Stand for Freedom

O, you who love humankind! You who dare to oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant himself – stand forth! Every part of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom has been hunted around the globe. Asia and Africa expelled her long ago. Europe regards her like a stranger. And England has told her to leave. O! Receive the fugitive (Freedom), and prepare, before it’s too late, a refuge for all mankind.

Of the Present Ability of America, with some miscellaneous Reflections

The Time for Independence is Now

I have never met anyone, either in England or America, who didn’t admit that separation between the two countries would happen eventually. And we have shown poor judgment in trying to figure out the exact “ripeness” or readiness of the Continent for independence.

Since everyone agrees it will happen, and people only differ on when, let’s look at the overall situation to find the right time. But we don’t need to look far. The search stops immediately because the time has found us. The general agreement and glorious unity of everything prove it.

America’s Strength: Unity and Numbers

Our great strength is not just in our numbers, but in our unity. Yet, even our current population is large enough to fight off the forces of the entire world. Right now, this Continent has the largest body of armed and trained soldiers of any power on Earth. America has reached a perfect point of strength:

• No single colony is strong enough to survive on its own.
• But the whole continent, when united, can achieve independence. Having much more or much less strength than this could lead to disaster. Our land army is already sufficient.

Naval Power: Build Now or Never

Regarding a navy, we must realize that Britain would never allow America to build warships while we remained under British control. Therefore, we wouldn’t be any further along in developing a navy 100 years from now than we are today. Actually, the truth is we would be less capable. The country’s timber supply is shrinking every day. The timber that remains will eventually be far away and hard to get.

Population: The Current Size is Ideal

If the continent were overcrowded with people, our suffering under the current situation would be unbearable. The more seaport towns we had, the more we would have to defend, and the more we could lose. Our current population size is perfectly matched to our needs. No one needs to be jobless. The decrease in regular trade provides people for an army, and the needs of that army create new kinds of trade.

Finances: Debt is Not an Obstacle

We currently have no national debt. Whatever debt we might take on to achieve independence will serve as a glorious reminder of our commitment. If we can just leave future generations with a stable form of government and an independent constitution of their own, the cost, whatever it is, will be cheap. But spending millions just to get a few worthless laws canceled and remove the current British leaders is not worth the cost. It is extremely cruel to future generations because it leaves the main task for them to do, along with a debt from which they gain no benefit. Such thinking is unworthy of an honorable person and shows the true character of someone with a narrow mind and petty political thinking.

The debt we might take on doesn’t matter if the work of independence is accomplished. No nation should be without debt. A national debt is like a national bond, holding the country together. When it doesn’t carry interest, it’s not a burden. [Note: Paine’s view on interest-free debt may be overly optimistic]. Britain is crushed by a debt of over 140 million pounds sterling, for which it pays over 4 million pounds in interest each year. As compensation, Britain has a large navy. America has no debt and no navy. Yet, for only one-twentieth of the English national debt, America could have a navy just as large. The entire British navy, Paine estimated based on official figures, was worth no more than 3.5 million pounds sterling at the time.

America’s Natural Advantages for Building a Navy

No country on earth is in a better position or more capable internally of building a fleet than America.

• Resources: Tar, timber, iron, and rope materials are naturally produced here. We don’t need to import anything.
• Contrast with Others: The Dutch, who make large profits renting their warships to Spain and Portugal, have to import most of the materials they use.
• Commerce & Defense: We should see building a fleet as a form of business; it’s the natural manufacturing industry for this country. It’s the best way we can spend money. A finished navy is worth more than it cost. It perfectly combines national policy for both trade and protection. Let us build ships! If we don’t need them, we can sell them. By doing so, we can replace our paper money with real gold and silver.

Manning the Fleet is Easier Than You Think People make big mistakes when thinking about finding sailors for a fleet. It’s not necessary for even one-fourth of the crew to be experienced sailors.

• The warship Terrible, captained by Captain Death, fought the toughest battle of any ship in the last war. Yet it had fewer than twenty experienced sailors on board, out of a crew of over two hundred.
• A few capable, friendly sailors can quickly teach enough active land-based men the basic work of a ship.

Therefore, we will never be more capable of starting naval matters than right now:

• Our timber is still standing.
• Our fishing industry is blocked (creating unemployed fishermen).
• Our sailors and shipbuilders are out of work.

Large warships (70 and 80 guns) were built in New England forty years ago. Why not now? Shipbuilding is America’s greatest pride. In time, America will surpass the whole world in it.

• The great empires of the East are mostly inland and cannot compete.
• Africa is in a state of underdevelopment.
• No European power has both such a long coastline and such a rich internal supply of materials. Where nature has given one, it has usually withheld the other. Only America has been generously given both.
• The vast Russian empire is almost cut off from the sea, so its huge forests and resources are only items for trade, not for building its own dominant navy.

The Need for Naval Protection

For safety, shouldn’t we have a fleet? We are not the small population we were sixty years ago. Back then, we might have left our property in the streets (or fields) and slept safely without locks on our doors. Things are different now. Our methods of defense must improve as our amount of property increases. Just twelve months ago, a single pirate ship could have sailed up the Delaware River and demanded any sum of money from the city of Philadelphia. The same could have happened in other places. Any daring person in a small warship (14 or 16 guns) could have robbed the entire Continent and stolen half a million pounds. These possibilities demand our attention and show why we need naval protection.

Britain Cannot Be Trusted to Protect America

Some might say that after we make peace with Britain, Britain will protect us. Can we be foolish enough to think Britain should keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense tells us that the power that tried to conquer us is the most unsuitable power to defend us. Conquest can be achieved under the disguise of friendship. After a long and brave resistance, we could end up cheated into slavery. And if British ships are not allowed in our harbors, how can Britain protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles away is of little use, and in sudden emergencies, it’s no use at all. Therefore, if we must protect ourselves in the future, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another power?

Britain’s Navy is Weaker Than It Looks

The English list of warships looks long and impressive. But not even one-tenth of them are fit for service at any given time. Many don’t even exist anymore, yet their names are proudly kept on the list if even one plank remains! And not even one-fifth of those that are fit for service can be spared for any one location at one time. Britain’s claims in the East and West Indies, the Mediterranean, Africa, and other areas require large parts of her navy.

Because of bias and lack of attention, we have developed a false idea about the English navy. We talk as if we would have to fight the whole thing at once. For that reason, we assumed we must have a navy just as large. Since that wasn’t immediately possible, this idea has been used by hidden Tories (supporters of Britain) to discourage us from even starting to build a navy. Nothing could be further from the truth. If America had just one-twentieth of Britain’s naval force, it would easily defeat Britain in American waters. Why?

• We don’t have, nor do we claim, any foreign territories.
• Our entire naval force would be used on our own coast.
• In the long run, we would have a two-to-one advantage over ships that had to sail thousands of miles to attack us and the same distance back to repair and resupply.

Although Britain’s fleet can interfere with our trade to Europe, we have just as much power over Britain’s trade to the West Indies. Because the West Indies are located near the American continent, their trade is completely at our mercy.

Maintaining a Navy Affordably

We could find ways to keep a naval force in peacetime if we decide not to maintain a large, constant navy. If the government offered payments (premiums) to merchants to build ships armed with 20, 30, 40, or 50 guns (with payments adjusted for the cargo space lost), fifty or sixty of these ships, along with a few guard ships always on duty, would maintain a sufficient navy. This could be done without the burden England faces, letting its peacetime fleet rot in the docks. Combining the strengths of trade and defense is smart policy. When our strength and our wealth work together, we need not fear any external enemy.

America Has Abundant Defense Resources

We have plenty of almost every item needed for defense.

• Hemp (for ropes) grows abundantly.
• Our iron is better than that of other countries.
• Our small firearms are as good as any in the world.
• We can make cannons whenever we need them.
• We are producing saltpeter and gunpowder every day.
• Our knowledge improves hourly.
• Determination is part of our character.
• Courage has never failed us.

Why Wait? Act Now!

So, what do we lack? Why do we hesitate? From Britain, we can expect nothing but ruin. If Britain is ever allowed to govern America again, this continent will not be worth living in.

• Suspicions will always arise.
• Uprisings will constantly happen.
• Who would step forward to put down these uprisings? Who would risk their life to force their own countrymen back under foreign control?
• The dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over some lands shows how ineffective British government is. It fully proves that only Continental authority can manage Continental issues.

Another reason the present time is better than any other is this: the fewer people we have, the more land is still unoccupied. Instead of the king giving this land away to his worthless favorites, it can be used later not only to pay off the current debt but also for the ongoing support of government. No nation on earth has such an advantage.

America’s Youth is an Advantage

The “infant state” of the Colonies, as some call it, is not an argument against independence – it’s an argument for it. We are numerous enough. If we had many more people, we might be less united. It’s worth noting that the more populated a country becomes, the smaller its armies tend to be. In ancient times, armies were much larger than modern ones. The reason is clear: trade increases with population, and people become too focused on business to pay attention to anything else. Commerce reduces the spirit of both patriotism and military defense. History clearly shows that the bravest actions were always achieved in a nation’s youth (its “non-age”). As its trade increased, England lost its spirit. The city of London, despite its large population, submits to constant insults with the patience of a coward. The more people have to lose, the less willing they are to take risks. Rich people are generally slaves to fear and submit to government power with the trembling dishonesty of a frightened dog.

Youth is the planting season for good habits, in nations as well as individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the continent into one government fifty years from now. The huge variety of interests caused by increased trade and population would create confusion. Colony would turn against colony. Each might become strong enough to scorn the others’ help. While the proud and foolish celebrate their small differences, the wise would regret that the union hadn’t been formed earlier. Therefore, the present time is the true time to establish it. The closeness formed in childhood and the friendships created during hardship are the most lasting and unchangeable. Our current union has both these qualities: we are young, and we have faced distress. But our unity has survived our troubles and creates a memorable moment for future generations to be proud of.

The present time is also that special moment that happens only once to a nation: the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have missed this opportunity. As a result, they have been forced to accept laws from their conquerors instead of making laws for themselves. They got a king first, and then a form of government. But the rules or charter of government should be created first, and then people should be chosen to carry them out. Let us learn wisdom from the mistakes of other nations and seize the present opportunity to begin government the right way.

When William the Conqueror conquered England, he gave them laws enforced by the sword. Until we ensure that the seat of government in America is legally and authoritatively filled, we will be in danger of having it taken by some lucky thug who might treat us the same way. And then, where will our freedom be? Where will our property be?

On Religious Freedom

Regarding religion, I believe it is the absolute duty of all government to protect everyone who conscientiously practices their faith. I know of no other business government has with religion. Let people cast off the narrowness of soul and selfish principles that stingy people of all types are so unwilling to give up. If they do, they will immediately lose their fears on this subject. Suspicion accompanies mean souls and poisons all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe that it is God’s will for there to be diversity of religious opinions among us. It provides a larger field for our Christian kindness. If we all thought the same way, our religious attitudes would lack opportunities for testing and growth. Based on this liberal principle, I see the various denominations among us as children of the same family, differing only in what are called their Christian names.

The Importance of a Charter and Representation

Earlier, I offered a few thoughts on the value of a Continental Charter (I only dare offer hints, not detailed plans). Here, I want to mention the subject again by noting that a charter should be understood as a bond, a solemn promise that the whole nation enters into. It’s a promise to support the rights of every separate part – whether concerning religion, personal freedom, or property. A firm agreement and honest dealings make long friendships.

I also mentioned earlier the need for large and equal representation in government. No political matter deserves our attention more. A small number of voters or a small number of representatives are equally dangerous. But if the number of representatives is not only small but also unequal, the danger increases. As an example, I mention this: when a petition from the Associators (a militia group) was considered by the Pennsylvania House of Assembly, only 28 members were present. All eight members from Bucks County voted against it. If just seven members from Chester County had done the same, this entire province would have been governed by only two counties. This is a danger the province is always exposed to. The unjustified power grab that the House made in its last session, trying to gain undue authority over the province’s delegates to the Continental Congress, should warn the people at large about trusting power out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the delegates was put together that, in terms of sense and substance, would have embarrassed a schoolboy. After being approved by a few people outside the House, they were passed inside as if on behalf of the whole colony. But if the whole colony knew how unwillingly that House has approached some necessary public actions, they would not hesitate for a moment to consider them unworthy of such trust.

Sometimes, urgent needs make certain actions convenient, even if those actions would become oppressive if continued long-term. What is convenient (expedience) and what is right are two different things. When the troubles in America required consultation, the quickest and most suitable method at the time was to appoint people from the various colonial assemblies to meet. The wisdom they have shown has saved this continent from ruin. But since it’s very likely we will always need a CONGRESS, everyone who wishes for good order must agree that the method for choosing members of that body needs careful thought. I ask those who study human nature: isn’t giving the power of both representation and election to the same group of people too much power for one body? When we plan for future generations, we must remember that virtue is not passed down genetically.

We often learn excellent principles from our enemies and are sometimes jolted into reason by their mistakes. Mr. Cornwall (one of the British Treasury Lords) dismissed a petition from the New York Assembly with contempt. He said the Assembly had only twenty-six members, arguing that such a tiny number couldn’t decently represent the whole population. We thank him for his accidental honesty (pointing out the importance of proper representation).

Reasons for Declaring Independence Immediately

TO CONCLUDE: It might seem strange to some, and others might be unwilling to think so, but that doesn’t matter. Many strong and striking reasons show that nothing can settle our affairs as quickly as an open and determined declaration of independence. Some of these reasons are:

• First: Mediation by Other Nations. When two nations are at war, it’s customary for other countries (not involved in the fight) to step in as mediators to help arrange peace talks. But as long as America calls itself a subject of Great Britain, no other country, no matter how friendly, can offer to mediate. Therefore, in our current state, we could quarrel forever without resolution.

• Second: Foreign Assistance. It’s unreasonable to expect France or Spain to give us any real help if we only intend to use that help to patch things up and strengthen the connection between Britain and America. Why would they help us reunite with their rival, Britain? Those countries would suffer from such an outcome.

• Third: How Foreign Nations See Us. As long as we claim to be British subjects, other countries must see us as rebels fighting against our own government. This sets a somewhat dangerous example for their own peace – people taking up arms while still calling themselves subjects. We, being here, can understand the situation. But trying to combine resistance with loyalty requires a level of thinking too complex for most people abroad to grasp. We need a clear status.

• Fourth: A Formal Declaration to the World. Imagine if we published a declaration (a manifesto) and sent it to foreign governments. It would explain the suffering we’ve endured and the peaceful methods we tried unsuccessfully to get problems fixed. It would declare that, because we could no longer live happily or safely under the cruel British court, we were forced to break all connections. At the same time, it would assure those courts of our peaceful intentions toward them and our desire to trade with them. Such a document would produce more good results for this Continent than sending a shipload of petitions to Britain.

Under our current label as “British subjects,” foreign countries can neither officially receive us nor listen to us. The customs of all courts are against us and will remain so until, through independence, we achieve equal rank with other nations.

These steps might seem strange and difficult at first. But like all the other steps we’ve already taken, they will soon become familiar and acceptable. Until independence is declared, the Continent will feel like a person who keeps postponing an unpleasant task day after day. They know it must be done, hate starting it, wish it were over, and are constantly haunted by the thought that it’s necessary.