Looking for:
Letters from a farmer in pennsylvania
Click here to ENTER
The eventual result of the unity amongst the colonies against a common enemy was the First Continental Congress. As to “riots and tumults,” the gentlemen who are so apprehensive of them, are much mistaken, if they think, that grievances cannot be redressed without such assistance. Could you look into my heart, you would instantly perceive an ardent affection for your persons, a zealous attachment to your interests, a lively resentment of every insult and injury offered to your honour or happiness, and an inflexible resolution to assert your rights, to the utmost of my weak power, to be the only motives that have engaged me to address you.
Letters from a farmer in pennsylvania –
These duties reignited the debate over parliamentary authority. John Dickinson, a wealthy Philadelphia lawyer and member of the Pennsylvania assembly , [1] took part in the Stamp Act Congress in , and drafted the Declaration of Rights and Grievances. The Letters were first published in the Pennsylvania Chronicle , and then reprinted in most newspapers throughout the colonies. Though in reality, Dickinson had little to do with farming by , [1] the first letter introduces the author as “a farmer settled after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the river Delaware, in the province of Pennsylvania.
While acknowledging the power of British Parliament in matters concerning the whole British Empire , Dickinson argued that the colonies retained the sovereign right to tax themselves. This argument implied that sovereignty in the British Empire was divided, with Parliament’s power limited in certain spheres such as taxation of the colonies , and with lesser bodies such as colonial assemblies exercising sovereign powers in other spheres. Dickinson further differentiated between the powers of Parliament and the Crown, with the Crown—but not Parliament—having the power to repeal colonial legislation and to wield executive authority in the colonies.
Though the tax burden imposed by the Townshend Acts on the colonies was small, Dickinson argued that the duties were meant to establish the principle that Parliament could tax the colonies.
Dickinson argued that in the aftermath of the Stamp Act crisis, Parliament was again testing the colonists’ disposition. More broadly, Dickinson argued that the expense required to comply with any act of Parliament was effectively a tax. Without this authority, the benefits she enjoys from our commerce, must be lost to her: The blessings we enjoy from our dependance on her, must be lost to us; her strength must decay; her glory vanish; and she cannot suffer, without our partaking in her misfortune.
Beyond the questions of taxation and regulation of trade, Dickinson did not elaborate a detailed theory of the broader constitutional relationship between Britain and the colonies.
Torn from the body, to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, relations, language, and commerce, we must bleed at every vein. If at length it becomes undoubted that an inveterate resolution is formed to annihilate the liberties of the governed, the English history affords frequent examples of resistance by force.
What particular circumstances will in any future case justify such resistance can never be ascertained till they happen.
Perhaps it may be allowable to say generally, that it never can be justifiable until the people are fully convinced that any further submission will be destructive to their happiness. Instead, Dickinson urged the colonists to seek redress within the British constitutional system. The political philosophy underlying the Letters is often placed in the Whig tradition.
Dickinson made use of the common Whig metaphor of “slavery,” [15] which to midth century Americans symbolized a condition of subjection to “the arbitrary will and pleasure of another. We are therefore—I speak it with grief—I speak it with indignation—we are slaves. In contrast to much of the rhetoric of the time, the letters were written in a mild tone. In the view of historian Pierre Marambaud [ fr ] , the contrast between “Dickinson’s restrained argumentation with Paine’s impassioned polemics” reflects the deepening of the conflict between Britain and the colonies—as well as the divergence of political views within the colonies—in the years separating the writing of the two works.
Aldridge also notes the more pragmatic and less philosophical emphasis of Dickinson’s Letters , which are less concerned with basic principles of government and society than Paine’s Common Sense , and instead focus more on immediate political concerns. The classical themes in the Letters —common in political writings of the time—are often commented on.
The second letter, for example, compares Carthage’s use of import duties on grains in order to extract revenues from Sardinia to Britain’s use of duties to raise revenues in its colonies. Certe ego libertatem, quae mihi a parente meo tradita est, experiar; verum id frustra an ob rem faciam, in vestra manusitum est, quirites. The farmer—described as a man of genteel poverty, indifferent to riches—would have evoked classical allusions familiar to many English and colonial readers of the time: Cincinnatus , [2] the husbandman of Virgil’s Georgics and the Horatian maxim, aurea mediocratis the golden mean.
Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania had a large impact on thinking in the colonies. Prior to the publication of the letters, there had been little discussion of the Townshend Acts in most of the colonies.
The wide circulation of the Letters was, in part, due to the efforts of Whig printers and political figures in the colonies. Dickinson sent the letters to James Otis Jr. As the letters were published anonymously, Dickinson’s identity as the author was not generally known until May Delancey”, possibly a reference to Daniel Dulany, might be the author.
Several colonial governors acknowledged the deep impact of the letters on political opinion in their colonies. The letters were shortly thereafter published in pamphlet form and reprinted in almost all of the colonial newspapers. They were read widely across the colonies and in Britain and France. This quickly made John Dickinson famous.
The eventual result of the unity amongst the colonies against a common enemy was the First Continental Congress. When the Congress was called, however, Dickinson quickly realized that much progress needed to be made towards the solutions that he wrote about in his letters. Skip to Content Skip to Navigation. Search This Site. Exhibits and Displays Events News Newsletter.
The wind changed. The American ships arrived. The fleet sailed in ten or fifteen days. There are some other reflections on this subject worthy of the most deliberate attention of the British parliament; but they are of such a nature that I do not chuse to mention them publicly.
I thought I discharged my duty to my country, by taking the liberty, in the year , while the stamp-act was in suspence, of writing my sentiments to a man of the greatest influence at home, who afterwards distinguished himself by espousing our cause in the debates concerning the repeal of that act. I am a farmer, settled after a variety of fortunes, near the banks, of the river Delaware , in the province of Pennsylvania.
I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of life: But am now convinced, that a man may be as happy without bustle, as with it. My farm is small, my servants are few, and good; I have a little money at interest; I wish for no more: my employment in my own affairs is easy; and with a contented grateful mind, I am compleating the number of days allotted to me by divine goodness. Being master of my time, I spend a good deal of it in a library, which I think the most valuable part of my small estate; and [6] being acquainted with two or three gentlemen of abilities and learning, who honour me with their friendship, I believe I have acquired a greater share of knowledge in history, and the laws and constitution of my country, than is generally attained by men of my class, many of them not being so fortunate as I have been in the opportunities of getting information.
From infancy I was taught to love humanity and liberty. Inquiry and experience have since confirmed my reverence for the lessons then given me, by convincing me more fully of their truth and excellence. Benevolence towards mankind excites wishes for their welfare, and such wishes endear the means of fulfilling them. Those can be found in liberty alone, and therefore her sacred cause ought to be espoused by every man, on every occasion, to the utmost of his power: as a charitable but poor person does not withhold his mite , because he cannot relieve all the distresses of the miserable, so let not any honest man suppress his sentiments concerning freedom, however small their influence is likely to be.
Perhaps he may ” [8] touch some wheel” that will have an effect greater than he expects. These being my sentiments, I am encouraged to offer to you, my countrymen, my thoughts on some late transactions, that in [7] my opinion are of the utmost importance to you.
Conscious of my defects, I have waited some time, in expectation of seeing the subject treated by persons much better qualified for the task; but being therein disappointed, and apprehensive that longer delays will be injurious, I venture at length to request the attention of the public, praying only for one thing,—that is that these lines may be read with the same zeal for the happiness of British America, with which they were wrote. With a good deal of surprise I have observed, that little notice has been taken of an act of parliament, as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies, as the Stamp-act was: I mean the act for suspending the legislation of New-York.
The assembly of that government complied with a former act of parliament, requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops in America, in every particular, I think, except the articles of salt, pepper, and vinegar. In my opinion they acted imprudently, considering all circumstances, in not complying so far, as would have given satisfaction, as several colonies did: but my dislike of their conduct in that instance, has not blinded me so much, that I cannot plainly perceive, that they have been punished in a manner pernicious to American freedom, and justly alarming to all the colonies.
If the British Parliament has a legal authority to order, that we shall furnish a single article for the troops here, and to compel obedience to that order; they have the same right to order us to supply those troops with arms, cloaths, and every necessary, and to compel obedience to that order also; in short, to lay any burdens they please upon us.
What is this but taxing us at a certain sum , and leaving to us only the manner of raising it? How is this mode more tolerable than the Stamp Act? Would that act have appeared more pleasing to Americans , if being ordered thereby to raise the sum total of the taxes, the mighty privilege had been left to them, of saying how much should be paid for an instrument of writing on paper, and how much for another on parchment?
An act of parliament commanding us to do a certain thing, if it has any validity, is a tax upon us for the expence that accrues in complying with it, and for this reason, I believe, every colony on the continent, that chose to give a mark of their respect for Great-Britain , in complying with the act relating to the troops, cautiously avoided the mention of that act, lest their conduct should be attributed to its supposed obligation.
The matter being thus stated, the assembly of New-York either had, or had not a right to refuse submission to that act. If they [9] had, and I imagine no American will say, they had not, then the parliament had no right to compel them to execute it.
In fact, if the people of New-York cannot be legally taxed but by their own representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privileges of making laws, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in such a case of the privilege of making laws, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege?
Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny their assent to any impositions that shall be directed? Or what signifies the repeal of the Stamp-Act , if these colonies are to lose their other privileges, by not tamely surrendering that of taxation? There is one consideration arising from this suspicion, which is not generally attended to, but shews its importance very clearly.
It was not necessary that this suspension should be caused by an act of parliament. The crown might have restrained the governor of New-York , even from calling the assembly together, by its prerogative in the royal governments.
This step, I suppose, would have [10] been taken, if the conduct of the assembly of New-York , had been regarded as an act of disobedience to the crown alone : but it is regarded as an act of “disobedience to the authority of the British Legislature. It is a parliamentary assertion of the supreme authority of the British legislature over these colonies in the part of taxation ; and is intended to COMPEL New-York unto a submission to that authority.
It seems therefore to me as much a violation of the liberty of the people of that province, and consequently of all these colonies, as if the parliament had sent a number of regiments to be quartered upon them till they should comply. For it is evident, that the suspension is meant as a compulsion; and the method of compelling is totally indifferent. It is indeed probable, that the sight of red coats, and the beating of drums would have been most alarming, because people are generally more influenced by their eyes and ears than by their reason: But whoever seriously considers the matter, must perceive, that a dreadful stroke is aimed at the liberty of these colonies: For the cause of one is the cause of all.
If the parliament may lawfully deprive New-York of any of its rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interest [11] of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy , is the first political maxim in attacking those who are powerful by their union. He certainly is not a wise man, who folds his arms and reposeth himself at home, seeing with unconcern the flames that have invaded his neighbour’s house, without any endeavours to extinguish them.
When Mr. Hampden’s ship-money cause, for three shillings and four-pence, was tried, all the people of England , with anxious expectation, interested themselves in the important decision; and when the slightest point touching the freedom of a single colony is agitated, I earnestly wish, that all the rest may with equal ardour support their sister.
Very much may be said on this subject, but I hope, more at present is unnecessary. With concern I have observed that two assemblies of this province have sat and adjourned, without taking any notice of this act.
It may perhaps be asked, what would have been proper for them to do? I am by no means fond of inflammatory measures. I detest them. But a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit, should never be wanting on public occasions.
It appears to me, that it would have been sufficient for the assembly, to have ordered our agents to represent to the King’s ministers, their sense of the suspending act, and [12] to pray for its repeal. Thus we should have borne our testimony against it; and might therefore reasonably expect that on a like occasion, we might receive the same assistance from the other colonies. It appears to me to be unconstitutional. The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great-Britain , and all its colonies.
Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and its colonies; and necessary for the common good of all. He, who considers these provinces as states distinct from the British Empire , has very slender notions of justice or of their interests.
We are but parts of a whole ; and therefore there must exist a power somewhere, to preside, and preserve the connection in due order. This power is lodged in the parliament; and we are as much dependant on Great-Britain , as a perfectly free people can be on another.
I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement [14] to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp-act administration [9].
All before are calculated to preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire; [15] and though many of them imposed duties on trade, yet those duties were always imposed with design to restrain the commerce of one part, that was injurious to another, and thus to promote the general welfare. The raising a revenue thereby was [16] never intended.
Greenville’s sagacity first introduced this language, in the preamble to the 4th of Geo. Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed to impose duties on these colonies; [19] not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.
This I call an [10] innovation; and a most dangerous innovation. It may perhaps be objected, that Great-Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her [11] exports, and it makes no difference to us, whether they are paid here or there.
To this I answer. These colonies require many things for their use, which the laws of Great-Britain prohibit them from getting any where but from her. Such are paper and glass. That we may be legally bound to pay any general duties on these commodities, relative to the regulation of trade, is granted; but we being obliged by her laws to take them from Great Britain, any special duties imposed on their exportation to us only, with intention to raise a revenue from us only , are as much taxes upon us, as those imposed by the Stamp-act.
What is the difference in substance and right , whether the same sum is raised upon us by the rates mentioned in the Stamp-act, on the use of the paper, or by these duties, on the importation of it. It is nothing but the edition of a former book, with a new title page. It signifies nothing to us, whether they are to be paid here or there. Had the Stamp-act directed, that all the paper should be landed in Florida , and the duties paid there, before it was brought to the British Colonies , would the act have raised less money upon us, or have been less destructive of our rights?
By no means: For as we were under a necessity of using the paper, we should have been under the necessity of paying the duties. Thus, in the present case, a like necessity will subject us, if this act continues in force, to the payment of the duties now imposed.
Why was the Stamp-act then so pernicious to freedom? The makers of that act knew full well, that the confusions that would arise upon the disuse of writings would COMPEL the colonies to use the stamp paper, and therefore to pay the taxes imposed. For the very same reason, the last act of parliament, if it is granted to have any force here, will execute itself, and will be attended with the very same consequences to American Liberty.
Some persons perhaps may say, that this act lays us under no necessity to pay the duties imposed, because we may ourselves manufacture the articles on which they are laid: whereas by the Stamp-act no instrument of writing could be good, unless made on British paper, and that too stampt.
Such an objection amounts to no more than this, that the injury resulting to these colonies, from the total disuse of British paper and glass, will not be so afflicting as that which would have resulted from the total disuse of writing among them; for by that means even the stamp-act might have been eluded.
Why then was it universally detested [22] by them as slavery itself? Because it presented to these devoted provinces nothing but a choice of calamities, imbittered by indignities, each of which it was unworthy of freemen to bear. But is no injury a violation of right but the greatest injury? If the eluding the payment of the duties imposed by the stamp-act, would have subjected us to a more dreadful inconvenience, than the eluding the payment of those imposed by the late act; does it therefore follow, that the last is no violation of our rights, though it is calculated for the same purpose that the other was, that is, to raise money upon us , WITHOUT OUR CONSENT?
This would be making right to consist, not in an exemption from injury , but from a certain degree of injury. But the objectors may further say, that we shall sustain no injury at all by the disuse of British paper and glass. We might not, if we could make as much as we want.
But can any man, acquainted with America, believe this possible? I am told there are but two or three glass-houses on this continent, and but very few paper-mills ; and suppose more should be erected, a long course of years must elapse, before they can be brought to perfection. This continent is a country of planters, farmers, and fishermen; not of manufacturers. The difficulty of establishing particular manufactures in such a country, is almost insuperable, [23] for one manufacture is connected with others in such a manner, that it may be said to be impossible to establish one or two, without establishing several others.
The experience of many nations may convince us of this truth. Inexpressible therefore must be our distresses in evading the late acts, by the disuse of British paper and glass. Nor will this be the extent of our misfortunes, if we admit the legality of that act. Great-Britain has prohibited the manufacturing iron and steel in these colonies, without any objection being made to her right of doing it. The like right she must have to prohibit any other manufacture among us. Thus she is possessed of an undisputed precedent on that point.
This authority, she will say, is founded on the original intention of settling these colonies; that is, that she should manufacture for them, and that they should supply her with materials. The equity of this policy, she will also say, has been universally acknowledged by the colonies, who never have made the least objection to statutes for that purpose; and will further appear by the mutual benefits flowing from this usage, ever since the settlement of these colonies. Our great advocate, Mr.
Pitt , in his speeches on the debate concerning the repeal of the Stamp-act , acknowledged, that Great-Britain could restrain our manufactures. If they ONCE admit, that Great-Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only , she then will have nothing to do, but to lay those duties on the articles which she prohibits us to manufacture—and the tragedy of American liberty is finished.
We have been prohibited from procuring manufactures, in all cases, any where but from Great-Britain, excepting linens, which we are permitted to import directly from Ireland.
We have been prohibited, in some cases, from manufacturing for ourselves; We are therefore exactly in the situation of a city besieged, which is surrounded by the works of the besiegers in every part but one.
If that is closed up, no step can be taken, but to surrender at discretion. If Great-Britain can order us to come to her for necessaries we [25] want, and can order us to pay what taxes she pleases before we take them away, or when we have them here, we are as abject slaves, as France and Poland can shew in wooden shoes, and with uncombed hair.
Perhaps the nature of the necessities of the dependant states, caused by the policy of a governing one, for her own benefit, may be elucidated by a fact mentioned in history. When the Carthaginians were possessed of the island of Sardinia, they made a decree, that the Sardinians should not get corn, any other way than from the Carthaginians. Then, by imposing any duties they would, they drained from the miserable Sardinians any sums they pleased; and whenever that oppressed people made the least movement to assert their liberty, their tyrants starved them to death or submission.
This may be called the most perfect kind of political necessity. From what has been said, I think this uncontrovertible conclusion may be deduced, that when a ruling state obliges a dependant state to take certain commodities from her alone, it is implied in the nature of that obligation; and is essentially requisite to give it the least degree of justice; and is inseparably [26] united with it, in order to preserve any share of freedom to the dependant state; that those commodities should never be loaded with duties for the sole purpose of levying money on the dependant state.
The place of paying the duties imposed by the late act, appears to me therefore to be totally immaterial. The single question is, whether the parliament can legally impose duties to be paid by the people of these colonies only for the sole purpose of raising a revenue , on commodities which she obliges us to take from her alone ; or, in other words, whether the parliament can legally take money out of our pockets, without our consent. If they can, our boasted liberty is but.
I rejoice to find, that my two former letters to you, have been generally received with so much favour by such of you whose sentiments I have had an opportunity of knowing. Could you look into my heart, you would instantly perceive an ardent affection for your persons, a zealous attachment to your interests, a lively resentment of every insult and injury offered to your honour or happiness, and an inflexible resolution to assert your rights, to the utmost of my weak power, to be the only motives that have engaged me to address you.
I am no further concerned in any thing affecting America, than any one of you, and when liberty leaves it I can quit it much more conveniently than most of you: but while divine providence, that gave me existence in a land of freedom, permits my head to think, my lips to speak, and my hand to move, I shall so highly and gratefully value the blessing received, as to take care that my silence and inactivity shall not give my implied assent to any act degrading my brethren and myself from the birthright [28] wherewith heaven itself ” hath made us free.
Sorry I am to learn, that there are some few persons, shake their heads with solemn motion, and pretend to wonder what can be the meaning of these letters. What can such men design? What do their grave observations amount to, but this—”that these colonies, totally regardless of their liberties, should commit them, with humble resignation, to chance , time , and the tender mercies of ministers.
Are these men ignorant, that usurpations, which might have been successfully opposed at first, acquire strength by continuance, and thus become irresistible? Do they condemn the conduct of these colonies, concerning the Stamp-act? Or have they forgot its successful issue?
Ought the colonies at that [29] time, instead of acting as they did, to have trusted for relief, to the fortuitous events of futurity? If it is needless “to speak of rights” now, it was as needless then. If the behaviour of the colonies was prudent and glorious then, and successful too; it will be equally prudent and glorious to act in the same manner now, if our rights are equally invaded, and may be as successful.
Therefore it becomes necessary to enquire, whether “our rights are invaded. As to “riots and tumults,” the gentlemen who are so apprehensive of them, are much mistaken, if they think, that grievances cannot be redressed without such assistance. I will now tell the gentlemen, what is “the meaning of these letters. The cause of liberty is a cause of too much dignity, to be sullied by turbulence [30] and tumult. It ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature. Those who engage in it, should breathe a sedate, yet fervent spirit, animating them to actions of prudence, justice, modesty, bravery, humanity, and magnanimity.
To such a wonderful degree were the antient Spartans , as brave and as free a people as ever existed, inspired by this happy temperature of soul, that rejecting even in their battles the use of trumpets, and other instruments for exciting heat and rage, they marched up to scenes of havock and horror, with the sound of flutes, to the tunes of which their steps kept pace—”exhibiting, as Plutarch says, at once a terrible and delightful sight, and proceeding with a deliberate valour, full of hope and good assurance, as if some divinity had insensibly assisted them.
I hope, my dear countrymen, that you will in every colony be upon your guard against those who may at any time endeavour to stir you up, under pretences of patriotism, to any measures disrespectful to our sovereign and our mother country. Hot, rash, disorderly proceedings, injure the reputation of a people as to wisdom, valour and virtue, without procuring them the least benefit.
I pray God, that he may be pleased to inspire you and your posterity to the latest ages with that spirit, of which I have an idea, but find a difficulty to express: to express in [31] the best manner I can, I mean a spirit that shall so guide you, that it will be impossible to determine, whether an American ‘s character is most distinguishable for his loyalty to his sovereign, his duty to his mother country, his love of freedom, or his affection for his native soil.
Every government, at some time or other, falls into wrong measures; these may proceed from mistake or passion. It is the duty of the governed, to endeavour to rectify the mistake, and appease the passion. They have not at first any other right, than to represent their grievances, and to pray for redress, unless an emergency is so pressing, as not to allow time for receiving an answer to their applications which rarely happens.
If their applications are disregarded, then that kind of opposition becomes justifiable, which can be made without breaking the laws, or disturbing the public peace. This consists in the prevention of the oppressors reaping advantage from their oppressions, and not in their punishment.
For experience may teach them what reason did not; and harsh methods, cannot be proper, till milder ones have failed. If at length it becomes undoubted, that an inveterate resolution is formed to annihilate [32] the liberties of the governed, the English history affords frequent examples of resistance by force.
What particular circumstances will in any future case justify such resistance, can never be ascertained till they happen. When the appeal is made to the sword, highly probable it is, that the punishment will exceed the offence; and the calamities attending on war out weigh those preceding it. These considerations of justice and prudence, will always have great influence with good and wise men.
To these reflections on this subject, it remains to be added, and ought for ever to be remembred; that resistance in the case of colonies against their mother country, is extremely different from the resistance of a people against their prince.
A nation may change their King or race of Kings, and retain their antient form of government, be gainers by changing. Thus Great-Britain, under the illustrious house of Brunswick, a house that seems to flourish for the happiness of mankind, has found a felicity, unknown in the reigns of the Stuarts.
But if once we are separated from our mother country, what new form of government shall we accept, or when shall we find another Britain to supply [33] our loss? Torn from the body to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, relations, language, and commerce, we must bleed at every vein. In truth, the prosperity of these provinces is founded in their dependance on Great-Britain; and when she returns to “her old good humour, and old good nature,” as Lord Clerendon expresses it, I hope they will always esteem it their duty and interest, as it most certainly will be, to promote her welfare by all the means in their power.
We cannot act with too much caution in our disputes. Anger produces anger; and differences that might be accommodated by kind and respectful behaviour, may by imprudence be changed to an incurable rage. In quarrels between countries, as well as in those between individuals, when they have risen to a certain heighth, the first cause of dissention is no longer remembred, the minds of the parties being wholly engaged in recollecting and resenting the mutual expressions of their dislike.
When feuds have reached that fatal point, all considerations of reason and equity vanish; and a blind fury governs, or rather confounds all things. A people no longer regards their interest, but the gratification of their wrath. The sway of the Cleon’s, [14] and Clodius’s, the designing [34] and detestable flatters of the prevailing passion, becomes confirmed.
Wise and good men in vain oppose the storm, and may think themselves fortunate, if, endeavouring to preserve their ungrateful fellow citizens, they do not ruin themselves.
Their prudence will be called baseness; their moderation, guilt; and if their virtue does not lead them to destruction, as that of many other great and excellent persons has done, they may survive, to receive from their expiring country, the mournful glory of her acknowledgment, that their councils, if regarded, would have saved her.
The constitutional modes of obtaining relief, are those which I would wish to see pursued on the present occasion, that is, by petitioning of our assemblies, or, where they are not permitted to meet, of the people to the powers that can afford us relief. We have an excellent prince, in whose good dispositions towards us we may confide. We have a generous, sensible, and humane nation, to whom we may apply. They may be deceived: they may, by artful men, be provoked to anger against us; but I cannot yet believe they will be cruel or unjust; or that their anger will be implacable.
Let us behave like dutiful children, who have received unmerited blows from a beloved parent. Let us complain to our parents; but let our complaints speak at the same [35] time, the language of affliction and veneration. If, however, it shall happen by an unfortunate course of affairs, that our applications to his Majesty and the parliament for the redress, prove ineffectual, let us then take another step, by withholding from Great-Britain, all the advantages she has been used to receive from us.
Then let us try, if our ingenuity, industry, and frugality, will not give weight to our remonstrances. Let us all be united with one spirit in one cause. Let us invent; let us work; let us save; let us at the same time, keep up our claims, and unceasingly repeat our complaints; but above all, let us implore the protection of that infinite good and gracious Being, “by whom kings reign and princes decree justice. An objection, I hear, has been made against what I offer in my second letter, which I would willingly clear up before I proceed.
The duties imposed by the Stamp-act, were internal taxes, but the present are external, which therefore the parliament may have a right to impose. This point being so important to this and to all succeeding generations, I wish to be clearly understood. To the word “Tax,” I annex that meaning which the constitution and history of England require to be annexed to it; that it is, an imposition on the subject for the sole purpose of levying money.
These were made as may be collected even from the names for public service, “upon need and necessity,” [16] all these sums were levied upon the people by virtue of their voluntary gift. Some of those grants comprehended duties arising from trade, being imports on merchandizes. These Chief Justice Coke classes “under subsides” [18] and “parliamentary aids. Commerce was at a low ebb, and most surprising instances may be produced, how little it was attended to, for a succession of ages.
The terms that have been mentioned, and among the rest that of “tax,” had [40] obtained a national, parliamentary meaning, drawn from the principles of the constitution, long before any Englishmen thought of regulations of trade “by imposing duties. Whenever we speak of taxes among Englishmen, let us therefore speak of them with reference to the intentions with which, and the principles on which they have been established.
This will give certainty to our expression, and safety to our conduct: but if when we have in view the liberty of these colonies, and the influence of “taxes” laid without our consent, we proceed in any other course, we pursue a Juno [19] indeed, but shall only catch a cloud. In the national parliamentary sense insisted on, the word “tax” [20] was certainly understood by the congress at New-York, whose resolves may be said to form the American “bill of rights.
Here is no distinction made, between internal and external taxes. It is evident from the short reasoning thrown into these resolves that every imposition “to grant to his Majesty the property of the colonies,” was thought a “tax;” and that every such imposition if laid any other way “but with their consent, given personally, or by their representatives;” was not only “unreasonable, and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution,” [42] but destructive “to the freedom of a people.
This language is clear and important. A “tax” means an imposition to raise money. Such persons therefore as speak of internal and external “taxes,” I pray may pardon me, if I object to that expression as applied to the privileges and interests of these colonies.
There may be external and internal impositions, founded on different principles, and having different tendencies; every “tax” being an imposition, tho’ every imposition is not a “tax.
But the last statute respecting us, “grants to his Majesty the property of these colonies,” by laying duties on manufactures of Great-Britain, which they must take, and which he settled them, in order that they should take.
What [21] “tax” can be more “internal” than this? Here is money drawn without [43] their consent from a society, who have constantly enjoyed a constitutional mode of raising all money among themselves. What but the indisputable, the acknowledged exclusive right of the colonies to tax themselves, could be the reason, that in this long period of more than one hundred and fifty years, no statute was ever passed for the sole purpose of raising a revenue on the colonies?